Test drove the new Lexus (not the LC) and was bored to death. The exterior and interior did nothing for me. I felt so mad that the Lexus people wasted my time. The LC500 is just not my style either. Way too blingy or ostentatious for me. Doesn't speak "performance" like the Jag F Type. Those huge chrome wheels made me want to puke when I saw the LC on the showroom floor.

My 2 cents.

 

Fastest LC500 (2019) on Dragy.

 

At a minimum of ~4300 lbs, it's meant to haul lots of groceries.

 

Yeah, it seems to be falling away after about 80kph which is really where the Jag engine has its party piece. That said, if you arent planning on breaking the speed limit 0 - 50 in 3.77 is pretty quick, and the car does sound nice IMO.

 

nailed it! No soul. I modified numerous Japanese cars and loved the reliability, but never once felt the same connection between road and machine like a European car. It’s just different. The previous post is also correct, go to the LC forum and they’ll probably dump on the f-type - some people buy cars to use as a tool, I buy for a feeling - same reason that I wear boxers from target until they fall apart but wear watches that cost more than my first house, different things matter to different people. My neighbor has a Lexus es300 - looks like a Buick, probably hasn’t required much service, but I would rather be kicked in the nuts than buy something with no personality.

 

If you're a car guy, always choose the car that makes you look back after you park it. I you're not and just want transportation, then pick the one with the features you like and don't worry about which car it is. But as others have said, most of the people I read about on here chose the F Type for the soul. And I can promise you, they are looking back at it every time they park no matter how long they've owned it.

 

I do not have a F-Type but do look back all the time at my XKR even after 6 years of ownership. You would think I'd be over it by now but that's what a Jag is capable of. Timeless beauty. Even with my XJ's they just have a presence on the road, you don't have to be a car nut to realize something special just went by in this world of look a like auto's.

 

Yeah, its amazing how consistent acceleration usually produces a good result even if its not very high. Here is the fastest F-Type R which is quite the rollercoaster by comparison.

The McLaren 720S has that same steady acceleration. Nothing special, just consistent. Here is the fastest stock 720S, which looks like it may had a little too much initial wheel spin but is still the fastest run of hundreds of cars.

So the LC500 numbers aren't bad, just boring.

Another really interesting thing is how far the F-Type is ahead of both cars in feet traveled per time.

In the pure physics of it all, Power = Work/Time where Work = Force x Distance. Mass comes out in the wash because it is harder to move a heavy car some distance.

So the F-Type is puttiing down way more real horsepower (as opposed to a snapshot of peak HP) than the other two. Dynos are pretty much a useless marketing gimmick because RPM is wrongly used as a proxy for distance traveled per time, which counts on human-input fudgefactors to accomodate mass and gearing, and peak HP is irrelevant anyway. The real world can't cook the numbers.

 

RacerX, was the F-Type R 0-60 time on a stock vehicle? Best I've ever seen on a completely stock R was 3.2 with a 11.5 quarter so I'm liking the 3.02!

 

Thats the fastest Jag, so yes it has a tune. In my biased mind thats acceptable when comparing to a $350K 720S Spider. The LC isn't remotely competitive but still as pricey as the Jag, plus being normally aspirated a cheap quick tune can't add much if anything, which is a valid and real disadvantage IMO.

Here is fastest stock R, its 3.27 to 60 mph (car mags use 1-ft rollout), but would still be ~20 ft ahead of the 720S at the 3.02 second point even if acceleration was linear which its not. So maybe 25 ft in front at the 60 mph point of the McLaren.


So what is really going on is the McLaren is coming on very strong toward the end. The LC500 is, more or less, dead in the water from beginning to end.

So we have the classic race of torque vs HP. Torque wins races, HP sells cars. Why? Because HP relies on high RPM, or more ignition cycles per time than the bigger, meaning torquier engine (more force in the Force x Distance, Work equation). Not only does the smaller engine lose the all important beginning of the race, upon which all interest rates are compounded, but it wears the engine out exponentially faster (as the square of internal metal surface to surface speeds) to reap a linear benefit.

 

Thanks, nice to know information for bragging rights. So Motor Trend's published 3.3 to 60 for a 2016 AWD is pretty accurate along with Car & Driver's 3.5 for a 2015 RWD Type R.

 

Yep. And it illustrates the non-intuitive trickiness of racing to a speed instead of a distance, as discussed at the end of my last post.

 

Another feather in the tuned F-Type's cap is beating the new, but still low torque 911 Turbo 4S at a stop light. We lose in time to speed, but win the distance race by around 15 ft.

Here is the fastest stock Porsche 911 4S Twin Turbo on Dragy (2019).

The high revving twin turbo 4S (447 HP/390 TQ) comes on very strong at the end and even beats the Jag to 60 mph, but it can't close the big distance gap by 60 mph. It is lighter but not light enough to win the distance race.

I always wondered why 0-60 is used instead of a race to a distance, say 150 ft. Dragy has answered that question. Racing to a time favors smaller, higher revving engines which are cheaper to build and sticks the customer with the higher lifecycle maintenance costs.

This is also why HP is advertised instead of Torque. Any crappy 1-cylinder can be spun fast enough to produce any HP figure you are looking for. That doesn't make it fast to distance.

 

Excellent! My recent (past decade) car purchases keep getting a little faster. Nissan 370 to a Audi S5 to a Porsche Cayman S to a BMW M4 to my current F-Type R. For the price point it's hard to beat the Jaguar's performance, exhaust or appearance and as much as I would love to have a new 911 Turbo S there comes a time when you need to stay in your financial lane! My brother just purchased an M5 Competition and he loves to remind me of his car's sub 3 second zero to 60 time and I remind him that he is still driving a 4 door sedan, albeit an extremely fast sedan.

 

2019 BMW M5 Competion, below. You should win a race to distance to around the 60 mph mark by about 20 ft.

​​​​​​

 

Just remind him he's still driving a BMW - if that doesn't embarrass him, nothing will!

 

sim, it wouldn't work with him because I already drank the BMW kool aid. He previously owned a BMW 650M while I had my M4 which motivated him to purchase the M5 Competition. He's a very senior airline captain and I just can't compete with his financial ability to keep raising the bar and I have reached my comfort level. Though we're both extremely competitive there is mutual respect for each other's vehicles and his need for back seats is paramount.

 

Sadly, you can compete with him now. Not to be mean but airlines are on the bleeding edge of the cratering pension fund bubble that burst on Sep 17, 2019. Airline unions are trying to negotiate a 30-40 cent on the dollar pension settlement, but the truth is that turnip has bled-out.

It is such BS that banks speculated-away everyone elses retirement money by playing in the unusually high yield corporate bond sandbox, and lost. What could possibly go wrong with that idea?

​​​​​​Even more frustrating is the same thing keeps happening over and over and over. How could it not happen, when the casino is open and bank gains are kept and the losses are socialized?

 

I have a hard time looking at the LC500 getting jabbed in the eye. Is it crying?

 

I shopped for a long, long time and my two finalists were the F Type R and the LC 500. I bought a still new 2018 coupe at the end of last year. I test drove the LC 500 multiple times and I really liked it. It's pretty (IMO), the performance is pretty good, you never see another one on the road and the build quality was excellent. The reliability is going to be better, obviously.

I ended up with the F Type because it's beautiful and I had lusted after one for a while. It's my second Jaguar (after a '12 XF) and I was fully aware of the shortcomings. I really like the car but to be completely honest I should have kept my XF. My F Type's fit and finish isn't great. It's hard to get in and out of and the performance novelty wears off. It'll always be beautiful, but does it justify the price of entry? I'm not so sure anymore.

I bought new and wouldn't buy a used sportscar, but I would buy a used LC 500. I'd guess they're not driven that hard. The depreciation on each car is bad, so if I had it to do over again, I think the smart move might be a lightly used 2019 LC 500, after a mechanic's inspection. The 2019's transmissions are better than the 2018's and you should never buy the first year of any car, even a Lexus.