RE: Jaguar F-Type 2.0: Review

[Wills2]

I just don't get the F-type, slower, heavier and more expensive than any competitor throughout the range, they must have some good sales people at JLR.

I'm guessing no rice pudding skins were harmed during this test of a 50k "performance car"

[s m]

daveco said:

Yipper said:

A lovely-looking thing, but too slow for its pricepoint.

It either needs 100bhp more for ~£50k, or £10-15k chopping off the current price.

5.7 seconds to 60 is slow?

On here it is apparently. A Ford Sierra saloon from nearly 30 years ago was that fast and that, as the experts will tell you, is no quicker than a new 320d

[tubs]

If you are spending 50 k + on a sports car......you want it sound like a sports car!!

[Mr Tidy]

Cotic said:

Don't forget the market is bigger than the UK - a 2.0 engine has massive tax benefits in China, for example - where this car would cost a lot less than the 3.0.

Either way, it's more choice. Is there another coupe/roadster which is currently offered both as a 4, 6, and 8? I can't think of one...

Mustang springs to mind - even if we don't get the 6 in the UK! (But then the V8 Mustang is way cheaper than the 4-pot Shaguar)! Why would you?

[otolith]

PH really doesn't do empathy, does it? "I don't want one of those, therefore nobody wants one". There are loads of things I don't want, including four pot Jags, which sell bucketloads.

[Debaser]

tubs said:

If you are spending 50 k + on a sports car......you want it sound like a sports car!!

People who buy a 718 Boxster / Cayman obviously aren't too bothered.

[Ares]

daemon said:

No, clearly its not Jaguars price difference - as per the post i quoted in the first place its £3,600. It is however the price i'd be expecting a dealer to meet.

For info, theres £4,350 between Fords 4 banger mustang auto and the v8 auto.

Edited by daemon on Wednesday 2nd August 20:31

Fair comment. I was going on Clarkson's article in Driving. Maybe he was talking about the price he'd expect a dealer to meet

[Rawwr]

otolith said:

PH really doesn't do empathy, does it? "I don't want one of those, therefore nobody wants one". There are loads of things I don't want, including four pot Jags, which sell bucketloads.

I imagine there are a lot of people on PH who killed family pets as a child.

[Ares]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Anyone who buys this in the UK, Germany or the US, (or anywhere similar) needs to be lobotomised.

Its meant for markets where purchase and road tax is calculated on either engine capacity or the nasty wee C O twooooos.

As an example:

Netherlands:

4 cylinder: from €72k (€22k in tax)

6 cylinder: from €113k (€56k in tax)

8 cylinder: from €180k (€81k in tax)

Here in NL I can see it making sense, but to buy in the UK and save only €2k over the V6 is madness. Dilution of the brand image IMO as well, but I think ill be in the minority with that view.

But it's not just the upfront saving. Aside from some people (greater proportion given Jag's current target market) just aren't interested in engine note or outright performance, the insurance, fuel, emissions etc saving on the 2.0 would be a pull for some. Not me, not you, but I suspect neither of us are tempted by a V6/V8 F-Type either?

As mentioned above, my Father in Law is looking at Z4s. He's immediately turned off by the 35i - doesn't need the power, doesn't want the cost. The performance of the 4-pot is more than adequate for what he wants. Same reason people buy the SL350 not the 500. Even with the 4-pot, it's not a slow car.

[Ares]

g4ry13 said:

craigjm said:

g4ry13 said:

4 cylinders and 2 litres for an F Type? GET OUT!

The people who came up with that idea should be fired.

They said that about the birth of the XJS
They said that about the death of the v12
They said that about the introduction of diesel
They said that about selling the company to the Indians

It's called progress. Without it there would be no Jaguar

I wouldn't call these 4 cylinder pots progress. Porsche Boxster, Mercedes AMG models with 4 cylinders and a string of other cars are now worse as a result of scaling down the engine.

Why would anyone spend £49k on this car when they can buy a BMW M2 which is cheaper, more powerful, faster and has 6 cylinders?

Worse? With the exception of the engine note (which is nothing like as bad a people make out) the 718 is a better car than it's predecessors. It is progress.

The only 4-pot AMG has never had anything other than a 4-pot.


And think of the F-Type target market. The grey haired market. Are they really going to be comparing a swift sports coupe/mini-GT with a hard focussed sports car like the M2? Hardly. Certainly not in any numbers.

[Ares]

Wills2 said:

I just don't get the F-type, slower, heavier and more expensive than any competitor throughout the range, they must have some good sales people at JLR.

I'm guessing no rice pudding skins were harmed during this test of a 50k "performance car"

Expensive, yes. But it's not slow. A base model that is mid-5s to 60? Thats not slow....and this isn't a performance car.

[RobM77]

Ares said:

Wills2 said:

I just don't get the F-type, slower, heavier and more expensive than any competitor throughout the range, they must have some good sales people at JLR.

I'm guessing no rice pudding skins were harmed during this test of a 50k "performance car"

Expensive, yes. But it's not slow. A base model that is mid-5s to 60? Thats not slow....and this isn't a performance car.

It's also not necessarily what people want from a car like this. I realise it sounds odd to a car enthusiast, but I'm sure most buyers of SLKs, F Types and similar aren't that fussed about the weight or the performance, they just don't need back seats and want something that looks sporty. I don't know any F Type owners, but this is definitely the case for the SLK owners that I know.

[daemon]

Ares said:

daemon said:

No, clearly its not Jaguars price difference - as per the post i quoted in the first place its £3,600. It is however the price i'd be expecting a dealer to meet.

For info, theres £4,350 between Fords 4 banger mustang auto and the v8 auto.

Edited by daemon on Wednesday 2nd August 20:31

Fair comment. I was going on Clarkson's article in Driving. Maybe he was talking about the price he'd expect a dealer to meet

There was some price increases recently, maybe it was before that. Either way, i'd personally find it hard to walk past a 3.0 v6 variant to "save" two or three thousand on a four pot. I can see why others might, and i am sure it will sell, but wouldnt be for me personally.

[The Surveyor]

Wills2 said:

I just don't get the F-type, slower, heavier and more expensive than any competitor throughout the range, they must have some good sales people at JLR.

I'm guessing no rice pudding skins were harmed during this test of a 50k "performance car"

Yes but look at it, they are properly gorgeous (subjective I know) but to most people the 'Jaguar' name carries a lot of kudos, the 'F Type' name reminds people of the glorious Jaguars of the past, and for many people that's much more important than numbers in a magazine road test.

The fact that they have launched the 4-pot as an addition to the range can only improve sales, especially as they are still keeping the other engine line-up. A point I made before, it's not the same as Porsche swapping the flat-6 for a 4 pot turbo, Jaguar still have the V6 and V8 models in the range. Win win.

[Ares]

daemon said:

Ares said:

daemon said:

No, clearly its not Jaguars price difference - as per the post i quoted in the first place its £3,600. It is however the price i'd be expecting a dealer to meet.

For info, theres £4,350 between Fords 4 banger mustang auto and the v8 auto.

Edited by daemon on Wednesday 2nd August 20:31

Fair comment. I was going on Clarkson's article in Driving. Maybe he was talking about the price he'd expect a dealer to meet

There was some price increases recently, maybe it was before that. Either way, i'd personally find it hard to walk past a 3.0 v6 variant to "save" two or three thousand on a four pot. I can see why others might, and i am sure it will sell, but wouldnt be for me personally.

You and me both.

But we are in the minority.

And In fairness, I wouldn't walk into the Jaguar dealership in the first place

[r1monkey]

The reason the manual 6 cal jag accounts for 5% of sales is that it costs over £500 a year to tax whereas the auto costs £300 due to stupid emission bands that were another government bulls*t lie, to make more money.
That has been proven by the latest car tax system where the price of the car affects the car tax you pay ,rather than its emissions .
lies ,lies ,lies.

[cerb4.5lee]

I think it's a good move because the average buyer of these will be over 70 and the V8 is likely to be too much to handle, so that's where the steady Eddie 4 pot comes in to hit the spot, Jag know their buyer demographic well.

From a business point of view the 4 pot is a no brainer for sure.

[culpz]

Ares said:

As mentioned above, my Father in Law is looking at Z4s. He's immediately turned off by the 35i - doesn't need the power, doesn't want the cost. The performance of the 4-pot is more than adequate for what he wants. Same reason people buy the SL350 not the 500. Even with the 4-pot, it's not a slow car.

Is your FIL aware how surprisingly frugal and also very reliable the 6-pots are within the BMW range? It's not all about having power because you need it. It's quite rare that anyone would really need that sort of power anyway but it's more of a desire to go with the styling and have the complete package.

4-pot petrol units aren't really BMW's forte but the sixes are tried and tested. In fact, some of the 4-cylinder petrol engines have been hideously unreliable and not actually that great on fuel either for the adequate performance that they provide.

[jakesmith]

culpz said:

I never said that the 4-pot F-Type is not a sports car. I said that a diesel TT/SLK are not sports cars. I was trying to compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges.

'sports car' like 'supercar' is a completely subjective word that has no universally accepted definition.

Sports car? Daihatsu Copen? Diesel SLK? Z4 35i? Some people would consider a Golf GTi a sports car
Supercar? R8? 997 turbo? Ferarri 360?

I am sure that most F-Type 2.0 drivers will consider it a sports car as do 718 owners. I am sure that all SLK diesel owners consider it a sports car

[Ares]

culpz said:

Ares said:

As mentioned above, my Father in Law is looking at Z4s. He's immediately turned off by the 35i - doesn't need the power, doesn't want the cost. The performance of the 4-pot is more than adequate for what he wants. Same reason people buy the SL350 not the 500. Even with the 4-pot, it's not a slow car.

Is your FIL aware how surprisingly frugal and also very reliable the 6-pots are within the BMW range? It's not all about having power because you need it. It's quite rare that anyone would really need that sort of power anyway but it's more of a desire to go with the styling and have the complete package.

4-pot petrol units aren't really BMW's forte but the sixes are tried and tested. In fact, some of the 4-cylinder petrol engines have been hideously unreliable and not actually that great on fuel either for the adequate performance that they provide.

Yes, but for him the 35i holds no benefit whereas the 4-pot does have USPs relevant to him.