RE: Jaguar F-Pace: Review
Discussion
I've driven the 2.0D twice now for a test drive. Seemed a bit harsh on our Scottish roads but if you go for the adaptive dynamics it smooths the harshness out. I would like to go for the 3.0 S but 12k more for an engine seems steep. No discounts, high apr, poor trade in price for my XK all make me want to steer clear for the moment until the excitement dies down 
aeropilot said:
smilo996 said:
langlord said:
Totally agree with the standard of interior comment, at entry spec its very good on the S its below par. Hence our order was cancelled and a macan gts arrives in a month.
How sad. The button fetishists buy a car because the buttons are better although it is just a slighly reconfigured Audi, which in turn is a mildly reconfigured VW. Yet no mention of the dynamic capability, equipment, the fact it is built in the UK, the ride, engine choices, looks, just about the buuttons. The arrogant power of the Porsche badge.
Drive a Macan back to back with a Q5 and you'd be hard pressed to believe there is any connection whatsoever, as the Macan is leagues ahead of the Q5 in terms of dynamics.
I've spent the past 4-5 months looking at all of these for a potential buy, so that's Macan/Q5/F-Pace/X5/X3 plus a few left field choices as well.
The Macan does have issues, but, the chassis isn't one of them, its the best driving car out of the lot.....and so it should for the money it costs.
As other poster has said, I also really wanted to like the F-Pace, but, sadly, just couldn't. The trouble is at the high price point it's too close to other options....which is why we'll see lots of 2.0d versions around.
Saw two of these yesterday. Good looking car, certainly one of the best looking of its type. But, it's so fat! Over 2m wide, without the mirrors, I'd never get it down the road to my house in the evening with cars parked badly down both sides of the road. Along with it's Range Rover cousin it's going to be a common sight being driven down the centre of narrow country roads, pushing lesser vehicles off into the verge for all its alleged off-road ability, because the driver has no f*cking idea how wide it is and where it is in relation to the edge of the road! (and is terrified of scratching his shiny leased paintwork on some grass...)
chrispj said:
Saw two of these yesterday. Good looking car, certainly one of the best looking of its type. But, it's so fat! Over 2m wide, without the mirrors, I'd never get it down the road to my house in the evening with cars parked badly down both sides of the road. Along with it's Range Rover cousin it's going to be a common sight being driven down the centre of narrow country roads, pushing lesser vehicles off into the verge for all its alleged off-road ability, because the driver has no f*cking idea how wide it is and where it is in relation to the edge of the road! (and is terrified of scratching his shiny leased paintwork on some grass...)
I think your being a bit hysterical, and no... it's not over 2 meters wide.Width
Coach 105 in
Boris Bus 99 in
Most Tractors: 89-93 in (single tyres)
7.5 ton lorry: 90.6 in
Ford Transit: 80.8-83.7 in
Range Rover: 78.1 in
F-pace: 76.2 in
F-type: 75.7 in
Mustang: 75.4 in
Edited by skyrover on Thursday 25th August 08:05
I'm surprised the Discovery Sport hasn't cropped up in the comparison for the base diesel model.
The Discovery Sport is a much better packaged car as a daily family driver. Having seen them both in the showroom (and owning one - although my DS is petrol not diesel) they look similar in size. But the DS has way more rear leg room, and has an extra 'plus two' seats in the boot for emergencies (easily OK for short rides with two adults in the back, and for longer rides for kids). With the middle row pushed back the rear seating leg room is like a full fat RR. With it forward the boot is huge. Take your pick.
By comparison the F-Pace feels cramped in the back (though not as bad as a Macan) although the overall cabin feel is more sophistacted than functional compared to the DS.
The F-Pace may be a little better to drive and of course has a much broader choice of engines, but frankly I would expect those that own one of these cars have it as a family hack and very likely have something a little more special for when the occasion calls for it.
The one bad thing they do share however is the dreadful rotary gear selector... drives me up the wall. You can even turn the dial into 'park' while at full highway speed without an locking mechanism to protect the movement. You also dont get a sense for where the dial is without having to look down at either the selector itself or the dashboard vs. a standard stick where you physically know where it is without looking down.
Either way - overall both good cars for the segment, but the DS would have to have my money every time.
The Discovery Sport is a much better packaged car as a daily family driver. Having seen them both in the showroom (and owning one - although my DS is petrol not diesel) they look similar in size. But the DS has way more rear leg room, and has an extra 'plus two' seats in the boot for emergencies (easily OK for short rides with two adults in the back, and for longer rides for kids). With the middle row pushed back the rear seating leg room is like a full fat RR. With it forward the boot is huge. Take your pick.
By comparison the F-Pace feels cramped in the back (though not as bad as a Macan) although the overall cabin feel is more sophistacted than functional compared to the DS.
The F-Pace may be a little better to drive and of course has a much broader choice of engines, but frankly I would expect those that own one of these cars have it as a family hack and very likely have something a little more special for when the occasion calls for it.
The one bad thing they do share however is the dreadful rotary gear selector... drives me up the wall. You can even turn the dial into 'park' while at full highway speed without an locking mechanism to protect the movement. You also dont get a sense for where the dial is without having to look down at either the selector itself or the dashboard vs. a standard stick where you physically know where it is without looking down.
Either way - overall both good cars for the segment, but the DS would have to have my money every time.
Maldini35 said:
From the article and the thread it seems the F-pace is another over- priced Jag which looks ok but falls short on build quality and interior.
Shame.
If such things matter (this is Pistonheads afterall), it also sounds like Jaguar is still the premium brand choice for people who want a nice interior but want rewarding driving dynamics more.Shame.
If you're not interested in the dynamics then fine, but some people are. Jaguar have been building cars that are better to drive than the competition on a like-for-like model basis for years now. Their development effort is bias towards steering and suspension set up. The Germans are bias towards soft touch plastics and infotainment screens.
I personally think it's mental to spend the same amount of money on a similar product that drives worse on the basis that it has more buttons inside but hey, that's my personal buying criteria talking.
silent ninja said:
aeropilot said:
smilo996 said:
langlord said:
Totally agree with the standard of interior comment, at entry spec its very good on the S its below par. Hence our order was cancelled and a macan gts arrives in a month.
How sad. The button fetishists buy a car because the buttons are better although it is just a slighly reconfigured Audi, which in turn is a mildly reconfigured VW. Yet no mention of the dynamic capability, equipment, the fact it is built in the UK, the ride, engine choices, looks, just about the buuttons. The arrogant power of the Porsche badge.
Drive a Macan back to back with a Q5 and you'd be hard pressed to believe there is any connection whatsoever, as the Macan is leagues ahead of the Q5 in terms of dynamics.
I've spent the past 4-5 months looking at all of these for a potential buy, so that's Macan/Q5/F-Pace/X5/X3 plus a few left field choices as well.
The Macan does have issues, but, the chassis isn't one of them, its the best driving car out of the lot.....and so it should for the money it costs.
As other poster has said, I also really wanted to like the F-Pace, but, sadly, just couldn't. The trouble is at the high price point it's too close to other options....which is why we'll see lots of 2.0d versions around.
aeropilot said:
silent ninja said:
aeropilot said:
smilo996 said:
langlord said:
Totally agree with the standard of interior comment, at entry spec its very good on the S its below par. Hence our order was cancelled and a macan gts arrives in a month.
How sad. The button fetishists buy a car because the buttons are better although it is just a slighly reconfigured Audi, which in turn is a mildly reconfigured VW. Yet no mention of the dynamic capability, equipment, the fact it is built in the UK, the ride, engine choices, looks, just about the buuttons. The arrogant power of the Porsche badge.
Drive a Macan back to back with a Q5 and you'd be hard pressed to believe there is any connection whatsoever, as the Macan is leagues ahead of the Q5 in terms of dynamics.
I've spent the past 4-5 months looking at all of these for a potential buy, so that's Macan/Q5/F-Pace/X5/X3 plus a few left field choices as well.
The Macan does have issues, but, the chassis isn't one of them, its the best driving car out of the lot.....and so it should for the money it costs.
As other poster has said, I also really wanted to like the F-Pace, but, sadly, just couldn't. The trouble is at the high price point it's too close to other options....which is why we'll see lots of 2.0d versions around.
Pistonheads does make me wonder how some adults can make it through life's decision points. Is there some sort of learning disability that only allows people to consider things in black and white?
It really isn't hard.
Let's get a new car.
It's a daily car. We have a family. OK, that's a 2-seater convertible out.
Actually it's to be our main car. OK, so it kinda has to be able to do everything well.
So, an SUV? Looks like it...
I want a supercharged V8 Range Rover SVR. We can't afford the initial outlay nor the fuel consumption.
Sniff sniff - ok.
So it's a diesel one. Fine - but a biggish diesel - we don't want it to be faster to get out and walk.
Can we get one that isn't terrible to drive? Ok dear ...
I want climate control etc etc etc
Some people on Pistonheads seem to think (and I use the term "think" in the loosest possible sense) that only one attribute or quality may be considered at any one time:
Interested in dynamics? = Ariel Atom
Got a family? = Ford Galaxy
Share your clothes with a dog? = Volvo V70
Need to tow something? = Artic lorry
jamieduff1981 said:
Actually it's to be our main car. OK, so it kinda has to be able to do everything well.
So, an SUV? Looks like it...
Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this is one leap of logic which lots of people make that I've never understood. If I ever had to drive a family car day-to-day, I'd fight tooth and nail to be able to drive an estate car or even an MPV rather than an SUV. I've always been a bit bemused as to why anyone who enjoys driving enthsiastically would be happy to sit two feet up in the air. So, an SUV? Looks like it...
kambites said:
Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this is one leap of logic which lots of people make that I've never understood. If I ever had to drive a family car day-to-day, I'd fight tooth and nail to be able to drive an estate car or even an MPV rather than an SUV. I've always been a bit bemused as to why anyone who enjoys driving enthsiastically would be happy to sit two feet up in the air.
For stop-start city driving (and especially when it is pouring with rain and dark), nothing feels better than sitting in an tall SUV 'two feet up in the air' with all the visibility you would need. You also feel that your kids are a lot safer in the back... be that physchological or not, it's an important factor for some.After our Discovery Sport we would find it hard to move to a 'normal height' car as a daily driver in the city (note: I am an ex-7.2RS, Forester STI, and current 993C4S owner, so don't get the wrong idea... its just that the SUV is the right car for the right time in the right place... and that happens to be most of the time in a city with kids in the back).
O.
monamimate said:
I LOVE the buttons in my Porsche, especially the chrome bits in between.
Also, far safer than having to look down at a screen to select simple functions such as heating, volume etc...
+1 agree completely with this. Give me buttons rather than convoluted menu option any day of the week. Also, far safer than having to look down at a screen to select simple functions such as heating, volume etc...
jamieduff1981 said:
aeropilot said:
silent ninja said:
aeropilot said:
smilo996 said:
langlord said:
Totally agree with the standard of interior comment, at entry spec its very good on the S its below par. Hence our order was cancelled and a macan gts arrives in a month.
How sad. The button fetishists buy a car because the buttons are better although it is just a slighly reconfigured Audi, which in turn is a mildly reconfigured VW. Yet no mention of the dynamic capability, equipment, the fact it is built in the UK, the ride, engine choices, looks, just about the buuttons. The arrogant power of the Porsche badge.
Drive a Macan back to back with a Q5 and you'd be hard pressed to believe there is any connection whatsoever, as the Macan is leagues ahead of the Q5 in terms of dynamics.
I've spent the past 4-5 months looking at all of these for a potential buy, so that's Macan/Q5/F-Pace/X5/X3 plus a few left field choices as well.
The Macan does have issues, but, the chassis isn't one of them, its the best driving car out of the lot.....and so it should for the money it costs.
As other poster has said, I also really wanted to like the F-Pace, but, sadly, just couldn't. The trouble is at the high price point it's too close to other options....which is why we'll see lots of 2.0d versions around.
Pistonheads does make me wonder how some adults can make it through life's decision points. Is there some sort of learning disability that only allows people to consider things in black and white?
It really isn't hard.
Let's get a new car.
It's a daily car. We have a family. OK, that's a 2-seater convertible out.
Actually it's to be our main car. OK, so it kinda has to be able to do everything well.
So, an SUV? Looks like it...
I want a supercharged V8 Range Rover SVR. We can't afford the initial outlay nor the fuel consumption.
Sniff sniff - ok.
So it's a diesel one. Fine - but a biggish diesel - we don't want it to be faster to get out and walk.
Can we get one that isn't terrible to drive? Ok dear ...
I want climate control etc etc etc
Some people on Pistonheads seem to think (and I use the term "think" in the loosest possible sense) that only one attribute or quality may be considered at any one time:
Interested in dynamics? = Ariel Atom
Got a family? = Ford Galaxy
Share your clothes with a dog? = Volvo V70
Need to tow something? = Artic lorry
......
Walter Sobchak said:
bertie said:
Is yours the old model?
The new one is seriously wide for normal UK roads and a total pain in villages and cities.
Yes it's the old one, I have had a go in a new shape Vogue though and didn't find it significantly different in terms of size and manoeuvring it compared to the L322, but I've not lived with one for any length of time to be fair.The new one is seriously wide for normal UK roads and a total pain in villages and cities.
Replaced by a Tesla S, love it!
kambites said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Actually it's to be our main car. OK, so it kinda has to be able to do everything well.
So, an SUV? Looks like it...
Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this is one leap of logic which lots of people make that I've never understood. If I ever had to drive a family car day-to-day, I'd fight tooth and nail to be able to drive an estate car or even an MPV rather than an SUV. I've always been a bit bemused as to why anyone who enjoys driving enthsiastically would be happy to sit two feet up in the air. So, an SUV? Looks like it...
I don't believe sparkly white SUVs which 22" diamond cut alloys are necessary in urban environments, but something like an F-Pace that can do most of what the pickup offers that we actually use regularly, but drives somewhere between the pickup and a saloon is making a good case for itself these days.
jamieduff1981 said:
I'd have been housebound for a week in January with roads flooding, which the higher ground clearance and high air intake of the 4x4 type vehicle wasn't affected by.
Raised air intakes do not automatically add wading ability (they are primarily for dusty environments, e.g. convoys on unsealed roads). Sometimes there are other factors that limit wading before you get to the engine air intake, e.g. electronics modules, diff breathers. The F-Pace is quoted at a wading depth of over 0.5m; I think I'd be re-considering what on earth I'm attempting before I got to that level. Especially when its claimed it can take less than 0.3m of moving water to displace a car.Edited by RenesisEvo on Thursday 25th August 12:23
kambites said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Actually it's to be our main car. OK, so it kinda has to be able to do everything well.
So, an SUV? Looks like it...
Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this is one leap of logic which lots of people make that I've never understood. If I ever had to drive a family car day-to-day, I'd fight tooth and nail to be able to drive an estate car or even an MPV rather than an SUV. I've always been a bit bemused as to why anyone who enjoys driving enthsiastically would be happy to sit two feet up in the air. So, an SUV? Looks like it...
I've never owned or wanted and SUV, what I've also never done is wondered why is wonder people buy them. I just don't car.
What I don't understand is why people are bothered about what and why other people have bought what they have.
An SUV appears on someone's drive. What's he want that for, why didn't he buy an estate. Because he didn't want an estate. Then end. Seems pretty simple to me.
Edited by HighwayStar on Thursday 25th August 14:09
HighwayStar said:
kambites said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Actually it's to be our main car. OK, so it kinda has to be able to do everything well.
So, an SUV? Looks like it...
Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this is one leap of logic which lots of people make that I've never understood. If I ever had to drive a family car day-to-day, I'd fight tooth and nail to be able to drive an estate car or even an MPV rather than an SUV. I've always been a bit bemused as to why anyone who enjoys driving enthsiastically would be happy to sit two feet up in the air. So, an SUV? Looks like it...
I've never owned or wanted and SUV, what I've also never done is wondered why is wonder people buy them. I just don't car.
What I don't understand is why people are bothered about what and why other people have bought.
An SUV appears on someone's drive. What's he want that for, why didn't he buy and estate. Because he didn't want and estate. Then end. Seems pretty simple to me.
At the end of the day its personal choice but if it were me buying an SUV it wouldn't be an F-Pace - they just don't do anything at all for me looks wise.
RenesisEvo said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I'd have been housebound for a week in January with roads flooding, which the higher ground clearance and high air intake of the 4x4 type vehicle wasn't affected by.
Raised air intakes do not automatically add wading ability (they are primarily for dusty environments, e.g. convoys on unsealed roads). Sometimes there are other factors that limit wading before you get to the engine air intake, e.g. electronics modules, diff breathers. The F-Pace is quoted at a wading depth of over 0.5m; I think I'd be re-considering what on earth I'm attempting before I got to that level. Especially when its claimed it can take less than 0.3m of moving water to displace a car.Edited by RenesisEvo on Thursday 25th August 12:23
As if by way of proof, my colleague and I both have Rangers which got very wet in the flooding - once the rivers themselves had receded it took a small age for the trapped water on roads to drain or otherwise dry away. His son has a Merc C220d which got hydrolocked in January in about 6 inches of water that found its way in to the air intake. 2 weeks ago a conrod came through the block.
I know it's very fashionable to claim 4x4s have no practical advantage over low ride-height cars, but where I live, that's not supported by evidence. For me, it was the difference between getting home to my family and being stranded on a spot of higher ground sleeping in a car that couldn't get through some floodwater, so yes, it actually matters.
My normal cars are fine most of the time, but some of the time a high vehicle with enough wading depth to make minor flooding, steep untreated slopes in winter and generally a lot of time in overgrown verges is very useful. I'm not suggesting that the driver doesn't need to pack his/her brain when they set out in a 4x4 type vehicle, but it would be risible to suggest that such capabilities do not offer a sensible driver more options in adverse conditions than a normal car does.
Think of it as being a bit like having a spare wheel. You hardly ever need it, but the first time being stuck on a north Welsh moor with a flat tyre in the pissing rain in winter without a spare and with a 3+ hour wait for recovery to a garage that happens to be open to sell you a new tyre at a grossly over inflated (no pun intended) price might alter ones' view on the subject.
skyrover said:
I think your being a bit hysterical, and no... it's not over 2 meters wide.
Where did you get your figures? Both the latest What Car and the Jaguar website think it's over 2m wide and I'm inclined to trust them more than you...Edited by skyrover on Thursday 25th August 08:05
kambites said:
Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, this is one leap of logic which lots of people make that I've never understood. If I ever had to drive a family car day-to-day, I'd fight tooth and nail to be able to drive an estate car or even an MPV rather than an SUV. I've always been a bit bemused as to why anyone who enjoys driving enthsiastically would be happy to sit two feet up in the air.
Depends what you are comparing though. I had an Octavia VRs estate as a loan car when my X3 was in the shop, which I think is what you drive as a daily?
That was not as chuckable as the X3, the x3 seemed to be a much more rewarding car to drive, even if it does sit 2ft higher.
I have just gone back to an estate, E350 merc, but I am already missing having an SUV. They are just nicer, more comfy, easier, and most importantly, they are just a much more relaxing drive, you don't feel you need it to be sporty.
I never got one until I owned one, I took it as a part ex on a car I was selling, but fell for it big time.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff