RE: Jaguar E-Pace P300: Driven
Discussion
Wow. A lot of varied opinions. My comments on some of them are as follows.
1. "It's a small SUV, therefore you are (a) a mum and (b) the antichrist."
No - while I hated SUVs, especially the full fat ones, for a long time, the facts of living kick in. My OH and I now have elderly parents. We need to take them about when they are visiting. We need a car with a high hip point. This is also important for my wife who now struggles to get into lower cars. Other than jacked up estates (which have a huge footprint), the SUV option is all we have.
Oh, and we have a dog and have a 10% ramp from garage to road. So like it or lump it, a sensible sized SUV is absolutely fit for purpose.
2. "OMG! It's overweight!"
I agree. It's stupidly heavy That's very off-putting. The chassis is old, and frankly, that sort of weight is unacceptable in a car of its size. It's close to being a deal breaker to me.
3. "It's fugly!"
I cannot understand this one. I think the styling - and that of the F-Pace - is excellent for the type. The GLA is snouty, the A3/A5 bland soapboxes, the VWs look like Lego cars, and the X3, despite getting far better than the "Bugs Bunny roadkill" looks of the original, is still disjointed. It's a very stylish car or its type, and there is nothing I can think of (Mazda CX-7 and F-Pace excepted) which is more attractive. Balance, proportion, decent tumblehome, strong swage line and chamfered overhangs all give rise to a confident taut shape. I like the Volvo XC40 as well, although it is far more obviously styled.
Last comment on this one - the interior is fabulous. Way better than any of the opposition. The Macan is nice inside too, but it's not opposition. The XC40 is probably the only competition for me on this. Ze Germans have bland anodyne interiors.
4. "How much?"
Again, I agree with the critics. The pricing of all Jaguars is getting a little bit punchy. This is getting into decently specced Volvo XC60 territory, and while the Jag will be the better drive, I'm not buying this sort of car to hit the B roads like Colin McRae. The dog would be tumble-dried in the boot if I tried that stunt.
I hope it does well. It seems to handle well, looks great to my eyes (and I've never needed specs!), and
1. "It's a small SUV, therefore you are (a) a mum and (b) the antichrist."
No - while I hated SUVs, especially the full fat ones, for a long time, the facts of living kick in. My OH and I now have elderly parents. We need to take them about when they are visiting. We need a car with a high hip point. This is also important for my wife who now struggles to get into lower cars. Other than jacked up estates (which have a huge footprint), the SUV option is all we have.
Oh, and we have a dog and have a 10% ramp from garage to road. So like it or lump it, a sensible sized SUV is absolutely fit for purpose.
2. "OMG! It's overweight!"
I agree. It's stupidly heavy That's very off-putting. The chassis is old, and frankly, that sort of weight is unacceptable in a car of its size. It's close to being a deal breaker to me.
3. "It's fugly!"
I cannot understand this one. I think the styling - and that of the F-Pace - is excellent for the type. The GLA is snouty, the A3/A5 bland soapboxes, the VWs look like Lego cars, and the X3, despite getting far better than the "Bugs Bunny roadkill" looks of the original, is still disjointed. It's a very stylish car or its type, and there is nothing I can think of (Mazda CX-7 and F-Pace excepted) which is more attractive. Balance, proportion, decent tumblehome, strong swage line and chamfered overhangs all give rise to a confident taut shape. I like the Volvo XC40 as well, although it is far more obviously styled.
Last comment on this one - the interior is fabulous. Way better than any of the opposition. The Macan is nice inside too, but it's not opposition. The XC40 is probably the only competition for me on this. Ze Germans have bland anodyne interiors.
4. "How much?"
Again, I agree with the critics. The pricing of all Jaguars is getting a little bit punchy. This is getting into decently specced Volvo XC60 territory, and while the Jag will be the better drive, I'm not buying this sort of car to hit the B roads like Colin McRae. The dog would be tumble-dried in the boot if I tried that stunt.
I hope it does well. It seems to handle well, looks great to my eyes (and I've never needed specs!), and
Helicopter123 said:
Must be a market in the UK for what the yanks term a full size SUV? Think Escalade, Suburban or Yukon. Room for 7 adults AND their luggage. Market for smaller SUVs quite crowded now.
Yes/no. But more no. I love renting Suburbans and Yukons when in the US, but over here the demographic that would buy them live in the cities, not in the countries. And the trouble is finding parking for them. I have to pass occasionally on spots in the Range Rover and the S8 if the cars either end are at or just over their bay lines. Yes, you can get those cars in if you're prepared to rock backwards and forwards a few inches at at time going lock to lock. But it is not ideal.
A Suburban is a RR with a full third row of seats - a shade under 5.7 metres long, compared to 4.95m for the RR. An extra two and a half feet of car becomes a difficult thing to find parking space for in a city.
ETA: this thing looks ok in the photos. The F Pace is one of the best looking mid sized SUVs in my view, but that is all very subjective. This looks like it retains most of the best features of the E Pace. Looks a bit muscular, almost military.
Whether SUVs of any size are good, bad or indifferent is something that seems to me to be academic. They sell like bloody hot cakes so whatever the purists think of them, the manufacturers will keep making them.
How it costs £50k+ is a bit mind boggling though.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th November 14:28
Ray_Aber said:
Wow. A lot of varied opinions. My comments on some of them are as follows.
1. "It's a small SUV, therefore you are (a) a mum and (b) the antichrist."
No - while I hated SUVs, especially the full fat ones, for a long time, the facts of living kick in. My OH and I now have elderly parents. We need to take them about when they are visiting. We need a car with a high hip point. This is also important for my wife who now struggles to get into lower cars. Other than jacked up estates (which have a huge footprint), the SUV option is all we have.
Yeah, but this one looks rather cramped in the rear. Not everyone is the same, but when I went along with my Dad to shop for a new Mercedes, we empirically found that the width of the doors (and the intrusion of A- and C-pillars) was way more important for the ease of ingress/egress was far more important than the height of the seats (within reason, he does struggle a bit getting into and out of my TVR...) Shortish four door cars are far from ideal in this regard. 1. "It's a small SUV, therefore you are (a) a mum and (b) the antichrist."
No - while I hated SUVs, especially the full fat ones, for a long time, the facts of living kick in. My OH and I now have elderly parents. We need to take them about when they are visiting. We need a car with a high hip point. This is also important for my wife who now struggles to get into lower cars. Other than jacked up estates (which have a huge footprint), the SUV option is all we have.
CPWilliams said:
They’ve just produced their 100,000th F-Pace (and gave it to Jose Mourhino...), this was a logical next step.
As with all Jags, the ‘S’ spec will look good, everything else verging on the dull.
what do you mean? S is about the equipment level, it's 'R Design' that makes it look blingy.As with all Jags, the ‘S’ spec will look good, everything else verging on the dull.
Greg66 said:
Helicopter123 said:
Must be a market in the UK for what the yanks term a full size SUV? Think Escalade, Suburban or Yukon. Room for 7 adults AND their luggage. Market for smaller SUVs quite crowded now.
Yes/no. But more no. 900T-R said:
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.
Sorry, but now you are talking absolute nonsense. My wife had a 20d xDrive Auto and it was a stunning car all round, I was seriously impressed with it. It was as bought as a 20d for BIK reasons, but it punched well above its weight, the 8 speed auto was a gem, the ride on 19's with proper tyres was sublime, the seats amazing, the infotainment about as good as it gets, and it felt light and nimble when chucking it around.
We had a CRD-T+ tuning box on it and on the rolling road it was 228hp, and because of the way it was light up front in many ways was better than our earlier 30d.
Here are the photos I took when we sold it, hardly a 'horribly made, cramped plasticky thing.'
BMW X3 Photos
Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 20th November 15:04
900T-R said:
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.
No, what I said is the reason I like a capable engine is they are more 'effortless'.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.
The thing with an SUV is it makes you drive differently, the higher CoG forces you to waft around more. Speak to owners of SUVs and fast estates and many will agree.
It is not about making it worse, it is about it feeling different, which some of us prefer.
It isn't that difficult to get your head round.
thelawnet1 said:
CPWilliams said:
They’ve just produced their 100,000th F-Pace (and gave it to Jose Mourhino...), this was a logical next step.
As with all Jags, the ‘S’ spec will look good, everything else verging on the dull.
what do you mean? S is about the equipment level, it's 'R Design' that makes it look blingy.As with all Jags, the ‘S’ spec will look good, everything else verging on the dull.
R-Design is Volvo i think, Jag’s is R-Sport (arseport)
£50,000?! - Gone are the days when "Jags" were good value, under William Lyons helm.
Clearly Tata are sticking their neck out & making the most of their investment. Good luck with them , especially if it sells well (which it probably will) & it keeps the Jaguar brand "alive".
However; For half that price - Perhaps a nice spec'd, late (2012/21013) L322 Range Rover Vogue for approx. half that amount & then stick a private reg. on it, would be better value & have a lot more class!
And use the money, saved, for fuel ....and any repairs!
Clearly Tata are sticking their neck out & making the most of their investment. Good luck with them , especially if it sells well (which it probably will) & it keeps the Jaguar brand "alive".
However; For half that price - Perhaps a nice spec'd, late (2012/21013) L322 Range Rover Vogue for approx. half that amount & then stick a private reg. on it, would be better value & have a lot more class!
And use the money, saved, for fuel ....and any repairs!
I guess for 90% of people there is no justification for an SUV over an estate, however why should there be, it's called choice.
My wife has wanted one for a while and despite being expensive, not as quick or sporty as her previous model she loves it. She also doesn't try to justify it on the grounds of handling, safety, size, high position. She liked it, could afford it, so bought it. Simple.
My wife has wanted one for a while and despite being expensive, not as quick or sporty as her previous model she loves it. She also doesn't try to justify it on the grounds of handling, safety, size, high position. She liked it, could afford it, so bought it. Simple.
I just think prices of new cars are getting silly anyway, especially when so many are 4cyl engines now.
BMW 520d xDrive Touring is over £44,000.
Mercedes E220d Estate is £42,000.
Volvo XC90 4cyl diesel £49,000.
Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch, but it seems crazy. But I suppose it is all about the monthlies now?
BMW 520d xDrive Touring is over £44,000.
Mercedes E220d Estate is £42,000.
Volvo XC90 4cyl diesel £49,000.
Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch, but it seems crazy. But I suppose it is all about the monthlies now?
WestyCarl said:
I guess for 90% of people there is no justification for an SUV over an estate, however why should there be, it's called choice.
My wife has wanted one for a while and despite being expensive, not as quick or sporty as her previous model she loves it. She also doesn't try to justify it on the grounds of handling, safety, size, high position. She liked it, could afford it, so bought it. Simple.
How dare she!!!?? My wife has wanted one for a while and despite being expensive, not as quick or sporty as her previous model she loves it. She also doesn't try to justify it on the grounds of handling, safety, size, high position. She liked it, could afford it, so bought it. Simple.
gizlaroc said:
WestyCarl said:
I guess for 90% of people there is no justification for an SUV over an estate, however why should there be, it's called choice.
My wife has wanted one for a while and despite being expensive, not as quick or sporty as her previous model she loves it. She also doesn't try to justify it on the grounds of handling, safety, size, high position. She liked it, could afford it, so bought it. Simple.
How dare she!!!?? My wife has wanted one for a while and despite being expensive, not as quick or sporty as her previous model she loves it. She also doesn't try to justify it on the grounds of handling, safety, size, high position. She liked it, could afford it, so bought it. Simple.
CPWilliams said:
S is the top of the range variant for the XE/ XF/ F & E Paces, akin to the Audi S models.
R-Design is Volvo i think, Jag’s is R-Sport (arseport)
On the E-Pace the trim levels areR-Design is Volvo i think, Jag’s is R-Sport (arseport)
<base>
S
SE
HSE (top)
plus R-Dynamic bling as an add-on
The engines are all 4-cylinder.
On the F-pace
Prestige (base)
R-Sport
Portfolio
S (but only available on V6 diesel or V6 petrol)
On the XE
SE (base)
Prestige
R-Sport
Portfolio
S (V6 only - no diesel)
On the XF
SE (base)
Prestige
R-Sport
Portfolio
S (V6 only - both petrol and diesel)
On the XJ
Luxury
Premium Luxury
Portfolio
R-Sport
Autobiography (diesel LWB only)
XJR (V8 only)
On the F-type
<base>
R-Dynamic
R (550bhp V8 only)
SVR (575 bhp V8 only)
So S means 'V6' on the cars that have a V6 available (and also top spec). On the e-pace it just means 'second-lowest trim level'.
We've got a Ford Kuga and a Jeep Renegade. We will replace with similar next time, albeit perhaps spend a bit more and hence why this model of Jag is of interest.
I realise we have't exactly got full fat SUVs, however the reasons for choosing one over say an estate:
Higher driving position - wife hates being lower down and I like looking out higher.
Higher loading lip - both wife and I are over 6' so no need to crouch.
Easier to get kids in
Better on country roads - both being able to deal with poor surfaces and be being able to look further ahead and above walls.
Does well in poor weather - we are susceptible to flooding where we are, on the Boxing Day floods of 2015 we just made it in the Ford where other lower cars couldn't.
The Ford drives well enough for day to day use, indeed one of the few positives reviewers have about it is the handling. If I want to drive quick and have something that handles I have a weekend car.
There are penalties over an equivalent estate in terms of mpg and price, however these are outweighed by the practical advantages.
I realise we have't exactly got full fat SUVs, however the reasons for choosing one over say an estate:
Higher driving position - wife hates being lower down and I like looking out higher.
Higher loading lip - both wife and I are over 6' so no need to crouch.
Easier to get kids in
Better on country roads - both being able to deal with poor surfaces and be being able to look further ahead and above walls.
Does well in poor weather - we are susceptible to flooding where we are, on the Boxing Day floods of 2015 we just made it in the Ford where other lower cars couldn't.
The Ford drives well enough for day to day use, indeed one of the few positives reviewers have about it is the handling. If I want to drive quick and have something that handles I have a weekend car.
There are penalties over an equivalent estate in terms of mpg and price, however these are outweighed by the practical advantages.
Ray_Aber said:
Wow. A lot of varied opinions. My comments on some of them are as follows.
1. "It's a small SUV, therefore you are (a) a mum and (b) the antichrist."
No - while I hated SUVs, especially the full fat ones, for a long time, the facts of living kick in. My OH and I now have elderly parents. We need to take them about when they are visiting. We need a car with a high hip point. This is also important for my wife who now struggles to get into lower cars. Other than jacked up estates (which have a huge footprint), the SUV option is all we have.
So what you are basically saying is that it is an invalid carriage. 1. "It's a small SUV, therefore you are (a) a mum and (b) the antichrist."
No - while I hated SUVs, especially the full fat ones, for a long time, the facts of living kick in. My OH and I now have elderly parents. We need to take them about when they are visiting. We need a car with a high hip point. This is also important for my wife who now struggles to get into lower cars. Other than jacked up estates (which have a huge footprint), the SUV option is all we have.
thelawnet1 said:
CPWilliams said:
S is the top of the range variant for the XE/ XF/ F & E Paces, akin to the Audi S models.
R-Design is Volvo i think, Jag’s is R-Sport (arseport)
On the E-Pace the trim levels areR-Design is Volvo i think, Jag’s is R-Sport (arseport)
<base>
S
SE
HSE (top)
plus R-Dynamic bling as an add-on
The engines are all 4-cylinder.
On the F-pace
Prestige (base)
R-Sport
Portfolio
S (but only available on V6 diesel or V6 petrol)
On the XE
SE (base)
Prestige
R-Sport
Portfolio
S (V6 only - no diesel)
On the XF
SE (base)
Prestige
R-Sport
Portfolio
S (V6 only - both petrol and diesel)
On the XJ
Luxury
Premium Luxury
Portfolio
R-Sport
Autobiography (diesel LWB only)
XJR (V8 only)
On the F-type
<base>
R-Dynamic
R (550bhp V8 only)
SVR (575 bhp V8 only)
So S means 'V6' on the cars that have a V6 available (and also top spec). On the e-pace it just means 'second-lowest trim level'.
kin’ mess. You can’t build sub brand recognition a’la M-Sport like that. gizlaroc said:
900T-R said:
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.
Sorry, but now you are talking absolute nonsense. My wife had a 20d xDrive Auto and it was a stunning car all round, I was seriously impressed with it. It was as bought as a 20d for BIK reasons, but it punched well above its weight, the 8 speed auto was a gem, the ride on 19's with proper tyres was sublime, the seats amazing, the infotainment about as good as it gets, and it felt light and nimble when chucking it around.
We had a CRD-T+ tuning box on it and on the rolling road it was 228hp, and because of the way it was light up front in many ways was better than our earlier 30d.
Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 20th November 15:04
"the (X3's ) ride on 19's with proper tyres was sublime,"
I have been in an X3 with 19's and I have to respectfully disagree. The ride is not sublime. The fact you think it is, illustratrates why you are disagreeing with so many posters on here. You can do a lot, lot better.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff