RE: Jaguar F-Type 2.0 vs. Porsche 718 Cayman

[J4CKO]

cardigankid said:

Unfortunately the engine noise is one of the things you buy a sports car for, and both of these engines suck. Ridiculously expensive - both of them - for 4 cylinder cars. Bring back the TR6.

So, give away 150 bhp and all that progress for two cylinders and some proto fuel injection, TR6 is a lovely old thing but that is what it is old, its like the post Brexit utopia s many seem to think is coming, when realistically, aside from high days and holidays, a TR6 would be an unmitigated pain in the arse, reckon that Boxster would be more fun, more of the time.

Old cars are a nice idea, mine is 17 but they are generally differing degrees of rubbish, with a bit of charm and some added interaction, generally over eulogised and modern stuff over villified, truth is somewhere inbetween.

[cardigankid]

I didn't mean actually buy a TR6, I meant how could there be a range of sports cars in the 60's and 70's with meaty six cylinder engines, like the TR6, E Type, or V8's like the Triumph Stag, TVR's, and today we are expected to pay 70k for a four cylinder which sounds rubbish. Just no way.

As to what I have, at the moment I am in saving up mode, so I only have a 2005 XK8, a 2001 CL500 and an old Bentley, all of which are V8's and not especially noisy, but I have had Honda S2000, Triumph TR5 PI, 996 Carrera 4S, a Boxster GTS (981) and Aston Martin DBS, some of which sounded truly epic, trust me. before that Fiat X1/9 (new) and E Type V12, plus a few XKR's and XJR's.

I just don't want either of those cars, which is pretty basic. if that's what you get today for that money, stuff it.

Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 13th March 08:38

[Rawwr]

cardigankid said:

Unfortunately the engine noise is one of the things you buy a sports car for

Unfortunately, the engine noise is one of the things you buy a sports car for.

[J4CKO]

cardigankid said:

I didn't mean actually buy a TR6, I meant how could there be a range of sports cars in the 60's and 70's with meaty six cylinder engines, like the TR6, E Type, or V8's like the Triumph Stag, TVR's, and today we are expected to pay 70k for a four cylinder which sounds rubbish. Just no way.

Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 13th March 08:38

How about,

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

?

[boitjie]

CM954 said:

rockin said:

jonm01 said:

Cayman would be perfect if they just sorted the gear ratios. The long gearing spoils it.

The manual car has 6 gears,

• If you don't like 6th , use 5th
• If you don't like 5th , use 4th
• If you don't like 4th , use 3rd
• If you don't like 3rd, use 2nd
• If you don't like 2nd, use 1st

Or is there something I've missed?

I'd wondered this too and assumed it would have something to do with the gap between 1st and 2nd being too large (and maybe something to do with synchromesh??) as to why in reality this isn't a solution. ie - it's just awkward and leaves the engine out of it's sweet spot too often.

This thing about the long gear ratios is an "issue" people latch onto because the journalists comment on it. And have these people even driven one??? It's a load of bks.

I have a manual 718 Cayman GTS. It has peak torque from 1900->5500 RPM. I don't think I've wished the gear ratio was shorter because it isn't pulling hard enough or isn't in the sweet spot - it does have a very large sweet spot!

[boitjie]

Paddy78 said:

Something to do with the fact that you can do 70mph in 2nd... Kind of rendering all other gears useless if revving out at legal speeds. You get to do one gear change and then stay in 2nd for the rest of your drive out in the country. £1500 fixes that with a diff and final drive, but would also probably ruin you fuel economy.

60, 70 in second what difference does it make? Shorter gear ratios won't give you better 0-62 times, the torque curve is so broad and flat. And it's kinda cool to be able to hit the speed limit in 2nd!

[boitjie]

chelme said:

I thought the 440i had a 3.5 litre straight six turbo. I may be wrong -check it out.

3.0 straight six turbo. Traded mine in for a Cayman. BMW is really dull compared to the Cayman.

[CABC]

boitjie said:

This thing about the long gear ratios is an "issue" people latch onto because the journalists comment on it. And have these people even driven one??? It's a load of bks.

I have a manual 718 Cayman GTS. It has peak torque from 1900->5500 RPM. I don't think I've wished the gear ratio was shorter because it isn't pulling hard enough or isn't in the sweet spot - it does have a very large sweet spot!

it's a matter of taste. some prefer a spirited drive using power, others are happy driving torque. These are different experiences.
i can't see torque as good for a spirited drive.

[TameRacingDriver]

boitjie said:

This thing about the long gear ratios is an "issue" people latch onto because the journalists comment on it. And have these people even driven one??? It's a load of bks.

Clearly, you've not driven a Celica 190 then. If there was one car ruined by tall gear ratios, that was it (or you could argue, ruined by an overly narrow power band).

[boitjie]

TameRacingDriver said:

boitjie said:

This thing about the long gear ratios is an "issue" people latch onto because the journalists comment on it. And have these people even driven one??? It's a load of bks.

Clearly, you've not driven a Celica 190 then. If there was one car ruined by tall gear ratios, that was it (or you could argue, ruined by an overly narrow power band).

That maybe the case with the Celica (and a 981 Cayman), but with the 718 Cayman there is no issue. If the gearing is too long change sooner :-)

[cardigankid]

Rawwr said:

cardigankid said:

Unfortunately the engine noise is one of the things you buy a sports car for

Unfortunately, the engine noise is one of the things you buy a sports car for.

Yes I do. The most exciting car I ever drove was a 996.1 Carrera which had some kind of Powerkit or similar engine. It went like stink and it howled like a wolf. I have been trying to recover that experience ever since. I also drove a relatively old (95?) BMW 320i with a dodgy exhaust. That was fun too, I should have bought it. That is what I want. I also had a 2001 3.2 Boxster S - it was extremely fast, it handled beautifully and it looked superb. maybe I should have had the sports exhaust and bucket seats. Was it exciting? Well, no, actually. It was a great way to lose your licence because it was pretty anodyne most of the time and only got exciting at extremely high speeds. By contrast, a TR5, with its basic mechanical feel, traditional non-electronic handling and growling 2.5 litre straight six, was an immediate adrenaline rush every time you got into it.

An F Type is frustrating because it so nearly does the same, but it is too heavy, it has no luggage space and the auto transmission feels like a '73 Ford Granada. I've driven a V6S, and a V8 but not an SVR.

Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 13th March 18:57

[blackmme]

cardigankid said:

An F Type is frustrating because it so nearly does the same, but it is too heavy, it has no luggage space and the auto transmission feels like a '73 Ford Granada. I've driven a V6S, and a V8 but not an SVR.

Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 13th March 18:57

I can only agree about the weight (how on earth have they made it that heavy) but must disagree on your other points.

The box is a ZF8 which no amount of hyperbole could ever stretch to comparing to a 1973 Granada auto.

The luggage space is a reasonable (for a sports car anyway) 408 litres which as it is available in a single space I find rather more useful than the split 130/275 in a Cayman (given that the Cayman is smaller all round that is a good effort though). Mrs B and I can get two large case in the F-Type with a bit of cajoling, the last holiday they had 30kgs in each, this Saturday though it’s only 23kg in each but I think that’s entirely acceptable for something not designed as a load lugger.
I did nearly blow a fuse though when she’d had it just a week and loaded paving slabs into the back of it!

Regards Mike

[cardigankid]

That was a bit hyperbolic I must admit. The ZF box is very very good. But I test drove a 400 back to back with a PDK equipped 718. PDK made the ZF box seem a bit slow to react. The F Type engine was 300% better than the Porsche one. On luggage I was thinking of the convertible. I accept that the coupe is a lot better.

[anonymous-user]

cardigankid said:

That was a bit hyperbolic I must admit. The ZF box is very very good. But I test drove a 400 back to back with a PDK equipped 718. PDK made the ZF box seem a bit slow to react. The F Type engine was 300% better than the Porsche one. On luggage I was thinking of the convertible. I accept that the coupe is a lot better.

Why don't you just accept you're simply not cut out for sports cars? By all means potter about and enjoy your old barges but there's no point coming into a sports car thread and saying you don't like them. I'm sure there's a forum somewhere to suit you tastes.

[Rawwr]

cardigankid said:

Yes I do. The most exciting car I ever drove was a 996.1 Carrera which had some kind of Powerkit or similar engine. It went like stink and it howled like a wolf. I have been trying to recover that experience ever since. I also drove a relatively old (95?) BMW 320i with a dodgy exhaust. That was fun too, I should have bought it. That is what I want. I also had a 2001 3.2 Boxster S - it was extremely fast, it handled beautifully and it looked superb. maybe I should have had the sports exhaust and bucket seats. Was it exciting? Well, no, actually. It was a great way to lose your licence because it was pretty anodyne most of the time and only got exciting at extremely high speeds. By contrast, a TR5, with its basic mechanical feel, traditional non-electronic handling and growling 2.5 litre straight six, was an immediate adrenaline rush every time you got into it.

I drove a 340R. It had a peaky nail of a poked Metro engine, which sounded like an angry teenager emptying a dishwasher. It was one of the most exciting cars I've ever driven.

[cardigankid]

rockin said:

Why don't you just accept you're simply not cut out for sports cars? By all means potter about and enjoy your old barges but there's no point coming into a sports car thread and saying you don't like them. I'm sure there's a forum somewhere to suit you tastes.

Ooooh, catty!

I've had plenty of sports cars, I'm just saying that what you get for your money these days is not that great. maybe the whole EU emissions thing has gone too far. Unfortunately I am too tall to fit in an Elise, or a Exige or a 340R.

[CABC]

rockin said:

Why don't you just accept you're simply not cut out for sports cars? By all means potter about and enjoy your old barges but there's no point coming into a sports car thread and saying you don't like them. I'm sure there's a forum somewhere to suit you tastes.

this thread is about sports cars? !
these are sporty GT cars imo.

[Rawwr]

CABC said:

this thread is about sports cars? !
these are sporty GT cars imo.

I think I'd class the 718 as a sports car but probably not the F-Type but let's not start down that road

[DonkeyApple]

Rawwr said:

CABC said:

this thread is about sports cars? !
these are sporty GT cars imo.

I think I'd class the 718 as a sports car but probably not the F-Type but let's not start down that road

It is a can of worms isn’t it. By traditional metrics both cars are very comfortable and brilliant mile munchers, both have the torque pushed lower down so you don’t have to be uncouth and rev much above a few thousand and both have space for the passenger’s handbag and travel case so they really are both GTs by traditional metrics.

Yet they probably both are marketed at sports cars which is probably correct in the modern world but they are awfully practical, comfortable and lazy to fit any traditional sports car metric of old.

And then there is the fact that they are 4 pot bangers so for the wife as anything more would be a waste but with ‘give it some Gary’ bits bolted on so for kids who can’t afford the bigger models.

I think it’s hard to get them to fit the traditional stereotypes and you could certainly argue until the cows come home any side of the argument quite logically.

They are both Titanic cars. But does that mean Titanic is in ‘women and children’ first?

[CABC]

of course it's a can of worms!

'sports cars' aren't about outright performance but 'intent'. for me, huge dollops of lazy low down torque is a signal against sporty intent. then there's weight, auto gearboxes and torque vectoring.