RE: Jaguar F-Type goes four-cylinder
Discussion
tomic said:
Yes we do. I was commenting on the fact that the article says 0-60 in 5.4 seconds is seriously impressive. It isn't.
In an car like the F Type no it's not but depending on the car it can be. For example IMHO any front driver that manages to scrabble its way to 60 in around 5.4 secs is going to be pretty quick through the rest of the range. A similar car with 4wd will drop below 5 secs. Plenty of HH are at this point now and it wasn't that long ago that semi exotica like the M3/5s and RS4/6s of this world weren't any quicker.Point being it's all relative.
Gandahar said:
AMGJocky said:
SturdyHSV said:
AMGJocky said:
SturdyHSV said:
But crucially regardless of the actual noise, it'll be loud, and loud = fast and generally good, so I'm sure it'll be popular.
Yeah, those EP3's just flllllyyyy 
My loud MX5 got stuffed last night by an E92 M3, my wife was in the car and 90 seemed fair enough, 120 was his ideal. Yes his engine made a better sound ( especially over the latest 6 cyl turbo one
) but mine was ok. Get off your horse and don't disparage our younger enthusiasts. I'm 50 and think there are two many grumpy old male purists about reading on here.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 12th April 14:07
If it offers any additional insight, I was a grumpy old b
d on his high horse when I was 17 as well, hence my Clio stayed standard and I saved up and got something with a proper engine in later on, which in standard hypocritical fashion is now rather loud 
4 pots are just such an irritating noise, I can't help but impotently b
h about them online occasionally 
Rawwr said:
Can someone tell me, authoritatively, what 0-60 time I should be impressed by these days? I'm a little out of touch.
Anything that takes over 4 seconds to hit 60mph is dangerously slow and can barely get out of its own way. I'd suggest sub 3 seconds to be reasonably impressive.Hey, it's the same power as the old V12 from 1/3rd the capacity, 1/3rd the number of cylinders, and probably 1/3rd as much fuel. Probably break at least 1/3rd as infrequently too.
Oh and it'll be about 1/3rd as enjoyable as a powerplant. Surely a car like this is so much a heart over head decision that something as unpleasant as a heavily boosted four cylinder engine should not even be considered?
Oh and it'll be about 1/3rd as enjoyable as a powerplant. Surely a car like this is so much a heart over head decision that something as unpleasant as a heavily boosted four cylinder engine should not even be considered?
Gandahar said:
The main issue here, which the article does not mention is that they say
"52kg lighter over the nose"
which is a big loss. However, how much mass is in the front of the car? Is this 1700kg for a car and loosing 52kg is not as big a deal as a 1400kg car?
It's all relative of course.
Jag are quoting 1525kg for the 4 pot vs 1567kg for the manual v6 and 1577kg for the auto"52kg lighter over the nose"
which is a big loss. However, how much mass is in the front of the car? Is this 1700kg for a car and loosing 52kg is not as big a deal as a 1400kg car?
It's all relative of course.
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!
there is a truck load of iconic and desirable cars from the 80s / 90s that where 4 pot, some of them going for silly money now Added lightness and all that!its just fashionable to rag on 4 pots, probably started by clarkson
Domf said:
The F Type is sold globally and some people on here may have missed the World Car News (that's outside the UK 
), but cities and countries around the world are penalizing large engine cars with huge purchase tariffs and in some places, plan to ban them from their cities. Jaguar bringing out a 2.0 4 cylinder F Type allows the model to be continued to be sold in these more eco times, otherwise the available sales market will continue to shrink for the likes of the F Type.
Tsk, how dare you run this thread, you with your considered facts and accurate analysis... ), but cities and countries around the world are penalizing large engine cars with huge purchase tariffs and in some places, plan to ban them from their cities. Jaguar bringing out a 2.0 4 cylinder F Type allows the model to be continued to be sold in these more eco times, otherwise the available sales market will continue to shrink for the likes of the F Type.You're absolutely correct, of course, and we all need to wise up to the fact that anything over 4 cylinders is an endangered species...
Is that a bad thing? Well, it's a shame about the sound and the engine character, but less weight over the nose is no bad thing if you want a car to enjoy around winding roads.
However, a 1524kg car is a heavy thing to enjoy those winding roads in. Lithe and lightweight it is not; that's a similar weight to my Octavia estate. Worthy though that is, lightweight it is not.
Colin Chapman told us all to simplify, and add lightness. Shame that Jaguar didn't read the bit after the comma.
Nevertheless, as Domf has eruditely articulated, none of that matters. It's a commercial decision so that F Type can continue to be sold in strictly regulated markets. That'll help for the current generation but if Jaguar want to maintain a reputation as an enthusiast's choice but can't maintain engine character, then it'd better learn how to make cars light and engaging instead.
TL; DR? If Jaguar want to remain relevant to enthusiasts and sell us 4 pots, then the G Type had better weigh nearer 1200kg than this... Otherwise their reputation will be for ineffectual cars for the uncaring wealthy to drive down boulevards. Which is a better commercial choice is up to JLR...
and lower depreciation compared to a new 4-pot.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff