Here is a convertible EV for consideration.

https://insideevs.com/news/604675/po...er-production/

 

When my income goes to an annual salary of $900,000, then maybe a $200,000 EV convertible might make sense. However, since that's never going to happen, I won't ever be driving that car.

I do think it looks fantastic, and the performance is superb. But EV's have poor highway range, and I drive long trips.

 

I was given as a loaner during the annual maintenance service, a 2023 F-Pace. I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, the interior has been heavily poshed-up from the original 2018 or 2019 models I've happily driven. Soft surfaces everywhere, even in the lower cabin and door panels, and a heavy use of bright thick trims all over the cabin. Infotainment system accentuated away from the dashboard====all the feeling of EXPENSIVE class motorcars.

So the company's new policy of aiming to compete with Bentley-level makers is real.

But, my God, it didn't DRIVE like the premiere Jaguar F-Pace did. The first edition was a JAGUAR, and it let you know it with it's aggressive response and acceleration---not like an SUV at all---like an enthusiastic road machine!
THIS 2023 model can accelerate quickly---but Big Deal, when it squats back like a soft Baluga whale as it's accelerating. It's tight enough in the turns, but gives very little vibration in the seat or growl notes under the frame, to stir you up like a Jaguar.
Nice interior, but one that is not interested in being a privileged Driving Hobbyist's cabin anymore,... more a privileged Russian Greyhound owner's expensive cabin from now on.

NOT what I liked Jaguar for. And certainly not what I prefer the most of my money going to. I liked Jaguars for the ROAD, not the pamper-powder.

 

Hydrogen? Do you recall the Hindenburg disaster!! With books turning into iPads; people forget history and unfortunately it’s the reason history tends to repeat itself .

 

That's a specious argument. It takes a lot of energy to run a car. It's not like gasoline isn't explosive. Any means to store that amount of energy in a compact way will need to meet strict regulations for safety in normal operation and also in the event of a crash.

 

Yeah, as mentioned, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

The problem right now with hydrogen fuel cells is the pressure. To get the energy density up high enough for acceptable power levels and range, you end up with very high pressures to store that hydrogen in the car. That's why fuel cells are not a viable alternative at the moment given the current technology.

 

I picture a day in the not too distant future when those of us ICE holdouts are fighting over bootleg gasoline. I'm already planning some mods to my F type R to add machine guns and flame throwers...

"Mad Max, The Road Warrior" may come true the way things are looking with this tyrannical war on fossil fuels. "...the last of the V8's..."

 

Heeheehe! But George05 is right on a point he made. Electricity to run an exterior mobile item is NOT the best alternate engineers can think of. It's not even third or fourth best alternative, in my opinion. It can't be "used" on the fly---it has to be stored in "cells" or "batteries", and the batteries ADD more mass, resources, and weight per minute of energy provided, that make "using electricity" for a car an even trade-off at best.

I suspect electricity is still being foisted by makers because it started off as the best, fastest way to "LOOK" like you're interested in helping the climate, whenever climate-agencies and advocates threatened to boycott their gasoline-only car market. When consumers start rumbling like they are going to boycott buying your leather product, you've got to show them a test-tube whatever, to pacify the sheep (and the Global Climate-Accord).

If the makers were TRULY serious about an alternate power source for cars, they'd be way past tinkering with electrical-cells, and develop a "fuel". A fuel that is stored only at a traditional filling station (so that the stations continue to manage the combustible/explosive risks, AND continue to profit from a flow of regular customers)...a fuel that gets "loaded" into the tank/cell of the car to the amount the driver is willing to buy at each visit...AND something that is synthesize-able like motor oil has become (meaning it feeds power to the car for X-miles, then gets pulled out of the car at the filling stations for full recycling purposes while "fresh" fuel is loaded into your car).
And if it's a product that interacts with air for the release of energy, heat, etc, it allows the car to remain some form of air-breather (...so our exhaust growls can remain part of the driving experience).

I don't think hydrogen or natural-occurring gas can do that at all.
But something CAN be found or developed. Companies just have to genuinely want to do it, and profit from it like gasoline.

 

Agree, plus look how hard they worked to hide the extra height of the battery...I bet if you parked an emira next to it it would be 8" or so taller.... Low C of G for sure, but just very tall.


But, this just popped up..... . I love my f-type, but they make some good points and hopefully Jaguar will hear and do something along these lines:

Less blobby SUV's.
Lighter sports car.
Inline 6 please...


Me, I'd put the brands J and LR closer and call is JLR and just do cars and SUV's in one closer "one brand" way.

JLR LR JLR Jag.... Just JLR. Simple. Make a shooting brake and F type with hybrid a la the cx16....super car worthy. Make it lighter. Max 3300 lbs. Ideally 3100....with over 400hp...ideally over 500. Think GT3 handling in a coupe that could be bought as a shooting brake. Done.

Do the best SUV's.

Done.

If I ran the place.

 

Just looked at it. Ugly as hell, in my opinion.

 

LOL!!!!! I have to agree. And I'm a person who actually LIKES Polestar's designs typically. Sharp, lightly distinctive, very definitive and confident styling. ....But NOT this EV of theirs.

The same way makers haven't yet settled their path towards an ideal alternate fuel/energy supply for future cars, I don't see why they seem to keep acting as though they must make the cars look "futuristic". It worked as a novelty on some Tesla models (SOME, because some of their models look clumsy and gawky like tortoises to me). But a car doesn't NEED to look like Bladerunner's or Minority Report's glass-butt/glass-lid hovercars. They have every right to still look like glorious road machines: aggressive or cheerful or wide-stance or low-hood, smooth or nobby, leaning-back or pronounced in the front, whatever....