RE: Jaguar E-Pace P300: Driven
Discussion
ZX10R NIN said:
They'll sell some & from a marketing viewpoint it ties in with the Formula E campaign for 2018 if a Tesla is 100k then this is worth 50k going Electric isn't cheap yet in the meantime those that want an electric SUV can have one.
This is not the battery powered Jaguar, (called the I-Pace I think) which will be launched next year, but a transverse engined car based on engineering similar to the Evoque and the Discovery Sport. Calling it the E-Pace sounds misleading; perhaps they hope to counter that criticism when the hybrid version appearsJaguar need some serious investment in their interiors in terms of tech and quality. Bar XJ and F-Type, they never special enough for the price. Jaguar interiors in days of old were always a little special, but now feel too much like they are built to a price and lack any wow factor. There is also a very limited choice of interior colours. Specifying a Jaguar should feel like ordering a bespoke tailored suit.
Ed Straker said:
ExPat2B said:
Anyone wanting anything actually sporty won't go anywhere near a mini SUV.
Really?Why wouldn't I want a quick, AWD car that can commute 500 miles a week in all weather, swallow the kids and all their gear at the weekend and still manage to put anything short of a Caterham in it's box on any B or fast A road if I'm in the mood on a Sunday morning?
In short, if a small SUV fits my lifestyle, why WOULDN'T I want a fast one?
This Jag fails, but the GLA45 and Macan nail it.
And regarding "putting anything in its box" by which I assume you performance, well, jacking a car up means you are going to have to make compromises. The GLA45 for example heavily compromises ride quality and road noise in order to handle properly.
If you want a "quick, AWD car that can commute 500 miles a week in all weather" something like a BMW 540i xDrive SE Touring is superior, it will ride better, handle better, be quieter, stop better and go better.
However, people want that high up driving position. They like it, it makes them feel good about themselves to look down on people, and it makes them feel safe. If you have a bit of an inferiority complex and think your lack of driving skills make you a danger to yourself, and are willing to compromise the performance of your car to make up for your psychological inadequacies, then a Mini SUV is right for you.
ExPat2B said:
So you wont be getting all the kids and their gear easily into a Mini SUV compared to other cars. Its a struggle, they really do have very small boots, and they are not very usable as they are narrow and high, the litre figures are very deceptive. Calling them a "lifestyle" car is a bit of joke, as they make most lifestyles harder than an equiv hatchback or estate as you can't get your bikes/kayaks/surfboards on the roof easily.
And regarding "putting anything in its box" by which I assume you performance, well, jacking a car up means you are going to have to make compromises. The GLA45 for example heavily compromises ride quality and road noise in order to handle properly.
If you want a "quick, AWD car that can commute 500 miles a week in all weather" something like a BMW 540i xDrive SE Touring is superior, it will ride better, handle better, be quieter, stop better and go better.
However, people want that high up driving position. They like it, it makes them feel good about themselves to look down on people, and it makes them feel safe. If you have a bit of an inferiority complex and think your lack of driving skills make you a danger to yourself, and are willing to compromise the performance of your car to make up for your psychological inadequacies, then a Mini SUV is right for you.
Oh, Please! And regarding "putting anything in its box" by which I assume you performance, well, jacking a car up means you are going to have to make compromises. The GLA45 for example heavily compromises ride quality and road noise in order to handle properly.
If you want a "quick, AWD car that can commute 500 miles a week in all weather" something like a BMW 540i xDrive SE Touring is superior, it will ride better, handle better, be quieter, stop better and go better.
However, people want that high up driving position. They like it, it makes them feel good about themselves to look down on people, and it makes them feel safe. If you have a bit of an inferiority complex and think your lack of driving skills make you a danger to yourself, and are willing to compromise the performance of your car to make up for your psychological inadequacies, then a Mini SUV is right for you.
I went from 535d Touring to X5 and the compromise in handling was hardly anything and the SUV was much more comfortable and far more relaxing to drive too.
We went from the 335i Touring to an X3, same again, on UK roads most people wouldn't have the balls to push an X3 anywhere near its limits.
Now, I am not saying this E-Pace will handle well, it may not, but the sort of b
ks about SUVs being a compromise just comes from people with a chip on their shoulder. The fact is SUVs have been the biggest growing sector and getting bigger and bigger, as once people have them they don't tend to want to go back again, there is a reason they sell so well.
I have a 7 seater E350 estate, it is a very solid capable car, it is super refined with its 3.5 litre V6 engine and will gobble the miles nicely, however, it is not as relaxing to drive as my Range Rover TDV8. To me the estate is the compromise, trying to buy a family car that feels sporty? Why bother?
Buy and SUV and something sporty for the weekend.
I've never driven an SUV that offers a better ride/handling balance than the equivalent saloon/estate (when of the same generation, i.e. current C-Class vs.GLC etc). The laws of physics would have something to say about that. What I did consistently notice are a £10K and 10 mpg penalty for the same platform and equivalent performance/equipment.
900T-R said:
I've never driven an SUV that offers a better ride/handling balance than the equivalent saloon/estate (when of the same generation, i.e. current C-Class vs.GLC etc). The laws of physics would have something to say about that. What I did consistently notice are a £10K and 10 mpg penalty for the same platform and equivalent performance/equipment.
But the point is the better ones are still good enough and better handling then some so called 'sporty' estates from brands like Audi. My X3 handled better than my C320 Sport Estate, it definitely handled better than my V8 S4 Avant, which understeered like a pig.
And the 335i Sport Touring handled better than the X3, of course it did, but not once did I find the limits of the X3 even when pressing on.
SUVs can be quick rather than sporty, and it isn't ever really about speed, that is missing the point, it is more about making them as effortless as possible.
What you're really saying is "SUVs are not what I am looking for in a car, therefore I don't see the point of them."
Have you ever tried an X3 or similar against your MG ZT-T CDTi 135?
I wonder which most would find the most dynamic to drive? My guess would be the SUV.
gizlaroc said:
But the point is the better ones are still good enough and better handling then some so called 'sporty' estates from brands like Audi.
Um, I said ride/handling balance. After having driven just about every estate/SUV pairing from the main brands:The SUV either rides or handles worse, most of times both
With the same engine, the SUV performs worse, drinks more and feels more strained; the very opposite from 'effortless'
With an engine that offers equivalent performance in the bigger and heavier SUV versus the base Estate model, the overall cost is so much higher that you really need to compare it with the estate version of the next model (platform) up; i.e. GLC 250 vs E-Class 250 instead of the performance equivalent C-Class 180/200.
If you value comfort and effortlessness above all else, an E-Class Estate is going to walk all over a GLC at the same cost, this I can assure you.
Comparing new SUVs against my 300+ K mile, 13 year old estate car (a mid-2000s X3 is pretty dreadful compared to the MG in every tangible aspect, by the way), or SUVs against estate cars of different brands and engineering/ dynamics philosophy are a non-sequitor as far as I am concerned.
Ergo, when comparing like for like, I am still completely unsure about why the SUV version is more 'effortless' than the equivalent estate car. After all, the drivetrain needs to haul more weight and a bigger frontal aspect, and the higher centre of gravity means either ride quality or handling will be compromised versus the lower, sleeker vehicle. Which just leaves the 'commanding' driving position as per previous posts of others.
900T-R said:
Um, I said ride/handling balance. After having driven just about every estate/SUV pairing from the main brands:
The SUV either rides or handles worse, most of times both
With the same engine, the SUV performs worse, drinks more and feels more strained; the very opposite from 'effortless'
With an engine that offers equivalent performance in the bigger and heavier SUV versus the base Estate model, the overall cost is so much higher that you really need to compare it with the estate version of the next model (platform) up; i.e. GLC 250 vs E-Class 250 instead of the performance equivalent C-Class 180/200.
If you value comfort and effortlessness above all else, an E-Class Estate is going to walk all over a GLC at the same cost, this I can assure you.
Comparing new SUVs against my 300+ K mile, 13 year old estate car (a mid-2000s X3 is pretty dreadful compared to the MG in every tangible aspect, by the way), or SUVs against estate cars of different brands and engineering/ dynamics philosophy are a non-sequitor as far as I am concerned.
Ergo, when comparing like for like, I am still completely unsure about why the SUV version is more 'effortless' than the equivalent estate car. After all, the drivetrain needs to haul more weight and a bigger frontal aspect, and the higher centre of gravity means either ride quality or handling will be compromised versus the lower, sleeker vehicle. Which just leaves the 'commanding' driving position as per previous posts of others.
But you're bringing it down to cost. The SUV either rides or handles worse, most of times both
With the same engine, the SUV performs worse, drinks more and feels more strained; the very opposite from 'effortless'
With an engine that offers equivalent performance in the bigger and heavier SUV versus the base Estate model, the overall cost is so much higher that you really need to compare it with the estate version of the next model (platform) up; i.e. GLC 250 vs E-Class 250 instead of the performance equivalent C-Class 180/200.
If you value comfort and effortlessness above all else, an E-Class Estate is going to walk all over a GLC at the same cost, this I can assure you.
Comparing new SUVs against my 300+ K mile, 13 year old estate car (a mid-2000s X3 is pretty dreadful compared to the MG in every tangible aspect, by the way), or SUVs against estate cars of different brands and engineering/ dynamics philosophy are a non-sequitor as far as I am concerned.
Ergo, when comparing like for like, I am still completely unsure about why the SUV version is more 'effortless' than the equivalent estate car. After all, the drivetrain needs to haul more weight and a bigger frontal aspect, and the higher centre of gravity means either ride quality or handling will be compromised versus the lower, sleeker vehicle. Which just leaves the 'commanding' driving position as per previous posts of others.
And I agree, I bought the E350 as the GLE350 was out of my budget, that doesn't make the E350 a better car, for me.
Our F25 X3 was more comfy than our F11 5 Series Touring as well, so not sure I even agree with you 100% anyway. Some brands yeah, others not so.
I also had an E83 3.0i X3 and that was great, arguably better as a drivers car than our later F25.
It depends what you want from a car.
Some may say my Range Rover handles like a boat, but that is what I love about it, but if you're looking for a poised drivers car then it wouldn't be the car for you.
You're saying you don't know why anyone would buy an estate over an SUV? Which is fine.I just don't get why on every SUV thread we get people coming on saying "Some people prefer something different to my preference, they must be wrong."
The model tested at £50k is hardly representative of the target market for this model, with most sales being the more basic ones at the lower end of the price range, so perhaps £28k-£32k. These are filtering through at £250 per month on the good old lease deals, and I can see that this is where many will go.
Unfortunately for Jaguar the idea of putting the hacks in the top model and hoping that the favourable review will filter down to the lesser models seesm to have backfired.
I am very surprised about the weight of these things as I had been looking at one for Mrs SB next autumn, with a view to getting the 2.0d. At 150bhp for 2 tonnes it won't be a flyer. I would prefer the F-Pace but that is beyond what we would be prepared to pay.
Unfortunately for Jaguar the idea of putting the hacks in the top model and hoping that the favourable review will filter down to the lesser models seesm to have backfired.
I am very surprised about the weight of these things as I had been looking at one for Mrs SB next autumn, with a view to getting the 2.0d. At 150bhp for 2 tonnes it won't be a flyer. I would prefer the F-Pace but that is beyond what we would be prepared to pay.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The equivalent X3, would, of course, be the 2.0d. Still a horribly made, cramped, plasticky thing with a borderline unacceptable ride. One of BMWs weakest efforts of the era. The engine is a gem but if I could afford to run a 3.0 litre six cylinder diesel, neither would get a look in anyway. gizlaroc said:
You're saying you don't know why anyone would buy an estate over an SUV?
No, I am saying that of 800 new road test vehicles from 1999 or so on, I have never encountered an SUV that handled, rode or drove more 'effortlessly' (in your words) than the equivalent saloon or estate car on the same platform.In fact, I am stumped for a reason why the larger, heavier vehicle with a much higher CoG would behave that way, all else (drivetrain, equipment, tyre aspect ratio) being the same.
The manufacturer would have to make a total mess of the car's set up to behave worse than the SUV on the same platform technology. It has nothing to do with the estate being (or pretending to be) 'sporty' or it being a matter of preference. It's just plain old physics.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff