RE: Paris 2012: F-Type, full details

[J-P]

kambites said:

J-P said:

I'm not so sure that I'd buy an Aston over a Jag - It's not just the purchase price but also the cost of ownership. I think the Jag is still likely to be better value.

I'd say the opposite - I'd imagine that depreciation will heavily favour the Aston.

Hmmm... not convinced by that. Depreciation on DB9's is pretty damn horrific (I know Jags are bad too), but even if Jags get more expensive, they'll still be cheaper than Astons IMHO, so have less to depreciate and I'd imagine the rate of depreciation although pretty similar now will change if Jag keep building very attractive, desirable and new technology cars.

Fuel consumption and servicing is likely to be on a different scale for each marque too!

[kambites]

J-P said:

kambites said:

J-P said:

I'm not so sure that I'd buy an Aston over a Jag - It's not just the purchase price but also the cost of ownership. I think the Jag is still likely to be better value.

I'd say the opposite - I'd imagine that depreciation will heavily favour the Aston.

Hmmm... not convinced by that. Depreciation on DB9's is pretty damn horrific (I know Jags are bad too), but even if Jags get more expensive, they'll still be cheaper than Astons IMHO, so have less to depreciate and I'd imagine the rate of depreciation although pretty similar now will change if Jag keep building very attractive, desirable and new technology cars.

Fuel consumption and servicing is likely to be on a different scale for each marque too!

Well comparing the V8 Jag to the V8 Vantage (which seems to be closest in spirit); the Jag starts at 80k; the Aston at 100k. A three year old Aston seems to be worth at least 55k so to hold against it in absolute terms, the Jag would have to be worth 35k after three years. I suppose that probably sounds about right actually.

I doubt fuel consumption would be that different. Servicing probably will, though.

[J-P]

kambites said:

J-P said:

kambites said:

J-P said:

I'm not so sure that I'd buy an Aston over a Jag - It's not just the purchase price but also the cost of ownership. I think the Jag is still likely to be better value.

I'd say the opposite - I'd imagine that depreciation will heavily favour the Aston.

Hmmm... not convinced by that. Depreciation on DB9's is pretty damn horrific (I know Jags are bad too), but even if Jags get more expensive, they'll still be cheaper than Astons IMHO, so have less to depreciate and I'd imagine the rate of depreciation although pretty similar now will change if Jag keep building very attractive, desirable and new technology cars.

Fuel consumption and servicing is likely to be on a different scale for each marque too!

Well comparing the V8 Jag to the V8 Vantage (which seems to be closest in spirit); the Jag starts at 80k; the Aston at 100k. A three year old Aston seems to be worth at least 55k so to hold against it in absolute terms, the Jag would have to be worth 35k after three years. I suppose that probably sounds about right actually.

I doubt fuel consumption would be that different. Servicing probably will, though.

You mean a Jag XKR vs std V8 Vantage? Std XK has a N/A V8 engine and is £65k - XKR is supercharged and has a lot more power but yes is £80k. But even accepting XKR vs V8 Vantage - that's the current model range. I understood that it's the new XKR that's going to be pushed upmarket in terms of price - which if it looks nice, sounds good and goes well, will probably remain desirable as it becomes more affordable. New platform / tech will also make it more likely to do well. Aston could well end up looking like a very pretty dinosaur by comparison!

[k-ink]

DonkeyApple said:

k-ink said:

Well the weight dictates it is not a sportscar no matter what else. Therefore it is a GT. It might not be the most practical GT in the world, but there you go.

Although you couldn't take it on a Grand Tour, so it's not a GT.

Sports car is just a very generic term and most GT cars would fall under such a wide label.

Lets take your stance and apply it in another way...

Assume you purchased a Volvo estate. Then you took an angle grinder to it - removing the back seats and entire rear storage area of the body shell, thus converting it to a two seater. Madness, but a scene you might witness on Scrap Heap Challenge or Top Gear. It would no longer have any storage capacity left at all. Yet it would still be a +1.5 ton Volvo (even after losing a shed load of bulk). So it could no longer be classified as an estate, nor a saloon, or GT for that matter. But as it was now an impractical two seater, presumably (with your argument) you would now call it a sports car.

Two seats and a lack of storage does not equate to a sportscar. It never has and never will.

[Cyrus1971]

RTH said:

When the E-Type went on sale in 1961 it was £2000 or just over 4 times the price of a basic Mini
According to this historical UK inflation calculator

http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk-inflation-p...

That equates to £38,000 in today's money

So with a start price of £58,000 they clearly want to keep demand low and keep it exclusive

100% right ! This is not a "bargain car" in the way the original was by any measure. It is as generalisation of mine but I really do think we have become conditioned to associating and muddling value & price. There is no reason at all that a car such as this (or indeed other cars in a proportionate way) can not be developed and put into production by Jaguar (or equivalent) at £ 38 K. The new F-Type is along with a host of other brands, over priced IMHO.

[After_Shock]

Cyrus1971 said:

100% right ! This is not a "bargain car" in the way the original was by any measure. It is as generalisation of mine but I really do think we have become conditioned to associating and muddling value & price. There is no reason at all that a car such as this (or indeed other cars in a proportionate way) can not be developed and put into production by Jaguar (or equivalent) at £ 38 K. The new F-Type is along with a host of other brands, over priced IMHO.

It could in theory be made at 38k but thats what its made at, how would Jag then get a return on the R&D, advertising, put some money in the pot for warranty claims, paying dealers to sell the things the list goes on and on.

Jag could sell the car at break even whatever that may be but their would be no future jags, called business and everyone whos in it is in it to make money.

[TomTVR500]

British Beef said:

The 5lt NA (or SC!!), convertible with a manual box would be as close to a modern day (and well built) TVR possible!

Those Jag V8s do sound really nice, both from inside and outside.

Great job Jag - just a big shame no manual option is being offered!!!

Your right it would . From my experience there isn't much to match a small British car with a 5.0lt NA V8 and a manual gearbox.

Jag has done a brilliant job but a manual would make it perfect!

[DonkeyApple]

k-ink said:

Lets take your stance and apply it in another way...

Assume you purchased a Volvo estate. Then you took an angle grinder to it - removing the back seats and entire rear storage area of the body shell, thus converting it to a two seater. Madness, but a scene you might witness on Scrap Heap Challenge or Top Gear. It would no longer have any storage capacity left at all. Yet it would still be a +1.5 ton Volvo (even after losing a shed load of bulk). So it could no longer be classified as an estate, nor a saloon, or GT for that matter. But as it was now an impractical two seater, presumably (with your argument) you would now call it a sports car.

Two seats and a lack of storage does not equate to a sportscar. It never has and never will.

Errr, never said it did. In fact, almost the opposite.

I'm not entirely sure you read any of the post.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 28th September 14:42

[anonymous-user]

Cyrus1971 said:

There is no reason at all that a car such as this (or indeed other cars in a proportionate way) can not be developed and put into production by Jaguar (or equivalent) at £ 38 K. The new F-Type is along with a host of other brands, over priced IMHO.

You might be shocked at how tight the margins are on new cars. Material cost is an enormous chunk of the OTR price (some are 50%, some less, some more). Cars are expensive!

38k is a number you've come to based on a stupid calculation of the price of 2 cars 50 years ago. It makes no sense. 'No reason', how have you reached this?

You could make a car 'like' this and sell for 38k, but then it wouldn't be this car and it wouldn't make any money.

[Carl_Docklands]

Twincam16 said:

DJRC said:

The XK is moving upwards, into much more genuine SL and DB9 volante territory. Jaguar have said thing all along.

People are complaining about the price of the F-type, but bear this in mind - it undercuts the 911 while going just as fast. The E-type did that.

Need to keep in mind that whilst the Jag has the upper hand in straight line speed, we don't know how she corners.

The Carrera S is quicker on the majority of circuits than the SLS AMG coupe even though the 911 is 90BHP/ton down against the Merc.

Unless Jag have pulled off some sort of engineering miracle, the F-type will get spanked unless, its a straight drag race.

[Twincam16]

Carl_Docklands said:

Twincam16 said:

DJRC said:

The XK is moving upwards, into much more genuine SL and DB9 volante territory. Jaguar have said thing all along.

People are complaining about the price of the F-type, but bear this in mind - it undercuts the 911 while going just as fast. The E-type did that.

Need to keep in mind that whilst the Jag has the upper hand in straight line speed, we don't know how she corners.

The Carrera S is quicker on the majority of circuits than the SLS AMG coupe even though the 911 is 90BHP/ton down against the Merc.

Unless Jag have pulled off some sort of engineering miracle, the F-type will get spanked unless, its a straight drag race.

Well by all accounts it's an aluminium monococque with 50:50 weight distribution, so I think we have reason to be optimistic.

[DJRC]

Carl_Docklands said:

Twincam16 said:

DJRC said:

The XK is moving upwards, into much more genuine SL and DB9 volante territory. Jaguar have said thing all along.

People are complaining about the price of the F-type, but bear this in mind - it undercuts the 911 while going just as fast. The E-type did that.

Need to keep in mind that whilst the Jag has the upper hand in straight line speed, we don't know how she corners.

The Carrera S is quicker on the majority of circuits than the SLS AMG coupe even though the 911 is 90BHP/ton down against the Merc.

Unless Jag have pulled off some sort of engineering miracle, the F-type will get spanked unless, its a straight drag race.

? 95% of the time on 99% of the roads ppl will only be using 50% of the car's performance. How exactly is it going to get spanked?

Its a road car. Race tracks and the Ring dont count.

[After_Shock]

MSTRBKR said:

You might be shocked at how tight the margins are on new cars.

Correct some are stupidly tight and require enormous sales figures to get a return, the more complicated cars get the worse this trend is going to continue. Take the average family hatch easily now 20k, go back to 2000 was probably more like 12k, scary increase in such a short period.

Yes some cars have a huge margin, Porsche is the prime example of using other ppls parts in the 4x4 they make. Jag doesnt have that luxury. The RR Sport within the jag group was a fantastic profit spinner but what else can Jag call on to use the parts from the F-type, the XK is hardly a major seller world wide.

[Newc]

After_Shock said:

MSTRBKR said:

You might be shocked at how tight the margins are on new cars.

Correct some are stupidly tight and require enormous sales figures to get a return, the more complicated cars get the worse this trend is going to continue. Take the average family hatch easily now 20k, go back to 2000 was probably more like 12k, scary increase in such a short period.

12k in 2000 is 17k today just with inflation.

[Pesty]

After_Shock said:

MSTRBKR said:

You might be shocked at how tight the margins are on new cars.

Correct some are stupidly tight and require enormous sales figures to get a return,

Not at Porsche they arn't

[anonymous-user]

Pesty said:

After_Shock said:

MSTRBKR said:

You might be shocked at how tight the margins are on new cars.

Correct some are stupidly tight and require enormous sales figures to get a return,

Not at Porsche they arn't

Indeed. They are literally the best car manufacturer at this point in time. They make the best, most reliable (nearly) and turn the biggest profits.

Edited by MSTRBKR on Friday 28th September 16:55

[RichB]

British Beef said:

Great job Jag - just a big shame no manual option is being offered!!!

I'd missed that bomshell, so no manual on any of the range? Shame... So sports cars for the American market eh?

[kambites]

J-P said:

You mean a Jag XKR vs std V8 Vantage? Std XK has a N/A V8 engine and is £65k - XKR is supercharged and has a lot more power but yes is £80k. But even accepting XKR vs V8 Vantage - that's the current model range. I understood that it's the new XKR that's going to be pushed upmarket in terms of price - which if it looks nice, sounds good and goes well, will probably remain desirable as it becomes more affordable. New platform / tech will also make it more likely to do well. Aston could well end up looking like a very pretty dinosaur by comparison!

No, I meant the V8 version of the F-type vs the V8 Vantage.

[RichB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Crikey, didn't realise all that. I take it back...

[kambites]

For the UK they can get away with automatic only. If they want it to sell in the US, they'll probably need a manual.