2017 Jaguar F-Type 2.0 | Review
Can the F-Type formula really work with just the four cylinders?
Whether V6 or V8, you're going to get an earful of engine sound in any F-Type. The V6 howls, the V8 thunders, and the rather anti-social volume of both is very endearing. 'Naughty' seems the right word, so can that work with four cylinders?
Jaguar is certainly keen to maintain the F-Type visual occasion and excitement with the 2.0; it can only be identified from a V6 by its own design of 18-inch wheel and the single exhaust pipe, as opposed to two. For the vast majority of people, this will remain simply a very attractive F-Type. They won't be thinking it's a poor relation, put it that way.
Ta-dah! Oh... Front-hinged at least
Well, right up until you start it, of course. It seems harsh to criticise the F-Type for sounding a bit gruff on start up - because what doesn't? - though there's no hiding from its lesser cylinder count. There's a flare of revs, as with the other models, but nothing to get you excited before moving as the V6 and V8 might.
While we're on criticisms - there are plenty of positives to come, fear not - it seems rather a shame that the sports car of the Jaguar line up shares the same stats as the rest of the range. 300hp and 295lb ft are competitive, but that's also what you get in an XE with this engine, or a Velar, or an F-Pace. The same power and torque, produced at the same rpm, in every single car. Perhaps we're being overly picky, but shouldn't the sports car boast a little more?
To those positives. The 52kg weight saving from the front end has transformed the F-Type's dynamics, frankly. Where in the V6 and V8 cars the quick steering - to contrive a sense of agility - can occasionally catch the car out, here the relationship between front and rear feels more harmonious. The turn-in is still sharp, but now the car can keep up. It's agile, accurate and eager to a level unfamiliar from the Jaguar sports car, which is a pleasant surprise.
The same hardware is used for the four-cylinder car from the other models, with a unique tune to account for the weight loss. So the front spring rate is four per cent softer, the rear three per cent, and the dampers recalibrated. There's still an underlying firmness to the ride, but again it feels to be a level of precision that befits the car, rather than an attempt to instil a character that isn't actually there. And there's just a tad more of that Jaguar grace with the softened rates, even on the optional 19s.
Still looks like an F-Type - jolly good
The four-cylinder car has the best electric steering of any F-Type yet as well, with more coming back through the wheel and a greater sense of connection with the front Pirellis. However, some reported excessive tramlining, with the new-found fondness for diving into a corner also extending to cambers and truck grooves. Hmm. Too much negative camber perhaps? It's one to report back on in the UK, though in our test car the signs were mostly very positive.
And that engine? Fine, really, and nothing more. No doubt we'll be sent to the gallows for suggesting as much, but both the 2.0 and 2.5 Porsche 718 engines are better. They pick up from fewer revs, respond to throttle inputs more keenly and rev out more enthusiastically. In a lighter car, a 300hp 2.0-litre Boxster feels faster than a 300hp 2.0-litre F-Type. Sorry, it just does.
The Jag sounds better, though. All test cars had the active exhaust, so we can't comment on the standard set-up, but the optional system was growly and purposeful and - crucially - not like a Beetle. It does the overrun crackles, parps its way through gearchanges and, being realistic, sounds about as good as you could expect from this configuration. The intake noise is said to be "meticulously tuned", though it's unclear whether this is through the speakers or not. Crucially however, where the noise is a key part of the appeal in other F-Types, it would be a challenge to say that here.
New seats look good, save weight and space
For now, there's not a great deal more to say on the four-cylinder F-Type. Its launch was shared with the Range Rover Velar, where the Jaguar felt like the older sibling that just so happened to share a birthday. It's new baby versus the four-year-old toddler that nobody especially cares about. Hence less time behind the wheel and a fairly ordinary route. The limited cornering opportunities did reveal those favourable traits discussed, though there was also a sneaking suspicion of it being a bit overtyred (245-section fronts, 275-section rears on the 19s) and, when the grip did run out, a little scrappy without a limited-slip diff.
Four Thought
These concerns could be confounded with a more detailed test - and hopefully they are - because there's a lot to like about this entry level F-Type. Focus has switched from the engine to the chassis for perhaps the first time, and the latter has actually proved itself very good. This F-Type feels like more of a sports car than any F-Type before it, essentially, and that includes the SVR.
Very good, very likeable, but so are the rivals...
In addition the manual, V6 coupe - a 340hp car, rather than a 380hp 'S' - is from £52,265, or just £2,365 more than the four-cylinder car. While the four-cylinder car is actually sharper to drive, the V6 arguably suits the F-Type's character rather better. If you see what we're getting at. With six or eight cylinders, and especially with a manual gearbox, the F-Type remains an engaging take on the sports GT car in its own little niche; with four cylinders it may struggle against the more direct opposition it now faces.
SPECIFICATION | 2017 JAGUAR F-TYPE 2.0 COUPE
Engine: 1,997cc, 4-cyl turbo
Transmission: 8-speed automatic, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 300@5,500rpm
Torque (lb ft): 295@1,500-4,500rpm
0-62mph: 5.7sec
Top speed: 155mph
Weight: 'from' 1,525kg
MPG: 39.2 (NEDC)
CO2: 163g/km
Price: £49,900 (Coupe), £55,385 (Roadster)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sales will be good, fuelling spicier models up the range.
Yet again however, Jaguar have got their pricing wrong - too expensive, but so is most of the Jaguar range.
Still I expect we'll see numerous single-exhaust Fs on the roads in months to come.
Don't forget, there is only £3,000 between the 4-pot and V8 Mustangs, and Ford UK sells more 4-pots than V8s.
And the group carry on talking
A 2 seater sports coupe with a cheap to run 4cyl is pointless is you ask me. It's describing almost everything that i don't want out of that experience, personally.
t about engine note.Just look at how many BMW Z4s and Merc SLKs are 4-pots.
Jags issue is, as with the rest of their range, it's overpriced with no real value to justify that higher cost.
For what its worth, I don't think the F-Type, TT, SLK or Z4 are sports car. Sports coupes perhaps, but not sports cars.
Pedantry matters an' all that...
https://broadspeed.com/new_cars/Jaguar/F-Type/Choo...
IF i was buying today, then theres £1900 of a difference between the two. THATS the figure i'd be interested in, not what it might be in a years time.
Also, there may never be as big a discount on the 2.0i, if it proves popular.
For info, theres £4,350 between Fords 4 banger mustang auto and the v8 auto.
Its meant for markets where purchase and road tax is calculated on either engine capacity or the nasty wee C O twooooos.
As an example:
Netherlands:
4 cylinder: from €72k (€22k in tax)
6 cylinder: from €113k (€56k in tax)
8 cylinder: from €180k (€81k in tax)
Here in NL I can see it making sense, but to buy in the UK and save only €2k over the V6 is madness. Dilution of the brand image IMO as well, but I think ill be in the minority with that view.
As mentioned above, my Father in Law is looking at Z4s. He's immediately turned off by the 35i - doesn't need the power, doesn't want the cost. The performance of the 4-pot is more than adequate for what he wants. Same reason people buy the SL350 not the 500. Even with the 4-pot, it's not a slow car.
The people who came up with that idea should be fired.
They said that about the death of the v12
They said that about the introduction of diesel
They said that about selling the company to the Indians
It's called progress. Without it there would be no Jaguar
Why would anyone spend £49k on this car when they can buy a BMW M2 which is cheaper, more powerful, faster and has 6 cylinders?
The only 4-pot AMG has never had anything other than a 4-pot.
And think of the F-Type target market. The grey haired market. Are they really going to be comparing a swift sports coupe/mini-GT with a hard focussed sports car like the M2? Hardly. Certainly not in any numbers.
I'm guessing no rice pudding skins were harmed during this test of a 50k "performance car"
For info, theres £4,350 between Fords 4 banger mustang auto and the v8 auto.
But we are in the minority.
And In fairness, I wouldn't walk into the Jaguar dealership in the first place
4-pot petrol units aren't really BMW's forte but the sixes are tried and tested. In fact, some of the 4-cylinder petrol engines have been hideously unreliable and not actually that great on fuel either for the adequate performance that they provide.
4-pot petrol units aren't really BMW's forte but the sixes are tried and tested. In fact, some of the 4-cylinder petrol engines have been hideously unreliable and not actually that great on fuel either for the adequate performance that they provide.
A quote from EVO's review of the 2.0 Z4; "The sDrive28i might have more power and torque, but its CO2 and mpg figures are identical to the 20i, so if you can stomach a £4165 higher asking price, you’ll gain a considerable wedge of extra performance."
I'm guessing no rice pudding skins were harmed during this test of a 50k "performance car"
For the same money Porsche will sell you a Cayman S that hits 62 in 4.6 and 100 in around 10 seconds with handling to match and they're not exactly known for their generous pricing structure.
4-pot petrol units aren't really BMW's forte but the sixes are tried and tested. In fact, some of the 4-cylinder petrol engines have been hideously unreliable and not actually that great on fuel either for the adequate performance that they provide.
A quote from EVO's review of the 2.0 Z4; "The sDrive28i might have more power and torque, but its CO2 and mpg figures are identical to the 20i, so if you can stomach a £4165 higher asking price, you’ll gain a considerable wedge of extra performance."
Apart from the one's i mentioned, you mean? What's age got to do with it? Why can't a 70+ year old man enjoy a proper BMW straight-six?
To you, and to me, the upside is more than worth it to get a 300bhp straight 6. But some people are not arsed about it. My 70yr old FiL is one of those. He's not unusual.
It's like non-car people who will buy DPF-equipped diesels to do about 5k per year around town. If i knew anyone who was about to make that choice, i'd personally tell them that they're making a mistake.
I know that some people are stubborn and very set in their ways with this kind of thing though. If it was still in budget or just spending that little but more, it really is worth it.
"Hi Father in Law, I know you don't want a bigger engine, and wouldn't use the performance of the small engine let alone the big one, and don't want the decreased fuel consumption, and don't want the higher insurance.....but some bloke off the internet say you are wrong. There is no reason why you should go for the smaller engine"
I can see that going down really well.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff