It's interesting but if you search on this very forum, you will see some threads that claim the V8S convertible is faster than the 2015 R Coupe both in a straight line and around a track.

 

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna-seca-post-1988

V8S clocked a little over 1 sec. faster than the R at Laguna Seca. Both were driven by Randy Pobst.

 

Yeah....I'm not bashing the R or the AWD and there are certainly some benefits, particularly if you're going to drive the car daily in varying conditions but I wanted the RWD over the AWD and here, that meant a V8S. Performance wise, the V8S runs a 510ps tune to the R's 550ps tune (503hp vs. 542hp) and the weight of the AWD system costs another 25hp comparatively speaking in the quarter and that's before taking into account the inevitable increase in driveline losses with AWD.....lets just say I'm not surprised that a V8S RWD and a V8R AWD are very close in performance.

...and though I don't plan on racing my car I didn't want the extra weight, complexity or expense of AWD for what is (for me) a summer fun car.

Dave

 

The Laguna Seca lap times above for the V8S and R were both RWD cars. I haven't seen an AWD lap time.

 

No real reason for that then; have to chalk it up to different temps, track conditions, production variances or maybe Randy didn't have his coffee yet when he took the R out.

Cheers,
Dave

 

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I went and did a test drive of a 2014 911 Turbo S today and I was totally smitten. The car is just phenomenal. It's not just the 2.6s 0-60 which is insane, but the handling which is so striking. I drove the same roads back to back in the 2014 Turbo S and then in my 2015 R Coupe. On the twisty roads, corners which I could do at 55 in my R Coupe, I could do at 75-80 in the Turbo S. I am sure much of that is down to weight, but also the car was much flatter and much more stable which gave you a lot more confidence. The car also had carbon ceramic brakes and the braking power was astonishing.

I think this is the upgrade path. Now the question is what is the best way to sell the R Coupe.

 

I haven't seen an AWD time either but I suspect it will be better but still not up at the level of the Germans.

I do think the fact that the R was slower than the heavier and less powerful V8S cabrio is indicative of the fact that the 2015 R wasn't setup properly.

 

I believe the comparison was a '14 V8S cab vs '15 V8R coupe. I would like to see the comparison with a V8R cab. The verts have a CG advantage. and given how stiff the cab is, the stiffer coupe chassis doesn't compensate for it's higher CG.

 

The COG difference is very small. Remember the Coupe is essentially a convertible with a fixed roof. That is why it's so heavy.

 

The 911 Turbo is a heck of a car; good luck with your sale

:-)

Dave

 

...so's the weight difference. ;-) The F type isn't one of those cars where the coupe is the serious version of the car and the roadster is a floppy mess; Jaguar designed the car as a roadster first and it is sufficiently stiff in that configuration.....the highest performing F type version to date is the Project 7.

If I could get a RWD type R 'vert that would be my ultimate choice (for the slight power increase over the V8S), but here R = AWD which I don't want for reasons previously stated.

Dave

 

You are forgetting that with the soft-top down and that glass roof on top, there could some significant difference in the placement of the CG, even if the weight is the same. I suspect the vert has less roll tendency than the coupe.

 

Yes, that's exactly what it was. The lap time difference is essentially round-off error, and could easily have been reversed on different days. What I find most interesting is that the the V8S was giving away 55 HP (according to JLR). That is significant.

 

The F-Type was designed as a coupe first. The C-X16. The production version debuted as a vert first.

 

Yes, the "concept car" was a coupe, but it was engineered as a convertible first. Concept design is one thing, but the engineering is where all the real heavy-lifting occurs. That factoid came from an interview w/ Ian Callum, which I'm sure is around here somewhere.

 

I could have sworn he said the coupe was designed first when I spoke to him at the world reveal in Playa Vista. Maybe it was just getting down to semantics of design vs engineering like you say. Either way, both are quite stiff and I've never seen any complaints of body roll from any review since launch, vert or coupe.

 

Yes, I agreed with you that the coupe (concept car) was designed first. But, a concept car is not much more than a mock-up of a beautiful "paper" design. Producing the car is the hardest part, and the production car was first engineered as a convertible. Adding the coupe roof later was the easy part, and there are no chassis differences between the coupe and convertible.

Traditionally, it's done the other way around (hardtop first), which has almost always required extra engineering (e.g. chassis stiffening) to produce a convertible later. JLR decided to do this one differently and by engineering a very rigid convertible first, it made the coupe production very simple.

 

Agreed on the rationale. As far as the hp goes...from everything I can gather the real world difference is really about 40hp ...at the most. For whatever marketing reason, JLR decided to market the V8S as 495PS (and then the identical HP in N.A. which makes no sense either) despite it running the same 510PS tune as the XKR...but you know that.

Dave

 

Yep and yep.

Dave

 

Stealth; I understand the attraction of the 911, but buy an older one and keep the R. It's like trading in a runway model!