Ah yes, LOTUS - Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious
Very flimsy cars

 

I have no intention of ever tracking my F Type R. I bought it because I see it as a true Grand Turismo. Or a gentleman's sports car. Performance is important, but so is styling, comfort, exclusivity, and sex appeal.
When I was a young teenager in the late 1960's I used to pour over Car & Driver and Road & Track (and Cycle World too) and compare the performance of the cars that I hoped to own some day down to the last detail. As I am now approaching age 66 those extra 25 HP or the extra .01 G on a skidpad or the quicker 0-60 by a few tenths of a second don't mean much.

Hell yes I still want to go fast and have fun and giggle like a kid and soak up the compliments regarding my good taste in cars. The F Type will accomplish those goals and I'm not going to lose any sleep thinking or knowing I could have bought something better.

 

I'm in the same boat as the OP, we didn't want to know why other cars are lighter(it sure is nice to know though), we want to know why our cars are heavier, as in, where jaguar added weight intentionally(OP's heard interpretation) or where jaguar could have saved weight but couldn't due to pocket/tech/brand constrain.

 

Umm, I wasn't comparing Jaguar to Lotus. I was; however, noting that some firms emphasize certain characteristics more than others such as Lotus and weight; or Range Rover on being robust. Lotus and some other builders, regardless of scale, do focus on weight saving as a priority, while others do not. Moreover, I also did not equate the F Type with any product specifically...And while I get the idea of economies of scale; my point was that I've personally taken some parts off my F Type and was very surprised at how heavy they were...essentially, flat stamped pot metal. Other parts are very elegantly designed and manufactured.

 

I'd imagine that the F-Type being originally designed as a convertible, then a coupe version being made, did not contribute to lightness. Usually, the coupe version of a car is 100-200lbs lighter, but I'm sure Jaguar took the existing chassis of the convertible (with additional bracing and rigidity to compensate for no hardtop) and added a roof.

 

We can all agree that F types look and sound great (why else would you be on this forum), but this thread is about weight. Here is the video in which Harry Metcalfe discusses weight of F types. My memory was off. The video reviews the new P450 but he discussing his Project 7. If you are curious, go to ~22:30 where he starts discussing the weight vs. durability issues. He is the only person I have ever seen discuss this. I am curious if anyone else has heard anything about these issues.

 

I think it is enough of both to qualify. Sure, it isn't the best sports car or most comfortable GT, but for me, it works as both.

 

And for me it's neither. Too heavy for a sports car, and not comfortable enough for a GT. I guess it is all where you are coming from. In my youth sports cars were TR-5s, TR-6s, MGA, MGB, Elans, and 356s. Light barebones vehicles. How much could a TR-6 have weighed. The F (at least my vert) is too loud, hard riding, and not suitable for grand touring. I am not going a road trip with no spare and no luggage space. Maybe the coupé is more GT-like with the open space behind the seats. But mine is a fun car for around town, and as old as it is it still draws complements. The XK-8 was probably the most satisfying car I have ever had, until everything started to fail.

 

Seriously? It’s an old joke- having owned 6 lotus cars over the decades I can tell that they were a lot more reliable than other contemporary British cars I also owned at the time. The worst piece of crap I ever owned was an e type. The F type I own now ( purchased new) is no where near as reliable as the Elise I owned for 13 years, or the lotus before that one. The f type does not rate pure sports car accolades of a Lotus-but hey, I’m an old man now so I
needed an old mans car to get around in. My R doesn’t corner too well even with the Michelins, but at least it has enough power to take on the Puerto Rican’s in their tuner Hyundai’s.

 

SJ, you beat me. A HS classmate's dad had an Elite, and in college a good friend had an Elan. Both real sports cars. Although the Elite was a bit skimpy. You are right. The F-Tyoe is an old person's car. Fits me fine. In the desert its hard to do real world research, but I expect an AM is the right car for us. If only one could get it serviced.

 

The definition of a sports car changes with the generations. Way back in the day, for a vehicle to even be considered a sports car it was required to have all of the following:

1. Only two doors
2. Only two seats
3. Only convertible

That doesn't mean that every car with those qualifications back then were considered "sports cars", but those were the qualifications needed for consideration. Today, various countries have requirements for safety and people have become dependent on technology. Cars like the Elise don't sell in droves today because more people are preferring comfort rather than "pure rawness". Heck, one of the reasons I picked a 4C over an Exige was because I wanted something a little nicer on the inside. People also want more for less money. All of these things equate to cars using cheaper/heavier materials to deliver to smaller markets. More people are focused on the HP spec of a car and not necessarily the weight of the car. The fact that many owners here picked a F-Type instead of a 4C proves weight is not a main considering factor for people's purchases.

 

MAH, your points are well taken. I think a sports car can have a bench type rear seat. My recollection is that the TR's did and clearly the 356s did. Not full seats, but something for a small child, pet, or packages. My F has nothing. I cannot think of a four door sports car, but I will keep trying. But I disagree that it needs to be a convertible. The Elite and Porsches we have mentioned were coupes, and historically the Bugatti 57s were coupes.

 

it's almost as if you're reading my mind. I've not got 100 hours - but 3 track days under my belt in original (stock) trim. I was amazed. Other than the grease-***** that the PZeros quickly became (nothing to do with Jag) - these cars are tremendous from a performance perspective. I only affirm what SinF says because so few people have a true understanding (even folks that 'drive' on tracks) as to how hard it is for a street car to perform relentlessly at these levels without hiccup. Despite the weight they kick butt.

 

I think your definition of sports car has more to do with your nostalgia for cars of your youth than what is actually commonly accepted as a sports car.

Very few people would disagree that C7 Z06 Corvette, Subaru STI, or 6th Gen Mustang GT are not sports cars, but not according to your definition. At the same time, very few people would qualify a modern Morgan Roadster as a sports car, yet you will have a very hard time making a distinction from the cars you listed.

 

I've been told that much of the weight is probably the seats. Between the adjustibility, stability, and padding in the F-Type seats, it's entirely possible they come in at hundreds of pounds. You could probably shed a good deal of weight by switching to some of those expensive racing seats that weigh nothing and are virtually non-adjustable, but would you really want to?

 

it takes a lot of metal to reinforce a convertible body car to help prevent twisting and flex. Particularly when it has 550hp v8 stuffed in it.

 

That's basically the point. Everyone will have their own definition of what is or isn't a sports car. There is no universal definition. Your idea of a sports is no more right or wrong than the next person.


Naw, you aren't going to drop 400lbs off the car changing out the seats. They aren't as light as a CF racing shell, but just changing them along won't get you down a lot. There are multiple areas you can get a little here and a little there, but you have a balance the effort and costs with the reward.

 

I think he was being fecitious!

 

After owning a Jaguar always since 1968, and having two now, I can comment a little about some of the "whys."
WHY? BECAUSE it is harder for a thump to move a heavy thing than a light thing. It's that simple. The beautiful glide of my 2005xj8L is wonderful, and with every piston stroke, I pay for it. It costs me $55 round trip Gilroy to Carmel and back, and $15 is my bouncy, jerky gut squeezing Prius. All the suspension is great. The engine is well tuned, but the car is massive.

WHY ARE JAGUARS SO HARD TO WORK ON, AND WHY HAVE THEY HAD TERRIBLE RELIABILITY RATINGS FOREVER?
BECAUSE they are meant to be owned for less than 5 years. (That's from a relative, a Jag 'expert' worker at Jaguar.) ||He said for example, that they never actually repair an engine. Difficult to fix?... new engine or pay over $20K. I got lazy once, and decided to have Jag fix my windshield wipers. I knew it was the little motor. I didn't expect what happened. I told them if it was over $600, to just stop. That was a joke! (I thought.) They charged me $550 to 'confirm' that it was the motor. They then charged me another $550 to tell my the little hose was blocked. I swear. AND, they wanted $600 to replace the little clogged hose! I was furious, but they would not let me have the car unless I paid at least, for the estimating $1100. Oh! $900 for the motor. I calmed and went into my "business authority" mode, and got them to knock off the 550 over the hose, and cut back on the price of the motor. They apologized for the hose price, because they saiid they HAVE TO use OEM (original) parts. They had already arranged to get it flown in next-day from England.
NOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL GRIPE"
WHY are they so hard to work on? The simple answer. They are not designed to be worked on, just to be good for 3 years.
ALSO, Jaguar itself was never a very profitable business. It did not study failures and repair in the next issue. It stuggled for years, such as 2005, when the cars came out with bad paint and obvious flaws, such a flapping fabric when taking down the top on convertibles. For example, in 1968, they used the same basic suspension and steering mechanism in ALL models, but the driver's position varied. So... they used TWO universal U-joiints to deal with the strange angels between steering rack and steering wheel. But for smoothness-of-feel they made a major part of those rubber. 'AND THEN, positioned them next to an exhaust pipe. When I first got the car, 4 years old, I always noticed a small 'clink' when I turned the steering wheel. One day, after going on a mountain ride with my family of 4, I was tired when I got home. I yawned and pulled up on the steering wheel. It went CLANK and the U-joints completely separated from each other! NO CONNECTION TO THE STEERING/WHEELS! 'And I had just gone miles around sharp curves with edges hundreds of feet in the air. I fixed the joints and got rid of the car. AND FINALLY THIS WEEK on my 2005 XJ8, one tiny front turn signal bulb burned out. Again, I got lazy, and turned it over to a mechanic and just said,"change all the turn signal bulbs! They all are the same age, and have 'experienced' the same use, right? Well... THEY ACTUALLY EARNED the $150 they charge with two guys working 5 hours each. The issue was that they opening in the front had a cover, that could only move about 1/2 inch, they showed me, and said THE BOOK says to take off the front of the car if there are any "issues" with the lighting. They decided to stop at that point. So... I will too. But I still LOVE my two jaguars, the XJ8L and the XK8.

 

Even assuming that to be true (which I don't believe) I think you'll find that most manufacturers work to that principle these days - VAG cars in Europe tend to fail just after the warranty period ends. As to the hassle of changing bulbs, have you tried changing indicator bulbs on a Renault? The whole front end has to come off. It's symptomatic of the way cars are put together these days - convenient for the robots, not for maintenance.