anybody here got an F type?

[Riccardino]

What a complicated discussion throwing in even a long series of very different cars from 1976 and a lot of personal opinions . Do you really make all those considerations before buying an Aston or a Jaguar (two cars that certainly require a lot of irrational thinking to be bought)?
If you really want the best value for cash just buy a Caterham which also keeps the value brilliantly

For me the key aspects are that I disagree that the V8 version cannot compete with Aston, Porsche, etc. and that the F-Type is not clearly positioned
The V8 certainly does not compete with Boxster and Cayman (there eventually it is the V6 version the right competitor)
The F-Type range is between a 911 and a Cayman compared to Porsche and can compete with both based on the model/engine
I think that is probably more evident for the F-Type coupe vs the convertible

The interior of the Aston is probably more upmarket and the name Aston can make the difference but the F-Type has a lot of qualities and can compete and probably win in any other aspect and it is certainly superior dinamically.
Obviously everybody decides based on what they consider more important, each on their own

The F-Type has a lot of potential options (which is probably also related to the fact that it is a product which is newer to the now rather old V8 Vantage and does also offer more opportunities for personalization in line with the recent trends) which can make the price grow but even in base version for the V8 is probably as equipped (and probably even better) as a V8 Vantage

I do not see what is preventing you from buying one if you like it (eventually used if you find it too expensive)
I think the convertible could have had more success if priced at the level of the coupe but if you consider a new car too expensice there are quite a few examples available at a much lower price. Eventually Jaguar will have to face the fact that some initial buyers are annoyed by the depreciation

If you simply do not want to buy it than just don't do it, no need to make all those considerations that you wish well to Jaguar and you even bought the personalised plate etc
Would be interesting to know which kind of car do you drive now and what are the alternatives to the F-Type that you are considering if you are on the market now?


PS: very interesting the £/PS figure

Edited by Riccardino on Wednesday 22 April 13:52

[johnxjsc1985]

At present I think the F type stands alone quite nicely whether it takes buyers away from Porsche or Aston Martin I am not too sure about.
I think it will attract many people who would not have considered Jaguar before simply for one reason...
ITS ONE HELL OF A CAR.

[cardigankid]

It is an interesting figure but it would be even more interesting if you divide it by the weight of the car. That is the point I suspect at which the Cayman or Boxster GTS squares up to the F Type V6 and V6S. Can you really add a V8 engine and have something that competes in the rarefied 100k plus market? I'm sceptical.

The problem with 2013 F Types is that a hell of a lot of them were used for Driving Experiences and that was a pretty hard life.

The F is a great car, I don't doubt, but they need to sort out the weight, and the luggage space. Then it will be in a class of its own, and people will pay the premium. Or bring the cost down in one way or another then they will sell like hot cakes because they are irresistible.

For me, if I am looking for a deluxe high performance sports convertible, I look at the Morgan, but dismiss it fairly quickly, then I would consider the Boxster and the F Type. Caterham is nice but for me too exposed and too much like a motor bike.

[Riccardino]

Just to clarify
I am sure that if we want to find criticisms not to buy something we can find them easily (and we can probably find something for any car out there)

Certainly the price could be lower, the weight could be less and the boot of the convertible could have been bigger (but you can always buy a coupe).

Having said that just to be a little bit objective a few comparison based on real dta may show that actually the F-type can be very competitive

Again it is a range of product and the positioning is clear and is also related to the engine selection (funnily if you look at sites and magazine around they have compared the F-Type with all the competitors and even more)

For the data below I have used this link for F-Types (http://www.jaguar.com/jaguar-range/f-type/pricing-specs/dimensions-weight.html), this (http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/boxster/boxster-s/featuresandspecs/) for the Boxster and this (http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/cayman/cayman-s/featuresandspecs/) for the Cayman


Certainly the boot size for the F-Type convertible is limited with 196lt vs the two little boots for the Boxster that are only 150 and 130 but with a total of 280. The Coupe is in a much better situation with 407Lt

Interesting the weight/HP ratio given that you were complaining about the weight. Overall the weight is definitively higher vs the competitors of the V6 (but certainly not for the competitors of the V8) but the ratio is not bad

F-Type Convertible Manual
Power 340, weight 1587, kg/hp 4.66
Power 380, weight 1604, kg/hp 4.22

Boxster S Manual
Power 315, weight 1340, kg/hp 4.25


F-Type Coupe Manual
Power 340, weight 1567, kg/hp 4.60
Power 380, weight 1584, kg/hp 4.16

Cayman S Manual
Power 325, weight 1340, kg/hp 4.12


Not so bad after all for the F-Type. Less weight could have been good and certainly the Boxster is better dinamically but in term of overall driving experience ...

Are there really so many used for Driving Experiences? Is that clearly written in the ads or how do you know that (I am really interested to be sure I can recognised them)

I do believe that in the F-Type the engine makes a huge difference in terms of character, driving experience (went to the driving experience and drove the V6S and the V8s convertible and they are very different) etc
The interior is between a Boxster and a Vantage IMHO

For the prices the old V8S was starting from 79985, the new V8R with 550 HP costs from 90,855.00 and they come with a good standard equipment. It would be interesting to see what would be the cost of a similarly equipped V8 Vantage convertible (I do not really have the time to do that but I guess you have looked into this so you might post that here). Maybe then there would also be a considerable advantage also in price

[volvos60s60]

Riccardino, regarding the Driving Experience cars, a clue might be that the first registered owner was Jaguar.....

[lady topaz]

Just to throw another perspective into the mix, I am confused with my F Type R coupe.

It's almost too perfect!

I love the looks, performance when needed, handling, sound. Love the cabin. It is, after 8,000 miles almost faultless and I adore it. It's rarity leads to loads of positive remarks.

So I honestly don't know why I am confused.

I think I miss the drama of the V12V but pound for pound the R is a no brainer. For an every day car it is a far superior.

I still have an itch for a DBS, and there will be a new generation of Vantages soon, but then again at probably twice the price of the Jaguar.

1st world problems, eh!

I think this is one of the reasons why people find it puzzling where the F Type fits. It crosses over so many Marques and models. What I do know it is a phenomenal car and a model Jaguar can be rightly proud of.

Happy to stick with mine for now.

[johnxjsc1985]

lady topaz said:

Just to throw another perspective into the mix, I am confused with my F Type R coupe.

It's almost too perfect!

I love the looks, performance when needed, handling, sound. Love the cabin. It is, after 8,000 miles almost faultless and I adore it. It's rarity leads to loads of positive remarks.

So I honestly don't know why I am confused.

I think I miss the drama of the V12V but pound for pound the R is a no brainer. For an every day car it is a far superior.

I still have an itch for a DBS, and there will be a new generation of Vantages soon, but then again at probably twice the price of the Jaguar.

1st world problems, eh!

I think this is one of the reasons why people find it puzzling where the F Type fits. It crosses over so many Marques and models. What I do know it is a phenomenal car and a model Jaguar can be rightly proud of.

Happy to stick with mine for now.

I think it stands alone quite well and I dont think it will be just Jaguar lovers who will buy it.
Making it a two seater was the best thing they could do because they have tried and failed for 35 years to get a back seat into a Jag Coupe and it has never worked.

[a8hex]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I think it stands alone quite well and I dont think it will be just Jaguar lovers who will buy it.
Making it a two seater was the best thing they could do because they have tried and failed for 35 years to get a back seat into a Jag Coupe and it has never worked.

But if there are only 2 seats where are you going to chuck your jacket etc?
With the XKR the rear "seats" are just perfect for things like coats and the like. With the X300 (surely a Coupe which just happens to have 4 doors) I always found the rear seats to be just that little bit to far back to able to easily reach things when you were getting out.

[Riccardino]

volvos60s60 said:

Riccardino, regarding the Driving Experience cars, a clue might be that the first registered owner was Jaguar.....

good point

[johnxjsc1985]

a8hex said:

But if there are only 2 seats where are you going to chuck your jacket etc?
With the XKR the rear "seats" are just perfect for things like coats and the like. With the X300 (surely a Coupe which just happens to have 4 doors) I always found the rear seats to be just that little bit to far back to able to easily reach things when you were getting out.

extra weight, extra chassis length just for somewhere to put your coat.

[Riccardino]

Just to please both of you can we just have the F-Type and a new XK with 4 seats

[a8hex]

johnxjsc1985 said:

a8hex said:

But if there are only 2 seats where are you going to chuck your jacket etc?
With the XKR the rear "seats" are just perfect for things like coats and the like. With the X300 (surely a Coupe which just happens to have 4 doors) I always found the rear seats to be just that little bit to far back to able to easily reach things when you were getting out.

extra weight, extra chassis length just for somewhere to put your coat.

Back when you could choose, the FHC, DHC (both being 2+2s) and OTS versions of XKs where all the same length. As for weight, well it hard to know what an original XK should weight since no ones period tested figures match the factories quoted ones, but the FIA figures for an XK150 are actually less for the 2+2 FHC than for the purely 2 seater OTS model.

[a8hex]

Riccardino said:

Just to please both of you can we just have the F-Type and a new XK with 4 seats

And as well as a 2+2 XK I'd like to see a proper 4 seater coupe model.

[johnxjsc1985]

a8hex said:

Back when you could choose, the FHC, DHC (both being 2+2s) and OTS versions of XKs where all the same length. As for weight, well it hard to know what an original XK should weight since no ones period tested figures match the factories quoted ones, but the FIA figures for an XK150 are actually less for the 2+2 FHC than for the purely 2 seater OTS model.

wind up windows no A/c no central locking etc all adds to the weight but if you give me th eoption of a XK150 or an F type I would bite your arm off for the XK150

[Pintofbest]

volvos60s60 said:

Riccardino, regarding the Driving Experience cars, a clue might be that the first registered owner was Jaguar.....

Unfortunately all the ones on the company car scheme will have Jag as the first owner as well so you'd be discounting a lot of potential options.

[unrepentant]

cardigankid said:

Where is the F Type in that scheme? That is the big question. It simply isn't a 911 competitor - it's a totally different type of car. It is a Cayman / Boxster rival, but it's just too expensive. At 100k I am either going to buy an Aston, which is that little bit classier, or stretch to a McLaren, which is in a totally different class.

I completely disagree with that. The V8 competes very well with the 911. It's way prettier, nicer to drive, faster, more powerful etc... If you drive them on the track the Jag feels more balanced and "connected" and is quicker IMO than the Porsche. To get equivalent power you need to buy a 911 Turbo which is way more expensive. On the road the Jag is just nicer all round. Jaguar have had more conquests to the F-Type from the 911 than any other car and there's a reason for that.

To compare it with the McLaren is just silly IMO.

[johnxjsc1985]

unrepentant said:

I completely disagree with that. The V8 competes very well with the 911. It's way prettier, nicer to drive, faster, more powerful etc... If you drive them on the track the Jag feels more balanced and "connected" and is quicker IMO than the Porsche. To get equivalent power you need to buy a 911 Turbo which is way more expensive. On the road the Jag is just nicer all round. Jaguar have had more conquests to the F-Type from the 911 than any other car and there's a reason for that.

To compare it with the McLaren is just silly IMO.

I totally agree with Clarkson when it comes to Porsche they are the laziest design studio in motoring.
I know some people for some perverse reason do not want Jaguar to succed but they need to stop attacking the F type because it is a fantastic car

[a8hex]

johnxjsc1985 said:

a8hex said:

Back when you could choose, the FHC, DHC (both being 2+2s) and OTS versions of XKs where all the same length. As for weight, well it hard to know what an original XK should weight since no ones period tested figures match the factories quoted ones, but the FIA figures for an XK150 are actually less for the 2+2 FHC than for the purely 2 seater OTS model.

wind up windows no A/c no central locking etc all adds to the weight but if you give me th eoption of a XK150 or an F type I would bite your arm off for the XK150

At least with the XK150 the OTS had wind up windows. The XK120 & XK140 OTS had side screens, they're even lighter.
AC, well the manual tells me it has AC. The marketing department called the little flaps that open into the footwell AC. It works well too, as long as all this modern traffic stuff doesn't make you slow down.
Central locking? Well when I sit in the drivers seat I can reach to open the passenger door, does that count

I really must have a go in an F-Type one day.

[johnxjsc1985]

a8hex said:

At least with the XK150 the OTS had wind up windows. The XK120 & XK140 OTS had side screens, they're even lighter.
AC, well the manual tells me it has AC. The marketing department called the little flaps that open into the footwell AC. It works well too, as long as all this modern traffic stuff doesn't make you slow down.
Central locking? Well when I sit in the drivers seat I can reach to open the passenger door, does that count

I really must have a go in an F-Type one day.

Still think that Era of cars could not be produced today. These computer Thingy's have a lot to answer for

[a8hex]

johnxjsc1985 said:

a8hex said:

At least with the XK150 the OTS had wind up windows. The XK120 & XK140 OTS had side screens, they're even lighter.
AC, well the manual tells me it has AC. The marketing department called the little flaps that open into the footwell AC. It works well too, as long as all this modern traffic stuff doesn't make you slow down.
Central locking? Well when I sit in the drivers seat I can reach to open the passenger door, does that count

I really must have a go in an F-Type one day.

Still think that Era of cars could not be produced today. These computer Thingy's have a lot to answer for

Nah they'd never allow those cars to be be made again.
Too many rules
Too much red tape
and too many people thinking we should never be allowed that much fun with our cloths on

Wish I had a video of the last time my XK150 got to play on the track a few weeks ago with CKL at the wheel