RE: Jaguar F-Type: confirmed
Discussion
garyhun said:
We've always loved our convertibles - it's an historical thing.
Yes and no, I reckon. Yes we have, but not, to any extent, the way we do now.I know it isn't in the slightest bit scientific, but if you search the PH classifieds for "Convertible" between 1995 and 1999, you get 9 pages of results. The same search for 2000-2005 gives you 37 pages.
Again, not scientific, but I'll bet if you look at new car listings in the 1980s or 90s, you'll not find anywhere near the number of convertibles you get now.
As far as I recall, in the 1980s, the only convertible Fords were built by Crayford. Peugeots and Vauxhalls were all done by coachbuilders too. So were BMW E30s. There were no convertible Audis in the 1980s; the soft top Jaguar XJS took nine or ten years to hit the market ofter the coupe was launched. There wasn't an open top Countach, and the Jalpa was only a targa. You couldn't buy a convertible Nissan, or a Volvo.
Yes, there have always been soft top 'sports cars' (TVR, Porsche, Alfa Romeo etc), but these days everything can be had topless, and it seems to be the default choice.
I know the early eighties suffered from the hangover of the 1970s US-threatened safety legslation, but things hadn't realyl changed by the end of the decade, or even some way into the 90's.
(All the above is unchecked opinion, and subject to criticism and ridicule)
Doofus said:
garyhun said:
We've always loved our convertibles - it's an historical thing.
Yes and no, I reckon. Yes we have, but not, to any extent, the way we do now.I know it isn't in the slightest bit scientific, but if you search the PH classifieds for "Convertible" between 1995 and 1999, you get 9 pages of results. The same search for 2000-2005 gives you 37 pages.
Again, not scientific, but I'll bet if you look at new car listings in the 1980s or 90s, you'll not find anywhere near the number of convertibles you get now.
As far as I recall, in the 1980s, the only convertible Fords were built by Crayford. Peugeots and Vauxhalls were all done by coachbuilders too. So were BMW E30s. There were no convertible Audis in the 1980s; the soft top Jaguar XJS took nine or ten years to hit the market ofter the coupe was launched. There wasn't an open top Countach, and the Jalpa was only a targa. You couldn't buy a convertible Nissan, or a Volvo.
Yes, there have always been soft top 'sports cars' (TVR, Porsche, Alfa Romeo etc), but these days everything can be had topless, and it seems to be the default choice.
I know the early eighties suffered from the hangover of the 1970s US-threatened safety legslation, but things hadn't realyl changed by the end of the decade, or even some way into the 90's.
(All the above is unchecked opinion, and subject to criticism and ridicule)
Judging by the above post, you may be the man to write the definitive tome on the subject.
Driller said:
speedy_thrills said:
Driller said:
Please, please let it have a normally aspirated V8 and look like it was intended to:
ETA Dull as a soft-top, are you kidding?
My thoughts exactly. I loved the concept and would have even bought one myself ETA Dull as a soft-top, are you kidding?
.Why do Jaguar always make more appealing concept cars than actual cars?
I'd be sorely tempted too if they made it faithful to the concept.
sumpoil said:
the lower side/sill area and lower front corners are certainly different, but these are no doubt plastic appendages and hopefully will be reinstated when the final undisguised car is revealed .....
.... in which case i'll take the coupe with side opening rear hatch, thank you very much.
kambites said:
Was the same true of the E-Type, though? I have no idea what its running costs were like compared to other sports cars on the market at the time.
18-24mpg was good in the early '60s for a sports car, you got similar economy from an MGB. As for parts and servicing, it shared its various bits with the 3.8-litre Mk2 - not the cheapest car to run, granted, but sufficiently cost-effective for the Police to run entire fleets of them. Parts had been around for donkey's years, and were plentiful and mass-produced.Compare this to the Ferraris of the 250 series. They used twice the fuel, few components could be transferred, the bodywork was handbuilt and bespoke, and the only things that came from the Fiat parts bin were the light clusters and doorhandles.
Compared with this, the E-type was a revelation. A supercar with a saloon-car price tag and saloon-car running costs, brought about by engineering everything down to a price and mass-producing it, whilst never losing sight of the elements that made it so fast. Nearly all Jaguar's competitors were either building small numbers of cars in labour-intensive ways befitting their high price tags, or heavily compromising their race-derived technology for the sake of mass-market compatibility.
The E-type is to sports cars what Inception is to blockbuster movies. It entrusted serious, deep, hard-sci-fi concepts to the average cinemagoer without watering any of it down and somehow it made loads of money. The E-type gave merely moderately-wealthy buyers supercar performance and looks.
Then again, wind the clock back 13 years before the E-type and the XK120 did exactly the same thing, so there you go.
Justayellowbadge said:
If you have the time, there is a shocking lack of literature covering GT cars of the post 1973 period.
Judging by the above post, you may be the man to write the definitive tome on the subject.
I think I have Asperger's - I'm not sure if this is a compliment or an insult Judging by the above post, you may be the man to write the definitive tome on the subject.
European GTs of the 60's and 70's is my specialism, as it happens.
fatboy b said:
XK is a 2+2, and will be pushed more upmarket in it's next guise.
So Jag has done a Ferrari and Aston then. The entry level product has got too fat and bulky over the years so, introduce a new entry level product that eschews the ethos that the original products left behind - aka California and AMV8.
it seems to the the 'XJC' to the F-type's 'E-type'.Skater12 said:
Pugsey said:
Skater12 said:
DavidCane said:
Skater12 said:
Agreed, the shutlines are the same, proportions are the same and what small details you can see thrgouh the Camo (ie door handles) are the same. This is going to be as close to the concept as the Evoque was to its concept.Black with light or red interior please !
Nice to have the option of being the first. If I don't like it when it finally breaks cover I can cancel or pass it on so nothing lost.t1grm said:
So Jag has done a Ferrari and Aston then. The entry level product has got too fat and bulky over the years so, introduce a new entry level product that eschews the ethos that the original products left behind - aka California and AMV8.
You could say everyone's done that really. Ford offed the Scorpio but it didn't matter because the Mondeo is now Scorpio-sized, the Focus is Mondeo-sized, the Fiesta is Focus-sized - oh no, there's a gap for a small car - hey presto, the Ka is Fiesta-sized.Same seems to have happened in pretty much everyone's range.
Doofus said:
Yes and no, I reckon. Yes we have, but not, to any extent, the way we do now.
I know it isn't in the slightest bit scientific, but if you search the PH classifieds for "Convertible" between 1995 and 1999, you get 9 pages of results. The same search for 2000-2005 gives you 37 pages.
Again, not scientific, but I'll bet if you look at new car listings in the 1980s or 90s, you'll not find anywhere near the number of convertibles you get now.
As far as I recall, in the 1980s, the only convertible Fords were built by Crayford. Peugeots and Vauxhalls were all done by coachbuilders too. So were BMW E30s. There were no convertible Audis in the 1980s; the soft top Jaguar XJS took nine or ten years to hit the market ofter the coupe was launched. There wasn't an open top Countach, and the Jalpa was only a targa. You couldn't buy a convertible Nissan, or a Volvo.
Yes, there have always been soft top 'sports cars' (TVR, Porsche, Alfa Romeo etc), but these days everything can be had topless, and it seems to be the default choice.
I know the early eighties suffered from the hangover of the 1970s US-threatened safety legslation, but things hadn't realyl changed by the end of the decade, or even some way into the 90's.
(All the above is unchecked opinion, and subject to criticism and ridicule)
My guess on the whole convertible thing is that the mx5 pretty much changed the perception from a convertible being a fairly unuseable day to day thing to being a great, fun and reliable ownership proposition - just my thoughts...I know it isn't in the slightest bit scientific, but if you search the PH classifieds for "Convertible" between 1995 and 1999, you get 9 pages of results. The same search for 2000-2005 gives you 37 pages.
Again, not scientific, but I'll bet if you look at new car listings in the 1980s or 90s, you'll not find anywhere near the number of convertibles you get now.
As far as I recall, in the 1980s, the only convertible Fords were built by Crayford. Peugeots and Vauxhalls were all done by coachbuilders too. So were BMW E30s. There were no convertible Audis in the 1980s; the soft top Jaguar XJS took nine or ten years to hit the market ofter the coupe was launched. There wasn't an open top Countach, and the Jalpa was only a targa. You couldn't buy a convertible Nissan, or a Volvo.
Yes, there have always been soft top 'sports cars' (TVR, Porsche, Alfa Romeo etc), but these days everything can be had topless, and it seems to be the default choice.
I know the early eighties suffered from the hangover of the 1970s US-threatened safety legslation, but things hadn't realyl changed by the end of the decade, or even some way into the 90's.
(All the above is unchecked opinion, and subject to criticism and ridicule)
rm89 said:
Am I the only person on earth that has never, and I mean never, seen the stylistic appeal of that concept? I always thought it was a poor attempt at a follow up to the XK180 concept. Looks too short in the wheelbase.
Even through the camo, the new F-Type looks to be extremely well-proportioned. I'm looking forward to the final unveil.
Nope, I agree with you. Not just too short in the wheelbase but a bit bulbous.Even through the camo, the new F-Type looks to be extremely well-proportioned. I'm looking forward to the final unveil.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff