http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/lat...icle-1.2390523

 

Review seems spot on from my viewpoint ... agree with pretty much everything they reported.
Lawrence.

 

+1

 

+ 1
I especially liked "Nothing short of a Lamborghini Aventador or Mercedes SLS AMG has the power and SOUND of the F-Type R duo. How is it legal? I don't care. I don't want to know. I just want to punch the gas all day long!"

 

Ya seems like some of today's pumped up cars have really loud exhausts. My buddy just bought a c63s and that is bonkers and extremely loud as well. Not sure how they are passing noise tests. Maybe they test them with the exhaust valve closed not open.

 

I agree with everything but the final conclusion. There is no doubt in my mind that the coupe is the better looking car, but the vert is also stunning to look at and a heap more fun. For me I went for the fun.

 

Despite the fact that I own the convertible 15S, I must admit I also turn my head equally as quickly for the coupe. A friend of mine has the 16 coupe, and the cuts, lines and accentuation of the design just pops, especially in different colors.

In conclusion, I would like to have two....but that little piece of leather in my back pocket says no (along with my beautiful bride with the rolling pin in hand) LOL!

 

Ascertaining which of the two body types is better than the other is a futile effort. Final judgement depends on the multi-variat criteria of each person who is making the judgment. I, for one, wrestled with the decision for months (while waiting for the MT to become available), and changed my mind several times during that time frame. I'm very glad my final decision fell on the side that it did. I am also certain that I would also have been very glad if it had fallen on the other side.

 

I mostly agree with the article as well, though I think they missed the point with the roadster... you get the best of both worlds. You can put the top up when the weather isn't great, but put it down to enjoy the engine noise and weather. The storage is only really the difference of a few cubic feet, and unless you're planning to take a long road trip, it shouldn't really matter too much. I've never filled my trunk since I rarely have anything to put in there aside from maybe an overnight bag or suitcase.

Personally, I think the roadster with the top down is more attractive than the coupe, but the coupe is more attractive than the roadster with the top up. But everyone has their preferences.

 

For me it wasn't even a close choice. While I think that the lines of the coupe are great and if someone gave me one I'd be pleased to own it, IMHO there is nothing like not having a lid on a summer day.

 

Imho the coupes lines make it a much more attractive car by far. The trunk space is also a lot larger. It's nice to have the top down in nice weather but if it were a hard top convertible like the Mercedes SL's, the Ferrari California T or the BMW M4's, I'd have thought twice and maybe bought a vert instead.

 

Looks are subjective, but both look great. Vert is best with top down, and when the top is down the vert is the more visceral car. It's much louder, feels faster at any given speed, and nothing beats the wind in the hair. A sports car for me has to be topless. I think the coupe looks great, but for me it can't match the drama of the vert as it can't match the loudness.

If I were in the market today, I'd get another vert. And I'm sure the coupe guys would get another coupe.

We're lucky to have two great choices.

 

Ditto . . . and very well said!

 

Same here. As others have noted, the looks are totally subjective, but for me, I don't like the cloth tops of the convertibles as much as I like the roof of the coupe.

A hardtop would have been the best of both worlds IMO, but really I think it's impossible to fault anyone for choosing either a coupe or a vert. They are all awesome cars.

 

Designing the Jaguar F-Type Coupé: "Ultimately, you need to be bold" | Stuff.

"The Coupé is, at the end of the day, the real statement. I think time will show that. I love it."

"As a design, the full shape, for me, is always going to be more exciting than a convertible roof, which is going to default to what the roof shape is."

 

Can't disagree more. I haven't seen a hard top convertible yet that didn't look awkward, the California T almost pulls it off but not quite, there is no way you would have ended up with anything even close to as beautiful as the f- type coupe with a hard top convertible. And for me if I am going convertible I prefer the look of a rag top.

 

Agreed, I really dislike hardtop convertibles. The fabric-top look is beautiful and classic.

 

My other mid-life crisis car is a 2008 Shelby Super Snake 'vert. After having it for 6 years I didn't even consider the convertible. They're absolutely gorgeous but I found it was too hot in the summer and I wanted the solid and more refined look of the coupe. I still have the Shelby so I can go vert if I feel the need.

 

It's one of those ridiculous "arguments" since there is no right answer; merely personal taste.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

I guess I also didn't get the memo that the automatic was now a 7-speed automatic . Obviously a typo.

 

The hard top verbs are heavy and the mechanism is very slow. While they at times have a decent line the extra weight up top is just not worth it. That's why I'll be parting with my Merc SLK soon. Just hurts the performance.