RE: Jaguar F-Type goes four-cylinder
Discussion
kambites said:
Is the 2.0d Ingenium really any worse than the competition's four-pot diesels? None of them are exactly brimming with character and refinement.
They're all fairly nasty. The 2.4 five pot Alfa diesel from 10-15 years ago was the one glimmer of hope, a lovely engine with a superb noise (yet quiet at idle) and decent economy. Compared to the 2.0D van engines powering everything these days it was a thing of character.But the golden age of motoring seems to have passed us by.
kambites said:
dme123 said:
Chafford1 said:
Completely agree - excellent cars these days.
Some bloody awful powerplants though. The 2.0d ingenium engine is a nasty thing, and I think Harry Mundy and Walter Hassan would feel slightly sick at the idea of a 90 degree V6 made by blanking two cylinders off the V8 
king awful, but not this time.That said a four pot diesel is what it is, and a necessary evil in todays marketplace. It's the sheer crapness of how they created their 6 cylinder offering that's worse to me, an Ingenium I6 cannot arrive soon enough.
Edited by dme123 on Saturday 15th April 21:16
Fetchez la vache said:
article said:
R-Dynamic spec adds... a switchable active exhaust system.
Any idea / examples as to what this'll sound like on a 4-pot? 
https://youtu.be/V2Q-Pqffdxs?t=12s
Oilchange said:
To all those complaining about Jag 4pot diesels, they cannot be half as rattly as the Merc A class I heard that was less refined than a tractor engine. What an old boat anchor!
And I'd rather have a Jag than anything from Audi!
As you quite rightly point out that diesel engine Mercedes use is hilariously unrefined and rough. The bad news is that the Ingenium diesel is every bit as bad, with vibration and noise in the cabin and tingle through the controls at every engine speed. About as "premium" as a week at Haven in Tenby.And I'd rather have a Jag than anything from Audi!
I drove a 2016 F Type 3.0v6 convertible on Friday (courtesy of father's wealthy friend).
My god what a car- especially when you press the exhaust button!! Sounded great, plenty quick enough and handling amazingly.
I'm pretty sure a 4 pot would detract from the drama and experience of it all - if they were after saving fuel and cheapening running costs, then they should have gone V6 hybrid.
But hey, at least they haven't put a diesel in it!!
My god what a car- especially when you press the exhaust button!! Sounded great, plenty quick enough and handling amazingly.
I'm pretty sure a 4 pot would detract from the drama and experience of it all - if they were after saving fuel and cheapening running costs, then they should have gone V6 hybrid.
But hey, at least they haven't put a diesel in it!!
iSore said:
Todays Jags are generic, bland and just don't offer anything special over the competition whilst costing around the same. Why would you buy one over an Audi/Merc/BMW? I wouldn't.
You see bland and generic, I see simplicity, clean lines, and elegance.I bought one, not just because I like Jags, but also because it isn't yet another bloody 5/A6/E. The XF is as good as it's competition, better in some areas, worse in others, its a wash in the end.
And there's nothing wrong with the 380bhp supercharged V6 petrol. Incredibly smooth, unnoticeable when cruising, lovely whine from the supercharger and quiet growl from the exhaust when you plant you foot. As it should be in a big cruiser.
Fair enough and to balance things slightly, the most refined 4pot diesel I've ever encountered was a BMW intercooled turbo lump my wife drove. Incredibly smooth after a little warm up and very economical and reliable. That was fitted to a Rover 75 though...
dme123 said:
As you quite rightly point out that diesel engine Mercedes use is hilariously unrefined and rough. The bad news is that the Ingenium diesel is every bit as bad, with vibration and noise in the cabin and tingle through the controls at every engine speed. About as "premium" as a week at Haven in Tenby.
Having recently looked at buying an F Type, the problem I had with them was their sheer size. Looked at one sitting next to an XK and it was barely smaller. Given how well packed Porsches are, and indeed lighter, Jaguar has a long way to go. Such a shame given they look great.
As the owner of a Mini Cooper S amongst other cars, four cylinder engines have come a very long way, as has turbo charging (I was very impressed with the new 991 Carrera S, I struggled to notice the turbo lag, and it sounded fine).
Jag went through a spell of promoting aluminium construction, and it's a shame the F Type is so heavy in comparison to its peers. The future is indeed with smaller engine capacities, but as others have said, it needs to combined with light weight to remain interesting. Alfa may not have got it's 4C right, and the Alpine is an unknown quantity but both companies have at least shown some vision.
The Jag is a great looking car, but I can't help but think history will view it as a bit of a dinosaur the moment it arrived. And a 4 cylinder engine? Maybe. But the range now stretches from Audi TT/ bottom end Cayman, to Mercedes GT money, and that is quite a long way. That might be ok if it was as talanted as a 911 (say), but I suspect the engine sound alone can't cover up for the rest of its shortcomings.
As the owner of a Mini Cooper S amongst other cars, four cylinder engines have come a very long way, as has turbo charging (I was very impressed with the new 991 Carrera S, I struggled to notice the turbo lag, and it sounded fine).
Jag went through a spell of promoting aluminium construction, and it's a shame the F Type is so heavy in comparison to its peers. The future is indeed with smaller engine capacities, but as others have said, it needs to combined with light weight to remain interesting. Alfa may not have got it's 4C right, and the Alpine is an unknown quantity but both companies have at least shown some vision.
The Jag is a great looking car, but I can't help but think history will view it as a bit of a dinosaur the moment it arrived. And a 4 cylinder engine? Maybe. But the range now stretches from Audi TT/ bottom end Cayman, to Mercedes GT money, and that is quite a long way. That might be ok if it was as talanted as a 911 (say), but I suspect the engine sound alone can't cover up for the rest of its shortcomings.
I understand why Jaguar have offered this engine option but I do not think that the price differential is enough for all but those who 'have' to have the lowest emission option (company car uses etc.). The 340 bhp V6 with a manual transmission is a much more appealing sports car engine to me.
Having said that, I think jaguar should offer the 300 bhp version of this engine in the XE and market it as an XE Dyanmic. Offer it with more sporty suspension and trim options than the r-sport, with more sporting seats etc. the option of a manual gearbox and price it under the magic £40k for RFL purposes and Jaguar will have a convincing sport saloon to rival the likes of the new 280 bhp version of the Alfa.
Having said that, I think jaguar should offer the 300 bhp version of this engine in the XE and market it as an XE Dyanmic. Offer it with more sporty suspension and trim options than the r-sport, with more sporting seats etc. the option of a manual gearbox and price it under the magic £40k for RFL purposes and Jaguar will have a convincing sport saloon to rival the likes of the new 280 bhp version of the Alfa.
Hmm. Read my way through all the responses and I detect a slight prejudice against 4 pots. Any engine with 150hp/l is worthy of respect if not love. Losing 3% of total mass over the front axle is helpful too. As to the cost, it is the PCP rate by which this vehicle will stand or fall, not it's retail price. I would wager cash sales would be as rare as manual sales if that were available. Back to 4 cylinder prejudice. There have been many superb 4 pots; Ford twin cam, Subaru EJ20, any number of bike engines, 3.0 from a 968, the revving Rorty wonder if a K series in a Seven.
There have also been some shockers, most hardly worthy of mention, but I cannot pass the criminally dull 1.3 in a first gen Ford Ka that was as reluctant to rev as the chassis was keen to play ball. I do wonder that for some of us a 2.0 3 pot would have been preferable just because it isn't a four. 300hp is a lot of go. Perhaps we should drive it before passing judgement?
There have also been some shockers, most hardly worthy of mention, but I cannot pass the criminally dull 1.3 in a first gen Ford Ka that was as reluctant to rev as the chassis was keen to play ball. I do wonder that for some of us a 2.0 3 pot would have been preferable just because it isn't a four. 300hp is a lot of go. Perhaps we should drive it before passing judgement?
I'm honestly not sure what to think. On one hand, like the article says, i'm glad they didn't go as far to offer a diesel variant. Although, a skeptical part of me leads me to believe that's only because of the future demise of heavy-oil, otherwise they might just have offered some king of large diesel like you get in the Panamera.
I'm not sure who will buy these though. Anyone who wants a fast 4-pot will probably buy a hot hatch instead, like a Golf R. You'd also save a lot of cash for the privilege aswell. I think if you really want one of these, for me, it'd have to be the V6 or the V8. I can understand Jaguar trying to broaden their appeal of the car and giving the power of choice though.
I'm not sure who will buy these though. Anyone who wants a fast 4-pot will probably buy a hot hatch instead, like a Golf R. You'd also save a lot of cash for the privilege aswell. I think if you really want one of these, for me, it'd have to be the V6 or the V8. I can understand Jaguar trying to broaden their appeal of the car and giving the power of choice though.
Lowtimer said:
I imagine they will sell loads in China and that's all that really matters to them
I think this is about the vital US market where the smaller engine will attract more female customers who tend to buy pretty and not have such a core focus on power and to also hedge against the declining purchasing power of the US consumer as rates rise. Cold said:
Ho Lee Kau said:
dugsud said:
Colin Chapman thinks a two litre, four pot turbocharged engine is right for a sports car......nearly 40 years later the big manufacturers agree Added lightness and all that!
And V8 Esprit is still the top dog. Added lightness and all that!XFRFred said:
Fetchez la vache said:
article said:
R-Dynamic spec adds... a switchable active exhaust system.
Any idea / examples as to what this'll sound like on a 4-pot? https://youtu.be/V2Q-Pqffdxs?t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCkkCSz88FQ?t=10s
This is the way the winds are blowing. Gone are the days where a car's power and speed can be instantly surmised by a mere glance at the literage and cylinders. Car engineering has complete changed across the board in recent years with the advent of superlight engines and materials. It will take a little time for the current generation of dinosaurs to be convinced (there are plenty of people out there who will sneer at a car for having a mere 2L 4-pot engine, depsite the fact that it will destroy whatever they drive - likely something an old man thinks is cool, like an ST220 or an Octavia VRS).
redrook said:
depsite the fact that it will destroy whatever they drive - likely something an old man thinks is cool, like an ST220 or an Octavia VRS).
Oi, I resemble that comment! You're absolutely right of course. Engine development means that litrage means nothing these days.
However, I suspect it's not Octavia drivers you need to win over, but drivers of 6 and 8 cylinder cars.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff