That's probably highly optimistic, based on the many folks here who have actually weighed their cars.

Back to your regularly scheduled program - and thanks for keeping this civil. Very interesting discussion.

 

You have to add about 300 pounds for the fluids. My 3500 pound car actually weighs 3800 pounds.

 

Automatic is also heavier that than MT, so there is another 50-100 pounds extra there.

 

Curb weight is supposed to include all fluids including a full tank of fuel. Some folks like a definition with a half tank, but that is not the generally accepted definition. Clearly the website says 3360 is the low curb weight for the F. I can't believe JAG doesn't know what the curb weight is for their own cars, HOWEVER, (a) I can believe a mistake might be made on the website, and (b) 300 pounds is suspiciously like what the gas, coolant, and oil would weigh.

 

From Wiki... The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations [2] define curb weight as follows: Curb weight means the actual or the manufacturer’s estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and weight of fuel at nominal tank capacity, and the weight of optional equipment computed in accordance with §86.1832–01.

It is also pretty interesting that the 2L auto is quicker 0-60 than the 3L manual. Better handling too probably and 8K cheaper but maybe with less equipment.

 

You might find this thread interesting...
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/f...hassle-161094/

 

As the original poster, I had no idea it would get into this level of spirited yet highly technical discussion. I appreciate all of it, and consider myself lucky to be learning from you guys. Cheers to all of you.

 

I understand we each have different preferences, some prefer large NA engines, some large supercharged engines, some prefer larger turbocharged engines.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about relative merits of these although one final attempt to correct the Turbo are all top end power with no low down torque argument would be a Ford Focus RS (2009) this had a modified Volvo turbocharged I5 of 2.5L it produced 300 bhp at 6500rpm with maximum torque 324 lb ft at 2250 rpm.

Turbocharged engines can be optimised for high maximum power or for low and mid range torque, it's all down to selecting a turbo whose compressor and turbine matches the engine displacement and compression ratio and desired power characteristics.
Excessive heat in forced induction engines tends to increase with boost pressures although even improved efficiency of TVS supercharger is inferior to centrifugal turbo which leads to higher inlet air temperature at lower boost levels.

A previous mention of turbo surge and the Jaguar I4 turbo being laggy are examples of poor design in the former case and design compromise in the latter, it cannot be argued that because a particular engine has flaws that it is typical of all examples of NA or supercharged or turbocharged engines.

Take a look at WRC cars, I don't think any car has won the championship since early 1980s that didn't have a turbocharged engine, many nationalities of manufacturer can't all be due to fashion!

 

I had an s60R with that engine, stock it was 220kw and 400Nm, tuned it was about 230KW and 480Nm. It was a monster of an engine at the time, and ran with twin intercoolers though they are only little ones. I cant recall there being any lag at all, though my car was a manual and if I wanted to launch hard I'd have to get the revs up first as it would bog down at launch.

It was noticeably better to drive on a cold rainy day. In our filthy summers where the temps sometimes get around 40 celsius and probably hotter on the roads, the drop in performance was noticeable even to the "**** dyno". I havent noticed that at all in the supercharged Jags, though I am a lot tamer as a driver these days.

 

Any idea on time frame as you can still build SVR

 

Judging by the time frame for the planned finish of the AJ133 engine deal with Ford - December 2020 - you should be able to order an SVR for model years 2019 and 2020 at least, probably 2021 as well and maybe even 2022 as well.

 

The only thing more superior that turbos have over superchargers is fuel efficiency. That wider torque band nonsense is just that, nonsense. U simply can’t “feel” the torque in a turbocharged vehicle the same way u can feel it in a supercharged. And although I do agree with u that turbolag is almost nonexistent, I need to point out “almost.” The lag, as minimal as it is, is still there! If u drive like a grandpa, maybe you’ll never notice it. But if you’re an aggressive driver such as myself, you’ll definitely notice the lag. From a performance standpoint, most of us don’t drive on the track often enough to make use of a turbocharged vehicle’s full potential. On daily driving situations, a turbo is quite frustrating. For example, try switching lanes on the freeway quickly in a supercharged vehicle such as the F-type. Now do the same in a turbocharged vehicle such as an M6. The difference is night and day. In daily driving situations, where you’ll be living in the low to mid-range of your power band, the supercharger is vastly superior.

 

Agree!

 

I would like to point out that I was once a disappointed owner of a N63tu bmw 650i gran coupe. Straight trash. I’ve also driven several M5s and M6s as several of my friends swear by German vehicles. Also trash, although slightly better than my 650i. Even after my ETG tune on the 650 (556 hp), I would still lose to my XJL-Supercharged and Lexus RCF, both having about 80 hp less. I would only win if we’re on the freeway starting from a 60 mph roll. Simply unacceptable! This is personal experience, not something I read about on car and driver or motortrend. As far as gtr goes.... Yes, it is definitely a beast! No doubt about that. But try this, race a stock gtr against a stock f-type R. But don’t use launch control. Again, this is real world experience, not a magazine article. The results, NECK AND NECK! The reason a gtr performs so well, let’s be honest, 90% of it is due to that ridiculous launch control. Without it, still a solid performer, but nothing superior. And yes, because of the turbo setup, it can reach excess of 1500 hp. But then, the daily drivability is shot to hell. U point out high-end turbo cars such as McLaren and such.... Compare the cost of even the base 570s to an f-type R or corvette z06. The performance is only slightly better and does not justify the costs of double or even triple. You’re paying that much extra just for the name. And to that, I say Aventador. Over 700 N/A hp and over 500 ft/tq that u can actually “feel.” Again, over half a million bucks. So it is still possible to have huge power outputs without forced induction. But definitely not cost-effective.

 

On a track that I frequent there is a corner that I like to call a turbo killer. It is right after mellow corner in a set of sharp corners right before straight away in front of bleachers. You are coming into this corner slowly, due to just being finished with sharp corners, and you are anxious to punch out to get going. The corner is also mild, so temptation to get on it early is there. However, if you happen to drive turbo and get on boost without expecting it then you may go *** first into the wall. If you panic and lift, you are guaranteed to go nose first into the tires. I have seen multiple wrecks there (everyone lived, not all cars survived it). All turbo engines. While that spot is infamous for this, general trend is that it is much harder to recover turbo car from throttle-related mistakes.

 

Something isn't adding up here. My experience has been very different than yours, but I think I know why. I'm guessing it has to do with your car being a 650i and not a 650xi. The only way a 556 HP 650i is losing to an RCF is that it either doesn't really have 556hp, you really need to lose a lot of weight, or you're traction limited. Being nice here, I'm guessing the latter. ;-)

I've had 3 V8TT X5s, including an M, and a 550i. The X5M was shockingly fast and had immediate throttle response. I once raced and matched a 911 turbo cab in it, among others, and the in-gear rolling acceleration was very impressive. I guarantee it would torch an RCF. Same with a another X5 50i Dinan that I had that beat a supercharged Mustang Cobra. It's a good engine.

Regarding rolling runs with a stock GTR and an F-type, I'd also bet you're wrong on this. The rolling 5-60, 60-100, and 60-130 times of the stock GTR are faster than the F-type R by quite a margin, and I can tell you that the engine has no flat spots. You can never catch the turbos off boil, whereas you can get some flat spots on the F-type. I don't have any direct rolling videos to post, but here's an early 485hp GTR pulling away from a 550hp XKR-S, which is pretty close in performance to the F-type R, considering it has the same engine and similar weight.


Regarding the 570S, check the numbers, but again it's in a different league performance-wise. And the Aventador, well yeah. But that's a 6.5L V12 in a half million dollar car, so like you said, not cost effective. The 570s has the same performance from a 3.9L V8TT with better gas mileage for half the price. And drama.

 

In regards to my 650i.... I had absolutely no traction loss. In fact, the throttle lag was so bad, the car didn’t move for almost a full second after stomping on the accelerator. And on the freeway, I was always scared to switch lanes aggressively for fear of not having enough power in the band. Maybe I had a lemon. Who knows? But again, it’s a personal experience. Not quoting something I read outta the magazine. And by the way, the rcf is no slouch. The times might look slow on paper, but believe me, in the real world, it has beat EVERY M4 it came across on the freeway, as well as an M5. The car now belongs to a close friend of mine. We both live out in Los Angeles. So if u think I’m just blowing hot air, you’re more than welcome to come see for yourself. Like I said, I don’t ever put faith into what magazines say. A lot of times, they are paid for their biased reviews and test times.

In regards to the f-type vs gtr.... One more time, you’re quoting times from a magazine or some mumbo jumbo stat that’s online. I do understand u own a 2011 gtr. But have u actually tested that 5-60 roll yourself? I haven’t. But I did test the 1/4 from a standstill against my friend’s gtr. My 2016 F-type R against his 2013 Nissan GT-R. And like I stated, we were neck and neck. Don’t know about a start from a 5 mile roll because we’ve never raced any of our cars like that.

The video about the xkr-s vs gtr.... Wow, that’s like comparing apples to oranges. Seriously?? You might as well put an XJR against the gtr. Hahaha. Neither the XJR nor the xkrs can match the times of the f-type r. So of course it’s not gonna beat a gtr either. Just because it’s the same motor as an f-type, doesn’t make it equal. I’m surprised u didn’t know that, seeing how u like to quote magazine stats. Maybe do a little more research? Hahaha. And since u like to post irrelevant videos, I found one for u. That’s a video of the gtr times, tested by a “real” person, not a magazine, using launch control and without. If u don’t wanna watch the video. Here’s a screenshot:

Next time u want to have a friendly debate about any subject, please do so with real experience. I don’t consider magazine tests as concrete proof. Good day sir.

 

That is received wisdom and BMW marketing hype.
Jaguar had a reliability problem for a decade; mid 1970s to mid 1980s and even then it was mostly electrical faults which did not actually stop the car.
That period coincided with BMW being at their finest; the rot really set in there during the mid 1990s, and they have been going steadily downhill, along with the rest of the German motor industry ever since.
BMW are now known for broken engines, their speciality being £10,000 timing chain failures.

 

Agreed. Furthermore, bmw is notoriously known for submitting cars for testing that are tuned higher than claimed specs. This why some of their test cars show higher numbers on the dyno than claimed. But when an actual bmw owner does their own dyno pulls, the numbers are not the same. This is one of the main reasons why u can’t trust info provided by car magazines. Their tests were flawed to begin with (particularly bmw). Of course a 400 whp bmw m4 is gonna run some pretty awesome 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. But a standard 360 whp bmw m4 won’t be able to match those times. This type of practice should be illegal as it should be considered false advertising. Bmw owners should file a class-action lawsuit. Ford was also guilty of doing this in the past with their “terminator” mustang cobra.

 

So you stomped on the gas and your car didn't move for a second, and you think that it was the engine? And that white smoke and squealing coming from the back end was a random cloud and a wild animal running behind your car? :-)

BMWs have pretty aggressive traction control systems that cut power to prevent owners from flagellating themselves. My X5 lunges off the line, and I'd bet that if you drove a 650xi or X5 you'd feel differently. It's not the engine, it's the traction and traction control system.

My GTR isn't stock, so I can't compare it to the F-type directly. But the video I posted is of another Jaguar with the exact same engine and horsepower. The performance numbers of the XKR-S are within .2 seconds of the F-type R. So not exactly apples to apples, but pretty close. There are plenty of videos of GTRs racing F-types, but none of a roll, which was the comparison. But I can tell you this: I don't use launch control in my GTR and it gets off the line better than the F-type. Stock for stock I can't say.

I'll say I have trouble believing the RCF stories, but I'd like to see a video as proof. The M4 is quick, but it does have serious traction issues. That's why I got rid of mine and got the F-type. So again, I'd imagine that the M4 lost in those situations due to traction issues or the power being cut. The car needs AWD.