$68,913 as tested...you kidding me?
2018 Jaguar F-Type Coupe Turbo-Four First Test - Motor Trend

 

Que up the giant factory incentives....

 

The car is still beautiful and a classier ride than say a loaded GT350.

But the whole thrill I get from my 2015r's sound and RWD is all absent.

I couldn't imagine going from a nice pre-owned low-mileage pristine, depreciated, $60k-$65k 2015r to the 4-banger just to have something new.

If it were not for my roaring startups and the smile it puts on my face the F-Type would just be an 'above average' car for me.

 

So, is this the most expensive 4 cylinder sports car on the market today?

I dunno...Personally, I think introducing a 4 under the same F-Type badge just dilutes the brand (and our investments).

If Jaguar wanted to intro a more economical sports model, then go for it. But they should have created a separate model line, not packed under a model that is the (marketed) descendent of the D and E-Types.

Would Steve McQueen approve?

EL1

 

Investment? surely you jest sir, not sure what the technical term is for flushing money down the toilet.

 

The Porsche Cayman S is more expensive, with a $67k msrp but optioned similar to the $68k test car in that Motor Trend review it would be north of $80k.

Steve McQueen never owned an E-Type, so he wouldn't have cared either way. He did own an XKSS, which Jag doesn't have a modern equivalent for, but it would have been closer to a McLaren P1. Then again, he did generally prefer lighter cars...

We just bought one of the 2.0L F-types for my wife. She has always loved the styling but not the computer controlled exhaust shenanigans on the V6 and V8 models. I prefer light cars and the 200lbs less are noticeable. It's .1 seconds quicker to 60 than the V6, so it's quick enough for road use. She shopped it against the Giulia Ti and QV, Audi TT/TT-S, and the Cayman and the F-Type with the 2.0L was the best fit for her wish list. As a competent GT road car it's a great package.

 

While not a sports car ,you can option up an E300 to over $95,000 and that is without adding accessories or maintenance which also seems pretty crazy to me

 

How can the XK motor in the E type be described as lowly? The XK six had a enviable competition record. What heresy was involved? Jaguar didn't have a V8 until the mid 1990s. The series three E type used the V12 motor. The use of the four cylinder in the F type is to broaden it's sale appeal. The road testers found that the performance was pretty good.

 

It is good that JLR is offering more variants of the F. A healthy car company needs to sell cars. I think the four was inevitable, but 69K is just off the wall. All it means is enormous incentives and colossal depreciation. So you wait until the cars start to come off lease and then you get one on the cheap, but this denies you the pleasure of a new car. The same thing is happening with the wagon at 80K. Personally, I think the world would be better off with more realistic automobile pricing and a lot less shenanigans, but that isn't going to happen.

 

 

I respectfully suggest you go back and re-read the article/review and focus on the comparisons to the competition. I think they are more valuable than overall market statistics.

Relative to the wagon, it is simply 10G more than the E wagon even without the introductory gold plating.

JLR just plays with the residuals to get the lease numbers to work, then when the cars come off lease they are so expensive that the dealers can't buy and sell them unless JLR takes a loss on the residual (made up for by the manufacturing profit). I don't much care how they play with the numbers or who takes the loss if any as long as I/you can get a decent deal at the end of the day.

 

You are correct, I was way off on the order of that.

 

Yep, you beat me to it; nothing cheap in the world of Porsche.



Dave

 

Regarding what? The main competition they compared it to was the 718 Cayman, which is a different sort of car and is only less expensive at base msrp. With equivalent options they're much more expensive. The F-Type we purchased has an MSRP of $66,500. Optioning a base 718 Cayman that they used in that article with the same features brings it to $83,820.

They also mentioned the Mercedes SLC300 a couple times as a cheaper car. Optioned like the tester that comes to $67,755, and that's with 18" wheels instead of the 19's on the test car, and 240hp.

More than reading one mag review, I've recently done the comparison in person, driving and considering all of the relevant competition and the various engines in the F-Type line - and we bought the 2.0L F-Type.

 

I was off, that's just the base Cayman. An S optioned the same would be pushing $100k.

 

Good point about the Cayman S. I'm SOOOO glad I didn't choose that car (or a 911 or that ugly Alpha Romero) when I was shopping around.

The 6 cylinder won Le Mans and garnered a ton of respect back in the 50s onward. So an F-Type 6 cylinder is perfectly respectable and true to pedigree, in my eyes (along with an 8)... but a 4? Meh.

My point about McQueen is that I think he definitely would have cared about the F-Type, if he were alive today. But, I don't think he would've been keen on a 4.

EL1

 

Hah! True... However to me, "investment" is the price of joy and fun driving this kind of car, along with a certain amount of esteem and gravitas that the brand offers.

These are all 'First World' problems, but hey, we all work hard for the money to flush anywhere we want (unless you're a Trust Fund, baby). 🤪

Otherwise, I could've just purchased a Lexus LC for about the same price as the F-Type R, and the Lexus has a ton of extra features and tech for the money.

BUT... it's still a Toyota, if you catch my drift.

EL1

 

Chris Walton, the author of this article, writes: “The last F-Type S (380-hp V-6) we tested weighed 3,809 pounds […]. Also rear-wheel drive and equipped with an eight-speed automatic, this 2.0-liter 2018 F-Type was, in fact, 207 pounds lighter."

That is, 3602 pounds. And later in the article: “… at 3,601 pounds…” So far, so good.

Problem: The 380-hp V-6 coupe that they tested earlier weighs 3514 pounds (curb weight indicated in MY 2016's manual), not 3809. And Jag’s website gives the I-4’s curb weight as 3,360 pounds, not 3,601.

This couldn’t be a “curb vs dry weight” confusion, since all weights are curb. Nor is the difference between dry and curb big enough to explain these discrepancies.

So, once again, Motor Trend screws up? Or… what?

 

The heavier weights that MT is measuring versus the factory likely comes down to different methodology regarding the amount of fuel in the car plus the way they're optioned, considering things like the glass roof and which wheels.

 

This may help;
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/f...hassle-161094/


I wouldn't put alot of stock in the advertised weights of these cars....


Dave