I got to drive one last week.

Very fast, very smooth, very nice looking car. The S package gets you the same 5liter supercharged V-8 that the XK has, detuned slightly to 495 Horse.

My old XK-8 compares well I think, just can't see going from a gorgeous burled elm dash and trim to about an acre of plastic and carbon fiber.

I guess that makes me old fashioned, but they aren't marketing to the over-35 crowd that remembers wood.

Strange how good wood and even better taste has been overtaken by tacky bling!

Glad you enjoyed the test drive though!

Confusing, F class and XF! Still hoping for my XK8 before I die.
Peter.

Just saw a program on the SPEED channel on the XF. More of an infomercial than independent comment, but, certainly looks nice. I would like to know how the supercharged 6 compares with the V8 in performance and economy (price and fuel). They took the cars out on a track near Austin. TX.(Circuit of the Americas or something like that.) I did not see a track layout.
Isn't the use of carbon fiber meant to improve rigidity and reduce weight. Isn't that good?
Peter.

It is downright unfortunate that wood is a rare option anymore. I'd rather have that than the "bling," too.
I've read that the V-8 equipped F-type is almost overwhelming in that chassis. But, of course, I've never even seen one in person so who am I to say! I live up in the woods in a little town so lifted 4x4's are the norm.
Gotta ask, are you planning on buying another jaguar?

Peter, yes carbon fiber is used to reduce weight and increase rigidity, however it is costly. But those two benefits can be quite good depending on the use of the vehicle. Thinking about it my old 350z had a carbon fiber wrapped drive line.
Do a look on Google, there has been at least a few reviews on the performance between the six and eight cylinder F-types. From what I read in Car and Driver the six cylinder S is a match made in heaven for that vehicle.

Thanks MS I will try that. I wasn't sure how much was out there at this time.
Peter.

I was hoping for a reliable 21st century version of my old '67 XKE.

If they took a clean XKE and carefully placed it in a crusher, then reduced the overall length while making it about a foot taller from ground to the windowsill...

Cars today are uniformly fat, more of an amorphic blob with eight or ten scoops adoring the four corners; sitting on four foot-wide rubberbands.

Enzo Ferrari, perhaps said it best "the new (1962)jaguar XKE is the most beautiful car in the world..."

Well I bid you the best look, as nothing looks similar to an XKE, save for the minor similarities of the Mercedes SLR Stirling Moss. Maybe go look at the new SRT Viper? I'm still kicking myself in the rear for not buying one back four years ago, when a friend offered it to me for a steal. But, it wouldn't see the roads here!

Wood belongs on some sports (specifically GT) cars and not others.

Wood does not belong in a Ferrari- carbon fiber does, wood looks stupid in a 911- aluminum is best there.

Wood looks good in an Aston Martin; however, in keeping with the embracement of modern technology (carbon fiber/composites) in the manufacture, aluminum and carbon fiber are better.

In the XK series wood is appropriate, after all it is known more for luxury than performance. It's a decent little car- not particularly fast, handles ok, but a pleasant ride. I bought one for my wife's 40th, which she later traded in on an SL 550.

Jag is marketing the F type's performance- more of a sports/track car than GT. I think wood would be inappropriate.

Wood goes with leather.

Carbon Fibre with Alcantara.

Opinions aside, it is cheaper. That seems inappropriate in a car costing over $100,000.

Ferraris have become more of a poser/status symbol the past ten years. That is why they are taking the skill factor out of driving one.

As far as the original question. A touring car is different than a sports car. The AMG Mercedes versions tend to use aluminum more than wood as it is "sportier." Not a question of price at all as the AMGs tack on $$$$$$ above the other models. The same holds true for the "sport versions" of other mfg. The F type is supposed to be a track car- no wood needed there.

Design wise I think they dropped the ball. It' supposed to be a progression: D,E -> F type. When I first saw pics of it I thought it was a base model a la Mercedes C class tossing a bone for people who couldn't afford the X series. I didn't even read up on it because it looked cheesy.

I couldn't disagree with you more about driver aids. It's not about taking skill out, it's about one thing and one thing only- going faster. Frankly I think it would be irresponsible for any manufacturer of a high performance sports car not to put stability control on a high performance road car. Think back to the 70s & 80s and all the 911 rear-front swapping accidents.

Did the Audi Quattro take the skill out of driving? No it won world rally championships.

When Magneti Marelli came out with the paddle shift sequential gearbox it was for one thing- drop lap times. A decade later they came up with one that selected 2 gears at a time, which decreased shift times by (only) a few thousands of a second/shift, which adds to only a tenth or 2 - an eternity on an F1 track......once again to drop lap times.

There's no comparison between the paddleshift and manual gearboxes at all with spirited driving. Not a question of skill, it is more fun to drive, helluva better response time both hands on the wheel- more aggressive. I recently drove 911s with the PDK (paddleshift transmission) and the 7 speed manual. The manual shifted like a dream, smooth as silk (best I've ever driven) but it wasn't as much fun. Porsche Turbos can only be had with the PDK. I'll never go back to a stick. If I want to drive a stick I'll just ride my Kubota.

Traction control, launch control, active suspensions- all track developments to drop lap times. All subsequently banned on the track but later adapted to road cars. Currently F1 teams are using "passive/hydraulic" suspensions in order to control pitch and yaw....is that because the best drivers in the world don't have skill? No it's to drop lap times.

Regardless, from a performance standpoint Jag certainly could use all the drivers aids it could get. My wife's XK8 drove like a brick- mind you a comfortable brick. While SL 550 was more Teutonic & sterile and the XK8 more warm and comfortable, it was not in the same league as the Mercedes. Not even close.

Frankly if I'm buying a sports car I want all the bells and whistles. Fuck the wood it doesn't belong there. Want a Jag with wood- get an XJ.

Status symbols- ugly cars Bugatti, Bentley, RR, etc. Fugly. Besides, I'm white

My personal ideal car;Bentley GT SS...

There's something fascinating about a 205 mph 4-seater that will waste most Ferraris on a long straight. And, you choose just about any color and type of wood trim, and leather color.

All of those track aids you mention, that are illegal in competition; are also non-functional (to aid in spirited driving) on the roads under 100mph.

I drive my XK-8 convertible to Illinois every spring to visit my 84 year old Mother. 4000 miles roundtrip by time I throw in some miles there visiting friends in the area. I might have driven a hundred miles of that over 120mph in small chunks.

We are disagreed on esthetics.

I like wood, on car trim, and on rifles. Plastic, Carbon, more in places like tupperware.

a matter of opinion...

C'mon anyone can drive straight- I'm not a farmer........besides does you no good if you need 2 miles just to catch up and then hopefully stop the overweight bitch in a quarter mile.

It's all about acceleration, braking and cornering.

Methinks you have aero and mechanical grip mixed up. Race cars rely heavily on aero grip- an F1 car can drive upside down at 60 mph. Road cars rely on mechanical grip- driver aids are a major plus there esp. at lower speeds.

Truth be known I just bought my wife a Cayenne GTS. Frankly an absolutely awesome car. I wish I had bought it for myself. Fast, stable, very comfortable, an absolute great daily driver. A real joy to drive. It replaced her GL 450.

I know a shameless plug/hijack..........but I can't help it. A phenomenal car.

Can't in any way disagree with the Bently being the car of choice. It is one of the most impressive autos I have ever seen. Sadly though being a really old Jaguar owner I will have to say when they brought out the XKE I quit buying Jaguars. They have in recent years started to build what I call a proper car. I think the XKE was their lowpoint in design. Of course that is my very personal opinion. I really like the current offering. They are very impresive to see.

FMC,

I expect you'd find very few opportunities to outrun a Bentley in your Ferrari. Neither the 458 or 599 will top 200 in any testing I have seen. The same car magazines all show the Supersport at 205-208. Especially with 4 people on board.

Whatever. I live in the real world.

Why would I want to? Why on earth would I go over 150? I can't think of any and I've owned at least 6 cars that easily could.

And the relevance of 199 vs 204 other than marketing (which is the only reason for the magical 200 mph number strived for-as explained to me by an Aston Martin GM) is what???.........(Disregarding your complete lack of understanding of aero - downforce)

Here's a little insight: people that can actually afford these cars don't really care about those things when they buy one.

Like SUVs and long bed trucks, fat overweight boats cars are just not much fun to drive on a daily basis- but really good for long trips, no argument there........

There is no disputing the Brits have designed some of the most beautiful cars ever. Unfortunately, with respect to Jaguar (which was the subject of this topic) they fall a little short of their competition from a performance standpoint. My wife's XK8 was overweight, underpowered and handled like a barge. In short the perfect gift for her fortieth B-day. Her current Cayenne S, even though an SUV is a far better handling and faster car.

FYI Since you are so fond of stats, my 15 yo son reads R&T: the lowly entry level Boxter beat out the F type in the most recent road and track. Not surprising, but doesn't say much.....

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Wood goes with leather.

Carbon Fibre with Alcantara.

Opinions aside, it is cheaper. That seems inappropriate in a car costing over $100,000.

Rich, I think appropriateness of interior is defined by generation these days. We Luddites like wood as a rule, regardless. And for the worst of us, there's still the Morgan.

How It's Made featured the new Jag being manufactured. It was facinating to see that these new generation performance cars are glued and riveted from many smaller aluminum panels rather than chassis and body or welded steel unibody. Even Morgan has a bonded primary aluminum chassis with bonded, hand fitted wood body panel supports. Talk about blending old and new world technology...

perhaps. These days "newer and better" generally equates to cheaper to build, and giving one less for one's dollar.

There is no way to do cheap/shoddy wood in an interior. Plastic is easy. Ditto with leather.

We were in the Seattle area two weeks ago. The Bentley dealership was nearby. Four adults, choice of any color paint and interiors you can imagine, and acres of wood. All that is a 2-door that will out top end (205mph) most Ferraris.

If only...

The problem with the Tata owned Jaguar is that the designers are trying to copy Aston Martins styling. I love Astons, but a Jaguar should not look like one.

I would like to see Jag get back to building cars that look like the classic Jag lines that the brand was built upon. I want the classic Jag ride and handling, power with elegance. I'm afraid I'll have to keep buying older Jags to get what I want. A 2000-2004 XKR or XK8 is on my wish list.

And yes,I want the burl and leather.

Mike