Re: Where Jag went wrong
Discussion
Pr - I find it funny that you regard BMWs and 458s as good looking and cutting edge, when my opinion is the exact opposite. Well, the 458 perhaps is cutting edge, but far from beautiful. Same with the FF. The F-type is also a pretty good looking car, although I would get something else (probably something used as there's not too much now that I would want over some previous cars) if buying.
Pr1964 said:
I maintain my view that the F-type is a very tame design with the wrong influences and a missed opportunity.
IMO recent non Bland
Merc SLS “modern day interpretation it’s the direction Jaguar needed to go in”
Bmw Bangle M5 Z4 3 “marmite but of the moment and imo they now work”
RR Evoque "though 100% not my cuppa at least RR tried but ended up with a tonka car"
Ferrari 458 “genius”
Jag XJ “though it’s got a big mouth up front, from behind its kinda thunderbirds special”
Citroen DS3 “the only car in their lineup worthy of the citroen badge.”
I am amazed that Jaguar can’t design a modern E-type Bmw have managed to create a modern Mini and just look at the sales!
Firstly on a design front, you note the SLS as a piece of bold design. Well as far as I can tell, Jaguar are actually treading a very similar path to Mercedes on this one.
The new SLS is a modified version of a classic. Bigger, bulkier, less rounded, more vented and muscular.
Well, comparing E and F Types
As far as I can see, Jaguar are taking the exact same design concept. As far as I can see the SLS offers nothing different from the F Type in terms of the boldness of its design. This is in further evidence at the rear of the car
Though I have to say from that angle the 'F' looks a bit clumsy.
Aside from the rear, I am a fan of the F Types design, and am currently weighing up selling my families organs to get one.
However, I also want to talk about the market segment the car is aimed at.
pr1964 said:
What we are getting these days is PUDDING cars like the Bentley GT and the F-type is just another PUDDING car.
Jaguar should have the guts and sense to build a proper replacement for the E-type a light weight big engined phallus on stunning wheels which would sell and make money.
I don't own an E Type, but am lucky enough to have regular use of my fathers 4.2 FHC. Frankly I think you have got the car pitched totally wrong - implying that a genuine replacement should be a lightweight special for going toe to toe with the Porsche Cayman.Jaguar should have the guts and sense to build a proper replacement for the E-type a light weight big engined phallus on stunning wheels which would sell and make money.
The original E type only weighed 1,315 or so KG. But the Aston DB5 was 1,465 kg and the Ferrari 250 GT 1,300 kg or less. It's not just that the E type was light, everything was. Anything geneuinely sportscarish was less than 1,000 kg. The XK engine is powerful, but is a big torquey lug and does rev reasonably lazily. It really is not a hairem scarem sportscar. It is a GT car - pulls beautifully and a great mile muncher. If anything the F Type is too sportscarish to be the true spiritual successor - which was a role filled by the XK8 if we are perfectly honest - it's not Jaguar's fault that a). regulation and general consumer demand and b). the pedestal the E type has been put on by so many, meant that it never matched it in people's hearts.
Vocal Minority said:
Pr1964 - I apologise for selectively quoting from a number of posts, but I didn't want to flood the page with more words than nesc. But I do wish to counter one or two things you have said.
Firstly on a design front, you note the SLS as a piece of bold design. Well as far as I can tell, Jaguar are actually treading a very similar path to Mercedes on this one.
The new SLS is a modified version of a classic. Bigger, bulkier, less rounded, more vented and muscular.
Well, comparing E and F Types
As far as I can see, Jaguar are taking the exact same design concept. As far as I can see the SLS offers nothing different from the F Type in terms of the boldness of its design. This is in further evidence at the rear of the car
I see the point you are making, but I don't agree. The SLS has a very strong resemblance and design features. The overall shape (outline) is similar to the SL and of course the doors.Firstly on a design front, you note the SLS as a piece of bold design. Well as far as I can tell, Jaguar are actually treading a very similar path to Mercedes on this one.
The new SLS is a modified version of a classic. Bigger, bulkier, less rounded, more vented and muscular.
Well, comparing E and F Types
As far as I can see, Jaguar are taking the exact same design concept. As far as I can see the SLS offers nothing different from the F Type in terms of the boldness of its design. This is in further evidence at the rear of the car
The F-Type might have some E-type influence, but it's very very very subtle and then only in minor detailing copying more the idea rather than anything E-Type.
I personally hope the F-Type looks great when I see one, but in pictures it does look rather generic and certainly doesn't make me think "Jaguar". And so far I'd say it isn't pretty, elegant, striking or aggressive looking.
vinceh said:
Remember the days when the V12 E-Type was completely unloved? This one I filmed was utterly gorgeous http://goo.gl/bErWM and up for sale at £110,000!
Saw this yesterday at Long Stratton Motor Company. Reduced to a mere £89995.PR - You compare the 350Z and F-type but the similarities between the ferrari 458 and maclaren are very similar also and IMO neither a looker.
Car shapes these days are driven so much by aerodynamics, drivetrain, crash protection and other less obvious regulations like height and spacing of lights that recreating a modern E-type is likely to be the same result as when jaguar recreated the S-type - something which you considered hideous.
Ultimately the public will decide if they like it or not. I think they will, there is a lot of goodwill towards JLR at the moment.
Car shapes these days are driven so much by aerodynamics, drivetrain, crash protection and other less obvious regulations like height and spacing of lights that recreating a modern E-type is likely to be the same result as when jaguar recreated the S-type - something which you considered hideous.
Ultimately the public will decide if they like it or not. I think they will, there is a lot of goodwill towards JLR at the moment.
Pr1964 said:
The problem is the F-type hasn’t been fully thought through from a historial design point it lacks the details which would link it back and give it credibility.
But they've ended up with E-type to Generic Japanese...
The issue here is not the car, it is marketing.But they've ended up with E-type to Generic Japanese...
Firstly, Jag have moved on.
Secondly, this car is nothing like an E-type, more Boxster/S2000
Thirdly, retro is over,
So finally, this car was never an F-Type, it should never have been called F-Type but was plainly labelled as such to put the expectation to rest and hopefully get a few sales on the wave of nostalgia it might evoke but really doesn't.
Realistically, this is an XF in nomenclature terms but the tag was gone so FKE might have worked. However, this would still have left the gupping populace lamenting the absence of a new E-Type successor....
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.
This car is not the same sort of thing as an E Type, and using the name F Type was as much due to pressure as anything else.
As I said in my earlier post, if you want a like for like replacement in terms of the spirit of the car and the looks of the car
Ta dah! (And a handsome devil it is too)
This car is not the same sort of thing as an E Type, and using the name F Type was as much due to pressure as anything else.
As I said in my earlier post, if you want a like for like replacement in terms of the spirit of the car and the looks of the car
Ta dah! (And a handsome devil it is too)
Pr1964 said:
300bhp/ton I agree with you 100%
Mercedes they did a far better job with the SLS in the details like the grill and proportions and profile.
If Jaguar had taken the same care the F-type “Screen would be more curved” the
“front would have a chrome strip across the centre of the grill with a Jaguar badge in the middle on the Chrome strip” and the “rear would taper in towards the rear” the “rear wings would be more rounded” and the “bonnet would have a bigger central buldge or a pair of bulges”.
The problem is the F-type hasn’t been fully thought through from a historial design point it lacks the details which would link it back and give it credibility.
I think my comparison with the 350z is closer except for the door handles it’s a mirror image 100% profile wise….
It’s the details which matter and those details have been totally missed on the F-type.
that is why it’s a F-ailure in my eyes.
Not as bad as BL's interpretation of the Mini to Mini Metro but pretty poor.
What they needed was Mini to Bmw Mini...
But they've ended up with E-type to Generic Japanese...
The reality is it is not just refering to the E-type. For example there is references to the XJ-13 and some other models. Some of the stuff you mentioned is basically pointless - for example the chrome strip across the front would either have been covered by the licence plate, or unbalance the front visual design of it since it would have been above or below the plate. If you want a modern E-type then get an Eagle. This is a different car with references back, but the only reason is because of the name. Jaguar avoided it for a long time, but now seem to have said "stuff it" and gone for a name that will put a lot of expectation that they've run away from for a long time. Mercedes they did a far better job with the SLS in the details like the grill and proportions and profile.
If Jaguar had taken the same care the F-type “Screen would be more curved” the
“front would have a chrome strip across the centre of the grill with a Jaguar badge in the middle on the Chrome strip” and the “rear would taper in towards the rear” the “rear wings would be more rounded” and the “bonnet would have a bigger central buldge or a pair of bulges”.
The problem is the F-type hasn’t been fully thought through from a historial design point it lacks the details which would link it back and give it credibility.
I think my comparison with the 350z is closer except for the door handles it’s a mirror image 100% profile wise….
It’s the details which matter and those details have been totally missed on the F-type.
that is why it’s a F-ailure in my eyes.
Not as bad as BL's interpretation of the Mini to Mini Metro but pretty poor.
What they needed was Mini to Bmw Mini...
But they've ended up with E-type to Generic Japanese...
Edited by Pr1964 on Thursday 22 November 09:41
NRS said:
Some of the stuff you mentioned is basically pointless - for example the chrome strip across the front would either have been covered by the licence plate, or unbalance the front visual design of it since it would have been above or below the plate.
Merc seemed to manage it OK. The F-type has a broad badn for the plate. It would have been easy to make that a narrow chrome strip and widen and shrten the rad air intake so that the plate would fit below it but above the splitter air intake.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff