A good luxury sedan would do so as well, and be much more fun to drive.

 

This is beyond true! My daughter has a jeep, and although more recalls than she would like, it is a beauty and rides extremely well. Very happy with it.

 

I had a Fiat 500 - the latest model - as a hire car the week before last. As many toys as the F-type, with the exception of satnav and electric seats.

Fun, but not an f-type. As previously mentioned, if toys are your thing you can get more for less elsewhere.

I don't see this as a reason to buy a 500 over an f-type, but each to their own.

 

Toys are not my thing but features are. My F-Type is not strictly for looking good, street racing and track events. It will also be used for cruising and out-of-area excursions - so features are very welcome. The point is that FCA can pack these features into its main stream vehicles (options so no one is forced to buy the "toys"), but Jag isn't quite there.

Desert Hiker

 

I have a Maserati Ghibli and I can tell you FCA doesn't "pack" their cars with tech. It has FCA great MTC head unit but doesn't even offer half of what the Jag has. And the "Premium" radio just sucks. And wasn't FCA that got hacked? Plus they fight every defect recall for months on end at the customers expense. I think a crap Fiat 500 is the perfect answer to all of the F Type petty complaints. I had every possible tech offering in a Q7 S Type Prestige and they were great but it drove like a great SUV! No more no less!Answer is to have 2 cars as I'm sure most of us do!

 

For future reference, toys are one up from features. None of which are benefits.

I've driven a number of Jeep products in the U.S. And Yoorup. I've never wondered why they couldn't outdrag and out corner an M5. Had they failed to cut it off road, or in snow up to the axles I would be annoyed.

So, like I said, if features (aka toys) are your thing, a minivan will fully meet your requirements.

Have you considered bitching about why Kim Kardashian has yet to win a Nobel Prize?

 

.....Jag could do better and those not wanting the tech can avoid paying for the techy toys/features. What a concept!!!

I don't expect the Jeep Trailhawk to handle like the Jag and I don't expect the Jag to ford streams and climb rocks. Snarky doesn't preclude being thoughtful and logical in replies.

BTW, so far I'm enjoying the F-Type and didn't really mean to tweak anyone's sensibilities about it. This threaded started as a musing about features and the curious comparison with Jeep/FCA.

Desert Hiker

 

As the owner of the same two vehicles you have, I would agree with you if it were truly a matter of choice. I'm old school in the sense I don't want my sports cars to have anything other than the things that make it handle well and go fast.

If it were truly a matter of being able to choose or not choose the technology stuff, I'd also be in agreement with you, but like most other up-market brands, they bundle too many gadgets in expensive packages and don't let you choose which ones you might like a la carte. For me, the base F-Type has too much technology.

On the other hand, like yours, my Trailhawk is loaded with all the tech stuff, and I like having it because it's a vehicle with an entirely different purpose. Having the capability to do some fairly challenging off-road stuff, and then getting back on the highway and enjoying a luxurious, smooth ride is nice.

 

I can see both sides. Porsche addresses this by providing almost every option a la carte, with bundles for popular combinations. So the folks who just want a basic sports car can get that, folks who want a more luxury sports car with the extra tech can get that.

Jaguar is including more and more in the base packages to appeal more to the GT crowd, but I think they should actually go back to an approach more similar to the Porsche model. That way they could support all the tech that people could want, but just make it optional. They just need price their options at a fair rate, not outrageously high like Porsche does.

Personally a HUD is the only tech option that I feel is really necessary on a sports car since it helps keep your eyes on the road instead of looking down to check your rpms or speed, but the rest is nice to have.

 

Agree on the HUD!

My '06 C6 ZO6 had it, and I never looked down at the gauges while driving, as it was all on the HUD. I loved it on the track, and found it very useful for slowing from 130 mph at the end of a straight and avoid spinning out on the approaching hairpin all while hitting the apex properly.

It absolutely made me faster.

 

Yeah the HUD on the new C7 Corvette is even better than the one on the C6. I like how it switches what is displayed depending on which mode you're in, so track mode is different than street mode, etc.

The F-Type is the first car I've owned in some time that doesn't have a HUD.