F-Type: Well, Now I've Seen Everything...
Discussion
Getting at the DB7 in particular and to some extent the Vanquish. Perhaps what I have read is incorrect. DB7 (So called Aston saver) was developed from a Jag design. Jag platform and parts in abundance. Trips in Vanquish revealed many Jag (well perhaps Ford) parts.
Perhaps I was adding silly to silly !
SCW
Perhaps I was adding silly to silly !
SCW
SeanCW said:
I doubt the Jaguar Phobia is the only issue to overcome - your posts give away a lot !
Jaguar used a V6 in various formats in the past - I thought that like the Aston V12 that it was originally a Ford V6 design (Does two stuck together not count as an engineering compromise ?)
Oh isn't the Vantage V8 a version of the Jaguar V8 too.
Is the F type V6 a new one, exclusive to Jaguar then.
The anti Jag sentiment makes me laugh. Its a bit like slagging off the bloke that donated various organs that saved your dads life.
Yes the Jag is not in the Aston league in terms of badge. However it makes cars that perform to a similar level, win customers surveys, can be used everyday and can be serviced for circa £250 - £400.
I celebrate a British car that should generate exports and employment.
SCW
Jaguar used a V6 in various formats in the past - I thought that like the Aston V12 that it was originally a Ford V6 design (Does two stuck together not count as an engineering compromise ?)
Oh isn't the Vantage V8 a version of the Jaguar V8 too.
Is the F type V6 a new one, exclusive to Jaguar then.
The anti Jag sentiment makes me laugh. Its a bit like slagging off the bloke that donated various organs that saved your dads life.
Yes the Jag is not in the Aston league in terms of badge. However it makes cars that perform to a similar level, win customers surveys, can be used everyday and can be serviced for circa £250 - £400.
I celebrate a British car that should generate exports and employment.
SCW
I totally agree that Jaguar is a wonderful export story.......let Jonnie foreigner have it
George29 said:
Jon39 said:
I usually see Audi TTs being driven by ladies, George. -> 
I wouldn't drive a normal one, but the RS is a very good car.I'd have one over the F Type/Boxster etc.
They all look the same to me.
Oops, where have I heard that before. ->
pb1695 said:
Speedraser said:
When I looked under the bonnet/hood of the F-Type V6S I wondered why the engine was mounted as far forward as it was. The front of the engine appeared to be just as far forward as in the V8S, and there seemed to be a lot of empty wasted space behind the engine (I didn't look deeply enough, apparently). I asked a Jaguar representative (this was at an introductory event for the car, with engineers present) why they didn't take advantage of the shorter length of the V6 and mount it farther rearward. He said he had no idea...
I don't care how effective a solution this might be -- it smacks of cost-cutting, and it really turns me off.
The engine will be positioned to ensure the weight distribution is even - the V6 has a 50 / 50 split, if the engine was further back the distribution would be uneven and would not be optimal. The V8 has a 51 / 49 split, which is also close to perfect. As I mentioned above, the position will also be to ensure a low centre of gravity and that the weight is as close to the centre as possible to reduce the polar inertia as the car turns. The crash structures and need to ensure that in the event of a crash, the engine will push back and down below the passenger cell will play a part. I don't care how effective a solution this might be -- it smacks of cost-cutting, and it really turns me off.
Every manufacturer makes compromises to contain costs, bearing in mind the price diffierence between the F Type and other rivals such as the Aston V8V, 911, R8 etc, there has to be some compromise in terms of how far you can go.
I am sure Jaguar could have produced a car as light as the 911, with the hand crafted materials and trim of the Aston and with bespoke 6 & 8 Cylinder engines, but the price would then have to be even higher and they probably assumed the Jaguar brand cannot stretch that far yet. They were a long way down the development path of the CX75 which would have rivalled the 918, P1 etc. but Jaguar admitted that they could not push the brand to sell cars at that sort of price particulalrly in the current economic climate - a real shame as I think it looked stunning and showed the strength of thier engineering abilities.
About that V6... so it seems that the outcome is that it is built on the V8-length block and has a V8-length crank. Sorry, not good enough (and I am a big fan of Jaguars). I like engineering, and this is a compromise too far. Jaguars may not be Aston-expensive, but they sure aren't cheap cars. No doubt most buyers won't know or care. But I know, and I care, and it turns me completely off.
Speedraser said:
I seriously doubt that Jaguar would have mounted the V6 as far forward as it did if the engine wasn't as long as the V8. The notion of 50/50 weight distribution being "perfect" is, like so many things, a matter of opinion. Many car companies, including Ferrari (which knows a fair bit about making a car handle), has said that a mildly rear-biased weight-distribution is preferable to 50/50. All of Ferrari's current cars -- front engined models and mid-engined models -- have a rear-biased weight distribution.
About that V6... so it seems that the outcome is that it is built on the V8-length block and has a V8-length crank. Sorry, not good enough (and I am a big fan of Jaguars). I like engineering, and this is a compromise too far. Jaguars may not be Aston-expensive, but they sure aren't cheap cars. No doubt most buyers won't know or care. But I know, and I care, and it turns me completely off.
I can understand how you are arriving at your viewpoint however, if it is such a bad compromise, how come the car drives so well! Surely that is all that matters.About that V6... so it seems that the outcome is that it is built on the V8-length block and has a V8-length crank. Sorry, not good enough (and I am a big fan of Jaguars). I like engineering, and this is a compromise too far. Jaguars may not be Aston-expensive, but they sure aren't cheap cars. No doubt most buyers won't know or care. But I know, and I care, and it turns me completely off.
From a technical point of view, a 50/50 balance is used as optimal because it generally creates a natural tendency to initially understeer, which most manufacturers dial in in order to ensure the car does not throw up any surprises to the unsuspecting driver. The F Type has a very sharp turn in and feels neutral in a corner, it does not oversteer unless it is provoked by power, hence it feels very controllable.
Ferrari and others who set their cars up with an element of rear weight bias do this because they anticipate the cars to be used on track, and they wish to play on their racing heritage. A rear bias is optimal for that type of use as the need to ensure the transfer of mass allows for the need to set the car up for a corner, and ensure their is still plenty of weight over the rear tyres during the corner to ensure their is plenty of grip (sorry if this is over simplified but to go into full details could take forever and require many diagrams!).
Anyway, the point is, the F Type drives and handles exceptionally well, the V6 is a peach of a unit and I think you are worrying too much about what is in effect, an irrelevant but necessary compromise.
michael gould said:
300bhp/ton said:
michael gould said:
Let's face it ....nobody wants to go to the school reunion and have to admit they drive a Jag ! It's almost as bad as asking for a pint of larger with a black current top
Wow you must be really shallow.Jags are a bit like Skoda's .....we all know that Skoda make great cars now .....but I still don't want one......and we all know that It's no longer compulsory to wear a sheepskin coat whilst driving a Jag.....but you probably still feel you should be
Maybe one day I will get over my Jag phobia.
300bhp/ton said:
ok I revise my view, not only do you sound shallow you also appear to be a complete knob also. Shame.
Whoa !Shallow AND a knob.
Methinks you are trying to gain the mantle long held by our infamous friend George.
Personally I don't give a toss, as long as it is nippy and reliable.
Jon39 said:
George, how would I tell it is the RS 'mans version', of the ladies TT ?
They all look the same to me.
Oops, where have I heard that before. ->
It has a chavvy rear spoiler! They all look the same to me.
Oops, where have I heard that before. ->
Properly fast though, 0-60 in 4 seconds. When I tested one you could really surprise people at the traffic lights
Was too uneconomical for daily use though
George29 said:
300bhp/ton said:
you also appear to be a complete knob also. Shame.
A little hypocritical no?300bhp/ton said:
michael gould said:
300bhp/ton said:
michael gould said:
Let's face it ....nobody wants to go to the school reunion and have to admit they drive a Jag ! It's almost as bad as asking for a pint of larger with a black current top
Wow you must be really shallow.Jags are a bit like Skoda's .....we all know that Skoda make great cars now .....but I still don't want one......and we all know that It's no longer compulsory to wear a sheepskin coat whilst driving a Jag.....but you probably still feel you should be
Maybe one day I will get over my Jag phobia.
I was once described by a women as the most arrogant man she had ever met but not been called a "knob" before.....is that some kind of Jag lingo ?
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff