My dealer contacted me recently about a 2016 F-Type R. It is similar to mine but Ammonite Grey, and it has the leather headliner. Other than that very similar spec - glass roof, red interior, red belts, diamond cut wheels, vision pack 3, etc. It seems to have 980 miles on it - which means it was a demo that was driven by the GM.

I took it for a spin. It feels familiar. It seems to be a little less bouncy and a little more confident in cornering than the 2015. I have never been satisfied with the handling of the 2015 R. Also it seems that the AWD makes the power a lot more usable.

They offered me to trade my 2015 (with 7k miles) for this one for $23000 difference (no breakdown provided). No taxes apply in this instance.

What do people think?

My questions are:

1) Is this a good deal?

2) Will it really satisfy me or shall I try to sell my car and get something more aggressive like a 2014 911 Turbo S or a 2016 AMG GTS? Has anyone who switched from a 2015 to a 2016 found the handling to be meaningfully better?

 

I can't answer question #1, but as far as #2 goes.....you're the only one that can answer that. I wouldn't say the 911 or AMG are more aggressive but they do handle better (from all reports)....and cost more but that's also a personal decision. Any sportscar is a personal choice reflecting your own emphasis on looks, power, handling, sound, image, etc. etc. What turns my crank may not (and probably doesn't) turn yours.

For example; I bought mine as an exciting cruiser.....fun to drive, had to be a 'vert, liked the sound and power but have no real interest in taking it to the track or racing it....from my perspective the RWD V8 F type roadster fit the bill perfectly.....but I can see a half dozen cars I'd rather have if ultimate handling and performance were the overriding factors and another dozen if price was no object. The 911 Turbo is an amazing car....so is the AMG.

My advice would be to try the other cars you mention....along with any others that might catch your eye and buy the one that thrills you the most.

Good luck,
Dave

 

It sounds like from a performance stand point you "love your car but aren't in love" with it. If money isn't an issue I'd go with a 2016. Granted I don't have an "R" but I did go from a 2015 to a 2016 and immediately noticed the build quality being much better. Not to mention, better warranty and maintenance included.

 

I don't think this is good deal. Both cars at this point are used, and $23K is more than depreciation over that year.

I am not sure why you are not happy with your R, but likely all these reasons would still apply to the new one.

 

I think the P Zero's are the biggest issue with the RWD R's handling. After switching to PSS I found I can push it just as hard as when I drove the AWD R on the track. Grip is immense and I have a lot more confidence in the corners.

Personally I think $23k is too much of a difference and you will kick yourself when you find out that the AWD is about the same as the RWD in performance.

$1500, swap out the tires and enjoy your '15.

 

Agree with that. And I already did that, have had PSS for a year now. I was one of the first on this board to switch to PSS.

My issue with 2015 is that it gets a bit bouncy when you hit a bump on road surfaces and it seems to have body roll - more than my 2014 BMW M5.

 

I personally would pay more for a used RWD than a used AWD. (lighter, more nimble, more opportunity to drift). The dealer probably already has someone lined up for your car. When I dropped my car over an inch ($1k), the excessive body roll was virtually eliminated with no detriment to ride quality (never bouncy in dynamic mode). Since I have a '16, I can't speak to build quality differences. Now that the clutch and filler neck are fixed, the '16 is solid.

 

When I switched to PSS on my old SL, it was a come-to-Jesus moment. It turned car that was dangerous at the limit to the point that you didn't dare to turn traction off to a manageable ride with slight under steer that you could push around. I already made an appointment to get F-type PSS and counting days until I get them. Sadly, not in time for upcoming weekend track day.

 

I can't comment on 15 as I haven't driven one. I haven't experienced any body roll on my 16, thing is like glue to the road. Having been in my partners Boxster , although an older one, I expect a Porsche will be more nimble. I(and everyone else that sees the f type) however cannot get overy the beautiful lines of this car. But a great portion of a car is the driving feel. If one of the others seems like it fits your preferences better than maybe you switch, but different may not be better. For me the looks and the awd R together is all I need. Does anyone else feel there is body roll? I think the 23k difference is a lot for a 7k miles car. If depreciation for 12k miles a year over 3 years is 45%, then 30% from msrp is about right but you need to add back value of being 19k under 2 years worth of mileage (say 19k x 20 cents per mile=$3800 ?) How much warranty left on the 16? Ammonite grey with red is sharp. Also the cost difference in msrp needs to factor in also (awd, options).

I think best approach is to calculate value of your car and then good price to pay for 16 and subtract the difference.

 

I don't feel any significant body roll in a '14, and I think the build quality is superb. I have nary a squeak or rattle after two years on the pot-holy streets of Metro Wash DC. The interior is perfect w/ no signs of any wear and tear.

I don't recall anyone else specifically citing body roll as an issue on this forum for any MY, but everyone has different perceptions. Likewise, I don't recall any auto journalist reviews citing body roll. People do comment on a "stiff ride" fairly routinely, which I happen to like.

I don't think "build quality" is as much a function of MY as it is a matter of variability in the manufacturing process at all manufacturers. There are people reporting perfect 14-16 MY cars and people reporting flaws w/ 14-16 MY cars. It's a function of both QC and perception.

 

I does allow a bit more roll than ideal for track conditions. Towards the end of this video you can see it. Might be a bigger issue on the R than the base or S.






<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hRPLoO89vB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I can see why that might be the case w/ the much heavier R. I just don't ever see it mentioned.

Seems to me I see 911s showing about that same amount of body roll in the the video you linked above.

 

The 2016 R has 10% higher spring rates according to this article. Not sure if that is what leads to lower roll and bounce. I didn't test drive the car fast enough on the corners to validate a significant difference to the 2015 on roll, but I did notice less bounce.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/20...manual-review/

 

That Porsche also isn't equipped with PDCC which essentially eliminates all roll other than that which comes from tire compression.

Some on this forum will get it and others won't because it boils down to how hard you drive. Nonetheless lap times show the R Coupe is not one of the best handling cars. It is behind the AMG GTS, 911 Turbo S, C63S, Z06, and the M4 Competition Pack, but ahead of cars like the M5, M6, and Mustang.

I think this partly is down to weight but also to handling (the C63S is also a heavy car). Even the Panamera Turbo is faster and that is very heavy.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/sachsenring

 

Well said.

Cheers,
Dave

 

True enough; the F type holds its own but there are certainly faster and better handling cars....like those you mention. As a matter of fact, there is ALWAYS something faster no matter what you drive but I'm getting off topic... Why not try the lowering springs by Velocity AP or something similar; most cars are a compromise when it comes to handling, it shouldn't be that hard to make a few improvements. I would think it should be easy enough to make a few changes to make your '15 handle better than a stock '16....

2 cents,
Dave

 

You could eliminate body roll in the F-Type by changing springs and shocks, and it still wouldn't dramatically improve it's lap time. It's not body roll slowing it down significantly, it's a weight issue. All the cars w/ faster lap times are 400-500 lbs. lighter.

 

I drove my friend's 2014-2015 (?) Mercedes SL63 on the track. It is equipped with active hydraulic suspension and does not lean at all, no matter how hard you push it. I didn't like it, as it provides you false sense of security.

I would like car give me some feedback, but this could be because I am not a professional driver.

 

I know; I was just giving him an option as an alternative to buying a 2016 R......nothing reasonable that you could do is going to make it out-handle a 911 Turbo or a C7 Z06 (for example).

That said, I'm with you; I don't think body roll is a significant issue on the F type.....I've read/watched every test and comparison I could find and it doesn't seem to be an issue that is mentioned even by professional drivers on a real track...not saying the F type is a track star, in fact, I believe Jaguar made a point of comparing it to "other sports cars starting with P" by saying that the F type was meant as a road car. I bought mine because I loved the styling, the interior, the sound and the power... and the handling and braking seemed more than adequate for anything I'm likely to do with it. It isn't the best track car out there, but it might be the sportscar that is the most fun to drive....that seems to be the message reading the tea leaves, anyhow.

Dave

 

And just to add to the discussion about handling I'd note that Motor Trend said their V8S matched the times from the V-8 Audi R8 and Mercedes SLS.....not too bad. Car and Driver got a claimed .97g from the V8S in this long term test; 2014 Jaguar F-type V-8 S Roadster Long-Term Wrap ? Review ? Car and Driver

On a separate note; I was pleased to see that C&D matched Motor Trend's 3.6 sec 0-60 and while they didn't quite duplicate the quarter mile time, they got pretty close (11.9 @ 121 vs. 11.6 @ 122).

Jaguar may not have intended the F type to be a track car, but the performance is certainly nothing to be embarrassed about.



Cheers,
Dave