Aug Road & Track has a comparo of the Porsche Boxster & Jag F-type. Curb weight for the v-6 turbo F-type is 3839 lbs. Boxster: 3155. A difference of almost 700 lbs! Thats the weight of 3 full sized adults. Both have similar dimensions. Both are 2 wheel drive, 2 seaters. The Boxster is composed of a steel/aluminum chassis & body. The Jags chassis & body are all aluminum. ??? I love the look of the f-type. But its porky at 3839 lbs. Thats only a few hundred lbs less than the current XK model.....

 

700 lbs is not the weight of 3 full size adults--it's the weight of 3 obese adults. The V8 weighs even more!

On a side note, I wish there was the option of a naturally aspirated V8. I do sort of miss having a naturally aspirated car (the XKR is my first forced induction car), because it seems like the acceleration is not as immediate). For a sports car like the F-Type, I feel like this sort of urgency and responsiveness of the engine would be very important.

 

Boxter is a smaller car in general and the SuperCharged V8 is at least partially to blame as are the UK's severe and strict design rules for everything from pedestrian safety to speed limiters. But you could get a go-kart that weighs 400 pounds and have plenty of fun too

 

Just for context I did some research. Curb weights for popular sports cars

Ferrari 458 Italia - 3274 lbs
Bugatti Veyron Super Sport - 4162 lbs
Porsche 911 Turbo S - 3550pounds
Lamborghini Aventador - 3472 pounds
Nissan GT-R - 3800 pounds
Ford GT - 3422 lb

F-Type V8 - 3671 lbs

 

Sadly, none of the cars on your list are sports cars, with the possible exception of the F-Type and the 911 Turbo S, although the 911 Turbo S borders on supercar as the others on your list undoubtedly are.

 

Nissan 370Z 3,232
Mazda Miata ~2,600
Porsche Boxster 3,150
Porsche Cayman 2,976
Porsche 911 Carrera S 3,070
Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S ~2,800
BMW Z4 ~3,500 (fat pig, weighs more than it should)
Mercedes SLK 3,325 (fat pig, weighs more than it should)
Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1 3,350

Of course, many of these aren't the same size as the F-Type and don't compete with the F-Type performance wise, but some do, and are shed loads lighter. The most perplexing comparison of weight is the difference between a 911 Carrera S and an F-Type V8S, since it seems to be the car that the F-Type wanted to be up against.

 

The F type isn't similar in dimensions.

It's close to 6" wider than the Boxter and about 4" longer.

A lot of it is in the options.

 

Sadly I completely disagree with you and think these are all sports cars and I think the F-Type borders on supercar status. To each his own.

 

I might agree with you there--the F-Type V8S borders on supercar status. Which means it's not particularly a sports car.

Are you saying that all supercars are necessarily sports cars?

Anyone who thinks the Bugatti Veyron is a sports car has probably never owned a sports car, needs their head checked or both!

 

The fact that you feel the need to insult people in what is generally a very civilized forum shows your argument is weak. I won't be responding to you after this post but yes, I do think supercars are necessarily sports cars. And there's a big difference between us - I actually OWN most of these cars and have certainly driven all of them. You I am guessing, not so much.

 

So, how is "sportscar" supposed to be defined these days? Gah! I give up! :-)

Or "supercar" or "GT car" ?


Heh heh. Seems like whenever a "sportscar" doesn't quite live up to expectations or is outdone by the competetion we say "Oh, well, you know, it was actually meant to be a GT, not a sportscar". Thus, .994G on the skidpad, or 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, or whatever, becomes quite acceptable where, four seconds earlier in the discussion, it was totally shameful.

Or if a car that has two seats, blistering power, incredible cornering, a will-stop-a-locomotive brakes it can't be called a sports car if it also has comfort features? Do I have that right?

Decades ago "Sports cars" used to have side curtains. Having roll-up windows (hand crank, mind you) was considered a luxury feature for wimps that took a car from "sports car" category to "Grand Touring" category. Driver misery played a big part in the definition of "sportscar". If you ended your trip with frostbite, wet clothes, and a sore back....you were in a sportscar.

GT car? Isn't that supposed to be a car that will "....transport driver and passengers long distances, in comfort, at high speed"? (I've left out "across continental Europe" because, well, just because). Shoot, I've done that it my old 1978 Oldsmobile 98 Regency sedan. That thing would easily cruise at 90mph all day long and, believe me, it was comfortable. Just don't go around any corners or try to stop .

Not arguing.

Just musing


Cheers
DD

 

subscribed

 

I always thought a sportscar had to have two doors, two seats and very agile for spirited diving.

Where, GT fit the same profile, but had to be able to be seat four.

 

I thought a supercharger isn't subject to lag (unlike a turbocharger). In any case I don't sense any lag whatsoever when driving the F-Type.

 

I agree no lag whatsoever - makes me think the OP was talking about some other car. If the F-Type's torque were any greater I would think it would break the welds

 

Yeah .

I sometimes put the dynamic mode pedal pressure screen up and notice that I'm only 2-3 bars into the gas pedal, and I'm already enjoying about as much boost as I need on a public street.

 

I think it's just my lowly 4.2L Supercharged engine. I'm not sure at what point the supercharger reaches full boost, but I imagine it's not throughout the whole range.

I also just had a bad axle which was just replaced on Friday which seems to have solved a lot of my drivetrain issues.

EDIT--After doing some more reading, I guess what I was trying to describe was the fact that since the supercharger is connected mechanically to the crankshaft, this means that the level of boost builds as the RPMs increase, and it builds exponentially. Until you get into the higher revs, you're not going to get that much benefit from the supercharger. Then again, if you don't have a supercharger, you're not going to get any benefit from anything!

Increasing the size of an NA engine to get it to match the power of a smaller supercharged engine would probably make the car heavier.

 

I don't need to drive a Bugatti Veyron to know that it is not the same class of car as, say, a Mazda Miata or a Porsche Boxster (I have at least driven those and owned one!) which are arguably two quintessential modern sports cars.

I think you are assuming when I am saying that a Lambo or a Veyron are not sports cars that is is some sort of insult. It is not!

However, I do think the distinction is important to make when you are trying to use those cars (Veyron, Lambo, etc.) to argue that the F-Type is lightweight compared to those. Using my list of sports cars (Boxster, Miata, 370Z, Corvette, etc.), the F-Type seems quite heavy. But the F-Type can outperform many of them. So it's really a tossup of what you want to call it (sports car, muscle car, super car).

In closing, I will agree with you by saying that the F-Type is not unusually heavy for the level of performance it provides.

My argument probably would've been helped if I didn't say you need your head checked... :P

 

Are blistering power, will-stop-a-locomotive brakes and incredible cornering (e.g., skidpad numbers) qualities of a sports car?

My opinion seems to differ from most on the Jag Forum, but to me a sports car is mostly defined by responsiveness and driver engagement. It's sort of a cliche to say this, but it's like having a scalpel vs. a machete. You could surely do more damage with a machete, but a scalpel is more exacting and precise.

Anything that can be done to improve responsiveness will make for a better sports car, IMO. This means light-weight, lively engine (not necessarily high-powered), excellent balance, great steering feel and a slick-shifting manual transmission!

Definitely I would say that you have to consider things relative to other cars produced today. Just as a 250 horsepower car in 1960 would be considered extremely fast back then (but pretty average today), a sports car with rollup windows (not to mention no windows at all, ala the 1st gen Dodge Viper) today would be almost unheard of. The same thing can be said about weight. 3000 lbs in 1960 was a pretty heavy sports car. 3000 lbs today is considered fairly light!

 

Some sportscars have those qualities, yes. But those qualities are not the sole definition of a sportscar.





I hear ya 100%.

A 60 horsepower MG Midget is a sportscar and is engaging and responsive.

OTOH, a 600hp Corvette is a sportscar (as far as I concerned) and is also engaging and responsive

Cheers
DD