RE: Jag kills six-cylinder saloons
Discussion
BVB said:
Shame. Jag should always have a six pot available.
They will. In theory. General expectation is that an Ingenium I6 with and without turbos will be replacing the Ford V6 and V8 once dropped:http://www.autonews.com/article/20171024/BLOG06/17...
aston addict said:
Or why can't manufacturers make smooth, nice sounding 4 cylinder engines?
There have been great ones over the years (remember the first M3, many Alfas etc).
We have a Golf Gti - love the car, but the worst thing about it is the engine. Sounds dull and lacks refinement. Suspect the R is even worse.
The irony is the EA888 is probably one of the more characterful 4cyl turbos on the market, especially if you stick an exhaust on it. These Jag Ingenium engines are unbelievably dullThere have been great ones over the years (remember the first M3, many Alfas etc).
We have a Golf Gti - love the car, but the worst thing about it is the engine. Sounds dull and lacks refinement. Suspect the R is even worse.
greenarrow said:
Lots of wailing about a variant that hardly anyone bought and as for Jag sales, they seem to be ok.
To be fair to Jag, they've been selling very few 6 cylinder petrol saloons for some years now. Cant remember ever seeing a 3 litre petrol XF, tbh. Why would you bother when the diesel was as fast in the real world and used up less fuel.
I was about to order one in late 2016. Heard rumours of the 380bhp version so held off and they brought it out with a massive 20% price rise. I own a Giulia QF instead.To be fair to Jag, they've been selling very few 6 cylinder petrol saloons for some years now. Cant remember ever seeing a 3 litre petrol XF, tbh. Why would you bother when the diesel was as fast in the real world and used up less fuel.
culpz said:
big_rob_sydney said:
300bhp from a 4 cylinder...
Progress, I think not. WOFTAM.
I'd say that 300 bhp from a modern 4-cylinder IS progress. Think MK7 Golf R. That's impressive, IMO.Progress, I think not. WOFTAM.
big_rob_sydney said:
Is this a joke? These wont see which way a Subaru or Mitsubishi from the 90's went.
Comparing a mid-size Jaguar saloon to an Impreza/Evo of some sorts doesn't really make much sense.The only issue I have that doesnt make sense here is that the Jag is about 20+ years behind the times. Seriously, what is so impressive about it? To look at, it just screams lardarse.
big_rob_sydney said:
The Subaru and Mitsubishi both came with 4 doors (and other variants), decent sized boot, could carry a family, do a decent shop, and still thrill the hell out of the driver.
The only issue I have that doesnt make sense here is that the Jag is about 20+ years behind the times. Seriously, what is so impressive about it? To look at, it just screams lardarse.
The big difference is probably that the engines are less stressed than back then and that you don’t have to shave your hair off and buy reflective wrap around sunglasses and a weird puffed jacket and start speaking in a strange manner like you’ve had a small stroke? The only issue I have that doesnt make sense here is that the Jag is about 20+ years behind the times. Seriously, what is so impressive about it? To look at, it just screams lardarse.
big_rob_sydney said:
The Subaru and Mitsubishi both came with 4 doors (and other variants), decent sized boot, could carry a family, do a decent shop, and still thrill the hell out of the driver.
The only issue I have that doesnt make sense here is that the Jag is about 20+ years behind the times. Seriously, what is so impressive about it? To look at, it just screams lardarse.
I suppose one thing might be that it's also four wheel drive, it's automatic, it's a chunk heavier, yet the official mpg figure is close to double that of the cars you mention?The only issue I have that doesnt make sense here is that the Jag is about 20+ years behind the times. Seriously, what is so impressive about it? To look at, it just screams lardarse.
AAGR said:
otolith said:
I suppose one thing might be that it's also four wheel drive, it's automatic, it's a chunk heavier, yet the official mpg figure is close to double that of the cars you mention?
Strange - my XE 3.0S doesn't have four-wheel-drive ....https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/xf/pricing-s...
HTH
big_rob_sydney said:
culpz said:
big_rob_sydney said:
300bhp from a 4 cylinder...
Progress, I think not. WOFTAM.
I'd say that 300 bhp from a modern 4-cylinder IS progress. Think MK7 Golf R. That's impressive, IMO.Progress, I think not. WOFTAM.
big_rob_sydney said:
Is this a joke? These wont see which way a Subaru or Mitsubishi from the 90's went.
Comparing a mid-size Jaguar saloon to an Impreza/Evo of some sorts doesn't really make much sense.The only issue I have that doesnt make sense here is that the Jag is about 20+ years behind the times. Seriously, what is so impressive about it? To look at, it just screams lardarse.
I'm not saying that it is particularly impressive. However, It's also not a driver-focused car using lightweight materials and doesn't aim to be. That's not how they wish to be perceived as a brand.
I've got a 4 pot Petrol Ingenium XF 25T.
Engine is smooth, makes a characterful sporty noise when pushed. It doesn't exactly hang about but is very quiet on the Motorway. I tried the BMW 530i and Audi A6 TFSI and the Jaguar felt more nimble, lighter and chuckable, the ride was far superior to the germans also.
I kept dismissing the Jag based on a lot of the comments found on PH but after trying it the German rival just felt dull.
Yes a V8, 6 cylinder would be great but when it comes to the daily grind rush hour, motorway etc. It CC really that important?
Engine is smooth, makes a characterful sporty noise when pushed. It doesn't exactly hang about but is very quiet on the Motorway. I tried the BMW 530i and Audi A6 TFSI and the Jaguar felt more nimble, lighter and chuckable, the ride was far superior to the germans also.
I kept dismissing the Jag based on a lot of the comments found on PH but after trying it the German rival just felt dull.
Yes a V8, 6 cylinder would be great but when it comes to the daily grind rush hour, motorway etc. It CC really that important?
culpz said:
You're clearly completely misunderstanding Jaguar's marketplace, it seems. Well, certainly with the XE, anyway.
However, It's also not a driver-focused car using lightweight materials and doesn't aim to be. That's not how they wish to be perceived as a brand.
Actually, that's exactly how Jaguar wish the XE to be perceived.However, It's also not a driver-focused car using lightweight materials and doesn't aim to be. That's not how they wish to be perceived as a brand.
https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/xe/index.htm...
"THE SPORTS SALOON REDEFINED
With its assertive looks and agile drive, the Jaguar XE is instantly recognisable as a Jaguar. It feels like a Jaguar, it drives like a Jaguar – XE is a Jaguar to its core."
Anyway, I'm one of the 500 people who actually bought an XF-S petrol. It's a lovely car, and the engine is a peach, but I can completely understand why Jaguar have pulled it. It's not stunningly efficient, and its coming to it natural end of life. Better to pull it now, while there is little demand, and focus on the next generation of petrols along with hybrids and pure electrics. The performance Jaguar of the future certainly isn't going to be a v6 or a v8, and I don't believe there is anything intrinsically wrong with that. Times are changing, and finally Jaguar seems to be brave enough to change with them, even if it costs them their 'old guard' of customer who weren't buying the cars anyway.
BenjiS said:
Actually, that's exactly how Jaguar wish the XE to be perceived.
https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/xe/index.htm...
"THE SPORTS SALOON REDEFINED
With its assertive looks and agile drive, the Jaguar XE is instantly recognisable as a Jaguar. It feels like a Jaguar, it drives like a Jaguar – XE is a Jaguar to its core."
"THE SPORTS SALOON REDEFINED". Ultimately. It's just marketing. They've got to give the car some credit for advertisement and sales sake. It doesn't make it particularly true and being the reason for their sales.https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/xe/index.htm...
"THE SPORTS SALOON REDEFINED
With its assertive looks and agile drive, the Jaguar XE is instantly recognisable as a Jaguar. It feels like a Jaguar, it drives like a Jaguar – XE is a Jaguar to its core."
For example, BMW is still "The Ultimate Driving Machine", as per their slogan. It's probably more of a fancy way of saying that they're RWD. With that being said, the Jaguar is too, so i'm sure that's part of their "agile drive".
All it really goes on about is that it's a proper Jaguar. I'm not, for one second, saying it's anything other than that. Just that it's not competing with Evo's and Impreza's, which it certainly isn't.
stumpage said:
I've got a 4 pot Petrol Ingenium XF 25T.
......
Yes a V8, 6 cylinder would be great but when it comes to the daily grind rush hour, motorway etc. It CC really that important?
It's the number of cylinders that's key to this discussion, not the cubic capacity. A six or eight will give a different driving experience (especially for the ears) than a four. I'd be happy to pay a reasonable premium for a downsized six in place of a four.......
Yes a V8, 6 cylinder would be great but when it comes to the daily grind rush hour, motorway etc. It CC really that important?
Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
southerndriver said:
It's the number of cylinders that's key to this discussion, not the cubic capacity. A six or eight will give a different driving experience (especially for the ears) than a four. I'd be happy to pay a reasonable premium for a downsized six in place of a four.
Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
Mazda had a lovely 1.8 and 2.0 V6 that really should have gone into the MX5, and Mitsubishi had the FTOs 2.0 V6 as well. They were just nicer engines than a 4. Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
Ali_T said:
southerndriver said:
It's the number of cylinders that's key to this discussion, not the cubic capacity. A six or eight will give a different driving experience (especially for the ears) than a four. I'd be happy to pay a reasonable premium for a downsized six in place of a four.
Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
Mazda had a lovely 1.8 and 2.0 V6 that really should have gone into the MX5, and Mitsubishi had the FTOs 2.0 V6 as well. They were just nicer engines than a 4. Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
AAGR said:
Ali_T said:
southerndriver said:
It's the number of cylinders that's key to this discussion, not the cubic capacity. A six or eight will give a different driving experience (especially for the ears) than a four. I'd be happy to pay a reasonable premium for a downsized six in place of a four.
Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
Mazda had a lovely 1.8 and 2.0 V6 that really should have gone into the MX5, and Mitsubishi had the FTOs 2.0 V6 as well. They were just nicer engines than a 4. Going back 50+ years, Triumph were successful with 2.0 and even 1.6 litre sixes. Then there was Daimler with their 2.5 litre V8. Bring them back to give enthusiast drivers a choice.
Small I6 engines would be a genuinely lovely thing to see again but it won’t happen because the core market that small I6 engines would be targeted at hasn’t the money to pay for two extra spark plugs and the extra bits of metals. It’s too price sensitive a sector.
Plus, there is also the issue that at this lower segment the majority of cars are fwd where extra power and refinement has traditionally been met by the shorter and easier to package V6 until turbo technology meant you could achieve even better power and economy from a 4 pot albeit at the expense of character and refinement but the last few years has really shown that no one cares about those two aspects in reality.
...but it won’t happen because the core market that small I6 engines would be targeted at hasn’t the money to pay for two extra spark plugs and the extra bits of metals. It’s too price sensitive a sector.
Emissions are virtually everything: as well as the tax implications for the buyer, there the average emissions target that the manufacturer themselves face. Why go to the trouble of developing, calibrating and certifying a small V6 when you can squeeze the same torque for lower emissions/fuel efficiency from an IL4?
Emissions are virtually everything: as well as the tax implications for the buyer, there the average emissions target that the manufacturer themselves face. Why go to the trouble of developing, calibrating and certifying a small V6 when you can squeeze the same torque for lower emissions/fuel efficiency from an IL4?
Rovinghawk said:
NickofName said:
Also, stop runing my Friday-afternoon fantasy of it now being viable for someone to make an MX-5-alike with a tiny capacity V6.
Think about a Z3 with a straight-six engine; a future classic? Get in while you can still find a decent one.I liked it so much I then got a 325ti as a daily, that I've just swapped for an E91 325i.
I do like a petrol 6! Always have really - probably why I had 2 V6 Granadas and 2 V6 Capris back in the day!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff