Interestingly enough, the slowest car finished first in their comparison. The AMG GT is very fast, they ran 11.2 @ 127mph in the 1/4 and hit 60mph in 3 sec flat. I couldn't find a link to the story online, I hope I posted pics of the article properly.
I am sure those who want to will still quibble. Just look at the scoring page in the article...the Jag lost two points for NVH...yet it sounds the best...the Porsche picked up a point for having a back seat, etcetera.
I have owned a Mercedes and a Porsche. The Jag is just better.
I am sure those who want to will still quibble. Just look at the scoring page in the article...the Jag lost two points for NVH...yet it sounds the best...the Porsche picked up a point for having a back seat, etcetera.
I have owned a Mercedes and a Porsche. The Jag is just better.
AMG is doing a great job of slowly turning their muscle cars into sport-super cars. Where the Porsche is all logic and the Jag is all emotion, the AMG appears to blend both together. I'm surprise to see the GT trap the 1/4 miles higher than the R though.
Interesting, the Jag is the quietest by a mile .... again the sound is fairly high pitched, not much bass therefor the decibel meter does not read it as loud.
The Porshe and Mercedes are also $20,000 to $30,000 more expensive. How much better could the Jaguar be if that much more went into the actual production of the car? To me the differnce isn't worth the extra $. The Jag looks better, sounds better and for everyday driving isn't that what's it's all about.
The Porshe and Mercedes are also $20,000 to $30,000 more expensive. How much better could the Jaguar be if that much more went into the actual production of the car? To me the differnce isn't worth the extra $. The Jag looks better, sounds better and for everyday driving isn't that what's it's all about.
I would tend to agree. I feel like the cost of the vehicle really is never taken into enough consideration with reviews like these. My AWD R cost exactly the same as this one did, and while I could not afford the extra $40k for the GT-S or the extra $30k for the 911, even if I could I don't think I could justify the cost increase for a few tents quicker from the Merc. or a few seconds off a lap time at some track I'll never visit. So many reviews complain about the F type going to AWD and I feel like they really bring it down for that alone, complaining about the lack of edge or excitement because you can't drift... But no one ever seems to review the car as a normal car anymore. Yeah drifting is fun and all, but how often do you get a chance to do it? And how much extra do you spend on tires? I much rather have hard launches and grip you can actually use in every day driving than a batshit crazy RWD.
Granted I'm extremely bias with my comments, but I had the same thoughts when choosing which vehicle to buy a year ago. The GT-S is statistically awesome and gorgeous from the front, but still a bad value and a pig from the back. The 911 is a great driver sure, but lacks theatre and would double the price of the jag with similar power and options. Not to mention it's the least attractive of the 3. The F Type is the best drivers sports car of the 3 with the best looks, sound and soul which magazine editors seem to forget about. It's all about specs now a days and never the right ones.
Interesting, the Jag is the quietest by a mile .... again the sound is fairly high pitched, not much bass therefor the decibel meter does not read it as loud.
I was suprised about that too. I've never heard this Mercedes, but Porsches are everywhere and although they can sound great, there's no disguising the sound of it's VW roots.
I would tend to agree. I feel like the cost of the vehicle really is never taken into enough consideration with reviews like these. My AWD R cost exactly the same as this one did, and while I could not afford the extra $40k for the GT-S or the extra $30k for the 911, even if I could I don't think I could justify the cost increase for a few tents quicker from the Merc. or a few seconds off a lap time at some track I'll never visit. So many reviews complain about the F type going to AWD and I feel like they really bring it down for that alone, complaining about the lack of edge or excitement because you can't drift... But no one ever seems to review the car as a normal car anymore. Yeah drifting is fun and all, but how often do you get a chance to do it? And how much extra do you spend on tires? I much rather have hard launches and grip you can actually use in every day driving than a batshit crazy RWD.
Granted I'm extremely bias with my comments, but I had the same thoughts when choosing which vehicle to buy a year ago. The GT-S is statistically awesome and gorgeous from the front, but still a bad value and a pig from the back. The 911 is a great driver sure, but lacks theatre and would double the price of the jag with similar power and options. Not to mention it's the least attractive of the 3. The F Type is the best drivers sports car of the 3 with the best looks, sound and soul which magazine editors seem to forget about. It's all about specs now a days and never the right ones.
"Batshit crazy RWD" -- this comment is so perfect, and describes my R Coupe better than I have been able to when I try to describe it to other people.
Personally i haven't driven the 911 GTS, but if its like a Carrera S with 30 more HP than I think my ranking would be:
1) Mercedes-AMG GT-S
2) Jaguar F-Type R Coupe
3) Porsche 911 GTS
I priced out a Mercedes-AMG GT-S last night and for my build it came to $149,000. So at that price we can also throw the 911 Turbo in the mix. In this view of the world, my ranking would be:
1) 911 Turbo
2) AMG GT-S
3) F Type R Coupe
4) 911 GTS
However one thing is missing in this view which is price actually matters. So at the end of the day the Jaguar is the one to buy unless you prefer to spend ~$150k vs ~$100k.
On bang for buck, the ranking has to be:
1) Jaguar F-Type R
2) Mercedes AMG GT-S
3) 911 Turbo
4) 911 GTS
The Porshe and Mercedes are also $20,000 to $30,000 more expensive. How much better could the Jaguar be if that much more went into the actual production of the car? To me the differnce isn't worth the extra $. The Jag looks better, sounds better and for everyday driving isn't that what's it's all about.
Exactly. This is the wrong comparo. The Jag should be compared with ~$100-110k cars such as the Nissan GTR, Carrera S, Z06, BMW M6. To me that's the competition. In that world, my guess is C&D would say:
1) Z06
2) GTR
3) R Coupe
4) M6
But I would still pick the R Coupe because style and class matter. After all we don't buy our suits at Walmart do we?
"Batshit crazy RWD" -- this comment is so perfect, and describes my R Coupe better than I have been able to when I try to describe it to other people.
That is exactly why I bought the RWD V8S! I wanted a crazy FUN car. As to where you can use the ability to drift - I would suggest any corner where you can see that the run out area isn't a ditch or a cliff. Obviously not in downtown anywhere, but nearly everywhere else works just fine.
Haven't read the article yet, just looked at the scores and stats...
0-60... 3.4 for the 2016 AWD R... Nice!
Fun to drive category.... worth 25 points? That's enough to give whoever throws more advertising dollars at C&D the win for ANY comparo based only on a totally subjective rating where the definition of "fun" might be different for anyone!
I hate subjective comparisons. Just give me the raw numbers (which they did here) and I will decide which is more fun.
Exactly. This is the wrong comparo. The Jag should be compared with ~$100-110k cars such as the Nissan GTR, Carrera S, Z06, BMW M6. To me that's the competition. In that world, my guess is C&D would say:
1) Z06
2) GTR
3) R Coupe
4) M6
But I would still pick the R Coupe because style and class matter. After all we don't buy our suits at Walmart do we?
I would agree with your list, although I would never consider 2 of those 4. Based upon both performance and visceral excitement, it is hard to argue that the Z06 isn't the runaway #1 in terms of "bang for buck."
They complain about the brakes on the F Type, from this pic it doesn't look like it has CCB's. They should've had a test car with all the options, it still would've been cheaper than the Porsche and the Mercedes. Not sure it would make a difference in the final rankings. But giving the F Type a 6 for driver comfort? I have to disagree.
Highly subjective. The F-Type is a better 'Vehicle' but loses on powertrain and chassis. Then at the end he rates 'fun to drive' and rates a boring looking Porsche that sounds like my Dyson and and big ugly *** Merc that did its best to copy the F-Type for flair and noise and fails... over the Jag. Get out now son.
They complain about the brakes on the F Type, from this pic it doesn't look like it has CCB's. They should've had a test car with all the options, it still would've been cheaper than the Porsche and the Mercedes. Not sure it would make a difference in the final rankings. But giving the F Type a 6 for driver comfort? I have to disagree.
I was thinking the same thing, the other 2 have CCB, the Jag should have had that option.
Exactly. This is the wrong comparo. The Jag should be compared with ~$100-110k cars such as the Nissan GTR, Carrera S, Z06, BMW M6. To me that's the competition. In that world, my guess is C&D would say:
1) Z06
2) GTR
3) R Coupe
4) M6
But I would still pick the R Coupe because style and class matter. After all we don't buy our suits at Walmart do we?
Your correct, and what's unfortunate is when the SVR is released the comparo will probably be against the Ferrari 458 and the the Lamborghini Aventador.
They complain about the brakes on the F Type, from this pic it doesn't look like it has CCB's. They should've had a test car with all the options, it still would've been cheaper than the Porsche and the Mercedes. Not sure it would make a difference in the final rankings. But giving the F Type a 6 for driver comfort? I have to disagree.
The fact that the test car did not have CCBs is entirely JLR's fault. C&D asked for a test car, and that's what they were shipped.
