New jag on top gear is the new z4m ?

[pilchardthecat]

I think Jaguar has created it's own market segment. Why would it want to compete directly with a Boxter or Cayman? The least powerful F type has more power than the Cayman S and you could easily spend 58 grand Cayman anyway. And the V8s is good value when you compare it to a 911.
Times have moved on for Jag and they've brought a proper sports car to market when most car companies are doing the opposite.
If our economy recovers and people start buying second cars again which they want to be beautiful, exciting and massive fun then the F-type is positioned perfectly.

Instead of asking why you'd want F-type over a 911 ask why you'd want a 911 over an F-type. There are just as many arguments for and against.

Dont be silly - there are tonnes of 2 seaters around that price bracket - it's an extremely competitive sector that's been around for 50 years. The F-type is a slightly cheaper Vantage, following the same pattern as the XK being a cheap DB9.

You cant compare a 2 seater with a 2+2 like the 911 .... everything else is meaningless if the wife wont let you have one because you cant get the brats in the back

 

[tomscott]

I wouldn't call the F type V8 good value compared to a 911. The 911 is 300kgs lighter, better drivers car and more refined than the F type.

911 Carrera S
400hp 440nm torque
0-60 4.5 (manual) 4.1 Sport+ PDK
top speed - 188mph
average consump - 29.7mpg
1400kgs
from £83k

F type
488hp 650nm torque
0-60 4.2 (Auto)
top speed - 186mph
average consump - 25.5
1700kg
from £80k

I find it impossible that the F type will get 25mpg av more like 16-18. Whereas the 911 does get 30mpg.

But I really like both. But at a push would take the 911.

 

[Zeld4]

I think Jaguar has created it's own market segment. Why would it want to compete directly with a Boxter or Cayman? The least powerful F type has more power than the Cayman S and you could easily spend 58 grand Cayman anyway. And the V8s is good value when you compare it to a 911.
Times have moved on for Jag and they've brought a proper sports car to market when most car companies are doing the opposite.
If our economy recovers and people start buying second cars again which they want to be beautiful, exciting and massive fun then the F-type is positioned perfectly.

Instead of asking why you'd want F-type over a 911 ask why you'd want a 911 over an F-type. There are just as many arguments for and against.

Dont be silly - there are tonnes of 2 seaters around that price bracket - it's an extremely competitive sector that's been around for 50 years. The F-type is a slightly cheaper Vantage, following the same pattern as the XK being a cheap DB9.

You cant compare a 2 seater with a 2+2 like the 911 .... everything else is meaningless if the wife wont let you have one because you cant get the brats in the back

Slightly Cheaper Vantage? I think the Vantage drop top costs well over 30k more than an F-type.
And I don't mean Jag have invented the 2 seater sports car, I mean that they have placed it in the market very cleverly.
Neither BMW,Audi or Mercedes have a two seater soft top in that price range.

 

[pilchardthecat]

Vantage is about 5 grand more last time i checked

 

[Zeld4]

Vantage is about 5 grand more last time i checked

So you can get a new Vantage Cab for 63 grand? I don't think so. It's actually almost 99k for the cheapest cabriolet variant which is 40k more than the cheapest F type.
Could buy and F type and a Boxter for the same price.