RE: You Know You Want To: Jaguar XKR

[2 Wycked]

dandarez said:

explanation

Exclamation.

Wonderful cars, although I prefer the originals. Ideally an early 4.2 non-R with smallish wheels.

[Triumph Man]

DJRC said:

ITS NOT A fkING TRACK CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First fking post. THE FIRST fkING POST FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I assume supreme dictatorship every single goddam bd ed mother fker who mentions "round a track" when talking about a road car...Im going to fking shoot in the dick. Its not enough you Goddam morons have tried your best to ruin every single damn car in the last decade, but you EXPRESSLY AND OBJECTIVELY SET OUT TO RUIN CARS WHICH ARE THE fkING OPPOSITE OF TRACK CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you ruin them for the rest of us!! So please, for the love of fking God, the next time you feel you might like something vaguely GT'ish DONT take it on the fking track and dont fking whinge about it. That way, maybe, just maybe those of us who actually do require a GT to do the GT job of crossing the Continent to get home can actually buy a car that hasnt had its ride ruined in search of some mythical time around the fking 'Ring!

Agreed.

[Speed_Demon]

Turbocharger said:

My name's John and I had an XKR problem. It was the previous shape, which I preferred and could afford.


I had it twelve weeks - six in the workshop on-and-off for works (under warranty, thank god), and six on the road.

It took two head gaskets, a new supercharger, ECUs, exhaust system ...
It burned £1200 of my own money in fuel, in the six weeks I was driving it.
Then I wrote it off by doing XXX mph without the talent to hold the wheel, nearly killing myself and one of the bridesmaids for my upcoming wedding.

And I still don't regret owning it.

You can't see me, but i'm gibing you applause.

[DJRC]

big_boz said:

AC43 said:

10/10 from me. Factually spot on. And excellent swearing.

Point off for no use of the "c" word and point off for aesthetics, IMO too many gaps where an extra Swearword could have been used frivolously. Cracking Effort pre-lunch though, would love to see what this would have looked like late afternoon with decreasing sugar levels.

Point of order Sir...c word was used!

[Ali_T]

Like these but would take an XFR over one. The facelifted 5.0s are now hitting £40k.....next year it shall be mine.

[monthefish]

SpudLink said:

Should track days be exclusively for ultra light weight, ultra sharp, semi slick shod cars?

No, but cars that aren't designed/manufactured to do track work, shouldn't be criticised for any lack of abilities thereon.

[tomoleeds]

i was looking at second hand models,thought i would wait another 3 years until they drop to 15k, dont like the old model pre 2006

[Hellbound]

monthefish said:

SpudLink said:

Should track days be exclusively for ultra light weight, ultra sharp, semi slick shod cars?

No, but cars that aren't designed/manufactured to do track work, shouldn't be criticised for any lack of abilities thereon.

Yes, but in whats his face's rebuttal, he explicitly states that people shouldn't take GT cars onto a track. I think in this modern, crazy world we live in, hooning a large bus around an empty track can be quite cathartic.

The track is our playground, and fat kids like to play too.

[DJRC]

Hellbound said:

monthefish said:

SpudLink said:

Should track days be exclusively for ultra light weight, ultra sharp, semi slick shod cars?

No, but cars that aren't designed/manufactured to do track work, shouldn't be criticised for any lack of abilities thereon.

Yes, but in whats his face's rebuttal, he explicitly states that people shouldn't take GT cars onto a track. I think in this modern, crazy world we live in, hooning a large bus around an empty track can be quite cathartic.

The track is our playground, and fat kids like to play too.

Thats all well and good, but it then shouldnt be criticised for being rolly and heavy and not sharp. Its actually amusing that the gibbon in that first post states because of this he went to buy a 996TT instead, which the GT3 girls all diss because its too soft.

[Justin S]

Just like my neighbours except they bought theirs new on a 58 plate for £72000. Thats criminal depreciation. Likes tyres and the gearbox throws wobblies, but what would you expect ?

Matt Bird said:

This is the cheapest on PH currently at £30k:

http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/use...

[iaincb1]

The MD at my work has one...possibly one of the best soundtracks of any standard car.

He must have been gutted when one of the directors of our parent company stole his car park space with an XKR-S

[VladD]

Hellbound said:

monthefish said:

SpudLink said:

Should track days be exclusively for ultra light weight, ultra sharp, semi slick shod cars?

No, but cars that aren't designed/manufactured to do track work, shouldn't be criticised for any lack of abilities thereon.

Yes, but in whats his face's rebuttal, he explicitly states that people shouldn't take GT cars onto a track. I think in this modern, crazy world we live in, hooning a large bus around an empty track can be quite cathartic.

The track is our playground, and fat kids like to play too.

I've driven a double decker down the Mulsane. Not sure if that counts.

[VladD]

As for the XKR, I love the front of the old one and the back on the new one. I've love an XKR to replace my S-Type, but I'm not sure I want an auto box any more.

[SpudLink]

DJRC said:

Hellbound said:

monthefish said:

SpudLink said:

Should track days be exclusively for ultra light weight, ultra sharp, semi slick shod cars?

No, but cars that aren't designed/manufactured to do track work, shouldn't be criticised for any lack of abilities thereon.

Yes, but in whats his face's rebuttal, he explicitly states that people shouldn't take GT cars onto a track. I think in this modern, crazy world we live in, hooning a large bus around an empty track can be quite cathartic.

The track is our playground, and fat kids like to play too.

Thats all well and good, but it then shouldnt be criticised for being rolly and heavy and not sharp. Its actually amusing that the gibbon in that first post states because of this he went to buy a 996TT instead, which the GT3 girls all diss because its too soft.

I don’t see the problem. There is room for GT cars that fry the brain and set the pants on fire, as well as ones that waft you across Europe in style and comfort. And of course lots of cars that are a compromise between these. If someone is in the market for a mile cruncher that can be fun on track occasionally, why not.

OK, I get the James May argument that cars are having their ride quality ruined by the relentless focus on ‘Ring times, but I don’t think that’s a reason for laying into the 1st poster for trying the XKR on track to see if it was right GT for him.

[lear]

DJRC said:

Hellbound said:

monthefish said:

SpudLink said:

Should track days be exclusively for ultra light weight, ultra sharp, semi slick shod cars?

No, but cars that aren't designed/manufactured to do track work, shouldn't be criticised for any lack of abilities thereon.

Yes, but in whats his face's rebuttal, he explicitly states that people shouldn't take GT cars onto a track. I think in this modern, crazy world we live in, hooning a large bus around an empty track can be quite cathartic.

The track is our playground, and fat kids like to play too.

Thats all well and good, but it then shouldnt be criticised for being rolly and heavy and not sharp. Its actually amusing that the gibbon in that first post states because of this he went to buy a 996TT instead, which the GT3 girls all diss because its too soft.

Agreed and it is hardly as if the XKR sits on a wooden chassis! There'd have to be something wrong with you not to be able at least to enjoy taking one on track a couple of times. The acceleration alone is enough to ensure that and it will smoke its way around corners until the (£££) tyres burst (if so desired). I'm taking my XKR on a track day on Saturday and can't wait. Haven't taken it in a couple of years as also have a rock hard suspension etc track car; the mere thought of driving it up to Bedford at 6am on Saturday makes me shiver so heated steering wheel and seats it is!

[FWDRacer]

DJRC said:

ITS NOT A fkING TRACK CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First fking post. THE FIRST fkING POST FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I assume supreme dictatorship every single goddam bd ed mother fker who mentions "round a track" when talking about a road car...Im going to fking shoot in the dick. Its not enough you Goddam morons have tried your best to ruin every single damn car in the last decade, but you EXPRESSLY AND OBJECTIVELY SET OUT TO RUIN CARS WHICH ARE THE fkING OPPOSITE OF TRACK CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you ruin them for the rest of us!! So please, for the love of fking God, the next time you feel you might like something vaguely GT'ish DONT take it on the fking track and dont fking whinge about it. That way, maybe, just maybe those of us who actually do require a GT to do the GT job of crossing the Continent to get home can actually buy a car that hasnt had its ride ruined in search of some mythical time around the fking 'Ring!

fking Spot On.

[Gorbyrev]

Speed_Demon said:

Turbocharger said:

My name's John and I had an XKR problem. It was the previous shape, which I preferred and could afford.


I had it twelve weeks - six in the workshop on-and-off for works (under warranty, thank god), and six on the road.

It took two head gaskets, a new supercharger, ECUs, exhaust system ...
It burned £1200 of my own money in fuel, in the six weeks I was driving it.
Then I wrote it off by doing XXX mph without the talent to hold the wheel, nearly killing myself and one of the bridesmaids for my upcoming wedding.

And I still don't regret owning it.

You can't see me, but i'm gibing you applause.

May I assist?

[g7jhp]

DJRC said:

g7jhp said:

Lovely looking cars but I took one round a track (Bedford) and the weight was very noticeable! I opted the the 996 turbo route instead.

ITS NOT A fkING TRACK CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First fking post. THE FIRST fkING POST FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I assume supreme dictatorship every single goddam bd ed mother fker who mentions "round a track" when talking about a road car...Im going to fking shoot in the dick. Its not enough you Goddam morons have tried your best to ruin every single damn car in the last decade, but you EXPRESSLY AND OBJECTIVELY SET OUT TO RUIN CARS WHICH ARE THE fkING OPPOSITE OF TRACK CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you ruin them for the rest of us!! So please, for the love of fking God, the next time you feel you might like something vaguely GT'ish DONT take it on the fking track and dont fking whinge about it. That way, maybe, just maybe those of us who actually do require a GT to do the GT job of crossing the Continent to get home can actually buy a car that hasnt had its ride ruined in search of some mythical time around the fking 'Ring!

Seem to have upset someone.

At no point did I say it was a track car (I have owned a Caterham so I know the difference).

All I pointed out was the weight was very noticeable. To expand it rolls alot incorners and it was heavy under braking due to the sheer weight of the car (the weight was pointed out in the original article). This may be OK for the US but in the UK you still encounter roundabouts, twisty A/B roads and long sweeping bends on the road.

The 996 turbo isn't a track car, it's a great GT (some may require a little more comfort), but it also does the twisty stuff pretty well.

Hope that calms you down

[LewisR]

dandarez said:

DJRC said:

g7jhp said:

Lovely looking cars but I took one round a track (Bedford) and the weight was very noticeable! I opted the the 996 turbo route instead.

ITS NOT A fkING TRACK CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First fking post. THE FIRST fkING POST FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I assume supreme dictatorship every single goddam bd ed mother fker who mentions "round a track" when talking about a road car...Im going to fking shoot in the dick. Its not enough you Goddam morons have tried your best to ruin every single damn car in the last decade, but you EXPRESSLY AND OBJECTIVELY SET OUT TO RUIN CARS WHICH ARE THE fkING OPPOSITE OF TRACK CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you ruin them for the rest of us!! So please, for the love of fking God, the next time you feel you might like something vaguely GT'ish DONT take it on the fking track and dont fking whinge about it. That way, maybe, just maybe those of us who actually do require a GT to do the GT job of crossing the Continent to get home can actually buy a car that hasnt had its ride ruined in search of some mythical time around the fking 'Ring!

big_boz said:

AC43 said:

10/10 from me. Factually spot on. And excellent swearing.

Point off for no use of the "c" word and point off for aesthetics, IMO too many gaps where an extra Swearword could have been used frivolously. Cracking Effort pre-lunch though, would love to see what this would have looked like late afternoon with decreasing sugar levels.

Sugar levels are at their lowest first thing, surely?
Perhaps he has glucose tablets to hand? I do.

I can remember a time when people could get a very strong point over, and indeed, so eloquently as to ensure total embarrassment to a listener or reader, without the use of ffs, f..., f.....g, or even c... -

a time when it made people cringe to hear any part of the make up of those fking awful words, fk and !

And when you think about it, where does 'Fornication Under the Command of the King' or the female anatomy make any sense in the rant above?

Oh yes, and from the grammar police, a single explanation mark is suffice at the end of any word or sentence.
You don't need two, three or more - and you most certainly don't need a military line up of them!

And that's fking telling you!

That's punctuation not grammar. That misdemeanors was for the punctuation police.

[NGK210]

MrTappets said:

Prof Prolapse][img said:

"Like a startled pervert, peering through a gimp mask"

You've ruined it now

Aye, it's a great tragedy that Ian McCallum's original/intended twin-headlamp design was vetoed by Ford's US el supremos, who deemed the styling "too radical" for Jag's "traditional US customer base" - ie, golf-playing BOFs.

Autocar ran a 'leaked' pic of the full-size prototype - it looked chuffing cool