RE: Jaguar F-Type 2.0: Review
Discussion
legless said:
bobmcgod said:
Wasn't there a rumor that they were going to put the V6 Diesel in the XK a while back, something about the 635d selling well?
I worked for JLR at the time. We got as far as having a few XK 3.0D prototypes running around. Having driven one of them, it certainly compared well to the contemporary 635d. However, the V6 diesel is a taller engine than the V8 petrol, due to the 60° vs. 90° cylinder bank angles. This necessitated a 'hump' in the XK's bonnet, something I'd not seen since the 2.0 variants of the R8 Rover 200/400.
Ultimately I heard that what killed it as a proposition is that one of the senior engineers (it may well have been Mike Cross himself) decided that while it compared well to the 635d, it ultimately went against the philosophy of how the XK should be as a driving experience. It was competent, but didn't reward or entice being wrung out enthusiastically.
rockin said:
That's odd, because I have one of the latest Corvettes and also one of the latest Porsches. The interiors of both cars are very comparable.
Perhaps you don't like Porsches either?
911 interiors are hardly a paragon of soft-touch cuddliness or aesthetic design. Personally I wouldn't count that against it (or the Corvette for that matter) but for many people that sort of thing is more important than trivial concerns like "handling" and "performance". Perhaps you don't like Porsches either?
Would be interesting to see a race between your average PH driving god who detests four pots in a v8 and someone like Mike Cross in the four pot and see how close it is. It's all way and good having bags of power but in reality the vast majority of us are just not skilled enough for it to make much of a difference. This is especially true in day to day driving I would say where the extra tenths are really irrelevant. I'll get my coat....
craigjm said:
Would be interesting to see a race between your average PH driving god who detests four pots in a v8 and someone like Mike Cross in the four pot and see how close it is. It's all way and good having bags of power but in reality the vast majority of us are just not skilled enough for it to make much of a difference. This is especially true in day to day driving I would say where the extra tenths are really irrelevant. I'll get my coat....
Mike cross would probably be faster than me if I was in a V8 F-Type and he was in his mums Fiesta, but that's not an argument for choosing a Fiesta over the F-Type 
Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
dme123 said:
Mike cross would probably be faster than me if I was in a V8 F-Type and he was in his mums Fiesta, but that's not an argument for choosing a Fiesta over the F-Type
Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
I understand what you mean. During my time at JLR there were a number of X-Types in the pool car fleet. I always much preferred the 2.1 V6 petrol to the 2.2 diesel, despite feeling utterly gutless in comparison. Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
The creamy 6-cylinder thrum added a sense of occasion and refinement that elevated it well above the experience of the diesel. The fact it was low-powered was almost a positive, as there were many more opportunities to wring it out to the redline compared to the higher-powered variants.
dme123 said:
Mike cross would probably be faster than me if I was in a V8 F-Type and he was in his mums Fiesta, but that's not an argument for choosing a Fiesta over the F-Type
Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
I don't disagree Dave I think my point was basically that it can sometimes be more fun to have a smaller engine and use 80% of the performance most of the time over having a huge power reserve and use it less than 10% of the time. Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
craigjm said:
dme123 said:
Mike cross would probably be faster than me if I was in a V8 F-Type and he was in his mums Fiesta, but that's not an argument for choosing a Fiesta over the F-Type
Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
I don't disagree Dave I think my point was basically that it can sometimes be more fun to have a smaller engine and use 80% of the performance most of the time over having a huge power reserve and use it less than 10% of the time. Surely the sound, character, and power delivery benefits from a large engine with more cylinders is even more important if outright performance is no longer a factor? For example in a car like an F-Type I'd far sooner have a 4 litre 300bhp NASP V8 than, say, a 2 litre 400bhp four. I won't get any meaningful benefits from another 100bhp, but I could enjoy the characteristics of the V8 just trundling around town within the speed limits.
Earthdweller said:
0a said:
£50k for an auto 4 pot. Wow.
I was in my local bmw dealer the other day .. they had a £57k diesel 3 series saloon in the showroom and it was a 330d not even the 335d Earthdweller said:
0a said:
£50k for an auto 4 pot. Wow.
I was in my local bmw dealer the other day .. they had a £57k diesel 3 series saloon in the showroom and it was a 330d not even the 335d Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff