new xkr fancy your chances ?
new xkr fancy your chances ?
Author
Discussion

Le Sarthe

Original Poster:

462 posts

235 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
50 - 75 in 2.7 seconds that is pretty damn fast.

The stats are quite interesting as the jag is pretty much the same weight as a Ro with 420 hp.

As there are many different set ups out there what are your thoughts?

Well_Fans

4,193 posts

245 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
xkr is a beautiful looking car but still 20k more than a 'Ro and I'm sure if you spent that extra on tweaking the 'Ro it'd wipe the floor with the xkr.

craigw

12,248 posts

303 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
but would still be worth 20k less

Le Sarthe

Original Poster:

462 posts

235 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Yeah I know about the cost differential I was just interested in the absoluet performance difference (if any) i.e. 2 cars weighing about the same with similar or identical power/torque figs in performance stakes.

Reason is I tried the 50 - 75 sprint in mine....2.7 seconds is bloody fast not sure I could match it and I have well over 420hp and a 3.9 diff!!

Maybe that is the benefit of autos with accurately mapped gears/changes a al AMG's.....

Going to do some proper timed runs. Power Figs are all fair and well but what does that mean in real performance terms?

Timing gear required....

Dan_S V8

578 posts

240 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Maybe because it has a supercharger it has superior torque for a larger initial kick down? Maybe more of the power is getting to the road? although been an auto I would have thought it the other round...

booster

717 posts

251 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
"being"

BO55 VXR

4,373 posts

272 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
wear on erf did u slung up yur sun?

Dan_S V8

578 posts

240 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
sorry

Edited by Dan_S V8 on Tuesday 18th July 16:10

caspy

1,791 posts

257 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
2.7 is in kick down though......50-70 in supercharged maloo including 2nd to 3rd gear change 2 seconds dead. Take the change out...........1.2 ???

Paul-C

1,126 posts

246 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
craigw said:
but would still be worth 20k less


Not in a few years it wont..........Jags still drop value embarrassingly quickly, I think you'll find Holdens might prove a better investment

V6 JDT

1,275 posts

243 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
One thing I'll say in favour of the XK - especially after my test drive on Sunday - is that it holds the road far better than the Monaro. 20k extra is probably well invested in their CATS system for keeping tyres glued to the road, plus the fact that 285/30/20 tyres probably grip an awful piece better than the thin Monaro rubbers!

Paul-C

1,126 posts

246 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Not scoring points as love Jags...........have one BTW.............but it doesn't handle or stop as well as either my HSVs or MG ZT260 no kidding!

Le Sarthe

Original Poster:

462 posts

235 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Caspy that is seriously quick!!

How much power has that maloo got and is it much lighter than the Ro?

caspy

1,791 posts

257 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Not that much lighter....power...yet to be tested, but more than std

roger440

160 posts

264 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Utes and Maloo only about 50kg lighter than a Monaro.

Le Sarthe

Original Poster:

462 posts

235 months

Tuesday 18th July 2006
quotequote all
Question is Ute Turbo or Ute S/C?

Which is quickest?