Forget the Ewok. THIS is what the wives will be driving soon

[900000]

If Jaguars current pricing policy is anything to go by, I doubt it will be at all competitive - just look at the pricing for the F Type (starts at £58,520, when it really should be £38,520!)

 

Still the C-X17 (did Gerry Anderson come up with that name?) looks good and no doubt will sell well - probably taking quite a few sales away from the Range Rover Sport along the away (perhaps a bit of an own goal there).

 

Yup the F-type is WAY too heavy for what it is and silly priced.  It is not a Porsche 911 competitor (in terms of size or weight) to be honest but yet is priced there?

 

As to stepping on RRS toes as I said above this will be (or I hope it is) an in-between size (in terms of physical size and price) between the Ewok and the RRS so as to give JLR a complete range.

[Sporky McGuffin]

Yup the F-type is WAY too heavy for what it is and silly priced.  It is not a Porsche 911 competitor (in terms of size or weight) to be honest but yet is priced there?

The V6 is £9k less expensive than the cheapest 911 - and that gap widens if you look at the 911 cabrio.

 

I also think once you get away from the Top Trumps approach to comparing cars the two are pretty different - having had a 911 on a 24-hour test drive I don't think I'd ever want to own one (even assuming funds permitted), there are too many compromises for so much money, and they're common enough to seem rather dull.

 

Similarly plenty of people will tell you that the XF isn't efficient or light or fast enough compared to the 5-series or the E-class, but having driven all three the Jaguar was by far the happiest place to be for me.

[Coops]

Tis a tasty looking vehicle IMO - I wonder how much tech will be stolen from the LR parts bin, think it will certainly go head to head with RRS and Ewok, but will probably air on the side of quality/comfort/luxury rather than out and out speed/performance but you never know.

[900000]

The V6 is £9k less expensive than the cheapest 911 - and that gap widens if you look at the 911 cabrio.

 

I also think once you get away from the Top Trumps approach to comparing cars the two are pretty different - having had a 911 on a 24-hour test drive I don't think I'd ever want to own one (even assuming funds permitted), there are too many compromises for so much money, and they're common enough to seem rather dull.

 

Similarly plenty of people will tell you that the XF isn't efficient or light or fast enough compared to the 5-series or the E-class, but having driven all three the Jaguar was by far the happiest place to be for me.

 

True but the F-type was touted as, and is the size of, the Porsche Boxster...  They are also both two seater cars whereas the 911 is a notional four seater.  And viz a viz the Boxster the F-type is extremely portly and very much overpriced.  But now, due to its price, journalists are reluctantly comparing it to the 911!!

 

So yes let's hope (for Jaguar's sake) they price their SUV a bit more competitively than the F-type.

[Sporky McGuffin]

And viz a viz the Boxster the F-type is extremely portly and very much overpriced.

 

But quicker. And I'm not sure it's fair to call it "portly" - it's just a bigger car than the Boxter.

 

I don't think the Porsche comparisons are entirely fair; the base V6 is enormously cheaper than the base 911 Cabrio (£57k vs £82k!) - even the V8S is less expensive but quite a chunk quicker. Against the Boxter S the V6 is more expensive, true, but there's a lot more of it and it's just as quick.

 

And the 911 is not a four seater in any useful sense - I'm only 5' 10" and not particularly lardy but quite literally cannot fit into the back seats without having my legs removed, unless there's a dwarf driving (and even then it'd be incredibly uncomfortable). I think even children would have to be very small and utterly unclaustrophobic to be at all happy in there.

 

The F-type was always pitched between the Boxter and the 911, never as a direct rival to either. The Merc SL is probably a more appropriate comparison.

 

The F-type, in my view, only looks bad vs the Porsches if you compare it to both at the same time - ie it's more expensive than a Boxter but not as fast as a 911 GT3. When you consider that the entire range fits in the price gap between the Boxter S and the 911 it makes a lot more sense and is a lot more competitive (and requires less of a plundering of the option list before it becomes a pleasant place to be).

Edited 11 September, 2013 by Sporky McGuffin

[900000]

Let

 

But quicker. And I'm not sure it's fair to call it "portly" - it's just a bigger car than the Boxter.

 

 

 

And the 911 is not a four seater in any useful sense - I'm only 5' 10" and not particularly lardy but quite literally cannot fit into the back seats without having my legs removed, unless there's a dwarf driving (and even then it'd be incredibly uncomfortable). I think even children would have to be very small and utterly unclaustrophobic to be at all happy in there.

 

 

Let's not derail this thread.  But the F-type is made of ALUMINIUM and yet it weighs between 1,597 and 1,665 kg.  The Boxster (made mostly of STEEL) weighs 1,310kg. THREE HUNDRED KG less.  The F-type is massively portly I'm sorry.

As to the 911s four seats - I know the rear ones are useless, I added that as one more tiny reason why the F-type is more Boxster than 911.

[Sporky McGuffin]

Let's not derail this thread.  But the F-type is made of ALUMINIUM and yet it weighs between 1,597 and 1,665 kg.  The Boxster (made mostly of STEEL) weighs 1,310kg. THREE HUNDRED KG less.  The F-type is massively portly I'm sorry.

 

But the Boxster is significantly smaller than the F-Type. 13cm shorter, 24cm narrower and a touch less tall. When you look at the volume of the two the weight difference per unit volume is less than 4%.

 

Aluminium is less stiff than steel, so you need more of it. But the weight difference is almost entirely down to the F-Type being much bigger than the Boxster.

 

Compare it with the SL500 - the Jag V8S is significantly faster for the same money. Compare it with the V8 Vantage - the Jaguar is £20,000 less expensive but faster.

 

After all, if you're going Top Trumps then the Boxster is criminally underpowered and overpriced compared to an A45, which also has more seats and is thus a much, much better car, no?

[900000]

But the Boxster is significantly smaller than the F-Type. 13cm shorter, 24cm narrower and a touch less tall. When you look at the volume of the two the weight difference per unit volume is less than 4%.

 

Aluminium is less stiff than steel, so you need more of it. But the weight difference is almost entirely down to the F-Type being much bigger than the Boxster.

 

Compare it with the SL500 - the Jag V8S is significantly faster for the same money. Compare it with the V8 Vantage - the Jaguar is £20,000 less expensive but faster.

 

After all, if you're going Top Trumps then the Boxster is criminally underpowered and overpriced compared to an A45, which also has more seats and is thus a much, much better car, no?

 

OK I see where you are coming from...  But still maintain it is too heavy for its size!  

[Sporky McGuffin]

I think it would be good if it were lighter.

 

But I think that there's been a collusion of disaster between Jaguar and the automotive press to suggest that aluminium, being a less dense metal than steel, inherently means that the resulting platforms are less heavy than steel ones.

 

Having seen a few, the F-Type is noticeably wide. Not in a bad way, looks-wise, but unusually wide for its length.

[jezzep]

I actually like the Jag. Sadly my Company car allowance will not extend to it. Then again would like a Saab 93X. Won't be able to afford one of these either. Nevertheless I can afford a Yeti, so I'm dead happy

 

JeZ

[jlwah]

I think it would be good if it were lighter.

 

But I think that there's been a collusion of disaster between Jaguar and the automotive press to suggest that aluminium, being a less dense metal than steel, inherently means that the resulting platforms are less heavy than steel ones.

 

Having seen a few, the F-Type is noticeably wide. Not in a bad way, looks-wise, but unusually wide for its length.

But Jaguar have been using aluminium as a means of weight saving for ages, just a shame they didn't apply the same principles to the F-Type.

 

I agree with Johann on this one, the F-types natural competitor is the Boxster (and Caymen when they bring out the hardtop), so it's the XK that's competing with the 911. But to avoid comparison Jag simply upped the price. Whilst the performance might be similar, the Boxster has better fuel consumption and handles better. It'll be interesting to see how used values hold up once the novelty value wears off.

 

Also, if my experience is anything to go by, they're hardly flying out of the showrooms either; I think I might have seen two on the roads and that's been over one of the best summer's in ages!

[Sporky McGuffin]

I agree with Johann on this one, the F-types natural competitor is the Boxster (and Caymen when they bring out the hardtop), so it's the XK that's competing with the 911.

 

The XK is a GT, not a sports car - it's competition for the bigger Astons more than for the 911.

 

As far as I can see the only reason to compare the F-Type against the Boxster is to make it look bad. Compare it against the 911 and it's better value and faster. If you've only got the money for a Boxster you can't afford an F-type, after all.

[jlwah]

The XK is a GT, not a sports car - it's competition for the bigger Astons more than for the 911.

 

As far as I can see the only reason to compare the F-Type against the Boxster is to make it look bad. Compare it against the 911 and it's better value and faster. If you've only got the money for a Boxster you can't afford an F-type, after all.

Of course, but that applies to everything. I seem to remember Clarkson saying that the only thing a Boxster said about you was that you couldn't afford a 911.

 

But I'm pretty sure most F-Type owners (assuming there are some out there) will have looked at the Boxster and quite possibly the XK too (and an M3 and Audi RS5 cabriolet, etc), whilst researching their next buy. Seeing as a fair percentage of cars are bought on PCP or similar finance, often the monthly payments are a more relevant cost factor than RRP. And for company car drivers, cost + CO2 will be a factor.

 

I don't dislike the F-Type, I just don't think it's priced correctly. I've no idea how well they're selling, but even with having a Jaguar garage in town, I'm really not seeing any out on the roads (we also have a Porsche dealer as well and I'm seeing lots of new Boxsters/Caymans/911's etc. on the road).

[Tech1e]

Tis a tasty looking vehicle IMO - I wonder how much tech will be stolen from the LR parts bin, think it will certainly go head to head with RRS and Ewok, but will probably air on the side of quality/comfort/luxury rather than out and out speed/performance but you never know.

Parts bin are all the same anyhow, a lot is shared even now.

[CFB]

Getting back to the SUV, I like it but...

It does look just the same as so many of the other creations from other marques.

As for the comparison with the Mazda.

Have a closer look at the side by side pics above.

It looks like the same car with a few minor bodywork styling changes.

The bonnet and front end are the same side profile.

The sides of both are almost identical except for the opposite angle of the rear side window.

Even the rear end is the same apart from the rear lights wrapping more around the side on the Jag.

I suppose it could be compared to the Tiguan, Audi and Yeti variants of the same car, but at least the Yeti is different enough to make it stand out from the rest.

Biased, maybe, but true.

[Sporky McGuffin]

The profile of the CX17 is rather generic. I'd suggest that it's fairly rare though to see a car directly side on, and while a lot of crossovers do share that same side view they're all fairly easily distinguished from front, back or 3/4.

 

I do like the lights around the lower air intakes - I assume they're a sort of fog-light cum DRL thing.

[JCP]

Listening to the boss of JLR in 2015 we will be seeing what he called a "sedan"-aluminium architecture with a range of new 4 cylinder engines from which an SUV will be developed-so a 3 series/C class/IS segment car-overdue and very welcome. The concept has some obvious concept features-unfeasible wheel size etc-but is plainly designed to foreshadow their SUV contender-which will be modified in the light of the small saloons reception/performance.

[RapidRonnie]

Getting back to the SUV, I like it but...

It does look just the same as so many of the other creations from other marques.

As for the comparison with the Mazda.

Have a closer look at the side by side pics above.

It looks like the same car with a few minor bodywork styling changes.

The bonnet and front end are the same side profile.

The sides of both are almost identical except for the opposite angle of the rear side window.

Even the rear end is the same apart from the rear lights wrapping more around the side on the Jag.

 

 

I suspect the Jag will look a lot more premium and sporty in real life (especially from the rear looks nice) but yes, the side profile is virtually identical!

[Brimma]

Sorry.......................what's an Ewok?  :(

[fastestlouigie]

Sorry.......................what's an Ewok?   :(

Landrover Evoke. Learned that myself yesterday!

[Brimma]

Landrover Evoke. Learned that myself yesterday!

 

I knew that.....................giving cars silly names is one of my bugbears on here  :(

[Tech1e]

We called them Ewok before we knew what EVOQUE (spelt correctly) was pronounced..lol

 

Technically its an L538 anyhow

[Coops]

Now fully released as the F-Pace and this has changed very little from the original CX-17 concept!

 

 

Officially launched with a record breaking loop-the-loop publicity stunt. (video at foot of page in below link)

 

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-events/frankfurt/2015/jaguar-release-teaser-shots-of-the-f-pace/

[muddyjim]

Oops - sorry ignore this....

Jim

Edited 16 September, 2015 by muddyjim