RE: Jaguar F-Type 2.0 vs. Porsche 718 Cayman
Discussion
PunterCam said:
The Cayman used to be my "halo car" - something I thought I could realistically reach for if I wanted. Now it's just so bland.. An engine I don't want in a body that looks like it was designed by committee (you can't put your finger on why you don't want it, but you don't want it).
Front looks like a Toyota from the 981 onwards. Should have stuck with the oval headlights.hughfh said:
First off, a disclaimer. I think the sound of most engines with fewer than 5 cylinders sucks. It just does. The manufacturers try to camouflage this with optional sports exhausts and extra pops and bangs but basically, they still suck. If you think differently or if sound doesn't matter to you, that's fine. This post is not for you. 
When Porsche decided they "had to" go the downsized turbo route to improve the headline fuel consumption figures of the updated 718, why oh why did they not develop a flat 6 of 1.8 and/or 2.0 capacity with a turbo to produce outputs in the 300-350 range like what they have now but with the sound and drama you should be able to expect from a Porsche sports car? Similar to what they did with the revised 911. Mazda had a 1.8 litre V6 in the 90's for their MX-3 and I'm sure it made a big different to the feel of driving it compared to the 4 pot versions (hint hint Mazda by the way).
I would bet every penny of money I don't have that the REAL WORLD consumption and even the *ahem* EU test figures of the 6 cyclinder engined cars would match the 4's or be near enough as to make no difference. And then, if they still really really wanted to put a 4 cylinder in as an entry level model with the best headline consumption figures for buyers who only look at those numbers, they still could have done so. Like Jaguar have done, except it hardly seems entry level.
Does anyone know why Porsche didn't do this?
the legislation is only getting tighter. i think they had to go 2 liter. from that, 4 cylinders is just more efficient overall, 500cc/cyl.When Porsche decided they "had to" go the downsized turbo route to improve the headline fuel consumption figures of the updated 718, why oh why did they not develop a flat 6 of 1.8 and/or 2.0 capacity with a turbo to produce outputs in the 300-350 range like what they have now but with the sound and drama you should be able to expect from a Porsche sports car? Similar to what they did with the revised 911. Mazda had a 1.8 litre V6 in the 90's for their MX-3 and I'm sure it made a big different to the feel of driving it compared to the 4 pot versions (hint hint Mazda by the way).
I would bet every penny of money I don't have that the REAL WORLD consumption and even the *ahem* EU test figures of the 6 cyclinder engined cars would match the 4's or be near enough as to make no difference. And then, if they still really really wanted to put a 4 cylinder in as an entry level model with the best headline consumption figures for buyers who only look at those numbers, they still could have done so. Like Jaguar have done, except it hardly seems entry level.
Does anyone know why Porsche didn't do this?
That MX3 engine wasn't that good really. VERY thirsty and not that characterful. 4 pots can be ok with tuning, esp of intake and exhaust, but Porsche haven't pulled it off. or maybe they were too constrained with oem targets (emissions and reliability)? i suspect Ver2 will be much improved.
Flat 6s can only appreciate now. i have 2 flat 4s, very characterful!
Yipper said:
The biggest problem with buying a cheap Porker or Jag is that you're gonna get beat at some point by a Golf R or Audi S3 on a lease and then you'll be left with horrific buyer's remorse.
The biggest problem with leasing a Golf R or Audi S3 is that you're gonna draw up next to something that looks a bit more interesting at the lights, like a Porsche or Jag, and you'll be left flooring it like a dick to beat them away from the lights while they ease away having not even noticed your hatchback.HighwayStar said:
craigjm said:
HighwayStar said:
Is that really a serious question!!!??
Anyone looking at a F-Type/Cayman isn't gone come to be considering a Audi/Seat/Skoda/BMW/Ford as an option
Are you saying that the Audi TTRS and the BMW Z4 etc are not competitors to the Cayman? OK the current Z4 isn't great but there is a new one on the way. Anyone looking at a F-Type/Cayman isn't gone come to be considering a Audi/Seat/Skoda/BMW/Ford as an option
"Every manufacturer can make a 2 litre 4-pot turbo with 300 ish bhp these days (even Honda have managed it) - so what is so special about the F-Type/Cayman?"
The TT RS has 400bhp and isn't a 2 litre 4-pot.
You could throw the TTS in there, it's basically a Golf R... as you say, the Z4 is dead, the new one is on the way.
He was talking about the hot hatch brigade having the same power as the Jag or Porka so why consider the 2 seater....
So if Ford/Seat/Audi and Skoda (the last 3 would be the same car
) care to pop their 300bhp/2ltr 4s into a 2 seater we can have that conversation.Apologies Craig, edited, it was Mr Tidy's quote
Edited by HighwayStar on Monday 21st August 16:16
You've summed up what I was getting at very well - why pay £50K for a 2 litre 4-pot turbo Jag with only 2 seats when you can buy a Focus RS, Leon Cupra, Type-R, Golf R for nearly £20K less that has more seats and similar performance?
Unless it's all about being pretentious?
I'd much rather spend less than £40K on a V8 Mustang Fastback that comes with 400 bhp as standard and have some performance upgrades later!
PunterCam said:
It's such a shame TVR aren't aiming for this middle ground. If they could get something to market in the 50 grand range I'm so sure they'd mop up.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. To a whole generation of drivers they are a complete unknown and to others they are remembered for bits falling off and stuff like that. They have an uphill struggle to relaunch with what they are doing never mind a crowded battleground and that would be the same for any company trying to come back from the dead. They haven't built a car for over ten years and that's a lifetimeIn the car industry.
HardtopManual said:
Yipper said:
The biggest problem with buying a cheap Porker or Jag is that you're gonna get beat at some point by a Golf R or Audi S3 on a lease and then you'll be left with horrific buyer's remorse.
The biggest problem with leasing a Golf R or Audi S3 is that you're gonna draw up next to something that looks a bit more interesting at the lights, like a Porsche or Jag, and you'll be left flooring it like a dick to beat them away from the lights while they ease away having not even noticed your hatchback.Fudgie01 said:
As an owner of a 2.0 718 for the past 8 months,
With regard to the list price issue, apart from my first car (£2k banger) when I was a student some 20+ years ago, I have never paid cold hard cash for a new or nearly new car and having read an article recently virtually no one does (over 80% of new cars sold are bought on some form of finance, PCP etc). My Audi S3 was circa £35k with options & my 718 was circa £50k with options however the Porsche only costs around ?50 per month more on a PCP, this is due to its superior retained value after 3 years I'm told. So I, like many others I would imagine, don't take much notice of the headline list price as I will never actually pay for the car in full, just use any residual value left over as the deposit for the next having budgeted a proportion of my income to cover the monthly payment no different than people do for mortgages & mobile phones etc.
So just to be clear you aren't actually an "owner" of a 2.0 718 then? (Or the former "owner" of an S3)?With regard to the list price issue, apart from my first car (£2k banger) when I was a student some 20+ years ago, I have never paid cold hard cash for a new or nearly new car and having read an article recently virtually no one does (over 80% of new cars sold are bought on some form of finance, PCP etc). My Audi S3 was circa £35k with options & my 718 was circa £50k with options however the Porsche only costs around ?50 per month more on a PCP, this is due to its superior retained value after 3 years I'm told. So I, like many others I would imagine, don't take much notice of the headline list price as I will never actually pay for the car in full, just use any residual value left over as the deposit for the next having budgeted a proportion of my income to cover the monthly payment no different than people do for mortgages & mobile phones etc.
Just a renter - and I know how I have always driven rentals!
hughfh said:
First off, a disclaimer. I think the sound of most engines with fewer than 5 cylinders sucks. It just does. The manufacturers try to camouflage this with optional sports exhausts and extra pops and bangs but basically, they still suck. If you think differently or if sound doesn't matter to you, that's fine. This post is not for you.
When Porsche decided they "had to" go the downsized turbo route to improve the headline fuel consumption figures of the updated 718, why oh why did they not develop a flat 6 of 1.8 and/or 2.0 capacity with a turbo to produce outputs in the 300-350 range like what they have now but with the sound and drama you should be able to expect from a Porsche sports car? Similar to what they did with the revised 911. Mazda had a 1.8 litre V6 in the 90's for their MX-3 and I'm sure it made a big different to the feel of driving it compared to the 4 pot versions (hint hint Mazda by the way).
I would bet every penny of money I don't have that the REAL WORLD consumption and even the *ahem* EU test figures of the 6 cyclinder engined cars would match the 4's or be near enough as to make no difference. And then, if they still really really wanted to put a 4 cylinder in as an entry level model with the best headline consumption figures for buyers who only look at those numbers, they still could have done so. Like Jaguar have done, except it hardly seems entry level.
Does anyone know why Porsche didn't do this?
Oh that's simple, they wanted to create more space between the Cayman and 911. When Porsche decided they "had to" go the downsized turbo route to improve the headline fuel consumption figures of the updated 718, why oh why did they not develop a flat 6 of 1.8 and/or 2.0 capacity with a turbo to produce outputs in the 300-350 range like what they have now but with the sound and drama you should be able to expect from a Porsche sports car? Similar to what they did with the revised 911. Mazda had a 1.8 litre V6 in the 90's for their MX-3 and I'm sure it made a big different to the feel of driving it compared to the 4 pot versions (hint hint Mazda by the way).
I would bet every penny of money I don't have that the REAL WORLD consumption and even the *ahem* EU test figures of the 6 cyclinder engined cars would match the 4's or be near enough as to make no difference. And then, if they still really really wanted to put a 4 cylinder in as an entry level model with the best headline consumption figures for buyers who only look at those numbers, they still could have done so. Like Jaguar have done, except it hardly seems entry level.
Does anyone know why Porsche didn't do this?
Where I live a Cayman S is half the price of a 991S and offers better handling, if it kept the same 6-cylinder engine then there's not much reason to spend twice the price on a flagship 911.2 as a weekend car.
IMV the 4-cylinder engine knocks the previously enthusiasts choice Boxster/Cayman back into hairdresser territory (sorry!)
Mr Tidy said:
.....
You've summed up what I was getting at very well - why pay £50K for a 2 litre 4-pot turbo Jag with only 2 seats when you can buy a Focus RS, Leon Cupra, Type-R, Golf R for nearly £20K less that has more seats and similar performance?
Unless it's all about being pretentious?
I'd much rather spend less than £40K on a V8 Mustang Fastback that comes with 400 bhp as standard and have some performance upgrades later!
I'm sure its not 'all' about being pretentious, there will be loads of reasons why somebody would choose an elegant coupe over a hatchback, even a quick hatchback. The way it looks and the way it makes you feel when you drive it would be high on most peoples list, that's where the Jag excels. You've summed up what I was getting at very well - why pay £50K for a 2 litre 4-pot turbo Jag with only 2 seats when you can buy a Focus RS, Leon Cupra, Type-R, Golf R for nearly £20K less that has more seats and similar performance?
Unless it's all about being pretentious?
I'd much rather spend less than £40K on a V8 Mustang Fastback that comes with 400 bhp as standard and have some performance upgrades later!
If it was only about comparable performance, you wouldn't be looking at the 4-pot Jag at all, you'll be looking at the V6 or a used V8.
ash73 said:
Mega performance-to-noise ratio Tesla destroys annoying shouty look at me and my money Lambo.
https://youtu.be/_C9icmQ8xgo?t=98
Noise is so last century
The lower exhaust pipe noise from Teslas tends to be offset by the slightly pious I'm saving the planet noise from their owners' cake holes though https://youtu.be/_C9icmQ8xgo?t=98
Noise is so last century
MikeGalos said:
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!"
I'm in my early 50s. My dad had a '74 Series 2 XJ6 SWB when I was a kid, I loved that thing. Went like the clappers, almost silent, amazing ride and they actually handled. When I could, I sold my '89 944 Turbo and bought a MK2 3.8 Jag and ran it as a daily. A few years back I bought an X350, which was a great car. They're really not barges, they handle well, go well and ride well. If they made an estate version I'd have one. Always loved Jags, didn't like the E-type much but remember when the XJ-S came out and it looked like a spaceship! I had a poster of one from Motor magazine IIRC. I never had the Countach poster, Ferraris etc. Just the XJ-S, a Lancaster and a DeHavilland Mosquito poster (no Spitfire thanks).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!"
I probably could buy the F-type or the Cayman, but would rather have an XK. I prefer GT cars really, but a 4-pot would put me off unless it can deliver the low-down torque like a bigger engine can.
EricE said:
IMV the 4-cylinder engine knocks the previously enthusiasts choice Boxster/Cayman back into hairdresser territory (sorry!)
Back ? It was never there in the first place, apart for those who use the expression or care about image etc...It's still a brilliant steer (even better actually IME), which obviously won't help those who can't live with the 6-pot.
nickfrog said:
Back ? It was never there in the first place, apart for those who use the expression or care about image etc...
It's still a brilliant steer (even better actually IME), which obviously won't help those who can't live with the 6-pot.
I still think the Cayman is the best car Porsche make. Now if only they would stick the 991 turbo engine in and and price it at about 100k It's still a brilliant steer (even better actually IME), which obviously won't help those who can't live with the 6-pot.
The Surveyor said:
I'm sure its not 'all' about being pretentious, there will be loads of reasons why somebody would choose an elegant coupe over a hatchback, even a quick hatchback. The way it looks and the way it makes you feel when you drive it would be high on most peoples list, that's where the Jag excels.
If it was only about comparable performance, you wouldn't be looking at the 4-pot Jag at all, you'll be looking at the V6 or a used V8.
Thanks - I agree entirely! If it was only about comparable performance, you wouldn't be looking at the 4-pot Jag at all, you'll be looking at the V6 or a used V8.
But I wouldn't be too pleased being asked to pay a 40ish% premium by Jaguar to get a 4 cylinder turbo Coupe instead of a Seat 4 cylinder turbo hatch with similar performance - that seems a bit of a p*ss-take!
Mind you as you say, if performance was the issue a V6 Jag would make far more sense for the money - the 4-pot looks like a hair-dresser/poser option!
EricE said:
hughfh said:
First off, a disclaimer. I think the sound of most engines with fewer than 5 cylinders sucks. It just does. The manufacturers try to camouflage this with optional sports exhausts and extra pops and bangs but basically, they still suck. If you think differently or if sound doesn't matter to you, that's fine. This post is not for you.
When Porsche decided they "had to" go the downsized turbo route to improve the headline fuel consumption figures of the updated 718, why oh why did they not develop a flat 6 of 1.8 and/or 2.0 capacity with a turbo to produce outputs in the 300-350 range like what they have now but with the sound and drama you should be able to expect from a Porsche sports car? Similar to what they did with the revised 911. Mazda had a 1.8 litre V6 in the 90's for their MX-3 and I'm sure it made a big different to the feel of driving it compared to the 4 pot versions (hint hint Mazda by the way).
I would bet every penny of money I don't have that the REAL WORLD consumption and even the *ahem* EU test figures of the 6 cyclinder engined cars would match the 4's or be near enough as to make no difference. And then, if they still really really wanted to put a 4 cylinder in as an entry level model with the best headline consumption figures for buyers who only look at those numbers, they still could have done so. Like Jaguar have done, except it hardly seems entry level.
Does anyone know why Porsche didn't do this?
Oh that's simple, they wanted to create more space between the Cayman and 911. When Porsche decided they "had to" go the downsized turbo route to improve the headline fuel consumption figures of the updated 718, why oh why did they not develop a flat 6 of 1.8 and/or 2.0 capacity with a turbo to produce outputs in the 300-350 range like what they have now but with the sound and drama you should be able to expect from a Porsche sports car? Similar to what they did with the revised 911. Mazda had a 1.8 litre V6 in the 90's for their MX-3 and I'm sure it made a big different to the feel of driving it compared to the 4 pot versions (hint hint Mazda by the way).
I would bet every penny of money I don't have that the REAL WORLD consumption and even the *ahem* EU test figures of the 6 cyclinder engined cars would match the 4's or be near enough as to make no difference. And then, if they still really really wanted to put a 4 cylinder in as an entry level model with the best headline consumption figures for buyers who only look at those numbers, they still could have done so. Like Jaguar have done, except it hardly seems entry level.
Does anyone know why Porsche didn't do this?
Where I live a Cayman S is half the price of a 991S and offers better handling, if it kept the same 6-cylinder engine then there's not much reason to spend twice the price on a flagship 911.2 as a weekend car.
IMV the 4-cylinder engine knocks the previously enthusiasts choice Boxster/Cayman back into hairdresser territory (sorry!)
Mr Tidy said:
So just to be clear you aren't actually an "owner" of a 2.0 718 then? (Or the former "owner" of an S3)?
Just a renter - and I know how I have always driven rentals!
Ha Ha, your quite right, I suppose I should class myself as more of a 'custodian' than 'owner' of cars, but then I've never got too emotionally attached to them! Rather use & enjoy for a couple of years then move on to something different, as an enthusiast I believe in being open minded trying different brands, engine / drivetrain configuration and new tech etc (Maybe an electric porker next...)! I view the monthly payments I make as covering the cost of depreciation, so as long as what's outstanding equates to what the cars worth at the time I change (or even better if the cars worth a bit more) then i'm happy. Just a renter - and I know how I have always driven rentals!
I think as a nation we get bogged down by the old 'pay cash & own it' thing, it very similar to people getting hung up about being a 'home owner' when in fact most people are mortgaged up to their eyeballs and will either be dead or needing to sell their house to cover the cost of their care home by the time they are actually a 'home owner'.
Fudgie01 said:
Ha Ha, your quite right, I suppose I should class myself as more of a 'custodian' than 'owner' of cars, but then I've never got too emotionally attached to them! Rather use & enjoy for a couple of years then move on to something different, as an enthusiast I believe in being open minded trying different brands, engine / drivetrain configuration and new tech etc (Maybe an electric porker next...)! I view the monthly payments I make as covering the cost of depreciation, so as long as what's outstanding equates to what the cars worth at the time I change (or even better if the cars worth a bit more) then i'm happy.
I think as a nation we get bogged down by the old 'pay cash & own it' thing, it very similar to people getting hung up about being a 'home owner' when in fact most people are mortgaged up to their eyeballs and will either be dead or needing to sell their house to cover the cost of their care home by the time they are actually a 'home owner'.
I utilise this philosophy for women but prefer to buy cars as you know you'll have some collateral at the end of it.I think as a nation we get bogged down by the old 'pay cash & own it' thing, it very similar to people getting hung up about being a 'home owner' when in fact most people are mortgaged up to their eyeballs and will either be dead or needing to sell their house to cover the cost of their care home by the time they are actually a 'home owner'.
I am also close to owning my house and renting won't pay anything towards my care home.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff