RE: Jaguar F-Type: Six or Eight?

[Ozzie Osmond]

nickfrog said:

The £13K in your pocket if you choose the 981S instead may cushion the blow...

How very true!

[RumbleOfThunder]

Kawasicki said:

JonnyVTEC said:

Kawasicki said:

Why is there so much weight difference between the V6 and the V8, don't they share the same basic block?

Shorter heads and smaller supercharger.

Plus some of difference is non engine parts.

30 kg?

I don't know how heavy you think 30kg is, but it doesn't sound much to me.

[A Scotsman]

Very much looking forward to the release of the coupe.

[rsox87]

I've seen one in bits - It is indeed a V8 block with short heads, a different crank and blanking plates over the empty front cylinder bores.

Kawasicki said:

JonnyVTEC said:

Kawasicki said:

Why is there so much weight difference between the V6 and the V8, don't they share the same basic block?

Shorter heads and smaller supercharger.

Plus some of difference is non engine parts.

30 kg?

[Chris71]

British Beef said:

Chris71 said:

Next year we're also going to get a coupe and a manual box.

I'll take a V6S coupe with a stick shift, please.

Has a manual option been confirmed ???

Great news if it has!

Not 100 per cent sure, but several reputable sources have tweeted to that effect.

I admire Jaguar for sticking with HPAS. If they're prepared to do that then a manual box sounds realistic.

[kambites]

rsox87 said:

I've seen one in bits - It is indeed a V8 block with short heads, a different crank and blanking plates over the empty front cylinder bores.

That is really quite surreal.

[CDP]

kambites said:

rsox87 said:

I've seen one in bits - It is indeed a V8 block with short heads, a different crank and blanking plates over the empty front cylinder bores.

That is really quite surreal.

As an early prototype perhaps but I can't imagine they'd have all that extra weight on the production car. Especially as that engine will be going in XFs, XJs and (no doubt) Land Rover products.

[LeoZwalf]

If there are blanking plates over 2 cylinders in a the production version of this car I will eat something inedible and post custard pics of me doing so.

Sorry but Shirley NO WAY would they do that, you are avin a larf!

[Phil Dicky]

LeoZwalf said:

If there are blanking plates over 2 cylinders in a the production version of this car I will eat something inedible and post custard pics of me doing so.

Sorry but Shirley NO WAY would they do that, you are avin a larf!

My thoughts exactly, sounds far too back street garage to be true on a production car

[pSyCoSiS]

I think this is a sensational looking car - really cannot wait to see one in the flesh.

The one with the twin rear tail pipes in the middle really remind me of the old E-Types.

Well done Jaguar.

[Carnnoisseur]

Loving the rear diffuser and quad pipe set up on the above pic, however, wouldn't select burnt orange for the exterior.

[vit4]

I can't believe that there would be two extra empty cylinders?! Waste of materials/money/weight/space shirley??

[Zod]

So Mike Cross admits to having got the V8S chassis wrong. Unusually humble of him!

[y2blade]

chryslerben said:

V6s in my opinion unless you really need a V8 in your life, as they say the exhaust note is beautiful and 380 hp is more than enjoyable to drive.

Another for the V6 exhaust note.

[bashful]

RumbleOfThunder said:

I don't know how heavy you think 30kg is, but it doesn't sound much to me.

About a quarter to a third of a powerfully-built company director? :-)

[Cheib]

Lets face it how many people drive today's cars anywhere near the edge of their performance envelope for more than a few seconds at a time? Only on a track for most people. Having said that I like many other people have tended to fall into the "it's got the biggest engine/biggest wheels it's got to be best" trap.

[Cyrus1971]

mph said:

Cyrus1971 said:

Expensive, expensive expensive - oh look my residuals are tanking like every other Jag does in the short, medium and long term...

.

Just like Porsche in fact.

Not sure. I think this Jag actually makes the Boxster S look like good value for money. Any car company that does that had better have an AMAZING product.

[CDP]

Cheib said:

Lets face it how many people drive today's cars anywhere near the edge of their performance envelope for more than a few seconds at a time?

Surely that's what small Fiats are made for?

[jamespink]

Zod said:

So Mike Cross admits to having got the V8S chassis wrong. Unusually humble of him!

Not sure your comment makes sense. Given the V8s huge increase in torque over the V6, you have to strike a balance between a traction control light on most of the time (with the constant throttle reduction that brings, eg, E39 M5) or let the driver assume the greater part of control and have a tail happy smoke machine (E39 M5 with TC off). Given they are the only two options with a large surfeit of power, I fail to see how Cross could waive a physics defying "magic wand" and have it both ways. Perhaps you could tell us?

[garythesnail]

bashful said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

I don't know how heavy you think 30kg is, but it doesn't sound much to me.

About a quarter to a third of a powerfully-built company director? :-)

A third of a fully dressed Rover K series engine - so by the time you take the ancillaries in to account - about 2 cylinders worth . . . . . . sounds familiar.

I tend to agree with the enthusiasm for the V6, but perhaps I would given that I've never driven anything with 8 cylinders. I can't however imagine a V8 being 'better' than a V6 by anywhere near the margin of difference between a V6 and a 4-pot. This presumption is based on a lot of miles with Rover's KV6, a VW VR6 and borrowed 350Z .

Anyone care to educate me while I save up for a Cerbera to find out for myself?