RE: Revealed: Jaguar F-Type
Discussion
RacerMike said:
I'd be interested to know the age of those posting on this thread. It seems to me like perhaps those saying they prefer the XKR/E-Type are indeed current or past owners...i.e. 40+. This is absolutely fine, but ultimately, 40+ is not a profitable market anymore for sports cars. I suspect the whole point of the F-Type is to appeal to a younger generation....and let's be honest, wings, vents and angular lines are what appeals to the current flock of 30 somethings.
Ford proved without doubt that making Jags look like a pastiche of how the Americans viewed 1950s England simply doesn't work. Kind of like Starbucks making all the UK branches resemble a 1950s Tea Room from Mary Poppins serving cream tea's, the rest of the world is far too cynical to react postively.
Anyway...rather than judging the car from one image, how about we wait for the first drives later in the year.
25, mate. I just think the XKR looks better.Ford proved without doubt that making Jags look like a pastiche of how the Americans viewed 1950s England simply doesn't work. Kind of like Starbucks making all the UK branches resemble a 1950s Tea Room from Mary Poppins serving cream tea's, the rest of the world is far too cynical to react postively.
Anyway...rather than judging the car from one image, how about we wait for the first drives later in the year.
Edited by RacerMike on Sunday 23 September 14:28
The thing is that the XKR has always been the new E-Type if you take the last V12 E-Type as the mould but that itself was a materially different concept from the original E-Type.
I don't think this is the "new E-Type", I just think that the F-Type monicker been demanded for so long that they just thought they'd call it that to put an end to it.
I don't think this is the "new E-Type", I just think that the F-Type monicker been demanded for so long that they just thought they'd call it that to put an end to it.
Not sure about that grille badging....?
But the rest just confirms to me that Callum does one shape, one 'look' and that that look is very very classical, timeless and beautiful.
Having said that, the back end is nice departure from pretty much anything else on the road... whilst is shares VERY little with this, it 'reminded' me of:
But the rest just confirms to me that Callum does one shape, one 'look' and that that look is very very classical, timeless and beautiful.
Having said that, the back end is nice departure from pretty much anything else on the road... whilst is shares VERY little with this, it 'reminded' me of:
A couple of new videos up on Jaguars youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8AjBaezlgc&fea...
Sounds fantastic for a V6. It looks fantastic as well, I think the main thing that looks different from the CX-16 pictures is that the 'stance' is different. Otherwise it looks 99% the same, so I don't really get the those saying it's dull.
Sounds fantastic for a V6. It looks fantastic as well, I think the main thing that looks different from the CX-16 pictures is that the 'stance' is different. Otherwise it looks 99% the same, so I don't really get the those saying it's dull.
James Dean said:
A couple of new videos up on Jaguars youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8AjBaezlgc&fea...
Sounds fantastic for a V6. It looks fantastic as well, I think the main thing that looks different from the CX-16 pictures is that the 'stance' is different. Otherwise it looks 99% the same, so I don't really get the those saying it's dull.
And these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDMCnrAsIM&fea...Sounds fantastic for a V6. It looks fantastic as well, I think the main thing that looks different from the CX-16 pictures is that the 'stance' is different. Otherwise it looks 99% the same, so I don't really get the those saying it's dull.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT8EAs4dZXw&fea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2oU31YJmr4
Edited by MSTRBKR on Tuesday 25th September 18:03
Every other car in the world just got slightly uglier.
I don't like these aluminium cars, in a really big crash they tend to tear without absorbing much energy. Try it with an empty coke can, give it a karate chop then start the tear at the fold. It is amazing how little effort it takes to continue the tearing.
I asked the boss of a Jaguar body shop if he would rather have a crash in an X308 or an X350. He said the X308 every time because of this tearing problem.
I asked the boss of a Jaguar body shop if he would rather have a crash in an X308 or an X350. He said the X308 every time because of this tearing problem.
Serendipity72 said:
I don't like these aluminium cars, in a really big crash they tend to tear without absorbing much energy. Try it with an empty coke can, give it a karate chop then start the tear at the fold. It is amazing how little effort it takes to continue the tearing.
I asked the boss of a Jaguar body shop if he would rather have a crash in an X308 or an X350. He said the X308 every time because of this tearing problem.
So let me get this right, you liken the construction of a 21st car to a simple thin skinned aluminium coke can!? I asked the boss of a Jaguar body shop if he would rather have a crash in an X308 or an X350. He said the X308 every time because of this tearing problem.
Do a bit more home work... Aluminium structures absorb in energy much better, in a more predictable way than steel.
It's a lot more involved than you think!
Serendipity72 said:
I don't like these aluminium cars, in a really big crash they tend to tear without absorbing much energy. Try it with an empty coke can, give it a karate chop then start the tear at the fold. It is amazing how little effort it takes to continue the tearing.
I asked the boss of a Jaguar body shop if he would rather have a crash in an X308 or an X350. He said the X308 every time because of this tearing problem.
Are you seriously comparing the body of a car to a coke can?I asked the boss of a Jaguar body shop if he would rather have a crash in an X308 or an X350. He said the X308 every time because of this tearing problem.
Firstly, there is no strengthening support inside a coke can so the ultra thin pure alluminium will just tear. In a car body, the main panels can be 3mm thick and bonded or riveted over the chassis enabling it to be some 60% stiffer than equivilant steel panels.
Also being lighter than an equivalent steel body, the alluminium structure carries less kinetic energy into a collision, reducing the amount of energy that has to be absorbed by the vehicle body.
If in doubt, go into the local Jag dealer and karate chop the bonnet or door of an XJ and try the tearing trick...;)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff