Before watching the video, I would have said, Audi with AWD and launch control but then it looks like the Jag has the jump off the line and then gets obliterated and continues to lose ..... somebody who knows more about this has to explain this to me, the 1/4 time does not look bad for the GT with 12.1 but where did the torque go ?????

 

There ya have it... V10 beats a V8 lol.. regardless of HP :P

 

I think (although the initial start was well-timed) the Jag isn't hooked up as well as the Audi at launch; he's well behind only 3 seconds into the race.

As speed increases, the aero drag on the XKRS-GT gets progressively worse. So the gap widens. And 200 lbs of extra weight isn't helping.

I'm impressed by the Audi...


Rich

 

WOW 11.2 1/4 mile! It comes down to weight, drag, gearing and the traction advantage of the Audi for the first 100 feet.

 

When I chose the Xkr-s over other cars, such as 911 turbo s, gt3, and gtr, I realized that the jag was not the fastest car. It's 0-60, 1/4 mi, and ring time is not as good. I think the main problem for the Xkr-s is traction, although I'm also a little surprised by the way the r8 kept pulling away.
I think we to need accept the fact that our jags are not the fastest cars, but they look and sound great and are more versitile than most

 

The suspension and brakes are where Jaguar engineers made a compromises. None of those other cars have those same compromises. Of course the GT bridges the gap, but traction and weight are still an issue.

But the Jag has style, where I live everyone owns a Porsche, and the GTR just looks like it was designed by Lego.

 

I'm new on the forum but have driven already some cars and some are not as fast from0-60 but because they have so much NM (torque) the will do their best on a running start!!!
A "normal" 5.0 xkr will keep up with the porsche 997 turbo mk1. The mk2 with pdk is in a league of its own and wil only be beaten by the GT-R (playstation car) or cars who cost at least 5times a xkr!!

Driven the r8 4.2 and its fun but coming from a boxster S the R8 wasn't wauw, although I think the look are really something.

The R8 will be maybe faster (not that much) and arrive a few minutes early but the one with the style and especially THE charme will be always the Jag!!!
just my 2cent :-)

 

I wish they would actually weight the cars. No way that the XKRS-GT is in the 3800 lbs range. I think the GT showed good speeds, just that the R8 is just ridiculously fast with a 1/4 time of 11.2 sec.

Also, the extra 7th speed in the Audi could have helped a great deal. Not sure if the GT has the same gear ratios as my XKR but, driving mine I could wish for closer ratios between gears. Close ratio trannies tend to make for significantly better acceleration times. The beautiful ratios of the F-type's 8sp would be a blessing for the XKR variants.

 

another Audi AWD V8

 

And a closer competitor front engine rear wheel drive Vanquish

 

Im surprised it was that close. That must have been the best launch of a 5.0 supercharged xk i have ever seen. But from a stand still the gt had no chance vs the audi. Would love to see a rolling start from 50mph. Would actually love for them to run my car with the mods to see what it would cut off time wise if anything on the standing mile

 

The XKR-S GT has been refined by Jaguar to be more track oriented and it has been reported that the car puts the power down. However, I can't see the R8 puling away so quickly from the GT. I'd like to see a few runs. The driver of the GT may have been worried abut losing traction and eased up on start. I think Jaguar has done a phenomenal job with the GT. Interesting Video.

 

The GT puts more power down the a stock XKR but not the way a R8 does from a standstill. I think with a rolling start from around 30 it would have been closer.

 

I say the hell with it.... Jaguar is a better car and a larger car at that.. who wants to drive the darth-vader-mobile around when you drive... THE XK (im biased)

 

At 42 - 44 sec. into the video, listen to the inside shifting noises from the Audi. It sounds like a close ratio racing transmission with the 3 audible gears coming up, like; bang..bang...bang.

Then, just after, as the video shifts to inside the GT, it is obvious that it's shifting much more leisurely. Not a foolproof comparison because the two footage may not exactly be at the same place but, close, judging from the closeness of the cars.

Just as I suspected, the Audi tranny is really close ratio, ideal for acceleration. The GT is still a GT under the aggressive mask and the wider ratios probably give up more than a second over the standing mile.

 

The new 8-speed box is one of the things that makes the F-Type quicker than a similarly engined XKR. That, and lower weight. But 2WD will always struggle to beat 4WD with similar horsepower - being propelled by 4 big contact patches will always lead to better acceleration.

But, as you guys say, it's not about the numbers - if I wanted the fastest car I could afford, I'd be driving a GT-R (and cursing every speed bump & pothole in London).

 

XKR-S: 176mph in another standing mile test:

Jaguar Blog - The Temptation of a Standing Mile

"The radar gun at the end of the standing mile clocked the XKR-S going by at 176 MPH"

 

Agreed. I didn't by a dragster. I wanted a GT.

 

quite frankly an XKR-S may have actually done better as the GT adds some 600lbs extra down force which is not good in a drag race.

 

I am not sure about the weight. The XKR cannot put the power down as well as the F type. So it is purely a question of the traction. The F type has launch control of course. I would like to see a comparison of an F type with an XKR without launch control engaged. The weight will make a difference of course however on a 0-60 run in about 4 seconds it is just more a question of which one hooks up better than a few hundred pounds weight difference which will come to .5hp per lbs more or less.. With about 500hp the weight does not make that much more difference.