It has an X150 chassis underneath?? I was not aware of that!

 

According to my window sticker, 54% of the car's parts were made in Germany. Maybe the Germans added some extra weight to the Jag parts to help make the local stuff more competitive!
That's just a joke.... I have a Porsche Boxster so don't think I'm anti-German.

 

You are a product specialist at Jaguar? You should then know that manufacturers TEND TO under rate the weights of their car and Jaguar is not an exception. Every single magazine tests, where they actually weighted the cars on scales, showed the F-type to be several hundred pounds heavier than claimed in the official Jaguar specs. It is strange to compare but, my HUGE XJL is only a hundred lbs heavier than the much smaller F-type? That is unexpected and warrants some questioning.

Besides that, I do agree with you that the F-type turns head like no Porsche does. It would also be my clear preference.

 

So you take the position that Jaguar understates only the F Type and not your car?

There is no way your XJL is only 100lbs more than an F Type.

 

If you read my post more carefully, I stated that, "manufacturers TEND TO under rate the weights of their car and Jaguar is not an exception". Does that sound like I am only picking on the F-type? Yes, they do that to "my" Jaguars, as well. The XKR was, I believe, rated by Jaguar to weight just below 4000 lbs but, in effect it is about 200 lbs heavier. The F-type does stand out with the difference between Jag specs and "as measured" spec by the testers with the difference being about 300 lbs. Most pro reviewers mention this weight issue.

You are correct, my long wheel base XJL is likely closer to 200 lbs heavier than the F-type. I was thinking the base XJ, which is still a HUGE, 5-passenger car, and Motor Trend weighted it at less then 4100 lbs, which would make it about 100 lbs more than the V8 F-type.

2012 Audi A7 vs 2011 Jaguar XJ vs 2012 Mercedes-Benz CLS550 - Comparison - Motor Trend All Pages

 

I ready your post carefully enough to know that it's bogus.

You made a specific claim that your car is only 100 lbs heavier than an F Type. It isn't.

 

Fine! You win; happy now? You still got an overweight car!

 

One which is, of course lighter, faster, newer and better than any Jaguar you have. That's right. I do win!

 

WOW! Are you for real??? Sad!

 

I wasn't the one who made bogus claims to back up a non point.

 

You don't even own an F Type, you continue to disparage the car and continue to make bogus claims to support bogus points. And I'm the sad one?

Members here are smart enough to see through troll behavior.

 

swajames

As a last attempt at communicating with you using a non-confrontational tone I will explain to you my position;

I love Jaguars, as my 3 present cars testify to that fact. I said before that I drove each variations of the F-type and found, particularly the V8, to be tons of fun.

Having said that, I was VERY disappointed in the F-type and Jaguar when the car came out. I was hoping for a true sports car, nimble and powerful. Considering the expected all aluminum construction my "hoped for" weight was around 3300 lbs. Quite doable, as shown by Porsche, Stingray, Viper etc... So, I was disappointed when the factory specs listed over 3600 lbs and actually kind of angry at Jaguar when the actual weight turned out to be almost 4000 lbs. As an Engineer and a long time racer who knows the value of lightweight construction, that was just sloppy engineering, as far as I was concerned. I am not at all alone in that sense, practically all pro testers were wondering how Jaguar could make an aluminum car so heavy.

I have a long history of fighting factory lies regarding weight. I've been involved in whitewater racing for decades and had to endure the lies of nearly all manufacturers that claimed in their specs weights for those boats that were not nearly close. I take credit for changing that bad habit in the largest US manufacturer which now tends to list the actual weights of their products. How much difference weight makes? In my case I engineered and actually produced my own kevlar/carbon racing kayak in which I have been beating the best young racers for nearly 6 years. I can assure you that it is not me at my ripe age but, it is the boat that makes the difference.

There are many on these Jaguar forums that use suspension and engine tunes and mods to make the Jags more competitive. That is great because they are changeable. The weight is not easily changeable unless one is willing to strip out every convenience from the car that most of us would not even think about. Yet, that is where most of the gains would be. Taking 600 lbs off the car would be FAR more improvement than adding 100 HP. But, not going to happen, because Jaguar was sloppy. Most drivers will not be bothered by the weight, after all the car got more than enough power for most. Only a few of us, ultra-performance oriented folks will be disappointed.

Yes, I have 3 heavy Jaguars but, none of them are "sports cars" so, I do not have those expectations from them. If I want sports car handling and performance, my 2600 lbs RX-7 with 500 HP will easily outrun any production Jags. I am fine with this arrangement and this is why my last purchase was a still heavy, GT-class XKR instead of the F-type. Simply comes down to expectations met by a model or not.

I do hope that we can communicate intelligently without accusations and throwing insults. I am not on the forums for stress but, as a relaxing hobby.

 

Seems reasonable to me. I'm sure manufacturers, to a greater or lesser degree, take marketing liberties with reporting vehicle weight.

While I understand why you're disappointed, I think that kind of disappointment is very common on auto enthusiast boards....performance-oriented enthusiasts always prefer more rigidity, lighter and better weight distribution, etc. While that kind of measurement is appropriate for a Pagani, it's not really what Jaguar is looking for.
I think Jaguar did a pretty damn good job balancing out fidelity to the luxury brand with performance in the F-Type. The critical reviews and the market success of the model attest to this.
If anything, reviews have praised Jaguar for its decisions to maintain more stiffness in the chassis, tightness in the mechanical steering, and performance orientation in the F-Type than the market expected. That is about as far as Jaguar could reasonably be expected to go without betraying the principles and business model that the brand stands for.
The F-Type is not a track car, and the overwhelming majority of its buyers aren't racers.

While we have different perspectives on the degree of performance orientation appropriate for the F-Type, you and I agree on one thing: the F-Type should be lighter. For me, this is not about performance. A lighter car means better fuel efficiency, lower cost and waste, and then, yes, better performance. Fortunately, the first 2 reasons make good business and marketing sense for Jaguar, so I have no doubt that they are already looking at weight reductions. The F-Type is a new platform and represents a major product platform for Jaguar. They have only started the process of platform optimization!

 

I would agree with your views, as stated. The only thing I doubt, being an Engineer myself, is that the future of the F-type could achieve substantial weight reduction. The question so many has asked; where is all that weight? If it is in the chassis, you can not make larger cuts. The chassis is all aluminum already. The largest possible single cuts I would see is lighter seats and lighter brake/wheel/tire combo.

Throughout my decades of racing and car ownership I have made drastic changes in my cars to get rid of weight. My ultra-fast RX-7 started life weighting about 2900 lbs so, I shaved off 300 lbs to be where it is now. What I had to do to achieve that I would never even consider doing to my Jaguars. Getting rid of ABS braking system, ultra light exhaust, ultra light wheels and tires, 14 lbs carbon racing seats, aluminum racing brake calipers, light weight brake discs, getting rid of basic things like the 5+ lbs airbag/steering wheel for a lighter/smaller wheel, windshield water tanks, spare tire, sound deadening, using a 24lbs lawn mover battery instead of a 43lbs stock battery... those are just a few of the radical changes, yet, I "only" shaved off 300 lbs. But, what a difference that 300 lbs makes...!!!

I would say that Jaguar may come out with a XKR GT equivalent F-type but, I would be genuinely surprised if they could drop the weight by more than, say 100 lbs while maintaining some levels of civility. I don't mean to start a flame war by comparing a Jag F-type to the Stingray but, if you read the engineering report on the Stingray construction, how much effort they focused into shaving ounces off each part; that is the effort I see missing by the Jaguar engineers.

You and they (Jaguar) may be right, as far as pleasing the vast majority of the potential buying public with the results but, I personally would like to see the F-type, with its true sports car image, to be running (under track or open road conditions) with the likes of the Carrera, Viper and Stingray. With this much weight no chance for that. If it weighted 3400 lbs, it would.

As for just average quick winding road driving people should try a simple experiment; drive a particular car quickly over winding roads then, add 3 full sized passengers (600 lbs) and try it again over the same roads. Suddenly the car will feel like a tank. I do not even like taking a single passenger in my RX-7 as it instantly looses a noticeable degree of that razor sharp, nimble handling. In racing if a car make or model was too dominant, they would assign a 100 lbs weight penalty to it. That usually ended the dominance in a hurry!

Like I said, I am not here the flame the F-type, simply contributing to a thread that was asking "Why is the F-type so heavy". I am certain that I could have lots of fun driving the F-type as it is but, given the weight issue alone I chose to go with the larger, even heavier, more comfort oriented XKR GT cruiser and live out my boy-racer fantasies in my RX-7.

 

The F type platform is nothing new, it's a chopped XK. Part of the reason why it's so heavy. But, it's cheaper for them to modify that than start a new platform as they are small company.


In terms of the weight, Albert is just stating facts. The XJ is 4149lbs. And, every variant of the XJ is lighter than the equal variant of XF.
Jaguar did an amazing job keeping the weight down on the XJ as cars like the S class or the 7 series are closer to 5000lbs. They have even managed to keep the weight down on the big XJL R - 4300lbs.

 

Cars are usually designed for manufacturability in the first year of release because the manufacturing tolerances need to be high enough to withstand uncertainty in a new process. During subsequent years, more quality data, field return data, and better tolerances in welding, stamping, raw material procurement etc can allow for thinner sheeting etc.
This may or may not be reflected in weight improvements in the F type models... The step function improvements will be in lines that derive from the F type chassis like the forthcoming sedan derivative.

Nobody disputes that lighter cars can perform better. But given the choice between reducing weight or focusing on other more market-friendly issues like exhaust sound (no kidding), styling and ride comfort, Jaguar would correctly prioritize the latter issues 10 times out of 10. And I'm glad they did just that :-)
The stingray is a nice driving car (debatable, btw), but I would bet it was not even close to the competitive field that Jaguar used to design the F type. They are on record for pointing to the 911/cayenne and the Maserati, and I'd guess the others included the entry level Aston, and likely the Benz and BMW price bracket for their comps.

 

Indeed, the XJ line has been a huge success for keeping the weight down. Which is exactly why I expected the even newer F-type to come in with similar successful weight saving technology.

Altogether, I hear that required safety equipment is the reason for today's heavy cars. I'd like to add up the weight of all that safety equipment that are on today's cars to see if that is true.

My 1978 2+2 Lamborghini with a huge V12 engine, 6 heavy, duel throat Webers weighted 3500 lbs and it was faulted as "porky" by the press of the times. That car had a heavy gauge all steel chassis and body, heck, the hood alone weighted 52 lbs. I replaced it with my home built 7 lbs carbon hood in the process of knocking off close to 200 lbs. It still used the old super-heavy (80lbs) air conditioner compressor and system. It had power windows etc, so, much of today's conveniences. It had steel bumpers. Today a similar 2+2 GT (XKR and others) are a good 700 lbs heavier and they use aluminum hoods, foam+plastic bumpers, ultra light air conditioners, etc. So, WHERE IS that extra 700 lbs over that "porky" Lambo coming from? If someone knows it, let me know, please!

BTW - Executive; I saw you posting it before just very recently BUT, I had no previous idea that the F-type was using a modified XK chassis. Where did you see that?

 

Albert, I read up on it a while back on the F type section of the XFforums (UK site). I was just looking for the thread by no luck. I will give it another shot later.

Here is what the F type looks like. I will see if i can get a picture of the XK's skeleton.

 

A bit more info...
2014 Jaguar F-Type Chassis: 30 Days Of F-Type

 

That is a gorgeous aluminum chassis construction. Still lost in identifying where the weight is. Those suspension pieces are downright delicate.