When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Agreed, I prefer the long look to the squat look. I dont like the alfa 4c at all, contrary to nearly everyone. But if you stretched it out by a few feet it'd look awesome, maybe like the Ford GT
I've been reading this thread since it started and very much enjoy everyone's opinions and comments, and I agree with vast majority of the comments, including the OPs. I DO think the F-type coupe is a better looking car than the XK coupe. While looks are extremely important, they aren't everything. Long story short, my wife and I borrowed an F-Type coupe for a couple of days from a local dealership several months after the coupe became available. Before driving the F-Type, I was 100% sure that we would be filling out an order for one when we returned the car. Awesome car to be sure, but just not the right fit for us. The bottom line is that the F-Type is a Sports Car. If you want a Sports Car, I highly recommend the F-Type. We ended up buying a CPO 2012 XK and like the ride much better. Best of all, it was somewhere around $20k less than the optioned F-Type would have been. The XK turns a lot of heads as they are very rare around here.
Jagtoes,
Like your friend, I have a 2002 Carnival Red XKR convertible. It sits side by side to my 2010 XKR coupe. And yes, it looks skinnier, more svelte looking with much rounder, more sensual curves as opposed to the newer model's larger, more muscular shape. It also sits considerably lower at the front then the back (and much, much lower than an F-type, which is astonishingly tall compared even to newer XK/XKR's. I love both cars for different reasons. Looks go to the 2002; handling, power, suspension to the 2010, they're both keepers.
The Jaguar community continues to struggle to differentiate the identities of two models because they are so similar, and a lot more similar than they are different. I see the F-Type as essentially an XK with the rear parcel shelf/seat removed and different bodywork. Same engine, and same tranny as other models. I wonder if they gave the 8 spd ZF to all models except the XK in an effort to differentiate it more.
As far as performance goes, the top F-Type Coupe R is barely quicker than the top XK-RS despite the F being one generation more developed. Look how close they are in the most revealing kind of performance testing...around a race track. Laguna Seca is used for this kind of comparison testing, with most cars driven by the same race driver, Randy Pobst.
Look how many high performance and sports cars the XK-RS outperforms around this twisting track, how the F-type barely beats it by 0.9 seconds, and how many are much quicker than the F-Type R.
Yep, awfully similar indeed, and if the existence of the parcel area behind the seats differentiates a sports car from a grand touring car then you go right ahead. But to me they are both equipped with the identical power, comfort, convenience and luxury features that make them GT's, and an awful lot of automotive journalists and testers refer to them both as GT's as well, despite Jaguar's best efforts to make the world think it's a sports car.
Now if Jaguar had made the F-Type a lot lighter, trimmer, less loaded with all the XK's GT features as standard, and maybe even added a manual or DCT tranny as an option, then I could see calling it a sports car, and the spiritual successor to the XKE. Heck, Jaguar could have even sold that kind of an F-Type sports car alongside of the XK, instead of killing off the XK with no replacement in sight.
Just my opinion as an XKR owner who considered the F-Type when looking for a sports car.
And the XKR is fantastic for spirited driving, and a blast on the road course to boot!
Not sure about those lap times, something is off as the F-Type S is a full 2 seconds faster than the XKR-S.
I just bought this for my wife:
It feels faster than my XKR-S, it is fidget and more nervous than the XK. All this of course is underlined by the unmuffeled exhaust right behind your ear. Like Velociraptors. My XK is certainly louder but I do not hear that inside while driving. I have not driven the F-Type coupe, it is just too close to my XK at this point but the rear is just to die for, so absolutely beautiful.
So, will you be driving the XKR-S or the F-type more. I guess it will depend on the weather and the reason for your drive. I agree, the black F-type coupe looks fantastic.
Propably the high F-Type back versus lower XK front. I will get a pic of both "asses" next to each other but I am pretty sure they are the same. Same wheel size and everything.
As to what to drive more ... the F-Type sounds absolutely fantastic with the top down (maybe a little too high for me, missing some bass but that is how they got it through noise emissions I am sure), the XK IMHO tracks much better and is not as nervous as the F-Type. The F-Type needs more steering input. The F-Type is newer of course and when it gets warmer I surely will take it out with the top down, other than that it is my wife's car so our typical outing is one way my wife and daughter in the F-Type and me and my son in the XK and switch on the way back ....
propably the high f-type back versus lower xk front. I will get a pic of both "asses" next to each other but i am pretty sure they are the same. Same wheel size and everything.
As to what to drive more ... The f-type sounds absolutely fantastic with the top down (maybe a little too high for me, missing some bass but that is how they got it through noise emissions i am sure), the xk imho tracks much better and is not as nervous as the f-type. The f-type needs more steering input. The f-type is newer of course and when it gets warmer i surely will take it out with the top down, other than that it is my wife's car so our typical outing is one way my wife and daughter in the f-type and me and my son in the xk and switch on the way back ....
I agree the OP's two cars both look bad. The XK looks best in its stock, non-R coupe form. I see a neighborhood F-Type Coupe everyday and decided the convertible looks better. Absolutely no 'hood ornament', it would be like a nose wart on the Mona Lisa.
This will most likely be my next car -
I have gotten a parking ticket at the Griffith Park Golf Courses once. Since then, if I park on public streets, I keep my front license in the trunk with two 4" bolts attached and poke them through the front grill where they'll hold on. When I leave I just pull it out and throw it back into the trunk. No moving violations because of it.
I agree that with regard to beauty, of the 3 the award goes to the Aston Martin - and then the Aston goes to the repair shop ($$$$$$). It simply cannot come close to the XK for reliability or road manners.
The F-Type and the XK serve different purposes - and both are beautiful in their way. The XK has classic proportions - it will still look sublime 20 years from now - it is the Grand Touring car par excellence - and the complaints about the rear seats are silly - they are there to lower the insurance costs and nothing more; unless you have a pair of legless 6-year-old children they are useless for human carriage. But they do provide excellent extra carrying space - although I have never found that necessary,
If I were looking (again) for a sports car, the F-Type coupé would definitely be the choice. But for a very fast, very luxurious and head-turning, first-class touring car nothing beats the XK.
For someone like myself who finally after two years of searching found his DREAM car. An XKR175, I am very biased to the 175 over the F type. As far as road manners, the F type R is a beating while the 175 is smooth and very comfortable(God, I am getting old) ha ha and looks...man I love the 175 from every angle. The f type looks like a Miata on steroids. I had my Kasuga rims chromed and really struggled with that but man does it look awesome.
For someone like myself who finally after two years of searching found his DREAM car. An XKR175, I am very biased to the 175 over the F type. As far as road manners, the F type R is a beating while the 175 is smooth and very comfortable(God, I am getting old) ha ha and looks...man I love the 175 from every angle. The f type looks like a Miata on steroids. I had my Kasuga rims chromed and really struggled with that but man does it look awesome.
Wow congrats! What a gorgeous work of art on wheels. Is it your daily or weekend driver?
01-21-2015, 11:21 PM
