Why are F types so heavy?
#1
03-27-2021, 09:48 AM
Why are F types so heavy?
Still loving my V6S convertible, but have wished that is was a bit lighter. I didn't understand why a car made with so much aluminum would weigh as much as it does. I was watching a video from Harry Metcalfe (founder of Evo Mag.) discuss his Project 7 (bought new and still owns). He was curious why his wheels weighed so much so he asked a Jag engineer (nice to have connections, right?). The engineer claimed that they use Land Rover influenced specs for durability. For instance, he said the F type was designed to hit a curb at 45 miles per hour without bending the wheel or suspension.
I have never heard anyone else talk about this. Has anyone heard of such things?
I have never heard anyone else talk about this. Has anyone heard of such things?
Top Answer
03-27-2021, 09:33 PM
I'll preface this post by saying that I work for an OEM and deal with cost vs. weight vs. performance discussions on a daily basis for my vehicle line.
There are a tremendous amount of factors that go into a vehicle's overall weight that must be factored into the design; these vary based on the vehicle's design and overall targets. Just simply designing a lighter car is rarely an option; the lotus vs. jaguar comparison is a terrible example, these vehicles aren't even remotely similar. Every OEM wants to design the lightest vehicle possible... A lighter vehicle will perform better, have better fuel economy and have a lower emissions hit relative to the cooperate requirements. The difference in each vehicle's weight is the priority that OEM puts on lightness relative to other vehicle characteristics/targets.
If we look at the F-type for example; Jaguar intended to design a luxurious 2 door sports car/GT cruiser that has competitive level of performance relative to the powertrain/drivelines they had available. Jaguar isn't a high volume seller relative to the segment (à la Porsche 911) and thus cannot invest the same amount of money into R&D that other companies can, while still expecting to turn a profit. This can also affect the piece price for each individual component; a company like Porsche can have smaller margins overall since they can spread the expense across more units. This can literally affect the design of components and materials used. Related, at the time, Jaguar didn't have a particularly lightweight powertrain that offered the F-type's level of performance, which was obviously a priority. Jaguar's durability, interior luxury & technology requirements would also have a major impact on overall weight relative to the competition. When comparing to Lotus, the vehicles intended purpose is completely different. Lotus doesn't focus on luxury, technology or horsepower for their vehicles... they're a completely different feel, a completely different vehicle. A more reasonable comparison would be the Nissan GT-R. The GT-R has an incredibly similar AWD system, similar engine performance, and comparable luxury/technology targets. Not shockingly, they weigh a very similar amount. Food for thought.
There are a tremendous amount of factors that go into a vehicle's overall weight that must be factored into the design; these vary based on the vehicle's design and overall targets. Just simply designing a lighter car is rarely an option; the lotus vs. jaguar comparison is a terrible example, these vehicles aren't even remotely similar. Every OEM wants to design the lightest vehicle possible... A lighter vehicle will perform better, have better fuel economy and have a lower emissions hit relative to the cooperate requirements. The difference in each vehicle's weight is the priority that OEM puts on lightness relative to other vehicle characteristics/targets.
If we look at the F-type for example; Jaguar intended to design a luxurious 2 door sports car/GT cruiser that has competitive level of performance relative to the powertrain/drivelines they had available. Jaguar isn't a high volume seller relative to the segment (à la Porsche 911) and thus cannot invest the same amount of money into R&D that other companies can, while still expecting to turn a profit. This can also affect the piece price for each individual component; a company like Porsche can have smaller margins overall since they can spread the expense across more units. This can literally affect the design of components and materials used. Related, at the time, Jaguar didn't have a particularly lightweight powertrain that offered the F-type's level of performance, which was obviously a priority. Jaguar's durability, interior luxury & technology requirements would also have a major impact on overall weight relative to the competition. When comparing to Lotus, the vehicles intended purpose is completely different. Lotus doesn't focus on luxury, technology or horsepower for their vehicles... they're a completely different feel, a completely different vehicle. A more reasonable comparison would be the Nissan GT-R. The GT-R has an incredibly similar AWD system, similar engine performance, and comparable luxury/technology targets. Not shockingly, they weigh a very similar amount. Food for thought.
#2
03-27-2021, 10:46 AM
Senior Member
Still loving my V6S convertible, but have wished that is was a bit lighter. I didn't understand why a car made with so much aluminum would weigh as much as it does. I was watching a video from Harry Metcalfe (founder of Evo Mag.) discuss his Project 7 (bought new and still owns). He was curious why his wheels weighed so much so he asked a Jag engineer (nice to have connections, right?). The engineer claimed that they use Land Rover influenced specs for durability. For instance, he said the F type was designed to hit a curb at 45 miles per hour without bending the wheel or suspension.
I have never heard anyone else talk about this. Has anyone heard of such things?
I have never heard anyone else talk about this. Has anyone heard of such things?
With these low profile tires, a stiffer wheel is probably a good option to have as standard and a second set of lighter wheels for spring/summer/fall. Unless you live in an area that’s nice year round like San Diego, you’d only need 1 nice set.
I’ve been thinking about getting a lighter set of wheels and interested to see how much of a difference that will be. I’ve got a factory set of 19” and plan on going with 20” for the new set. I’m guessing that make better use of the torque the V6 has.
Anybody with real world experience going from the factory 19” to lighter aftermarket 20”s?
#4
03-27-2021, 01:30 PM
The following users liked this post:
Isoruku (04-01-2021)
#5
03-27-2021, 02:01 PM
Veteran Member
The following users liked this post:
SinF (03-27-2021)
#6
03-27-2021, 03:06 PM
Senior Member
The following 2 users liked this post by malbec:
donricardo440 (04-01-2021),
ferrral (03-30-2021)
#7
03-27-2021, 05:08 PM
I completely agree regarding weight, or unnecessary weight. I don't mind wheels strong enough to stand up shoddy roads, but perhaps give consumers some factory lightweight versions as options? I think the more serious issue goes back to various structural components, aluminum body aside. I've spend a little time under the car (removing, rust proofing, and sealing various rear end Tata metal for example), and I was struck by how damn heavy the components were. While I agree with Mahjik's "Pick any two...", it doesn't really take too much to design in some lighter parts via some basic structural/stress analysis on a "by part" basis by specifying requirements to subcontractors. Hell, if Lotus can do it...Jaguar can. And there I think is the heart of the matter. Lotus wears it's "add lightness" ethos on it's sleeve, while Jaguar probably has to merge it's "grace, pace, and space", with the robust character valued by the Land Rover gang. Interestingly, the i Pace seems to come in lighter than its competitors, so perhaps Jaguar's learned something. On that note, I'd ask, "why is the F Type so expensive" given this discussion?
Trending Topics
#8
03-27-2021, 09:01 PM
Veteran Member
The following 4 users liked this post by SinF:
#9
03-27-2021, 09:33 PM
I'll preface this post by saying that I work for an OEM and deal with cost vs. weight vs. performance discussions on a daily basis for my vehicle line.
There are a tremendous amount of factors that go into a vehicle's overall weight that must be factored into the design; these vary based on the vehicle's design and overall targets. Just simply designing a lighter car is rarely an option; the lotus vs. jaguar comparison is a terrible example, these vehicles aren't even remotely similar. Every OEM wants to design the lightest vehicle possible... A lighter vehicle will perform better, have better fuel economy and have a lower emissions hit relative to the cooperate requirements. The difference in each vehicle's weight is the priority that OEM puts on lightness relative to other vehicle characteristics/targets.
If we look at the F-type for example; Jaguar intended to design a luxurious 2 door sports car/GT cruiser that has competitive level of performance relative to the powertrain/drivelines they had available. Jaguar isn't a high volume seller relative to the segment (à la Porsche 911) and thus cannot invest the same amount of money into R&D that other companies can, while still expecting to turn a profit. This can also affect the piece price for each individual component; a company like Porsche can have smaller margins overall since they can spread the expense across more units. This can literally affect the design of components and materials used. Related, at the time, Jaguar didn't have a particularly lightweight powertrain that offered the F-type's level of performance, which was obviously a priority. Jaguar's durability, interior luxury & technology requirements would also have a major impact on overall weight relative to the competition. When comparing to Lotus, the vehicles intended purpose is completely different. Lotus doesn't focus on luxury, technology or horsepower for their vehicles... they're a completely different feel, a completely different vehicle. A more reasonable comparison would be the Nissan GT-R. The GT-R has an incredibly similar AWD system, similar engine performance, and comparable luxury/technology targets. Not shockingly, they weigh a very similar amount. Food for thought.
There are a tremendous amount of factors that go into a vehicle's overall weight that must be factored into the design; these vary based on the vehicle's design and overall targets. Just simply designing a lighter car is rarely an option; the lotus vs. jaguar comparison is a terrible example, these vehicles aren't even remotely similar. Every OEM wants to design the lightest vehicle possible... A lighter vehicle will perform better, have better fuel economy and have a lower emissions hit relative to the cooperate requirements. The difference in each vehicle's weight is the priority that OEM puts on lightness relative to other vehicle characteristics/targets.
If we look at the F-type for example; Jaguar intended to design a luxurious 2 door sports car/GT cruiser that has competitive level of performance relative to the powertrain/drivelines they had available. Jaguar isn't a high volume seller relative to the segment (à la Porsche 911) and thus cannot invest the same amount of money into R&D that other companies can, while still expecting to turn a profit. This can also affect the piece price for each individual component; a company like Porsche can have smaller margins overall since they can spread the expense across more units. This can literally affect the design of components and materials used. Related, at the time, Jaguar didn't have a particularly lightweight powertrain that offered the F-type's level of performance, which was obviously a priority. Jaguar's durability, interior luxury & technology requirements would also have a major impact on overall weight relative to the competition. When comparing to Lotus, the vehicles intended purpose is completely different. Lotus doesn't focus on luxury, technology or horsepower for their vehicles... they're a completely different feel, a completely different vehicle. A more reasonable comparison would be the Nissan GT-R. The GT-R has an incredibly similar AWD system, similar engine performance, and comparable luxury/technology targets. Not shockingly, they weigh a very similar amount. Food for thought.
The following 13 users liked this post by Stohlen:
Bonn (04-01-2021),
Carbuff2 (03-29-2021),
DJS (03-28-2021),
ferrral (03-30-2021),
jcb-memphis (09-16-2023),
and 8 others liked this post.
#10
03-28-2021, 09:15 AM
Stolen. That is the first time in recorded history Porsche and smaller margins have been used in the same sentence. Porsche has the highest profit margins in the industry reported to be 20%.
Lightness is not now and has never been a Jaguar value. The comparison to Lotus is useful. Colin Chapman was a genius and that was what it took to build those incredibly light weight cars. It takes a lot less effort and talent to just employ more metal.
Lightness is not now and has never been a Jaguar value. The comparison to Lotus is useful. Colin Chapman was a genius and that was what it took to build those incredibly light weight cars. It takes a lot less effort and talent to just employ more metal.
#11
03-28-2021, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
The extra components to make it AWD don't help with weight savings. And I would think that the structural components and things like airbags and side impact beams that are necessary for occupant safety these days add quite a bit of weight. I'll bet if Jaguar were to build one again in RWD and to 1960's era safety standards while retaining all the aluminum parts, they would come in under 3200 lbs.
But I'll also bet that if the design team was tasked with shaving a few hundred pounds off the weight and still meeting safety standards, the price would have to go up $20 or $30 thousand.
But I'll also bet that if the design team was tasked with shaving a few hundred pounds off the weight and still meeting safety standards, the price would have to go up $20 or $30 thousand.
The following users liked this post:
Jonathan Ivgi (03-29-2021)
#12
03-28-2021, 09:53 AM
Veteran Member
The following users liked this post:
tnikolis (04-01-2021)
#13
03-28-2021, 11:26 AM
I agree that the comparison to Lotus is not particularly useful. The F-Type is not a sports car in the way a Lotus is; it's really a GT. The cars are designed to different criteria. Does a sports car need a 14-speaker sounds system? Six-way electrically adjustable seats? Electrically operated liftgate? Sound deadening? Everything adds up. Add in compliance with modern safety standards and everything is heavy. I just looked up the 911 GT2 RS and it's a 3200 pound car.
#14
03-28-2021, 12:03 PM
Found some loose numbers online, a 991 911 is very similar in dimensions and weights about ~3400 lbs wet. A last gen m4 is some 10" longer and 3" higher, weights in at ~3600lb wet.
Now a F type R rwd weights ~3900 wet, ~4000 wet for awd.
Aside from the ~40lbs from heavy OEM rims, and ~100lbs from the v8, I can't think of what would make up the rest of the ~400lbs difference.
Now a F type R rwd weights ~3900 wet, ~4000 wet for awd.
Aside from the ~40lbs from heavy OEM rims, and ~100lbs from the v8, I can't think of what would make up the rest of the ~400lbs difference.
#15
03-28-2021, 12:35 PM
This thread highlights maybe inadvertently the fact that the F type is neither fish nor fowl. It is too heavy and inappropriately equipped to be a true sports car and yet he is not quiet and comfortable enough to be a GT. My XK-8 was a true GT and I would drive it 1000 miles without a second thought. If I am going over 100 miles the F stays home and I take the Benz, Especially if there are two of us with our luggage. How can you have a grand touring car at least in the case of the convertible with no luggage space.
#16
03-28-2021, 02:06 PM
Veteran Member
I drove a beautiful XK coupe (2007) for years before acquiring my F-Type coupe. I very much liked the XK - it was luxurious, comfortable and faster than anyone could need -a true grand tourer - and it never gave a moment of trouble (but was always kept on a CTEK when not being driven). However, I was unable to "bond" with it - I do not know why exactly but perhaps it was a lack of intimacy, if that makes sense (no jokes please...).
My first sighting of an F-Type coupe and the die was cast...once I found one in the right colour (BRG Xirallic) with the right equipment and specification (every option, 20 inch wheels etc) it took a nanosecond to make the decision. And I have not looked back. It is far more satisfying and exciting to drive than the XK, has every luxury feature, is comfortable, scarily fast if and when I want that, and, being the coupe model, it has ample luggage space for two-person touring. And yes, perhaps it is because the cabin is a more intimate space as well as the fact that it responds to every command instantly....need I say that it is the most beautiful car of its type (meaning a sports car, not a GT) on the road?
Is it heavy? Sure, but it is also solid and predictable, handles beautifully and is very fast. If I were offered this car or a 911 at no cost, I would still choose the Jaguar over the Porsche for many reasons.
My first sighting of an F-Type coupe and the die was cast...once I found one in the right colour (BRG Xirallic) with the right equipment and specification (every option, 20 inch wheels etc) it took a nanosecond to make the decision. And I have not looked back. It is far more satisfying and exciting to drive than the XK, has every luxury feature, is comfortable, scarily fast if and when I want that, and, being the coupe model, it has ample luggage space for two-person touring. And yes, perhaps it is because the cabin is a more intimate space as well as the fact that it responds to every command instantly....need I say that it is the most beautiful car of its type (meaning a sports car, not a GT) on the road?
Is it heavy? Sure, but it is also solid and predictable, handles beautifully and is very fast. If I were offered this car or a 911 at no cost, I would still choose the Jaguar over the Porsche for many reasons.
#17
03-28-2021, 02:09 PM
Veteran Member
F-type is excellent on the track without any modifications whatsoever. If you know cars, you probably heard about C7 and C8 Vettes badly overheating, Mustangs differentials overheating and locking up, 370Z having catastrophic brake fade, WRX losing bearings due to lack of baffles... Are all of these cars considered not a true sports car? Then what car is?
None of this is known to happen with F-type. With 100+ hours of track time on mine, the only issues I ever had were all related to MT gearbox. I can actually drive it ***** out 100% stock in 100F weather and the only casualty is tire wear.
F-type has a harsher ride than many luxury-only cars. I replaced my SL with F-type, and obviously it is nowhere near as comfortable. However, SL regularly boiled brake fluid, horribly understeered and was at least 500 lb heavier. It was completely unworkable in any but very casual capacity on the track. Sure, F-type wouldn't be my choice to drive 48 hours straight (while SL might), but 6 hour trips are entirely doable without it resulting in pain. So is daily commute to the office. If you regularly drive 1000 miles, maybe consider buying a conversion van or RV.
So, no, F-type is a proper sports car. I have the receipts.
Last edited by SinF; 03-28-2021 at 02:16 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Borbor (04-01-2021)
#18
03-28-2021, 02:36 PM
SinF, You and I are on different wave-lengths. But opinions are what make markets. Maybe there are some re-manufactured Mustangs that are sports cars, but not as they come out of Ford. I consider the Z little better than an ox-cart. The NISMO versions are semi-interesting, but the underlying cart isn't. Corvettes are race worthy with enough effort. The last SL I liked was the W 113 (Pagoda). Its been downhill since that high water mark. What's a true sports car, how about the ALFA C4, the Lotus Elise and its progeny,
As for your opening, I take it you think the F is both a sports car and a GT.
As for your opening, I take it you think the F is both a sports car and a GT.
The following users liked this post:
SinF (03-29-2021)
#19
03-28-2021, 04:21 PM
Stolen. That is the first time in recorded history Porsche and smaller margins have been used in the same sentence. Porsche has the highest profit margins in the industry reported to be 20%.
Lightness is not now and has never been a Jaguar value. The comparison to Lotus is useful. Colin Chapman was a genius and that was what it took to build those incredibly light weight cars. It takes a lot less effort and talent to just employ more metal.
Lightness is not now and has never been a Jaguar value. The comparison to Lotus is useful. Colin Chapman was a genius and that was what it took to build those incredibly light weight cars. It takes a lot less effort and talent to just employ more metal.
You're absolutely right; lightness has never been a major Jaguar focus for production vehicles, so why are you comparing it to a car brand that puts that as a number one priority? If you want a lighweight F-type you're going to lose a ton of stuff that makes it amazing.
Found some loose numbers online, a 991 911 is very similar in dimensions and weights about ~3400 lbs wet. A last gen m4 is some 10" longer and 3" higher, weights in at ~3600lb wet.
Now a F type R rwd weights ~3900 wet, ~4000 wet for awd.
Aside from the ~40lbs from heavy OEM rims, and ~100lbs from the v8, I can't think of what would make up the rest of the ~400lbs difference.
Now a F type R rwd weights ~3900 wet, ~4000 wet for awd.
Aside from the ~40lbs from heavy OEM rims, and ~100lbs from the v8, I can't think of what would make up the rest of the ~400lbs difference.
#20
03-28-2021, 04:36 PM
Senior Member
In my past life as an IT techy, I went out to a customer who had an Aston V8 and a 911 Turbo in the garage. She owned the Aston and her husband owned the 911. In her own words, the 911 was a better car in every respect apart from one - it was 'just a car', a cold piece of metal in her mind. The Aston would make her stop and stare at it each morning, before she headed off to work. The Aston made her feel special every day of her life. The Aston was the car she 'felt' something for. It was more expensive to run (tyres, petrol, servicing) and didn't drive quite as nicely as the Porsche but none of that mattered when she looked at it or sat in it. I doubt she cared what it weighed either.
I feel much the same about my F-Type. I couldn't give a fig what a 911 weighs or does dynamically for a good driver, I bought the F-Type because it turns me into a giggling child every time I look at it and every time I press the loud pedal a bit harder than I actually need to. Not once, in the 12 months I've owned the car, have I been chucking the car down a twisty country lane and thought "I wish this was a few hundred kilos lighter". I did just shy of 500 miles in one day, about 6 months ago, with barely an hour to catch my breath between arriving at my destination and setting off home again and when I got back home I didn't feel tired, stiff or bored and, if anything, I could have quite happily reversed back onto the road and done another 200 miles. It is, for me, an effortless tourer and a riot of fun on country roads.
Are there better cars out there? I guess there might well be. Is there a better car for me, right now, than the F-Type in everything it does? Not a chance. It still makes my heart skip a beat when I look at it, it turns me into a giggling child every time I drive it, it still scares the living **** out of my father when he sits in the passenger seat and I utterly adore it.
I feel much the same about my F-Type. I couldn't give a fig what a 911 weighs or does dynamically for a good driver, I bought the F-Type because it turns me into a giggling child every time I look at it and every time I press the loud pedal a bit harder than I actually need to. Not once, in the 12 months I've owned the car, have I been chucking the car down a twisty country lane and thought "I wish this was a few hundred kilos lighter". I did just shy of 500 miles in one day, about 6 months ago, with barely an hour to catch my breath between arriving at my destination and setting off home again and when I got back home I didn't feel tired, stiff or bored and, if anything, I could have quite happily reversed back onto the road and done another 200 miles. It is, for me, an effortless tourer and a riot of fun on country roads.
Are there better cars out there? I guess there might well be. Is there a better car for me, right now, than the F-Type in everything it does? Not a chance. It still makes my heart skip a beat when I look at it, it turns me into a giggling child every time I drive it, it still scares the living **** out of my father when he sits in the passenger seat and I utterly adore it.
The following 13 users liked this post by Cluck:
1 of 19 (03-29-2021),
1fldsqn (04-01-2021),
Black15FTR (04-01-2021),
ferrral (03-30-2021),
Fraser Mitchell (03-28-2021),
and 8 others liked this post.