No one has mentioned warranties. CPO is a good way to buy any used performance car. Its odd that the second+ owner gets 7Y/100K coverage on a CPO car, and the original owner didn't, but that's the way it is.

Also, realize that 2016s have two years of warranty left (time-wise) and 2015s have none.

 

Thank you for proving my point... vicious to me is having a car that can put all the power down and reel in anyone they want. Pulling high G turns with confidence and doing that in any weather. Some people like lots of smoke and no substance,I like lots of substance and not much smoke. Smoking tires isn't performance... Get a Camaro or mustang for that and save plenty of money.

 

Problem: AWD steals the very power it strives to put down. Making it quite tame, which is the opposite of vicious.

The accepted rule if thumb is each two wheel drive train absorbs 15% of the BHP at the flywheel. or 7.5% per wheel. So of course you are right, AWD is more controllable. But I can achieve the same end result simply by making the engine 15% weaker and lighter and smaller, without the additional burden of the extra drive train weight, upfront cost, and recuring lifecycle costs.

So AWD is tame not because it hooks up, although it does, but because it is 15% weaker and hundreds of pounds heavier. Sure 0-60 is usually offset by the additional traction of AWD, though it is no faster than RWD in the F-Type's case. And in many cases RWD is faster even in traction bound tests. Substitute a rolling start and AWD cars do very poorly against a RWD counterpart.

And I'm not saying the additional power of RWD always suits the car, it doesn't, unless you want vicious.

Mustangs and Camaros are clever in this respect. Namely, they managed to stick with the preferred design of the F-Type, RWD, by holding their lawyers at bay. Thats why they are reasonably competive cars at half the price.

Would I buy a Mustang or Camaro? No.
Would a buy an AWD sports car? No.
​​​​​

 

On AWD the passive powertrain loss is around 3-4% more than the RWD. With that said, I can't disagree that in a straight line the RWD has a slight advantage. But that's where it ends.

The handling is far superior on the AWD under any road condition, especially on wet. The RWD is NOT at all more agile, if you look at autocross or the JCNA slalom where speed isn't a big factor but agility is... AWD rules.

Vicious is defined by be as a car that responds immediately and ferociously by delivering immediate change of speed and direction. That is not RWD unless you think that having the rear going sideways is vicious.

RWD is certainly fun for those that love to drive sideways, not that you cannot do it with AWD as well since it's mostly rear wheel biased anyway. The F-Type is and was never a 1/4mi car, it's a fantastic looking car that does very well in all aspects of driving performance and comfort but excels at none.

I too have learned how to drive on a very powerful RWD car and from the age of 18 to 43 I only ever picked RWD sports cars, they are fun, there is no doubt about it but then i wanted a car that can drive like hell even on the rain, a car that inspires the extra confidence to do that and.... after trying several of them, I ended up with an F-Type. It is a fantastic canvas for modding, it offers a relatively lavish interior and it looks stunning. But truth to be told, I truly enjoy it when RWD sports cars get their read end kicked by my AWD or when it it excels in competition.

 

Audiworld, which is obviously AWD bias, says:

You will find tons and tons of conflicting information on the Internet about what the loss percentages are for different drivetrain types. Below are the correct drivetrain loss percentages for each drivetrain type. Keep in mind that the drivetrain loss is about 2-5% higher in cars with automatic transmissions.
■FWD: 10-15% loss;
■RWD: 10-18% loss;
■AWD: 17-25% loss.

The overlapping ranges obviously do not apply to the same car in different trim levels, but completely different designs. In our case, no one knows, so we're just making stuff up. Until we have data, using mid-range for both is all we can do. Using Jags numbers:

550 BHP RWD - 14% = 482 WHP
550 BHP AWD - 21% = 455 WHP

Doing generic math in a common 0-60 calculator :

RWD 3638 lbs @ 482 WHP = 4.082s
AWD 3847 lbs @ 455 WHP = 4.265s (4.452s if RWD)

https://www.carspecs.us/calculator/0-60

So AWD, in theory, results in a large, veiled perfomance hit. The real world performance hit is represented best by the 4.082/4.452 ratio, since traction credit only applies if the RWD slips, and in real life, wheel spin is rare.

But I don't think AWD is supposed to be about drivers, it's about Lawyers.

 

 

​​​​Sure, its just one way to answer the OP's question of which will be the desirable models down the road. Personally, I don't think any sports car will do well in the future as it is unfolding, because auto enthusiast demand will be dead long before these cars become rare. It's already the case, really.

My advice: only pick-up performance cars up if they are super cheap, and plan on them getting a whole lot cheaper.

 

Please don't make me laugh... Those are the CORRECT percentages LOL. Last I checked I have a Dyno at my disposal and the RWD is around 14% on average and the AWD is 17%. Let's use AUDI figures LMFAO

 

You are positively correct... The F-Type is not a 0-60, 1/4mi car and it should not be viewed that way

 

 

I think it is both. Running between 3.1 and 3.2 consistently. You are right that 0-60 is not the car's forte, but that makes 3.1s even more impressive.

 

My '10 XKR had a 9.09% loss when I put it on the dyno. That assumes that it is still matches factory specs.

 

It probably never matched. Jag seems conservative. My V8 S stock dyno baseline is 498 WHP. Rated 495 BHP.

 

You can't compare your own rwd dyno run numbers to Jag published numbers to get drivetrain loss. That's not how it works. Way too many variables. Dyno numbers vary based on the dyno (i.e. Mustang vs Dynojet), whether correction factors were used, etc... Each vehicle platform will have it's own percentage based on how it's constructed. i.e. just because you see one percentage for a RWD car, doesn't mean all RWD cars have the exact same percentage. You can extrapolate that similar cars should be within the same percentage, give or take 2-3%.

The only real way to know is to dyno the engine outside of the car, then dyno the engine inside the car with the drivetrain attached. Scientifically, trying to keep the operating parameters the same.

 

​​​​​​The point is when you dyno more than BHP, stock, obviously the rated BHP is conservative. In the case of the V8 S we all understand why.

 

Unless your dyno is wrong (which is more than likely). Most dyno operators don't know how to provide the proper corrections so people run around with inflated dyno numbers.

 

That wouldn't be the case here, they calibrate regularly and do 3 runs per hour, base package, booked solid for weeks out. If you look at the screen shot, the Dynojet automatically adjusts for conditions. But I have heard that Dynojets don't adjust enough for hot conditions. My ambient was 96F, so you can probably add a couple of HP.

 

lol.. ok.. If it helps you sleep at night...

 

Why not post your V8 S dyno so I can undersdand why you are so upset by my 2014 V8 S dyno'ing a whopping 3 WHP less than a 2015 V8 R dyno thats gone up on youtube after my dyno?

Maybe that's because they are virtually identical cars? Ever consider that?

 

In our case, we pull the engines when we bore them etc so we bench dyno them and perform the break-in that way. Often we dyno it when the engine is back in the car. That's how I came up with those figures but I agree with you, many "tuners" adjust losses to their benefit