F-Pace (X761) / C-X17 2016 - Onwards

Reluctantly disappointed

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #21  
Old 11-14-2015, 07:11 PM
gotwish's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Memphis
Posts: 190
Received 26 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

I absolutely agree that the tank should be larger--my F type has a 19 gal. tank.

I would expect the F pace to have a LARGER tank, not smaller. Filling up more often is just a hassle.

I like the F pace, but the small gas tank will probably make me pass it up.
 
The following 2 users liked this post by gotwish:
Kodiak (11-16-2015), wachuko (07-04-2016)
  #22  
Old 04-26-2016, 09:51 AM
ddsski's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 271
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Agreed

BTW I love PETA also and a 20 gallon tank should be a no brainer on any midsized SUV. Gross oversight and won't settle for that 4 banger diesel dog when they should have used the td6 like in the RR. TATA has a recent history of doing some REALLY stupid stuff in their designs. Even Evoque has a ~18.5 gallon tank and its lucky to get 25 on the highway because TATA lies about it now or test with ridiculous hypermiling tricks like lugging at 1200rpms in a 4 banger.....How is it that most BMW's overachieve ratings and no new TATA product comes close???
 
  #23  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:31 PM
yarpos's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alexandra, VIC, AU
Posts: 5,416
Received 2,086 Likes on 1,261 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by whiskey29
With all due respect, does USA not have regularly placed petrol stations (or is it gas stations?)?! Do you actually need 400miles range, other than the annoyance factor of having to stop?

I guess here in the UK we dont actually need that much range as we are so tiny, can drive the whole length or breadth in half a day (probably less if you arent worried about the police)!
If you have the longer range you can reach your remote hunting destination without stopping and with an empty tank which is always handy :-)
 
  #24  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:41 PM
yarpos's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alexandra, VIC, AU
Posts: 5,416
Received 2,086 Likes on 1,261 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ddsski
Agreed

.How is it that most BMW's overachieve ratings and no new TATA product comes close???
Not a fair comparison

BMW passenger automobile history 1929 to today - design, develop, build. And they are Germans, they do have a bit of a talent for engineering.

TATA passenger automobile history 1991 to today - mostly through takeovers using other peoples technology.

Different thinking, approach and pedigree. Its a credit to TATA that they do as well as they do.
 
  #25  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:48 PM
yarpos's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Alexandra, VIC, AU
Posts: 5,416
Received 2,086 Likes on 1,261 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Den1948
Re small capacity on Brit cars, I guess we have different usage patterns to our U.S. Brothers, we don't really use our top cars, we just have them to impress and howl away from petrol stations making as much noise as poss, with fuel at over $10 a gallon we generally go for a splash and dash approach, plus we can only dream of driving long distances without hitting the sea, perhaps London to Edinburgh but then who wants to sit on the m1 or m6 for hours. Re hunting lodge; How many salmon or elk can you fit in the trunk/ boot of an F?
My british car has fuel capacity of 90ltrs (24.7 US gallons, 20 real gallons). I guess they wanted the V12 version to be able to get well out of town before Jeeves had to top up.
 
  #26  
Old 04-30-2016, 11:59 AM
ddsski's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 271
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Peace to all made the smart choice, and got rid of the Evoque and its lousy transmission for a RR Sport HSE with a nice huge 27.7 gallon tank and 25mpg highway ratings. I expect 20-21 BTW but I decided to pass on poseur status.
 
  #27  
Old 06-04-2016, 10:40 AM
carzaddict's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ
Posts: 1,745
Received 205 Likes on 188 Posts
Default

i guess they really wanted to stick to the lighweight sports car feel, thats the only way to explain the small tank.
 
  #28  
Old 07-22-2016, 01:47 PM
tcfpace-pa's Avatar
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Kodiak
The F-Pace is beautiful and powerful, but it only has a 16.6 gal fuel tank.


Perhaps it's acceptable in a sports car, but I need range in an SUV when my hunting camp is 400 miles away.


Maybe it's adequate for the diesel, but when your flagship has 380 hp (and more on the way), WTF?
For most people this won't be an issue, I agree 17 gallons is light for an SUV that with 380hp is probably going to get 16 to 18 mpg most of the time. 280 mile range with some reserve is adequate for me though. On the highway, I think you should be able to stretch that range to around 350 miles.

I'm ok with that, but for some that may be an issue I agree.
 
  #29  
Old 07-24-2016, 02:31 PM
Wolfy's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,063
Received 167 Likes on 120 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kodiak
I hadn't noticed before, but it seems to be a trend for Jaguar to have smaller fuel tanks than in the past. The current XJ has a capacity of 21.7 gallons. My late beloved 2000 XJ8 had over 23 gallons.

My car 2005 XJ8L has 22.5 gallons
My previous 1986 XJ6 SIII had TWO tanks totaling 24 gallons.

I don't hunt or do anything of the 'roughing-it' stuff but if I did, I would probably use an old truck or suv not a fresh pristine one, but that's just me (and 95% of Angelenos).
 

Last edited by Wolfy; 07-24-2016 at 02:34 PM.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SeismicGuy
XK8 / XKR ( X100 )
28
10-14-2015 09:33 AM
max224
XK8 / XKR ( X100 )
6
10-03-2015 11:01 AM
Johncy2000
XJ ( X351 )
4
10-02-2015 01:05 AM
Johnken
XK8 / XKR ( X100 )
13
09-30-2015 02:46 PM
trebor12
UK & Eire
3
09-12-2015 12:21 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


Quick Reply: Reluctantly disappointed



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.