RE: Jaguar F-Type 2.0: Review

[otolith]

Rawwr said:

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.

Possibly with bed wetting and arson?

[craigjm]

They are not going to stop building it because a few people don't like the idea. If you don't like the idea and / or don't have 50k sitting around waiting for a new car then Jaguar aren't gonna care one jot what you think. They will have done their research and the demand is there from significant markets around the world and we have to accept that the UK isn't their primary concern and that people in the U.K. Will want one for various reasons already discussed on this page.

[Domf]

Now many on here, have missed the point of this car in the UK. If you are a successful business person running your own business and your business has a green policy that has tax benefits, then to run a F Type 5 litre V8 as your company car is going to hit the green credentials of your business big time. But run the F type 2.0 4 pot and your credentials remain intact and you get to drive an F Type. Jaguar are well aware that 5 litre cars emitting large C02 could well be banned by many cities around the world in the near future, or taxed to the point were very few customers can afford them, therefore all the motor industry is down sizing. The next generation of Jaguars are likely to be all electric, then the 2.0 petrol will seem the good old days. As for depreciation, there are two camps who will buy this car, business 3 year PCP not worried and the private low mileage owner who probably holds on to the car for 5-10 years and depreciation is not the cliff it is in the early years

[Cotic]

Mr Tidy said:

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?

Good spot! In some ways it is a pity the V6 isn't available in the UK; at least it sounds the part...

[Cotic]

Domf said:

Now many on here, have missed the point of this car in the UK. If you are a successful business person running your own business and your business has a green policy that has tax benefits, then to run a F Type 5 litre V8 as your company car is going to hit the green credentials of your business big time. But run the F type 2.0 4 pot and your credentials remain intact and you get to drive an F Type. Jaguar are well aware that 5 litre cars emitting large C02 could well be banned by many cities around the world in the near future, or taxed to the point were very few customers can afford them, therefore all the motor industry is down sizing. The next generation of Jaguars are likely to be all electric, then the 2.0 petrol will seem the good old days. As for depreciation, there are two camps who will buy this car, business 3 year PCP not worried and the private low mileage owner who probably holds on to the car for 5-10 years and depreciation is not the cliff it is in the early years

Surely one of the points of this car, as referred to in the article, is that it's significantly lighter and more nimble than the V6 and V8?

Although i'd prefer a manual, i'd like to try the 2.0 and 3.0 back-to-back to see how it felt. I'd value handing and ride above a couple of 10ths 0-60, personally; and if it sounded OK, more the better. Alternatively I could spend the £3k saved on a better hi-fi to disguise the noise...

[BenjiS]

The Surveyor said:

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.

Exactly. And that person is never, ever, going to buy an M2.

[Dagnut]

ZX10R NIN said:

Is this car meant for foreign markets that penalise cars over 2000cc.

This is it in a nutshell, at Jaguar offer a range of engines in the same car.

[Fastchas]

I'm not that clue'd up in such matters...but won't this car appeal to the likes of Audi TT drivers who just want the look of the car on offer and would even prefer it to be diesel...?

[culpz]

Ares said:

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.

It appears to be quite the opposite way round really, bar the price.

A quote from EVO's review of the 2.0 Z4; "The sDrive28i might have more power and torque, but its CO2 and mpg figures are identical to the 20i, so if you can stomach a £4165 higher asking price, you’ll gain a considerable wedge of extra performance."

[paralla]

Interesting that all the reviews mention how much weight is saved over the V6 and V8 models but none of them mention its still about 200Kg overweight.

How they make a 4cyl 2.0L Auto sports coupe made of aluminum weigh 1525kg when a 6cyl 3.0L Porsche 911 Auto made mostly from steel weighs only 1450kg remains a mystery.

I can't help thinking making the V6 one 200kg lighter would be a better way to make the thing more efficent.

The 911 has an official combined fuel consumption of 39.2mpg the F-Type is 38.2mpg.

Edited by paralla on Thursday 3rd August 11:32

[EC2]

paralla said:

Interesting that all the reviews mention how much weight is saved over the V6 and V8 models but none of them mention its still about 200Kg overweight.

How they make a 4cyl 2.0L Auto sports coupe made of aluminum weigh 1525kg when a 6cyl 3.0L Porsche 911 Auto made mostly from steel weighs only 1450kg remains a mystery.

I can't help thinking making the V6 one 200kg lighter would be a better way to make the thing more efficent.

The 911 has an official combined fuel consumption of 39.2mpg the F-Type is 38.2mpg.

Edited by paralla on Thursday 3rd August 11:32

+1.

[craigjm]

paralla said:

Interesting that all the reviews mention how much weight is saved over the V6 and V8 models but none of them mention its still about 200Kg overweight.

How they make a 4cyl 2.0L Auto sports coupe made of aluminum weigh 1525kg when a 6cyl 3.0L Porsche 911 Auto made mostly from steel weighs only 1450kg remains a mystery.

I can't help thinking making the V6 one 200kg lighter would be a better way to make the thing more efficent.

The 911 has an official combined fuel consumption of 39.2mpg the F-Type is 38.2mpg.

Edited by paralla on Thursday 3rd August 11:32

Agreed. The F type is built on a shortened chassis of the last XK. Was that a new chassis in 2006? I don't remember or was it carried over form the XK8 which itself used a modified XJS platform?

[paralla]

I think the XK chassis was all new when it was introduced, wasn't that when they switched to Alu from Steel?

[craigjm]

paralla said:

I think the XK chassis was all new when it was introduced, wasn't that when they switched to Alu from Steel?

I believe it was a new platform in 2006 but it may have been based on the alu XJ not sure. It is rather weighty considering its aluminium. It should be similar weight to a 911

[Limpet]

For me, the noise wouldn't be too big a deal as I think the V6 sounds bloody awful. Just LOUD rather than having any sort of pleasant tone or quality to it. I've been in the near vicinity of a few being "booted" now, the most memorable being away from the toll booths on the Severn crossing, and it actually made me wince. Sounds like an old Capri with the baffles missing. The V8 sounds epic of course, but that's in a whole different price bracket (and a whole new world of running costs).

I'd have a drive of one if I were in the market for a car like this. Lighter front end, those gorgeous looks, and hardly a slouch with 300 bhp. As others have said though, it's not exactly a bargain.

[Wills2]

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.

Clearly it isn't a performance car hence the use of quotes, 330d rep mobile performance but a 50k base price in a 2 door sports coupe? 5.7 secs is no faster than the Mrs 10 year old Z4 coupe, how Jaguar think they can charge 2017 money for 2007 performance is anyone's guess.

For the same money Porsche will sell you a Cayman S that hits 62 in 4.6 and 100 in around 10 seconds with handling to match and they're not exactly known for their generous pricing structure.

[craigjm]

Wills2 said:

For the same money Porsche will sell you a Cayman S that hits 62 in 4.6 and 100 in around 10 seconds with handling to match and they're not exactly known for their generous pricing structure.

Exactly so how much do you need to add to the Porsche to make them identical spec for spec?

[Ares]

culpz said:

Ares said:

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.

It appears to be quite the opposite way round really, bar the price.

A quote from EVO's review of the 2.0 Z4; "The sDrive28i might have more power and torque, but its CO2 and mpg figures are identical to the 20i, so if you can stomach a £4165 higher asking price, you’ll gain a considerable wedge of extra performance."

But insurance will be less as a starter, as well as the purchase price. And for a 70+ old fella, there is no upside to the 28i or 25i

[Ares]

Wills2 said:

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.

Clearly it isn't a performance car hence the use of quotes, 330d rep mobile performance but a 50k base price in a 2 door sports coupe? 5.7 secs is no faster than the Mrs 10 year old Z4 coupe, how Jaguar think they can charge 2017 money for 2007 performance is anyone's guess.

For the same money Porsche will sell you a Cayman S that hits 62 in 4.6 and 100 in around 10 seconds with handling to match and they're not exactly known for their generous pricing structure.

Exactly. The issue is the price, not the performance.

[WJNB]

IanCress said:

But then how do you explain plenty of people buying diesel convertibles and sports cars? Merc SLK and Audi TT are two cars that, by your logic, nobody would buy. But people do, so there must be a market for this sort of car.

Mercedes dealers nationwide are lumbered with diesel SLK's gathering dust as they clutter up their forecourts. Now that diesels are a dirty word how the hell are they going to be sold, less 50% perhaps?