Curious to see the comments on the cover story in the Nov. issue of Motor Trend. Titled Best Driver's Car, it is an annual round-up of sports cars. To be included the car has to be new or significantly revised for the model year, and it must be available in the USA.

This year the field included 9 vehicles and they were ranked from #9 to #1. Vehicle cost does not play a factor. In fact the car in last place (#9) was a $400,000 Lanborghini, while a $28,000 Subaru came in 4th.

The XKR-S? It landed in 8th place.

They actually had quite a bit of praise for the car, but the most interesting observation was when they said - Jag brought a GT to a sports car competition. They thought it would be a likely winner in a GT shoot-out, and very much liked the highway driving experience, but the car lost points at the track. Probably a strange criteria considering the title of the article - most folks do 99.9% of their driving on the street, but that's what they did.

At any rate, always good to see the Jag in print.

 

I'd seen that comparison some time ago, if I remember correctly. It scored the Porsche Carrera as #1. Right?

Needless to say, I personally would NEVER own or drive a 911, due to its moronic rear-engine configuration. Most people are followers and testers belong to the most people category. They keep religiously praising products, such as any new manifestations of 911s, only to mention their nasty habits against the next newer model. IMO, 911s may have good driving feel at moderate speeds but, when driven hard they become very twitchy and dangerous. In terms of lap times they tend to fall behind many less expensive cars, exactly because they become very twitchy near the limits of cornering. Most people never approach those limits thus, they propagate the false sense of great handling of the 911.

Having ranted about my dislike of 911s, the Jag indeed showed badly in the track comparisons. Way behind in lap times of the other cars. While I'd driven and auto crossed the XKR-S during Jaguar's recent Alive event, I own the XK variation. The XK comes with rather terrible understeer and not a very precise steering, which could account for some of the poor track performance. Also, not sure if the test drivers disconnected the traction control, or not? During my autocross laps, the traction control took HUGE seconds off my lap times by basically killing all engine power when trying to accelerate out of slow corners. I remember just one particular tight corner where I counted the loss of 2-3 seconds due to the DSC making it feel as if the engine simply stalled. I was not allowed to turn it off during the event, which was understandable. I have the feeling that the testers did have this safety feature engaged, which must have caused those really slow XKR-S laptimes. Otherwise, given the power/weight ratio, tire size, the Jag should have done much better.

Altogether, I do not place much credibility on test drivers. Like I said, they follow trends and traditional thoughts, just like most average people do. I would choose the XKR-S way and way... over the 911 for street driving for style, safety, power and even ultimate handling.

Yes, the XKR-S is a GT car and its weight shows that. If you buy one you should be aware that you are NOT purchasing the most nimble, light weight street racer but, a Grand Tourer. Really apples vs. oranges.

Albert

 

I really don't think the XKR-S would be the best variant of the XKR. GT cars are not just about performance, they are also about luxury and comfort. I don't think anyone ever really would buy a GT car if they were looking for the purest driving experience.

Albert, who was sanctioning your autocross? Not being able to turn off the traction control for an autocross is the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

 

Alan

The autocross was done under Jaguar's recent invitational-only JaguarAliveEvent. The one I attended was in Alameda, California.

Yes, normally leaving-on traction control for autocross would be dumb but, this was a Jaguar factory event where all attendees were invited to drive laps in the XKR-S on an autocross course. I fully understood that Jaguar did not wish to have inexperienced drivers spinning out and potentially getting hurt or damaging the cars by getting into the gas too hard with way over 500HP on tap. So, regardless your experience you HAD TO drive with DSC.

Albert

 

I read this comparo some time ago as well. My first impression was my confusion of the mix of cars chosen. A light weight 200 hp Subaru compared to the 4000 lb 550 hp XKR-S didn't make much sense and invalidated the entire thing, in my opinion.

I was not surprised the Jag came in second to last but I was surprised the GTR came in so high. I think it was 3rd. I know its fast but I never considered it to be a great drivers' car. I'm gonna have to get behind the wheel of this car.

 

Since the XKR-S came in 2nd to last, all the fan-boy's from other car forums think the Jag is nothing special since MT ranked as it has. You know, the guys who just read articles and numbers and think they are Jeremy Clarkson now. I never thought much of ranking cars of non-similar status; what's the point?

GTR is all that, some parts look a little on the cheap side for such an expensive car, but in sheer driving terms it's hard to beat at any cost. Without the add-on's it's a subtle looking car to me. The programable NAV abd telemetry screen such be what every performance manufacturer offers in their car. Finally, someone listened to the consumer!

 

A few random remarks in no particular order...


The line between "GT" and "Sportscar" seems a bit blurred to me these days. For example, the modern 911s I've driven have a full host of comfort and luxury features, transmissions with overdriven top gears for relaxed high speed RPM levels, high-end sound systems, etc...and I'm betting that every car in the Motor Trend comparo does as well.

I'll admit to being a bit old school in my thinking. There was a time when the delineation was much clearer to me :-)




I was pleased that the little Subie received some praise. I have nothing partiuclarly for or against Subarus but I've found thru experience that high-higher-highest horsepower isn't the only (or even necessarily the best) path to driving enjoyment ...which I think is in agreement with the article.




I'm betting that only a small percentage of those buying ultra-high powered cars ever explore anything resembling the true limits of their performance.....which is probably a good thing given the potential for harm. Except for school-boys wanking-off over over the spec-pages of car magazines, the difference between 0-60 is 3.12 seconds versus 3.36 seconds....or a 1.38.1 laps time versus 1.37.5 isn't very relevant. The subjective qualities of each car are, IMHO, much more meaningful....and I think the MT comparo brought that out pretty well.




Ramble switch turned "off" :-)

Cheers
DD