When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Of note, the standard brakes on the Jag stopped just as well as the CCBs on the others, just 1 ft behind the 700lb+ lighter Porsche. It was the brake feel that got the complaint.
Also, C&D did used to factor price in and did two summaries, one price-independent and one with price factored in. They changed that a while back.
Regardless of the test, I'd still pick the Jag out of these cars.
The fact that the test car did not have CCBs is entirely JLR's fault. C&D asked for a test car, and that's what they were shipped.
Absolutely, but at the same time C&D asked for a NAFTA representative model, and that's exactly what they sent. Most people get the standard brakes. Jaguar probably also had no idea who they were going up against.
Of note, the standard brakes on the Jag stopped just as well as the CCBs on the others, just 1 ft behind the 700lb+ lighter Porsche. It was the brake feel that got the complaint.
Also, C&D did used to factor price in and did two summaries, one price-independent and one with price factored in. They changed that a while back.
Regardless of the test, I'd still pick the Jag out of these cars.
Yes, and the difference in stopping distances between all 3 were statistically insignificant. There was only a 6 ft difference from worst to best, and as you note the F-Type was only 1 ft worse than the best.
I think the reason for the poster comment above was the superfluous comment about "mushy" brake feel.
I made sure to get my Mercedes & my wife's F Type (she traded it in) with CCB's. If they're available on any car I buy in the future, I'll be sure to tick that box. As far as this comparison goes, I haven't driven any of the 3. I've driven the SLS, F Type V8S & various 911 carrera's & turbo's over the years. If I had to pick a car to buy today to drive on the street, I'd rank em as follows...
1. AMG GTS
2. F Type CPE R
3. Porsche 911 GTS
I also don't agree with the comments regarding the ZF transmission. I haven't driven the Mercedes, but I've had a lot of seat time with the 911 and PDK, also a ZF box, and don't consider there to be a significant difference in terms of speed, quality and programming. I think Jaguar did a decent job with the transmission on the F type.
It seems that a significant number of car magazine reviewers take the approach of judging the cars against best track time and acceleration time and so forth. All geared toward someone that wants to have a top level track car.
The reviews of the FtypeR that I've seen in video format or in writing from reviewers that tend to live with the car for a number of days or weeks provide a point of view that more mirrors what I appreciate in a car. So far, these type of reviews tend to put the F near to the top or at the top of the order.
Top end cars tend to bring out an emotional response and clear preference based on the bias and the needs of the reviewer. Calling the cabin of the F cramped does not make sense to me and if it is smaller than another comparable car its likely due to the overall 'beautiful' design parameters of the F.
Like many on this forum, I do not place any weight whatsoever on what a reviewer says about a car, once I've had a chance to drive it and decide for myself.
Then of course there are those that follow the pack and purchase those 'other cars' !!
Lawrence.
This sort of reminds me of my Moto Guzzi V11 Lemans. Would never win a comparo, but in the real world, on the roads I ride, it is much more of a pleasure than any of the bikes that would. Also beautiful.
They said that the steering is a bit more commutative than the other 2, high praise for Jags new electronic steering. I have also watched a lot of video reviews and most praise the transmission for being nearly as good as a double clutch automatic. They comment on brake feel, but they didn't have the CCB of the other 2 and they were probably heated up at the time. A lot of subjective scoring. So after re reading the article I think the Jaguar held up quite well against much more expensive competition.
The reults of AWD F Type are interesting. Comparing the numbers that AWD got vs RWD reveals that AWD does not have much advantage over the RWD (at least numbers wise).
Here are the results that Car and Driver got for the 2015 Jaguar F-type R Coupe (RWD): Link to article
Car and Driver results for the 2016 Jaguar F-type R Coupe (AWD):
I always thought that the AWD will have much better numbers than the RWD, but it does not seem to be the case here.
On the topic of F-type R vs AMG GT, this is a YouTube video that shows a "theoretical" race between the two cars. You can see that the F Type R (RWD) is faster to 200 km/h, then the AMG GT starts to catch up:
When I got the F-Type I accepted that it would never "win" any magazine comparison. The honest truth is its chassis and performance (in terms of lap times) is not on par with Porsche and AMG. But Jags have never been about that. So I don't really disagree with the rankings except for the "fun" score which is really odd. End of the day for me,
1. 911s are just too common for me. I see them every other block, no exaggeration. I'm still a big "Porsche" guy but probably won't actually buy one.
2. AMG GT-S is $150K, out of my price range right now. I'd still get the SLS (used) over the AMG GT-S probably due to the gullwings
This sort of reminds me of my Moto Guzzi V11 Lemans. Would never win a comparo, but in the real world, on the roads I ride, it is much more of a pleasure than any of the bikes that would. Also beautiful.
Same situation for my Guzzi 850T from even further back. (Still like it better than anything else out there).
The reults of AWD F Type are interesting. Comparing the numbers that AWD got vs RWD reveals that AWD does not have much advantage over the RWD (at least numbers wise).
I always thought that the AWD will have much better numbers than the RWD, but it does not seem to be the case here.
You can't put much stock in magazine article times. They are historically very unreliable. Obviously the drivers could be different, but in addition to that many magazines use rolling starts to maximize traction which would give the RWD traction limited car an advantage. Not to mention different conditions and location. You'd really need to see them back to back to see the real difference.
. The F Type is the best drivers sports car of the 3 with the best looks, sound and soul which magazine editors seem to forget about. It's all about specs now a days and never the right ones.
Well said, I couldn't agree more. F-Type is great value with a soul. And Porsche has a 50 year start with the 911 and Merc is so much bigger as a corporation than JLR with much more resources to throw at a niche car.
One item missed by C&D was you won't see an F-Type passing you daily; exclusivity. You may not see the AMG GTS MB, but you see many of the flip top two seat MBs here in FLA every day. And Porsche 911s, they are all over the place. OK, southern FLA may be the exception to the above due to the weather and $s, but there are more Teslas here than F-Types and they are the $100K models. I've owned a 911 Cab as most of us always wanted, but it was a highway cruiser and didn't have the looks, finish, nor the personality of the F-Type.
...
On the topic of F-type R vs AMG GT, this is a YouTube video that shows a "theoretical" race between the two cars. You can see that the F Type R (RWD) is faster to 200 km/h, then the AMG GT starts to catch up:
I don't really see that. The AMG has a different scale and really is already at 210 when the Jag reaches 200km/h. I see the AMG ahead the whole way.
How fast do you want to go? How fast CAN you go?? I think any car capable of sub-5 second 0-60 is fantastically fun. Subtle handling differences apparent on a track aren't going to be appreciated on the street. All these cars are impractical as transportation -- the rated capacity of my F-Type is 420 pounds with a miniscule boot.
We buy cars like this because we love them, they are automotive art. Arguing the "fine points" of performance as measured by the pundits doesn't make sense to me (although it's fun reading).
A buddy of mine is into Corvettes in a big way, he always has 4-at-a-time. I could have had a 650+ HP Corvette in my garage for what I paid for my "British Corvette" 380 HP F-Type. But when you look at them together (as Car & Driver did in June 2014), the F-Type is the prettier car. At least I think so.... Lots of similarities between the two, to name just 2 features, the rear valence and front lights I think are "prettier" on the Jaguar.
I tell my friend my car is the prettier car and I think she "sounds better" and "smells better" too. Automotive Art.
"finishes a distant 3rd and comes across the line full seconds after the flash that barely separates the Porsche from the Mercedes"
and yet the F-type beat the Porsche in every acceleration category except one (top gear), where it tied, and beat it in the 1/4 mile as well(??)
Maybe he wrote the article before doing the testing?
Perhaps Jaguar needs to take out a few more full-page ads to be considered a contender in C&D's eyes.
For the first time in 21 years I have not renewed my C&D subscription (not based on this article, unhappy with the publication in general). They have let slip what made them great for many years.
Well, they do say if you're selling something, you give the buyer 3 options in order to steer them to the desired result - the 'low end' option with all its 'flaws', the 'way too much' more expensive option and the desired 'sensible' middle ground option.
05-01-2015, 11:55 AM
