Friday 29th November 2013

Cheaper F-Type looms

Four-cylinder turbo being assessed to create sub-£50K coupe

---

A more affordable Jaguar F-Type could be in the pipeline powered by Jaguar's new high-performance four-cylinder turbo engine, PH has learned.

Still want one with a four-cylinder turbo?

The man in charge of the F-Type engineering, vehicle line director Ian Hoban, told us at the LA show that putting the new 'Hotfire' engines into the roadster and newly revealed coupe is a distinct possibility.

"There's a whole host of powertrains, drivelines, transmissions, that are not particularly challenging to put into the car," he said. "I think there is great potential in high-output turbocharged four-cylinders."

Jag has already officially announced that its new four-cylinder engines are powerful enough to take the new aluminum X-Type replacement due in 2015 to a maximum speed of 186mph, so we know they'll be up to the job.

That top speed, coincidentally, is the same as Jaguar quotes for the V8 F-Type R Coupe. This is one serious four-cylinder turbo then, even if we still don't know the exact outputs of the Wolverhampton-built petrol and diesels. One challenge is to get the noise right, according to Hoban. He acknowledges there's plenty of synthetic solutions out there but says the noise has "got to be authentic".

F-Type's noise a big selling point after all...

A four-cylinder is far more likely than a hybrid version of the F-Type. That was on cards after the original concept was shown powered by a working petrol/electric drivetrain. But a senior source within the company told us this week that was "not a priority".

As well as the likely miniscule take-up in this sports car market, the hybrid would also likely push the weight up too much. The F-Type is already pretty hefty, weighing from 1,577kg for the entry V6 Coupe.

We asked Hoban about this and he told us that if you stripped out too much weight, you wouldn't get the stiffness. "It's balancing act between weight and stiffness for the dynamic capacity of the car," he said. "A lot of work went into getting stiffness into the car, and that translated to a precise steering response. But it also adds weight." It's a trade-off for steering feedback and handling basically, is his argument. He reckons the coupe's body is almost twice as stiff as that of the roadster, which bodes very well for its on-road handling.

In the UK we'll buy the hardtop F-Type in the main, global head of product marketing Steven De Ploey told us. He reckons the split between coupe and roadster will be 70:30 in the UK, against a likely half-half split globally.

 

 

[matbat]

Not sure... this seems to me like trying to fix what isn't broken.

[ewenm]

Seems like a sensible idea as long as it is in addition to the V6 and V8 models, not instead of them. Why not offer the car to more potential buyers?

[Frimley111R]

Good idea. They'll sell more and that's always a good thing. After all, as an example, the BMW M5 may be awesome but 90% of people buy the 520d.

[myhandle]

I don't think a 4cylinder is a problem as such. There are some charismatic 4cyl sounds - the hotter Imprezas, Cooper S JCW, Integrale and Abarth Tributo Ferrari all sound special, and all of them go down the road well enough. A four is not an 8, but not every four is of the diesel rentacar hell variety.

[paranoid airbag]

ewenm said:

Seems like a sensible idea as long as it is in addition to the V6 and V8 models, not instead of them. Why not offer the car to more potential buyers?

^^Yup. It's either this or sit around, wondering why rival models are selling so much better. Then wondering why other companies have much higher R&D budgets, then why they're producing better cars...

[Podie]

Not sure how close the JLR links are with FMC these days...?

2.3 Ecoboost, as tipped for the next generation Focus RS?

[burwoodman]

Any engineer types able to comment on the weight being higher to obtain more stiffness. Sounds like BS.

[Daniel1]

burwoodman said:

Any engineer types able to comment on the weight being higher to obtain more stiffness. Sounds like BS.

My initial reaction is BS too.

[steve_r]

4 cylinder with a manual gearbox, in a rigid coupe. If Jag can make a go of reasonable weight reduction say 150 kg? ...

Then we have the modern British version of a 968 CS

Except a lot better looking.

[Twoshoe]

burwoodman said:

Any engineer types able to comment on the weight being higher to obtain more stiffness. Sounds like BS.

Just what I was thinking. I don't claim to be an expert by any means (and my terminology may be wrong) but surely more weight (and the farther away from the centre of the car, the worse) is going to create more inertia and therefore more twisting force, which = less stiffness.

Edited by Twoshoe on Friday 29th November 11:00

[anonymous-user]

I'd rather see a NASP version of the V6 as an entry level powerplant, but of course that can't get headline grabbing peak power figures

[anonymous-user]

Are Jag currently devolping a 4 cylinder engine for the new small saloon, or are they looking to buy in an engine?

[Oz83]

Twoshoe said:

Just what I was thinking. I don't claim to be an expert by any means (and my terminology may be wrong) but surely more weight is going to create more inertia and therefore more twisting force, which = less stiffness.

That's what I was thinking too. Maybe what he means is that much of the additional weight comes from elsewhere (Infotainment, electric gubbins, heated leather seats, etc), therefore the chassis needs beefing up to accommodate these things and retain it's stiffness, adding even more weight.

[pti]

MonkeyMatt said:

Are Jag currently devolping a 4 cylinder engine for the new small saloon, or are they looking to buy in an engine?

Developing their own 4cyl engine range.

[Krikkit]

Twoshoe said:

burwoodman said:

Any engineer types able to comment on the weight being higher to obtain more stiffness. Sounds like BS.

Just what I was thinking. I don't claim to be an expert by any means (and my terminology may be wrong) but surely more weight (and the farther away from the centre of the car, the worse) is going to create more inertia and therefore more twisting force, which = less stiffness.

Edited by Twoshoe on Friday 29th November 11:00

If the styling and packaging of the car limit the shape of the monocoque (which is the main contributor to stiffness) you've got to add material thickness and extra bracing to compensate. It also depends what the handling guys want the stiffness to be - they'll have set a specific target to work with their chosen spring/damper/geo setup, and it could be that it was extremely high for the designs they were starting with.

It's messy, but perfectly plausible imo.

[pti]

Twoshoe said:

burwoodman said:

Any engineer types able to comment on the weight being higher to obtain more stiffness. Sounds like BS.

Just what I was thinking. I don't claim to be an expert by any means (and my terminology may be wrong) but surely more weight (and the farther away from the centre of the car, the worse) is going to create more inertia and therefore more twisting force, which = less stiffness.

Edited by Twoshoe on Friday 29th November 11:00

Simplistically, take one piece of box section (monocoque chassis) with wall thickness of 5mm. Take another with wall thickness of 10mm. 10mm piece is both stiffer and heavier.

[V8A*ndy]

Frimley111R said:

Good idea. They'll sell more and that's always a good thing. After all, as an example, the BMW M5 may be awesome but 90% of people buy the 520d.

So what you are saying is if I buy a V8R fully loaded people are going to say.....

"sure it's still only an F-Type"

[whiteonyx]

just wait a year to 18 mths and buy a low mileage V6 for 50K which is far more sensible option rarther than buying a car with the wrong engine match.
The better solution would be for Jaguar to develop a smaller coupe that would then go head to head with Porsche Cayman - Boxter

[A Scotsman]

Good grief. They'll be offering a diesel version next. What's the world coming to? A 4 pot in a Jaguar sports car? Herecy...


On the other hand... a Jag 4 pot in a much smaller sports machine to compete with the likes of the MX2 would be a neat idea..

[anonymous-user]

A Scotsman said:

Good grief. They'll be offering a diesel version next. What's the world coming to? A 4 pot in a Jaguar sports car? Herecy...


On the other hand... a Jag 4 pot in a much smaller sports machine to compete with the likes of the MX2 would be a neat idea..

It is hard to imagine being genuinely happy with spending close to 50k on a four pot sports cars. The buyers of these cars are surely much more informed and discriminating that American BMW 328i and 528i buyers, half of whom probably have no idea the car has a four cylinder engine as they are really just buying the badge.