There was a thread titled something like 'Weigh your F-type' - a number of folks had their cars weighed on truck scales. I located one, but never got around to it.

 

More torque equals more shock when launching/shifting. However I don't know the real reason why they did this; only Jaguar would know. I'd argue the AWD variants wouldn't spin the tires but they do this on the RWD as well. This is something Chris from VAP has talked about as a roadblock in the past. That's why our AWD's launch better off idle than they do with brake torquing the vehicle.

 

Correct; https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/f...hassle-161094/


For the record, the one AWD R that was weighed was 3954 lbs (wet, no fuel)

Also, given identical weights and HP levels, there is no benefit to a turbo car other than economy/emmissions. There is no magic here.


Dave

 

traction kills drivetrain components, not power or torque! ;-)


Dave

 

It is not the fall, but sudden deceleration at the end that kills you.

 

Anyone have experience or knowledge on turbo vs supercharger longevity?

 

I have done some searches on the web, and it seems like you get as many opinions on that as you get people having opinions on that.....


My opinion is that there are no clear answeres, and it depends on many other factors (one is there are good and bad makes of turbos and there are good and bad makes of superchargers).

 

Yep; no blanket statements as each application is different. I've had ten turboed vehicles (still have 5) and I've also replaced/rebuilt a couple turbos over the years.


Dave

 

If you don't change oil (and often it isn't on the service schedule) turbos last about 60K. Superchargers tend to last 100K. However, this doesn't tell you how long specific turbo or supercharger would last.

 

Say it isn't so.

 

In the x5 v8 case I cited the car was serviced by the dealer and was just over 50k when both turbos failed. The SUV was almost exclusively driven on highway.

 

You can see how it appears forum member Whitetardis is reacting to the 4 cylinder news

 

Yes, clearly a fan of 4 cylinders (x2).

 

What are they going to call 4-cylinder F-type? F-type F(ail)?

 

Again press another story based on rumours and little fact. I certainly hope the don't put a 4 cylinder in the FTYPE but I'm not going to get worked up just yet.

 

Lots of discussion here comparing acceleration times as a function of weight and power... let's not forget that in cars with this much hp and torque your 0-60 and 1/4 mile time is going to be massively dependent on the quality of your tires.

I would guess the R AWD would handily best the Porsches being compared here if the magazines tested them on a set of Sport Cup 2's. For a fair comparison of outright performance the magazines should run the tests with identical tires (but using OEM tires allows us consumers to see how the car performs out of the box so that's also "fair" in its own way).

Personally my main hangup with turbo anything is the huge negative effect it on sound...and lag.

 

The AWD doesn't have any issues with grip as is, so Cup 2's aren't going to help it accelerate faster... The torque limitations in the first two gears are what keeps us from putting down quick 0-60 times. We can't hang with Porsche on that.

 

Jaguar have already published the updated F-Type with the AJ200 4cy Ingenium engine to the Topix site for the 2018 MY, so it exists.

There is still a lot of placeholder info in the workshop manual, but the electrical schematics are almost complete. Bits have been appearing over the last few weeks. Interestingly the only variation so far is 2WD with the 8 speed auto transmission, but that could just be those are the only ones currently on the road/testing so might not represent what will be offered for sale.

 

I dunno - my missus has the 25T XE and it is a lovely engine. A four pot turbo with a bit extra grunt than the 180KW ecoboost and in a manual would be a bit of fun in the f type. For the daily commute you'd never know the difference. I'd prefer the 6 or 8 myself if only for the engine note.

 

I love Car and Driver. One test is for the Carrera S PDK and one is for the RS7 "Performance" (+45 HP).

Carrera S, 420hp twin turbo, 3363 lbs: 11.4 @ 123 Weight/HP = 8.00/1

RS7: 605hp twin turbo, 4487 lbs: 11.3 @ 125 Weight/HP = 7.42/1

911 Turbo (non-S) cabriolet: 540HP, 3731 lbs: 10.8 @ 129 Weight/HP = 7.0/1

F type SVR: assuming 3950 lbs: Almost identical 1/4 mile performance to the Audi and Carrera S... Weight/HP = 6.87/1

In all cases, the turbocharged cars significantly outperform their power/weight ratios. I know there are other factors such as shift speeds and tires, but it's pretty consistent across the board. So is it the launch? Does building boost prior to launch help rocket the cars to these ridiculous numbers? Would a rolling start from 30 MPH show a different result?



2017 Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet Test | Review | Car and Driver

2017 Porsche 911 Carrera S PDK Automatic Test | Review | Car and Driver

2017 Audi RS7 Performance Test | Review | Car and Driver