I must be unusual - I feel I use the power in my RWD R all the time. In fact, so much so I'm considering a tune. Same with my E90 M3 - I became bored with the 420 hp stock, so I added a supercharger and I think I use the 600 hp it now produces quite regularly.

Of course you can have a ton of fun in either the S or the SVR, but if money is no object, I can't really think of a legitimate reason not to go with the SVR. That said, with sales tax, registration and depreciation hits, I gotta wonder if there isn't going to be a pretty big penalty for changing cars so soon....

 

Switch from a coupe to convertible (even if SVR) ? No thanks. For me the main turn off was the missing rear quarter windows in the hood up position. I know there is the BSM which I have in my car but I still force of habit want to double check. You know, electronics.

 

It's really funny to me that the reason that people give for not wanting the convertible is that it doesn't have a rear quarter window (even though it does have blind spot monitor).

Anyway, an SVR convertible in LA sounds like the makings for an epic time. Do it.

 

So what is a great deal? I bought my '14 from that dealer in Rancho Mirage and got a great deal, I shopped all over country!

 

I gotta agree. Gonna pull the trigger this week.

 

Convertible every time
Wind in the hair sunny day those people in the sardine cans will be jealous

 

It's all in what you want but though I like the coupe styling marginally better, I'd never give up the drop top.......and since I like the V8, I imagine my choice on this is clear. ;-)

Dave

 

You'll have to bring it down to the next meet. There's a white SVR convertible on the forum that lives in this area as well.

 

No doubt. I usually go to the Trancas meet in Malibu (first Sunday of the month), Sunset GT (second Sunday), and whenever MalibuAutobahn has their cruises.

 

While noting that the F has a structure that's stiff enough to not corner like a Blamange when lacking the roof, having the SVR engine in a vert is like having a vert M3 - and then claiming you use all the performance on the road on a daily basis.

It may have an M3 engine, but you will never see one being used as a homologated race car (no, not even with a full cage to make up for the lack of roof), which is the only place where the full performance of the engine might be used. And even then, only briefly on another given lap.

HTH...

 

I hear you, and my eyes are open regarding the trade-off between maximum cornering performance and the experience of open-air motoring. True, the only place anyone can REALLY exploit the absolute maximum performance of a car is on the track. So why fret over the marginal performance I'm sacrificing regardless? Canyon roads will never be the track, hardtop or vert.


In terms of being able to use power, I am fortunate enough to regularly get to drive a McLaren 12c (family member's), which has well north of 600hp. I'm nowhere near pushing that car to the max around the curves either, but it's absolutely ballistic, insane fun anyway.

 

I don't even know why this is a question. A convertible is a must for California no matter what version of the F-Type you get. Once you experience the convertible for a week you will not understand why you even considered a coupe. I shake my head every time I see a coupe F-Type in Cali. That said, if you can get an SVR convertible its a no brainer.

 

The huge pano roof alleviates all of the "sardine can" for me in the coupe. And Texas.

 

It's hard to describe but...

Second to the exhaust, the thing that makes me happiest about the F-Type is turning to look out the passenger quarter window and catching the lines of the car. That whole area-- The passenger seat, the (lack of) a (true) B pillar, the frame beam.. Beautiful. As difficult as it is to say, I'm pretty sure I'd take a v4 coupe over an SVR convertible. But it'd be a very tough choice-- Anything more than a v4 would instantly make me choose the coupe.

 

I do get your reference as anyone who has ever owned a late 60's coupe vette would but...you DO realize that you can also see clearly, MORE clearly I should write, when there is no roof there right? LOL

I mean you can still see the lines of the car body as well as the back deck of the car when the roof is not up so all these people justifying the coupe because of the rear quarter window come across as ludite's unwilling to even recognize that the view is far,far, FAR superior when there is NOTHING in the way. Ragtops FTW!!!

The above is all written with all intent at humor of course

 

While you have a point;

1) The F type wasn't conceived as a racecar.....in fact, JLR went out of thier way to market it as a "non-racecar" and to poke a finger at Porsche (without saying the name)

2) The F type was originally concieved and built as a roadster and (as you said) the chassis is plenty stiff in roofless form.

3)



Most of us, even those that occasionally take their car to the track, didn't buy an F type as a track car.....there are better cars for that.

2 cents,
Dave

 

To be fair, the amazing coupe design doesn't just happen by coincidence. I'm fairly certain the design was originally conceived as a coupe, but only released first as a roadster due to demand.

edit: I totally agree; The visibility out the quarter window is just terrible lol

 

They are both great looking vehicles

 

I'm not so sure (look at the 2000 CX16 concept for example) but maybe so; one of the reasons I decided on the F type was that the 'vert wasn't hampered by excessive weight or loss of rigidity compared to the coupe version.....unlike the M4 as an example.

JLR may have designed the car with a future coupe in mind but the roadster it isn't just a coupe with the roof hacked off like so many other convertibles.


2 cents,
Dave

 

agreed

Dave