RE: Jaguar versus Porsche: PH blog
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
redroadster said:
Does nobody think the looks matter the f type coupe looks stunning great interior ,it's a hard choice I'm a Porsche fan but for the money the jags price and looks would prob swing it as a daily driver .
I agree. There's a LOT that's right about the F-type. At the end of the day I was swung to Porsche by a brilliant mid-engine chassis.The main things wrong with F-type are stupidly firm ride, stupidly noisy exhaust and (in the convertible) a stupidly small boot. F-type sales have been "disappointing". I'm sure it's because customers in the Jag demographic are put off by the points I mentioned. You don't need a concrete ride and a chav exhaust to sell a sportscar.
A Jag should have a smooth GT-like ride, with ability to flip a switch to 'Sport' firm. It can be done. Ride was a distinctive Jag differentiator. Shame.
And a small boot in a car so big?
Ozzie Osmond said:
I don't understand why people keep banging on about depreciation. Cars depreciate - get over it.
If you want low motoring costs buy a cheap car!
Because some cars depreciate quicker than others. Real life example, we bought a Merc C Class Coupe 2 years ago, with options for £29K, my father-in-law, 2 months prior bought a Skoda Yeti and paid £21K with options and questioned how we could afford a brand new Merc when he could only afford a Skoda.If you want low motoring costs buy a cheap car!
2 years later we got back £23K for the Merc, my father-in-law, got offered £13.5K (which he turned down and kept the car)
So our 2 year ownership of a Mercedes cost us £6k, 2 year ownership of a Skoda cost him £7.5K. Servicing costs were about £100 more for us.
If you want low motoring costs, buy a car that depreciates less, not only does it cost you less, you generally will be driving a nicer car too.
jamieduff1981 said:
I can't help but feel that the arguments for either car are completely lost on those who prefer the other.
Some people like to buy based on statistics or figures. Others just think "I like that".
Trying to compare your emotive preference for the F-Type is never going to make sense to someone trying to rationalise numbers against a Porsche, and equally prattling numbers about Porsches will consistently fail to ignite a desire to actually own one in someone who likes looking at, listening to and hooning around in an F-Type.
In my experience, those that like a Porsche are reluctant to even consider that any other car could be a rival, so this article is a little redundant.Some people like to buy based on statistics or figures. Others just think "I like that".
Trying to compare your emotive preference for the F-Type is never going to make sense to someone trying to rationalise numbers against a Porsche, and equally prattling numbers about Porsches will consistently fail to ignite a desire to actually own one in someone who likes looking at, listening to and hooning around in an F-Type.
The brand really does seem to invoke strange passions in their owners. Every Porsche thread inevitably has a 'Top Trumps' style debate on the relative statistics of one model against another - you just don't see that behaviour with threads on other marques. Personally, I'd drive both and see which I preferred, rather than debating the weights, ratios, investment potential or stereotypical references. I was kind of hoping that Dan would offer his subjective insight to the article - perhaps next time?
havoc said:
BTW - look at the achieved economy/emissions from the engines (both bench and real-world) - Porsche might just be a little way ahead of JLR...
or maybe not.. what car said:
Under True MPG testing, the 718 Cayman S returned 28.39mpg, versus an official figure of 34.9mpg, equating to a shortfall of 18.7%.
The F-Type performed marginally better in the True MPG tests, delivering 28.79mpg, a 14.3% difference over its claimed figure of 33.6mpg.
The F-Type performed marginally better in the True MPG tests, delivering 28.79mpg, a 14.3% difference over its claimed figure of 33.6mpg.
Interesting - the n/a Porsches always did pretty well, real-world - maybe being part of VAG is rubbing off in the wrong ways! 
(On reflection, it's my experience that a turbo'd engine is easier to 'game' the emissions/mpg tests than a n/a or s'charged...still doesn't excuse those differences though)
(On reflection, it's my experience that a turbo'd engine is easier to 'game' the emissions/mpg tests than a n/a or s'charged...still doesn't excuse those differences though)
I write this as a F-TYPE R owner.
the Porsche will objectively be the better car on paper, and maybe more precise to drive
however the F-TYPE is streets ahead as a all round emotive experience, that you can only really appreciate as a owner.
I have owned mine for 12 months, 16,000 miles and its single handedly the best car I've ever owned
noise - tick
looks - tick
excitement - tick
rare - tick
HUGE boot - tick
reliable - tick
FAST - tick
Porsche, as good cars as they are - leave me cold
the Porsche will objectively be the better car on paper, and maybe more precise to drive
however the F-TYPE is streets ahead as a all round emotive experience, that you can only really appreciate as a owner.
I have owned mine for 12 months, 16,000 miles and its single handedly the best car I've ever owned
noise - tick
looks - tick
excitement - tick
rare - tick
HUGE boot - tick
reliable - tick
FAST - tick
Porsche, as good cars as they are - leave me cold
Cotic said:
I was kind of hoping that Dan would offer his subjective insight to the article - perhaps next time?
We've got six months with the car so there's plenty more where this came from; I just wanted to make this point now and get it out of the way so we don't have to return to it again! More interesting stuff to talk about!Dan
akadk said:
the F-TYPE R will also average 35MPG at a 80mph cruise
350 mile range
makes for a epic GT car, quite and comfortable
then put it into Dynamic, and it turns in a crazed animal !!
Really? Is that a figure you calculated yourself or is that the car's computer? My little Fiesta ST doesn't get much over that and that's a lighter car with a little turbo engine!350 mile range
makes for a epic GT car, quite and comfortable
then put it into Dynamic, and it turns in a crazed animal !!
OwenK said:
akadk said:
the F-TYPE R will also average 35MPG at a 80mph cruise
350 mile range
makes for a epic GT car, quite and comfortable
then put it into Dynamic, and it turns in a crazed animal !!
Really? Is that a figure you calculated yourself or is that the car's computer? My little Fiesta ST doesn't get much over that and that's a lighter car with a little turbo engine!350 mile range
makes for a epic GT car, quite and comfortable
then put it into Dynamic, and it turns in a crazed animal !!
Do people driving £80,000 cars really worry about their mpg?
Let's look at an extreme example.
Driving 100,000 miles the difference between 30 mpg and 20 mpg is a mere 1,667 gallons of petrol. That's about £8,700.
This extra fuel cost would be tiny compared with around £60,000 depreciation over the same mileage!
Let's look at an extreme example.
Driving 100,000 miles the difference between 30 mpg and 20 mpg is a mere 1,667 gallons of petrol. That's about £8,700.
This extra fuel cost would be tiny compared with around £60,000 depreciation over the same mileage!
I don't really worry about MPG from a cost point of view, but am the sort who observes MPG just out of curiosity and to get clues that something might be amiss.I wouldn't however let MPG figures influence an £80,000 car choice one way or the other. Getting a few MPG more out of an £80,000 car you don't actually like is poor value for money.
My XFR-S can manage mid-30s on the motorway no problem too. Jaguar's supercharged 5.0 V8 is a gem of an engine. It's possibly less suited to fiddling combined cycle tests than some turbocharged engine, but it's in a different ballpark for fuel consumption in real life than the sorts of consumption RS6 and AMG owners seem to expect. Northern Aberdeenshire to Duxford, Cambs resulted in 35.6mpg door to door.
From my usual back-road commute with little stop-start traffic but lots of accelerating, braking and gear changes paying no heed to fuel consumption - 24.4mpg over 4300 miles:
Commuting the same route, but with less overtaking (26.8mpg over 107 miles - I got bored shortly after and reverted to my more progressive driving style)
My XFR-S can manage mid-30s on the motorway no problem too. Jaguar's supercharged 5.0 V8 is a gem of an engine. It's possibly less suited to fiddling combined cycle tests than some turbocharged engine, but it's in a different ballpark for fuel consumption in real life than the sorts of consumption RS6 and AMG owners seem to expect. Northern Aberdeenshire to Duxford, Cambs resulted in 35.6mpg door to door.
From my usual back-road commute with little stop-start traffic but lots of accelerating, braking and gear changes paying no heed to fuel consumption - 24.4mpg over 4300 miles:
Commuting the same route, but with less overtaking (26.8mpg over 107 miles - I got bored shortly after and reverted to my more progressive driving style)
I drove a Cayman S from Edinburgh to Nottingham and returned the same day with a Jaguar F-Type S V6. The Jaguar was way way better than the Porsche. I have driven a few 911s not a turbo but the F-Type is a hell of a car and would certainley get my money If I was spending that type of cash.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff