Sounds like they are pretty darn close to me and F-Type has the 911 beat on price and exclusivity. The reviewers seem to be pulling hairs to make a difference between the two. Jag has F-Type right where it needs to be and many consumers who'll put the pundit's review aside will like the F-Type.


How's the money factor on the F-Type vs. 911 when it comes to leasing? Strong lease deals could really swing buyers to the F-Type over the 911 (considering the lower sales price too).

 

Does anyone know what differences the F-Type has compared to the XKR/RS that improve performance? I would think the big ones are less weight, and stiffer springs and damper valving recalibrated via software...anything else?

I saw the Stingray is getting pretty high tech with constant tire temp and pressure monitoring that's used to optimize the traction and stability control, in addition to using steering and brake inputs to adjust the magnetic dampers and e-diff like on the Jags.

 

I attribute much of the testing community's preferences for the Porsche to the very same cult-mentality that goes with some other devices, such as the iPhone. Not at all trying to be critical of the Apple device but, if you are in technology you probably know what I am talking about when it comes to the well established religious faith of the "fanboy" cult that is convinced that their devices are superior to the King's ransom.

I have read 911 reviews for decades now. They ALWAYS the greatest thing since sliced bread in the eyes of the testers, at least until the next generation comes along, at which time the same testers begin trashing some of the bad features of the previous 911; like years back they trashed the interior or the silly layout of the dashboard with the starting key on the left-side of the steering wheel.

They nearly always trashed the previous model's rear-engine handling traits that were downright dangerous and prevented 911s to be driven at their full potential by nearly all but a handful of ultra-experienced race drivers. The newest version was always supposed to have "fixed" those issues, which of course they can not because the issue is the placement of the engine/transmission behind the rear axle.

I personally leaned a quick lesson in 911 handling decades ago when I test drove the 930 Turbo, intending to trade my Lamborghini for it. I was up to 120 MPH on a perfectly straight road immediately bordering the SF Bay when going over a slight sunken depression in the pavement, caused by the Bay waters. The 930 went down into the roughly 30 feet long shallow section but as it came out we suddenly found ourselves in the opposing traffic lane. Lucky to all, no cars were coming from the other direction.

What was the problem? The rear weight bias! As the 930's unweighted front end "jumped" on the slight uphill-ramp coming up from the sunken pavement, its rear end was still compressing (even helped by the wing at that speed) and as the front end lightened way up on exit the front suspension drooped (dropped) at which state the wheel alignments went completely out of whack and the car simply steered itself in totally unpredictable direction. I took the car back and would never look at a 911 despite all the band-aids (electronic controls, larger rear tires etc.) that Porsche installed to tame the rear end.

The dealership's owner riding with me, was incredulous to what happened. He suggested that in the same scenario likely all or most cars would behave the same. So, once back at the dealership I took my ultra-modded Mustang and invited him to ride back to the very same spot with me for a comparison. We got to 120MPH exactly and I held the steering wheel with 2 slight fingers to show my confidence. The Stang flew through the depression and out of it without the slightest effect on its direction.

I never forget how Bob Akin, long time pro-Porsche racer famously described the 911's handling: "You can not make a race horse out of a PIG but, you can make an awful fast PIG." Of course, most pro racing 911s will have moved the engine from the rear into mid-position but, few average folks would know that when they look at them on the race tracks. As to the people driving 911s; in speed limited nations, such as the USA, the vast majority of people will never get up to the nasty limits of the 911. Those who do can not tell because they may well be 6' under.

Thus, without the slightest hesitation I would take the F-type before I would even look at the 911. No contest on that choice. However, still wish the F-type could weight-in closer to the Porsche.

Albert

 

Bruce

As you know I owned "only" the XK so, not really an authority on the XKR specs. If I had to guess after my test drive of the F-type, they did not necessarily increase the spring or damper (compression) rates. The V8 F felt actually firm but, not harsh on the same road section where my XJL and even the XF felt harsher. From those sensory inputs only, I would conclude that the F-type's springs and compression rates are actually moderate, however, the chassis isolation (bushings) appears superior to my other cars as no vibrations and none of those bothersome small impacts would transmit through the F-type chassis.

Also, the steering felt quicker and more precise than my XK (likely same as the XKR). I would expect larger roll bars on the F-type to cause flatter cornering but, can not confirm that since I only drove the car on the freeway. Also, would expect them to stiffen up the rebound rates on the dampers as my XK would have too much up-down movements, causing upredictable weight transfers on the tires, in reaction to changing pavement levels, in the transitional chassis moves or situations where the weight transfers of the car needs to be controlled during the suspension rebound phases.

Suspension setup is really not a complicated science, all the more frustrating that so many big-name factories miss the boat with their setups.

Albert

 

I have taken my admittedly modified (suspension, engine, tranny, wheels and rubber, but with the the engine still firmly ensconced behind the rear axle) 1978 930 through road courses at speeds well in excess of your 120 mph on straights, with dips, bumps etc. galore, and never experienced anything like your lane change.

The car will indeed swap ends on you if you lift throttle at the wrong time in hard cornering at high speeds, but with the right tweaks to the car that phenomenon occurs only at 9/10 and above driving. Plus, there is something truly exhilarating about being in a high speed turn and knowing that you need to keep the throttle down, when everything else is screaming at you to lift.

Not to mention how great that rear bias is when you come out of the corner onto the next straight.

As for more modern 911 cars, I have driven them on the track as well, although rarely, as I don't own one. Their lift throttle oversteer limits are even higher, such that I never discovered them, in fact.

Not at all sure that makes me a Porsche "fanboy", which in any context is a derogatory term meant to denigrate the person as much as the object of which he is a fan. But Porsche has made some brilliant machines over time--that much is clear, at least to me.

 

I'm neutral on preferences between front and rear mid-engine placement, as with the Boxster, and my MR2T. I've had lots of track time in it, often running it and the Supra TT on the same day, and it's as easy to drive on the limits of tire grip as the front engine Supra TT. There's definitely an advantage in braking and accelerating out of a corner, and front tire wear is much reduced. The car can be balanced with throttle, and under/over steer dialed in the same way. I quite like the engine in the back, and expect I'd be very fond of the Boxster S, and after reading the track comparison in Road and Track today I know it! High praise for the V6S F-Type, but the Boxster decisively won the day for performance.

Porsche has certainly solved the challenges of the modern rear-engine 911 because they are very quick on the track even when driven by mere mortals. I had a great session chasing a mid-2000's 996 TT around Road Atlanta at a Panoz Track Day. It was my second day on that track and we both seemed to have the line down pat. I applied enough pressure in his rear mirrors to keep it exciting for a few laps before turning up the wick. He did the same and that rear never so much as twitched when he pushed it as hard as he could before finally giving me the pass-by signal. I've probably never been on the track when there wasn't a bunch of 911's, and their handling doesn't seem to suffer at all with the engine where it is. Sign me up for the new 991 GT3!

 

Bruce

My racing years suggested that the street trim 911s were slow on the track. Likely, because few drivers were able to take it to 10/10th which is a must on a race track. If you only dare to drive 8 or 9/10th you would be hopelessly behind. When raced in near street trim by sponsored or pro teams generally their 4-cyl. 924s or the later 944s would run faster lap times despite their great power deficiencies. I would wager that the mid-engined Boxers or Caymens should outrun the 911 at the track with the same drivetrain.

I my GT classes cars were greatly modified but, still Porsches would not amount to much despite the fact that they were allowed to run twice the carburation compared to my Mazda-engined race cars. 911s usually brought up the rear of the field.

When racing them in street cars in Autocross, same pattern. My Mustang and later my Twin Turbo RX-7 blew them off entirely. When reading professional comparison tests in popular magazines, 911s are generally near the back of the field on road courses, out-lapped by Corvettes, Camaros and cars of lesser costs.

I find it actually insulting to my senses when I read road tests where the Vette whips the 911 by a huge 3-5 seconds per lap, beats in all other performance categories, have been judged to have better, more comfortable street ride, at least as good MGP but, at the end when the judgements for the first place are made they declare the 911 the winner because, as one road test concluded:

"The Porsche has "soul" that the others don't"

WOW!!! How stupid a conclusion can be?

The 911 is an archaic design that Porsche attempted to discontinue at least two decades back. But, there was such a loud cry and threats voiced by the American Porsche owners (that hardly ever drive them fast) that the factory relented and still continuing the production. However, there is a good reason that no other manufacturer bothers with the rear-engine layout (except the Mexican-built WV bug). Those others that tried (Tatra, Skoda, Zastava) all abandoned them for the same reason. The cars were famously twitchy, tending to swap ends regularly. The fact that Porsche did a lot to counter those vices with electronics and other band-aids, does not change the fact that as a configuration, the rear-engine should never have been made in the first place. It hurt lots of people over its lifetime.

As to the front vs. mid. vs. rear engine comparison, mid-engine is definitely the ticket for the tracks but, at least for me, front engine is the ticket for very fast street driving where you never know exactly the radius of the turns that you are about to dive into. I had done my fair share of banzai canyon racing. Front engine config is simply more forgiving and more predictable for street use. With my mid-engined Lamborghini, despite my suspension tuning and huge rear tires, I used to have the hair stand on my back during some cornering, feeling every single pound of the weight behind me swinging the tail wide when I'd be surprised by a turn being tighter radius than expected. In track racing with all turns well practiced and well known this rarely is an issue. In a way, track racing is much easier than fast street driving.

As to my "fanboy" remark; a few weeks ago a writer published a slightly negative article about Apple's business practices. He begun for a whole paragraph listing his ownership of all kind of Apple devices just to blunt the expected attacks from the "fanboys". I commented under the article, asking, why he and others found it necessary to include such a lead-in testament of his belonging to the "club"? He replied to me over personal e-mail that when ever he would even remotely criticize Apple products or practices he would receive tons of hate mail and even threats. Porsche has their own "fanboys" who will also trash any writer who publishes negatives about the brand. That is what I mean by "fanboy" connotation. They make up a relatively small percentage of the total owners but, will rudely attack anyone to criticize their brand. Writers actually fear them thus, few criticism is actually published!

BTW - did you notice in my previous post in this thread about the 2014 Vette's VIR lap times? Did you see how many seconds quicker per lap it was than the Porsche GT3 RS? In racing that 4 seconds/lap difference is HUGE and this from a base Vette. Wait for the ZO or the ZR models that will be more in line with the GT3 prices to absolutely shame the Porsche in terms of lap times (which the old ZR-1 already did by being 10 seconds/lap faster than the GT3).

Albert

 

Albert the problem is it's not possible to put THE VERY SAME TIRES on each car. Right now the only tire for the F-Type is the one that it ships with. I have run my 2010 Vette (Grand Sport with Hennesey conversion) at Spring Mountain and turned in some pretty fast lap times. I have been able to post similar lap times with the F-Type but there are some caveats. The Corvette with the Hennesey conversion has more horsepower and the Vette has better tires. IF I could get Michelin Pilot® Sport Cup tires (or something similar) for the F-Type, I'd have a much better idea of how well matched the cars are. I believe that if the tires are equal, the horsepower equal and the driver equal, the F-Type will probably be very close to the Vette, depending on the course. For instance, Spring Mountain is building an extension that will make a 4.1 mile course with a long straight. I don't think the F-Type will keep up on that track, but on the current 1.5 mile configuration they run regularly for club racing, I am certain that if the tires were equal, the Vette would stay in the rearview mirror. It simply doesn't handle on the turns the way the F-Type does. But if you start putting the big horsepower vettes up against the F-Type I think they will win. The fact is, while I have owned (and loved) six Corvettes, and do have the C7 on order, I prefer Jags. I just bought my sixth in 30 months so I guess I am hooked. I want a car that does well at the track but I don't know anyone who spends more time with their street car on the track than the street. So even if I find the C7 is faster, I'll be happy with my F-Type.

 

Scott

Thank you for the details. I accept your comparison since you obviously had done it and I have not. I have not even had the chance to test the handling of the F-type. I'm simply judging on the weight issue that is usually a pretty accurate predictor for track performance. The F-type being faster than a Hennesey would greatly impress me towards the F-type. Sounds like you had a great selection of cars to own and to compare. Please let us know of any future lap comparison experiences, I think most forum viewers would be most interested. In the meantime, now I can hardly wait for the unavoidable slew of magazine comparison tests to see how the V8 F-type stands up to the worlds best. You certainly peaked my interest in the new Jag by your post.

I'm two Jaguars behind you so I understand what you mean by "hooked". My XJL is my 4th in a row. However, I am not happy with the car as the ride is crude and bothersome. I still think something is wrong with the dampers on the car but, 4 visits to the dealer could not get them to fess up to anything being faulty. So, if this is truly NORMAL, as they claim, I would be most disappointed with Jaguar. I was astonished how much better the ride of the V8 F-type was during my test drive over the very same road surfaces compared to my luxury saloon XJL. I can't believe that the British Royal family in their XJLs would accept this jiggly ride. I kind of given up on the dealers so, I guess, I have to live with a car I absolutely do not enjoy driving.

Albert

 

Did you test drive some other XJL's for comparison. I would think the XJL would drive like a good dream.

 

Albert my experience with the XJL is that it is a smooth car WITH THE RIGHT TIRES - yep back to tires. The tires tend to flat spot easily on these cars and when I did the test drive on my new XJL i noticed that the ride wasn't as smooth as I expected. I suspected tires out of balance or a car out of alignment but my guy at Jaguar said it was flat spotted tires and he was right. If the car is new (less than 1 year old) Jaguar has a procedure you can go through to end up getting new tires under warranty. Don't know if any of this applies to your problem but it fixed mine. Best wishes. I'll let you know how the F-Type does when stacked up against a C7 in Oct. Hopefully I'll have better tires for the F-Type by then.

 

Yes, I test drove the 2013 XJL. While it drove near exactly like my 2012, as far as dampening and ride quality, it did not have the vibration issues that I have over the roughly 20 test miles. But, it is not that simple as my vibration issues usually do not surface during the initial driving miles. They seem to get worse with time and distance. I'm generally being bothered by them after about 30 minutes on the freeway and tend to become extremely irritating after about 1.5 hours into my normal trips of 3 hours.

What makes it very difficult to troubleshoot (my profession was/is a high tech specialist troubleshooter of last resort) is its inconsistency. A couple of weeks back when my wife and I went on a 200+ miles trip, the vibration was really bad during the first half of the trip, just to go away for the last 3rd. My suspicion falls on the dampers. Since I had this issue since day one in my brand new XJL, at the second dealer visit they did find a bad damper, replaced it and it shut me up for about 5000 miles. Now the vibration is back but, no signs of damper codes in the car.

Scott - I replaced the tires after only 2700 miles because I had the same issue with the new car/tires. Since, I had the tires (now with 6000 miles on them) inspected for flatspots and checked for balance twice. The last complete dismounted checks were less than two weeks ago. To do one more thing, I intend to switch wheels and tires from my wife's XF to see if anything changes. Just have to wait for an other couple of weeks for me to recover from a minor surgery.

I have brand newly laid highway pavement near my house. Every one of my car rides like a dream on that new surface but, the XJL has that vibration coming through the chassis. As if the dampers would fail to dampen out perfectly smooth black-top road textures. That is exactly what it feels like. I speculated the cause to be incorrect electronic valving control of the dampers where as the viscosity of the damper oil changes (due to heat built-up) over driving time and distance, the damper valving rates effectively change. Kind of why we used to have external damper fluid reservoirs in our race cars to keep the fluid temps and the valving action consistent over the distance of a race.

Funny you mention Jaguar's policy in replacing tires. At the very first dealer visit when the car was less than a month old, the dealer told me that it had a flat spotted tire. They refused to change it, saying that it was Pirelli's job to do so. So, not at all happy with the brush-off, I drove to a Pirelli dealer that inspected my tires while I was watching, checked balancing on them and found them to be perfectly round and in balance. I have not returned to the same Jaguar dealer since. Still, I installed the new tires, just to try something.

Extremely frustrating problem resulting in the worst freeway ride experience of any car that I had ever driven. Not an over-statement...

BTW - I did not realize that the F-type had only a single tire supplier. Have to look up the size and see what is so special...

Albert

 

Back to the F-type news:

I've just read the Car and Driver instrumented test data on the new Vette. However, what is MOST interesting in the test sheet is the comparison to the F-type V8 performance, particularly the acceleration times.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...gray-specs.pdf

As you may have seen, thus far published 0-60 times for the F V8 were 4.2 sec. It seemed a bit "slow" given the power-to-weight ratio. If you look carefully on the attached Vette performance sheet, the F-type V8 is shown to do 0-60 in approximately 3.6 seconds and the quarter mile under 12 seconds. That is a very substantial difference from the factory-claimed 4.2 sec. Is Jaguar sandbagging the V8 F performance figures? If so, why?

I don't know where C&D got the F-type figures as I can not find an instrumented road test at their website for the Jaguar. These acceleration times, however, appear to closely back up Scotts claims for track performance. Very interesting...

Albert

 

I just got out, early, of my lease on a 2011 XKR 'Vert to get into one of the 1st Ftypes in the state. I'm 48, no showboat, constantly regarded in any car sales office as if I can't afford anything in there, but just love to drive. I fell in love with the XK desogn once the 2007 model came out. But, and its all subjective, once I saw the F-Type, I felt I needed one, once I drove it, knew it before we left the lot. My wife hates the car, its super impractical, and I just love it! My bullmastiff liked the XKR more...Before the XKR, I had a 2010 Yukon Denali, before that an 07 760LI - I started leasing with the XKR to soften blows like when I got out of the Yukon and BMW. Both depreciated on a rocket rail, and I bought the 760 1 year old for $50k less than brand new. Buy what you love, and if it needs to be new, lease it - If you don't want depreciation, get a classic car...

 

Yes, I've also tried to get out of my less than 1 year old lease on the XJL but, the bath I would have to take on that transaction is simply too much. My $90K car was appraised by the dealer at $48K! I am usually a cash buyer and this is the first ever lease for me. Might be the last...

I'd like to see the bullmastiff sitting or doing whatever in your F-type. Does not leave much room for your wife...

Albert

 

The 0-60 time discrepancy is not unusual for Jaguar. They did the same thing with the 2010 XKR. Jaguar's claimed 0-60 time for that car is 4.6 seconds, as often cited here and elsewhere. Car and Driver did it in the same car in 4.0. 2010 Jaguar XKR – Instrumented Test – Car and Driver

Porsche does the same thing. They call it being "conservative". I think it's a matter of under-promising and over-delivering, which is not a bad strategy, all in all.

.6 seconds at 60 mph (88 feet/second) is significant. I figure an XKR going at a 4.0 pace at 60 mph would be 52.8 feet ahead of an XKR going at a 4.6 pace. An XKR is 188.7 inches long. That's 15.275 feet. At 60 mph, the 4.0 car would therefore be over 3 car lengths ahead of the 4.6 car. That's not even close, as drags go...

 

They seemed pretty impressed with the XKR on the track! Albert, I think you need to get behind the wheel of one! I'm looking at buying a GoPro camera to install in mine to get some track video footage to post for you guys. Wish I could get some dicing it up with a certain Firesand F-Type...I figure a passenger in his or stickier rubber on mine should level things out nicely

And interesting...Car and Driver show lateral grip as being the same .92 g as the F-Type tested by Road and Track. 2014 Jaguar F-Type Versus 2013 Porsche Boxster - Porsche Boxster Versus Jaguar F-Type at Lime Rock in Connecticut - Road & Track. Different day and track, but perhaps indicating not a huge difference.

 

Thanks for the attachment Albert.

I am a little puzzled with the F type's weight and it's performance.

According to R&D 2014 Jaguar F-Type Versus 2013 Porsche Boxster - Porsche Boxster Versus Jaguar F-Type at Lime Rock in Connecticut - Road & Track the F type V6S is at 3839lbs (Jaguar website - 3600lbs). Which would only mean the V8S is closer to 4000 lbs.

Does the V8S weigh as much as these publications show it does? Do we go by the numbers published on Jaguar's website?

If the V8S truly does weigh 4000lbs, both the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile times are very impressive.

 

Don't tempt me Bruce! Enough of a problem that for the past two days I found myself on Autotrader and Cars.com looking at XKR and XKR-s ads. With my hugely disappointing issue with my beautiful XJL, now I wish that I either kept the XK or got an R instead.

I just talked to the Service Manager today, after my 4th XJL visit and he was at a loss for suggestions how to proceed. He was ASKING ME what I would do to try to fix the ride. I suggested him that my "guess" was for the dampers but, it was only a guess. It is so frustrating; today during 50 miles drive one way it was pretty much fine. Coming back in the other directions even my wife noticed the constant vibration, as if tires were slightly out of balance (they are NOT).

At this point if I could receive a half-acceptable trade in offer for and XKR I would take it.

Albert

 

Very often factory weights listed would be either "dry" weights (without oils, coolant and fuel) or "wet" weights but, still without fuel load. Road and Track numbers are probably closer to the "real" weight of the car as it lines up at their testing event with their fuel tanks at least 1/2 full.

Albert