Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

Thread: Is the 2015 F-Type R Coupe the best ever?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,534
    They're different than a similarly priced Porsche. More muscle, less razor sharpness, still fun.

    BTW, Jag didn't really make their name in racing.. sure they used a racey engine in the road cars, but what really made them was cheap performance. In their day, Jags were the fastest affordable sports cars. Even the stodgy looking MkII had a stonking I6 under the bonnet and could be modded into a decent touring car racer. Luxury and verve, they were more like the 90s BMW M cars than racers.
    Life's too short to drive bad cars.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,456
    Except they were really successful race cars.....I mean Jag has won Le Mans 5 times before 1960s...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    169
    Well I'm not up on my Porsche stuff.....what's out there to compare it to? 911 Turbo? Cost vs. performance?
    Thanks, Joe

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,456
    Turbo is probably closer in character but its also $50k more. It'll also likely be way faster in all objective measure...GT3 is closer in price at $130k.

    I don't actually think a Carrera S(same price, 150 less bhp) will be a lot slower(if at all), since Porsche will have probably 600+lb weight advantage over the Jag...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    169
    Interesting!
    Thanks, Joe

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    736
    I went and drove the piss out of a V8 S roadster about a month ago. It looked stunning, even better in person than on pictures. The interior was well laid out, and I fit okay in it -- I would call it adequately snug. Power came in smooth -- much more so than what I would have expected from a positive displacement supercharged engine -- and the car had a nice two sided nature going from docile to wild in a nice gradual way. It was surprisingly easy to control in a slide. Being used to American V8s by now, the exhaust note was not as intoxicating as others had led me to believe, but certainly not bad by any means at all. Brakes were brilliant. It was a very well put together car.

    There was just one thing: I didn't like the flappy paddles. I really didn't. I know I'm probably just getting old and cranky, maybe they just require some getting used to, and I do like them in the 991 GT3, but they just didn't fit my image of the F-type well.

    /rant
    Turning money into memories.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,534
    Quote Originally Posted by RacingManiac View Post
    Except they were really successful race cars.....I mean Jag has won Le Mans 5 times before 1960s...
    Oh for sure, I'm just nit-picking on where their name was made.
    Life's too short to drive bad cars.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    As everyone knows I drove an S Coupé recently.

    It wasn't perfect (steering a bit too light, ride preposterously stiff) but it was rather exciting, lots of noise, lots of performance, good handling, even the flappy paddle gearbox made sense.

    The asking price however, was 113 thousand Euros. Which is rather a lot. And then it got me thinking, soundtrack aside, in which way does the F-Type better a 2 litre MX-5? In fact I would say that the Mazda handles better, and yes the Jag is faster but in this day of speed cameras you could argue that where you are going to enjoy the car (mountain roads) it is not that relevant.

    Nevermind a Porsche (those are even more expensive) the only possible rival I see for this car is the Corvette, which unfortunately is a non-entity here. Elsewhere you'd be hard pressed to do better than with an MX-5 or Toyobaru, which are significantly cheaper than the Jaguar.

    Of course, if you are the sort of person for whom spending 113.000€ is the same as buying the newspaper every morning, forget the above and buy the Jag.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    736
    I would have to agree. I, too, think it's overpriced. Then again, when is a car like this ever something you buy unless you A) have an excess influx of cash, B) are really passionate about this particular car.

    As for the Corvette, provided they're available, and you are focused on the performance side of things, you'd have to really want something British and beautiful in order to not consider the current C6/C7 options, let alone next year's Z06; at the same size, but lighter, more powerful, and cheaper, it's going to be a slaughter.
    Turning money into memories.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    I'm not worried about the performance, with 350bhp or more performance is bound to be adequate.

    I'm far more concerned on whether the Corvette can deliver excitement and handling. I know the Jag can, but can the Corvette as well?

    Also, as far as excitement bargains go, wouldn't it be better to settle for a Camaro then?
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    I'm not worried about the performance, with 350bhp or more performance is bound to be adequate.

    I'm far more concerned on whether the Corvette can deliver excitement and handling. I know the Jag can, but can the Corvette as well?

    Also, as far as excitement bargains go, wouldn't it be better to settle for a Camaro then?
    If a Corvette isn't exciting, you're doing something wrong.

    Nah, the Camaro is too heavy in my opinion.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    I'm not worried about the performance, with 350bhp or more performance is bound to be adequate.

    I'm far more concerned on whether the Corvette can deliver excitement and handling. I know the Jag can, but can the Corvette as well?

    Also, as far as excitement bargains go, wouldn't it be better to settle for a Camaro then?

    That is an interesting question! I probably wouldn't go so far as to compare a pony car to a sports car; apples to oranges. I'm not saying a pony car with more muscle than brains can't be exciting, but they really are vastly different animals.

    As for the Corvette to F-type comparison, I can't say too much about the C7 as I still have very limited experience with them. However, my newest addition is a 2013 427, so I do feel comfortable doing a comparison between that and the V8 S Roadster.

    Think of the 427 as a convertible C6 Z06, with the carbon bits, fenders, and hood from the ZR1, but with the hydroformed steel chassis rails from the base model due to the necessary increase in chassis rigidity. Everything else is lifted from the Z06 and Z07 package.

    The Jaguar has a more nimble feeling steering to it, but the 427 has more grip -- even with the stock runflats that are still on it. The Jaguar feels easier to go fast in, but the 427 will go faster yet. The Jaguar feels like it wants to attack a corner out of pure principle with a propensity to oversteer, but the 427 has a more confidence inspiring handling, and will grip better than the Jaguar. You can, of course, be quite tail happy with the 427 as well, but it won't snap at you the same way the Jaguar does.

    Yes, the 427 does have a much bigger engine, more power, more torque, more sound, wider rolling stock front and rear, and less mass with a 50/50 weight distribution, but it also has (had) a lower sticker price. Yes, the Jaguar has a nicer interior, and, quite honestly, I also think it looks just a little bit better, but I'd still take the 427. It handles better, is faster, and sounds better. To me it's the most exciting car to drive.
    Last edited by Rasmus; 07-06-2014 at 01:19 PM.
    Turning money into memories.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,456
    Quote Originally Posted by NSXType-R View Post
    If a Corvette isn't exciting, you're doing something wrong.

    Nah, the Camaro is too heavy in my opinion.
    The Jag is listed to curb weight around 3700lb. C&D last tested a V8S Roadster at 3900+lb, that is Camaro weight...


    Thats my biggest beef with the whole F-Type thing. Jag have shown they can build light cars, the last XJ(before the huge restyling and when they first did the aluminum monocoque) was something like 3900lb, and that was a 4 door big saloon car, it was lighter than A8(Audi Aluminum Spaceframe) by a decent margin. And then when they build an actual "Sports car" its heavy as a pig....
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    169
    Great stuff...............I appreciate the real world advice!!
    Thanks, Joe

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by RacingManiac View Post
    The Jag is listed to curb weight around 3700lb. C&D last tested a V8S Roadster at 3900+lb, that is Camaro weight...


    Thats my biggest beef with the whole F-Type thing. Jag have shown they can build light cars, the last XJ(before the huge restyling and when they first did the aluminum monocoque) was something like 3900lb, and that was a 4 door big saloon car, it was lighter than A8(Audi Aluminum Spaceframe) by a decent margin. And then when they build an actual "Sports car" its heavy as a pig....
    The F-Type is heavy because its chassis is actually derived from that of the XJ. That means that because some of its components may have been engineered for larger cars it is a heavy car for its size, or at least heavier than if it had been engineered specifically for this application.

    Having said that, the car handles very well. Yes, it is not quite as agile or as immediate as other sportscars, but the way the back of the cars pushes you out of the corners is very satisfying indeed.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gran Turismo 5
    By Sauc3 in forum Gaming
    Replies: 1020
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 03:16 PM
  2. BMW Zagato Coupé 2012
    By Ferrer in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-26-2012, 02:39 AM
  3. Peugeot Type 6/7 1894-1897
    By Ferrer in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-27-2009, 06:17 AM
  4. Lotus Evora Type 124 Endurance Racecar
    By Ecnelis in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 11:39 PM
  5. BMW Z4 Coupé Concept Car 2005
    By Colin17 in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-09-2006, 03:54 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •