RE: Jaguar F-Type 2.0 vs. Porsche 718 Cayman
Discussion
KevinCamaroSS said:
BenjiS said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
Of course neither car would stack up against a V8 Mustang (or even the 2.3 ecoboost) if looking at price and specification.
That's a bit like saying a Jaguar XF wouldn't stack up against a Mondeo if looking at price and specification.It's completely true, but the person looking at an XF isn't likely to be looking at a Mondeo.
A Mercedes S class has 4 doors and is a big saloon car. So is a Honda Legend. Most looking at an S class wouldn't look at a Honda Legend.
KevinCamaroSS said:
A Mustang is a 2+2 RWD GT coupe, exactly the same as an F-Type or Cayman (except for the two tiny seats in the back) and as such is a direct competitor. Price point is different, but I would include it as the same category of car, and probably rarer than the Jag or Porsche.
No!!! Just no! They'd be a few who might consider the Mustang if they were thinking they fancied something a little different to what they were used to. F-Type or 718... Oh a Mustang, that's different, lots of car for the money. Hmmmm. Yeah I can see that but.... In general terms folk wanting the Jag or more so a mid-engined sports car are not going to see the a Mustang as a direct competitor. It wouldn't be on their radar.
HighwayStar said:
No!!! Just no! They'd be a few who might consider the Mustang if they were thinking they fancied something a little different to what they were used to.
F-Type or 718... Oh a Mustang, that's different, lots of car for the money. Hmmmm. Yeah I can see that but.... In general terms folk wanting the Jag or more so a mid-engined sports car are not going to see the a Mustang as a direct competitor. It wouldn't be on their radar.
Anything with moulded-in fake vynl stitching on it's dashboard can't compete with anything that you can get actual stitching on a leather covered dashboard. F-Type or 718... Oh a Mustang, that's different, lots of car for the money. Hmmmm. Yeah I can see that but.... In general terms folk wanting the Jag or more so a mid-engined sports car are not going to see the a Mustang as a direct competitor. It wouldn't be on their radar.
shost said:
How many commenting on the sound and feel of these 4-cyl cars have actually heard one in person or driven one?
I had a 718 Boxster, manual, last week when my 981 CS was in for a little work... I drove really well, it felt a little sharper on turn-in etc.. The interior better in some ways but I'm not really bothered about things like the latest tech, PCM screen and what not. The F4T is effective but the noise, for me, doesn't cut it. I don't find it a nice noise. I found it an irritating, annoying distraction I couldn't ignore. I had it for a couple of days so let my mate have a spin... He has a 987 Box... Now he's no driver, not PH at all, just wanted a Porsche and he loves that car. He loved the look of the 718 but he didn't like it on start up and when he opened it up didn't like what he heard either. He'll move up to a 981.I don't think the 718 is a bad car, I just don't like it, like I don't like a lot of other cars... I'm not a fan the Merc V8 sound or Mercs in general but I can see they are great cars.
I can see the positives others speak of re the 718s engine, low down torque, less gear changing in traffic and less effort to make progress. There's no wrong with them liking the F4... it's a different driving experience and one that doesn't work for me.
Having driven neither and only heard on youtube, for me the sound of a car is/has to be a massive part of the driving experience. Even now i still get whipash if i hear something tasty coming down the street, whether Ferrari or Corsa with some Tudor cannon hanging out the back, owners just doing what they can with available money is a sweet thing! Thus at this level for these cars you would hope a sporty sound factors in for prospective buyers. Unless the manufacturer hope is that these "entry level" cars are really supposed to be viewed as SLK/Z4 a-likes for those in the mkt for a nice 2 seat sports car to impress the neighbors. Sonorous turbo 4 bangers have been around for ages (Cossie, Integrale, Imprezza...) so it can be done if their market is the "serious" ph'er
Personally I moved from an elise to an Evora (both with requisite Larini upgrade) into a (last year) new Audi RS3. I know the journos said its not as good as the Golf R and its 10k more and it understeers at the limit etc etc but imho it was no comparison in the flesh. Golf was boring to look at, boring inside, boring sound. Meanwhile the RS3 ought be illiegal with how good it sounds to mine ears
also the best bit, not one part is piped into the cabin, its all coming from the outside and you get to enjoy it any any speed thus feeling like an "event" to use, even to get milk. I'll concede there is probably some smoke and mirrors on how it makes the pops and bangs (v low double digit mpg round town sometimes) but there's defo more mechanical than digital going on as it doesn't repeat the same sequence and still shocks me sometimes with a particular loud one, plus its not that prrrrp sound of the 4 cyl either.
While the jaq and porsche both have the look back appeal, firing them up and having it sound as exciting as the spin cycle has to rob the experience somewhat?? I recall bringing my evora (pre larini) to my office the day i got it and all my non-car interested colleagues played nice and feigned interest in my new car, one of them asked me to rev it and the sense of disappointment was palpable to all! lol (standard pre 2012 evoras sound s
te if you didn't know)
Perhaps the move is buy the one you like and wait for the aftermarket to sort the aural excitement meanwhile reveling in the driving dynamics with the non-DAB (where appropriate) turnt up!
Personally I moved from an elise to an Evora (both with requisite Larini upgrade) into a (last year) new Audi RS3. I know the journos said its not as good as the Golf R and its 10k more and it understeers at the limit etc etc but imho it was no comparison in the flesh. Golf was boring to look at, boring inside, boring sound. Meanwhile the RS3 ought be illiegal with how good it sounds to mine ears
also the best bit, not one part is piped into the cabin, its all coming from the outside and you get to enjoy it any any speed thus feeling like an "event" to use, even to get milk. I'll concede there is probably some smoke and mirrors on how it makes the pops and bangs (v low double digit mpg round town sometimes) but there's defo more mechanical than digital going on as it doesn't repeat the same sequence and still shocks me sometimes with a particular loud one, plus its not that prrrrp sound of the 4 cyl either.While the jaq and porsche both have the look back appeal, firing them up and having it sound as exciting as the spin cycle has to rob the experience somewhat?? I recall bringing my evora (pre larini) to my office the day i got it and all my non-car interested colleagues played nice and feigned interest in my new car, one of them asked me to rev it and the sense of disappointment was palpable to all! lol (standard pre 2012 evoras sound s
te if you didn't know) Perhaps the move is buy the one you like and wait for the aftermarket to sort the aural excitement meanwhile reveling in the driving dynamics with the non-DAB (where appropriate) turnt up!
LogicSnap said:
.......
Perhaps the move is buy the one you like and wait for the aftermarket to sort the aural excitement meanwhile reveling in the driving dynamics with the non-DAB (where appropriate) turnt up!
The key here is that Jaguar also sell a great sounding V6 and V8 variant if noise is an issue, with the Porsche you're stuck with the 4 pot.Perhaps the move is buy the one you like and wait for the aftermarket to sort the aural excitement meanwhile reveling in the driving dynamics with the non-DAB (where appropriate) turnt up!
Returning to the "Jag is an old man's car" discussion...
When people get old enough to have actual disposable income they treat themselves to the cars they lusted after when they were in their teens and let's be honest, no teenager lusted after any Jaguar after the E-type was retired, or, frankly, even during its last V-12 days.
The buyers of Jags today were teens back when the E-type was stunningly beautiful and technologically advanced - say 1970 at the latest. That means they're now in their mid to late 60s or early 70s.
After all, can you honestly say you think anyone grew up thinking "Wow, that XJ-S is so hot. When I get some money I'm buying a Jaguar!"
When people get old enough to have actual disposable income they treat themselves to the cars they lusted after when they were in their teens and let's be honest, no teenager lusted after any Jaguar after the E-type was retired, or, frankly, even during its last V-12 days.
The buyers of Jags today were teens back when the E-type was stunningly beautiful and technologically advanced - say 1970 at the latest. That means they're now in their mid to late 60s or early 70s.
After all, can you honestly say you think anyone grew up thinking "Wow, that XJ-S is so hot. When I get some money I'm buying a Jaguar!"
ash73 said:
I'm the opposite, I hate driving anything noisy that makes people look. I don't understand the appeal of a loud exhaust, if you go for a spirited drive in the country you are pissing off literally hundreds of people as you blast past their houses; I guarantee almost none of them are thinking "wow, that's cool".
I love seeing and hearing the occasional supercar, because they are one in a thousand, but if every Golf R or Audi S-Line, or Cayman or F-Type makes a racket it's just annoying. The driver doesn't look cool, he or she just looks like a knob.
A high performance to noise ratio is key; there's nothing more embarrassing than a mundane or limp wristed car that makes a racket. Quiet cars are cool, especially if they pack a punch. The key thing for me is quality not quantity.
Feeding engine noise into the cabin through the speakers always gets trashed on here, but I think it's a good idea. You can dream about being Senna zooming up the hill at Monaco while everyone else is enjoying the peace and quiet. People only object because they can't show off.
Ok so taking the diplomatic different strokes for different folks and all that, seems that we agree on not divorcing performance from noise, if all sports/racing cars were quiet, i doubt motor racing would have had half the following it does and the consequent trickle down into consumer purchases (I consider current F1 cars are a shadow of their former selves and a shame for the new crop of younger fans). I love seeing and hearing the occasional supercar, because they are one in a thousand, but if every Golf R or Audi S-Line, or Cayman or F-Type makes a racket it's just annoying. The driver doesn't look cool, he or she just looks like a knob.
A high performance to noise ratio is key; there's nothing more embarrassing than a mundane or limp wristed car that makes a racket. Quiet cars are cool, especially if they pack a punch. The key thing for me is quality not quantity.
Feeding engine noise into the cabin through the speakers always gets trashed on here, but I think it's a good idea. You can dream about being Senna zooming up the hill at Monaco while everyone else is enjoying the peace and quiet. People only object because they can't show off.
but for me the sound is part and parcel of the drama and engineering of something above the ordinary and driving considerately can be different to driving a loud car. TBH this is made even easier nowadays that most performance cars have exhaust flaps to avoid waking the baby. I genuinely don't see how someone can consider themselves a car guy/gal and wish that they just whooshed along in silence/or to an internal faked soundtrack all the time. Might as well just park yourself in front of an Xbox. Imagine going to an air show and watching a Spitfire or Typhoon noiselessly fly past - zzzzzzz
ps sometimes something limp wristed is all you can afford, not everyone's first car is going to a lambo, and a new backbox almost certainly more attainable than figuring our a way to create a new internal soundtrack in your 10 y/o Corsa? can this be done? genuine q.
pps its also safer if people can hear you coming...
LogicSnap said:
Might as well just park yourself in front of an Xbox.
That there is the crux of the issue. There is a generation of drivers growing up now that have done just that. What's important is how fast it goes and what it looks like and they will be the generation that leads us to electric and ultimately autonomous cars. We have to accept that petrolheads who want noise and passion etc are a dying generation. There will come a time when having a driving licence and driving yourself will be seen as quaint and like it or not that time is coming quicker than we think. Downsizing is just the first step. MikeGalos said:
After all, can you honestly say you think anyone grew up thinking "Wow, that XJ-S is so hot. When I get some money I'm buying a Jaguar!"
Yeah, me. When I was 10 my uncle had a bright red XJS. It was awesome and from that day I always wanted a Jag. Bought my first XF in my late thirties, and a new XF-S (petrol v6 natch) was my 40th present to myself this year. I'd be in an F-Type but you can't get two kids in the back.
MikeGalos said:
The buyers of Jags today were teens back when the E-type was stunningly beautiful and technologically advanced - say 1970 at the latest. That means they're now in their mid to late 60s or early 70s.
That's complete tosh in this decade. Ford really fked up their ownership of Jaguar. After years of under investment after being in public ownership their idea of what made a Jag was aimed purely at apeing the styling of the old XJ and S type and then trying to make it smaller with a photocopier for the X type. Thing is that was never what Jaguar was about. The XK120 was a revolution, so was the mk 10 and then the E type and first XJ just blew everything away. The XJ coupe was pillarless and in v12 form the fastest car in the world when launched (top speed) and the XJS was a huge leap into modernity that is only really starting to be appreciated today. Jags in the 60s and early 70s were bought by villains to outrun the police and IRS and onboard brakes made handling amazing for the time. The old man image of Jag came about with the newly independent company having no money in the 80s and having to flog the same 70s stuff which continued into the 90s then fords doomed period.
So before the decline it was a forward thinking innovative company and that's what they should be and are being now that they have the money required. In doing this they have dramatically lowered the average age of a modern Jaguar driver from what it was in the early 2000s under Ford and that will only get younger with the I pace and E pace etc
Porsche was on its knees in the 90s until the Boxster came along and traditionalists hated it as it had the engine in the wrong place etc and they now sell more 4x4 than anything else. Audi was flogging s
te in the 70s until VW put the money in etc Alfas rust and all that. The point is that images change and Jaguar has been through a huge revolution since 2008Edited by craigjm on Tuesday 22 August 17:34
craigjm said:
That's complete tosh in this decade. Ford really fked up their ownership of Jaguar. After years of under investment after being in public ownership their idea of what made a Jag was aimed purely at apeing the styling of the old XJ and S type and then trying to make it smaller with a photocopier for the X type. Thing is that was never what Jaguar was about. The XK120 was a revolution, so was the mk 10 and then the E type and first XJ just blew everything away. The XJ coupe was pillarless and in v12 form the fastest car in the world when launched (top speed) and the XJS was a huge leap into modernity that is only really starting to be appreciated today. Jags in the 60s and early 70s were bought by villains to outrun the police and IRS and onboard brakes made handling amazing for the time.
The old man image of Jag came about with the newly independent company having no money in the 80s and having to flog the same 70s stuff which continued into the 90s then fords doomed period.
As a child in the 60s, the Jag Mk IIs were seen as cops and robbers cars so had a certain panache but never had a youthful clientele and the Mk II design was dated. ked up their ownership of Jaguar. After years of under investment after being in public ownership their idea of what made a Jag was aimed purely at apeing the styling of the old XJ and S type and then trying to make it smaller with a photocopier for the X type. Thing is that was never what Jaguar was about. The XK120 was a revolution, so was the mk 10 and then the E type and first XJ just blew everything away. The XJ coupe was pillarless and in v12 form the fastest car in the world when launched (top speed) and the XJS was a huge leap into modernity that is only really starting to be appreciated today. Jags in the 60s and early 70s were bought by villains to outrun the police and IRS and onboard brakes made handling amazing for the time. The old man image of Jag came about with the newly independent company having no money in the 80s and having to flog the same 70s stuff which continued into the 90s then fords doomed period.
The XK120/150, E-Type and the XJ6 were modern and revolutionary but it was still very much older man/middle management fodder.
The 70s XJs rapidly got an Arthur Daley image (not surprisingly as car traders rather liked the Mk II), not least because the fuel shortage of the early 70s sent prices plummeting and they could be bought for a song.
My friend's father had a Mk II 3.8, my other friend's father had a 240 and we mocked him when he drove it with all that woody goodness inside.
Even E-Types had older drivers - young people drove MGs and what they could afford, no PCPs or leases back then.
So to blame Ford is disingenuous, especially when the world was turning retro.
The XJS was the profoundest automotive disappointment of my life, following the E-Type. A big ugly boulevard cruiser with a big complicated V12 that sucked petrol like Oliver Reed sucked alcohol. Aimed at the US, for sure.
I actually like the "Ford" XJs (the XJ40 was pretty dire) albeit the Ford parts bin was obvious and the X-Type never recovered from the Mondeo analogy.
I still quite fancy one of these XJs now I am in my late 50s.
That said, I still think the new Jags are old-mannish. I quite fancy an XKR.
In that respect, i think the F-Type has broken the mould, it looks Ferrari-ish, Alfa-ish and rather Italian. It doesn't look anything like the frumpy XJ and XF, neither of which appeal to me (except possibly with a supercharged V8).
[quote=LuS1fer][quote=craigjm]As a child in the 60s, the Jag Mk IIs were seen as cops and robbers cars so had a certain panache but never had a youthful clientele and the Mk II design was dated.
The XK120/150, E-Type and the XJ6 were modern and revolutionary but it was still very much older man/middle management fodder.
Even E-Types had older drivers - young people drove MGs and what they could afford, no PCPs or leases back then.
So to blame Ford is disingenuous, especially when the world was turning retro. /quote]
I'm not blaming Ford entirely for it as the 80s was the biggest contributor to decline. I have edited the important bits of your text to highlight a useful point in that back in the day PCP or leases didn't exist so younger people couldn't afford a Jag/BMW etc. Being 20 and being able to afford a premium badge new car is very much a very recent thing. Drivers or BMWs / Mercedes etc in the 70s and 80s were all Middle aged and over generally for that reason. Cars from top manufacturers are just much more accessible to the younger generation these days. I have a 1975 XJ Coupe v12 and in 1975 the invoice price was £11000. At that time the average house price in the U.K. Was £10500 which just shows how much more affordable and therefore accessible to the younger generation premium motoring has become.
The XK120/150, E-Type and the XJ6 were modern and revolutionary but it was still very much older man/middle management fodder.
Even E-Types had older drivers - young people drove MGs and what they could afford, no PCPs or leases back then.
So to blame Ford is disingenuous, especially when the world was turning retro. /quote]
I'm not blaming Ford entirely for it as the 80s was the biggest contributor to decline. I have edited the important bits of your text to highlight a useful point in that back in the day PCP or leases didn't exist so younger people couldn't afford a Jag/BMW etc. Being 20 and being able to afford a premium badge new car is very much a very recent thing. Drivers or BMWs / Mercedes etc in the 70s and 80s were all Middle aged and over generally for that reason. Cars from top manufacturers are just much more accessible to the younger generation these days. I have a 1975 XJ Coupe v12 and in 1975 the invoice price was £11000. At that time the average house price in the U.K. Was £10500 which just shows how much more affordable and therefore accessible to the younger generation premium motoring has become.
I like both of these cars and if the choice was one or the other I would go for the Jag as I prefer the look.
I had an XKR convertible until May which was superb, the styling, packaging and above all else the noise were immense. If they still made them I'd have had a 3rd one. I've had a Boxster S which was brilliant as well, with a great noise.
When I was looking for a replacement I looked at the F Type and liked it, but it needed to be a daily (no golf clubs!) and neither the F Type or Cayman would work for me - so I chose an Alfa Giulia Qv - it is beautiful, practical, sounds fantastic and costs the same as these two...
As I prefer sports cars to be topless, the move to a saloon like the Giulia could have been a problem, but you just need to see one to want one & once you drive it you will order it!
If I could run another car, I'd go for the F Type, but I might choose a Caterham instead ; )
I had an XKR convertible until May which was superb, the styling, packaging and above all else the noise were immense. If they still made them I'd have had a 3rd one. I've had a Boxster S which was brilliant as well, with a great noise.
When I was looking for a replacement I looked at the F Type and liked it, but it needed to be a daily (no golf clubs!) and neither the F Type or Cayman would work for me - so I chose an Alfa Giulia Qv - it is beautiful, practical, sounds fantastic and costs the same as these two...
As I prefer sports cars to be topless, the move to a saloon like the Giulia could have been a problem, but you just need to see one to want one & once you drive it you will order it!
If I could run another car, I'd go for the F Type, but I might choose a Caterham instead ; )
HighwayStar said:
I had a 718 Boxster, manual, last week when my 981 CS was in for a little work... I drove really well, it felt a little sharper on turn-in etc.. The interior better in some ways but I'm not really bothered about things like the latest tech, PCM screen and what not. The F4T is effective but the noise, for me, doesn't cut it. I don't find it a nice noise. I found it an irritating, annoying distraction I couldn't ignore. I had it for a couple of days so let my mate have a spin... He has a 987 Box... Now he's no driver, not PH at all, just wanted a Porsche and he loves that car. He loved the look of the 718 but he didn't like it on start up and when he opened it up didn't like what he heard either. He'll move up to a 981.
I don't think the 718 is a bad car, I just don't like it, like I don't like a lot of other cars... I'm not a fan the Merc V8 sound or Mercs in general but I can see they are great cars.
I can see the positives others speak of re the 718s engine, low down torque, less gear changing in traffic and less effort to make progress. There's no wrong with them liking the F4... it's a different driving experience and one that doesn't work for me.
Fair enough. Full disclosure we have one. Its the other halves. Never owned the earlier iterations but driven them. Was invited to launch and PEC where had a chance to hear and drive. Totally won, even the sound was better than I expected. Only later did I start seeing all neg reviews but we went on to place deposit. My gf actually hates noisy cars and for her sound is not an issue. I love the handling and power deliver really does allow you to push the chassis without a run up.I don't think the 718 is a bad car, I just don't like it, like I don't like a lot of other cars... I'm not a fan the Merc V8 sound or Mercs in general but I can see they are great cars.
I can see the positives others speak of re the 718s engine, low down torque, less gear changing in traffic and less effort to make progress. There's no wrong with them liking the F4... it's a different driving experience and one that doesn't work for me.
The other argument is the cost e.g. 4 cyl for 50k. Do people not understand inflation? Try speccing anything vaguely performance from a prestige manufacturer and you are getting well into 50k plus. You can easily get at RS3 into 50k and Alfa 4C? 40k is top end 3 series/c class/even money these days.
craigjm said:
I have a 1975 XJ Coupe v12 and in 1975 the invoice price was £11000. At that time the average house price in the U.K. Was £10500 which just shows how much more affordable and therefore accessible to the younger generation premium motoring has become.
Yes but in about 1972, at the height of the fuel shortage, my friend's father paid £2000 for a cancelled order XJ12 in a fetching shade of brown. Nobody would buy them but he was a powerfully built managing director. My parents had not long bought a 3 bed semi for £6500.
But you are right,there were no easy ways to buy a posh car, only hard brass or hard to get finance (usually secured on your house).New cars were far more rare, most bought second-hand.
There again, "premium brands" are largely smoke and mirrors, even a Mondeo is leagues ahead of what was considered luxury and quality back then.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff