Good review and if you are in the market for a super cool sports car then if you can live in limited space then this is the car for you. Also if you want to buy an F-type then in my opinion you should only entertain the F-type R. I looked at the F-type but both the convert (my preference) and the coupe were to small for me and my bride didn't like it for that reason. The back seat in the XK is a bonus and useful for "stuff" and makes the car feel larger. My test drive confirmed the cramped nature of the car for me (6'3" , 230) so that's why we went for the XK convert. The difference between 4.0 and 4.6 is not an area to worry me . The key is it is a unique , sexy , swift and comfortable ride and you don't usually see another one on the road. Enjoy the ride.

 

Sounds like I need to trade for an F-Type Coupe. Anyone have an extra $50k I can borrow?

 

I had a XKR and sold it and bought a F type R. They are both really good cars and everyone would find something different to appreciate or not.. here are mine.

XKR: ..lots more trunk room and some rear seat room
..Some like the less aggressive sport car feel to the car, I tend to like the F feel a bit more.
..The exhaust is more subdued on the XKR.. at least if comparing dynamic mode.
.. Overall, the XKR is a more of a practical car for daily driving and sort of a touring car vrs. a more pure sport car.

F type R: ..I like the firmer ride and handling of this car, but not a whole lot of difference.
.. The F is certainly faster.. more h.p. and a bit lighter
.. The F styling is fresher and I like it a bit better than the XKR.
.. I don't track anymore, but the F would be superior overall in handling.

I found the XKR pretty good in the winter in 'winter mode' with 'Yoko' snow tires and we get lots of snow around here. Since its a low car it can get 'high centered' once snow gets over 4 or 5 inches. Not sure if I'll drive the F in the winter or not, if so it is likely comparable.
Lawrence

 

Interesting comment at the end "Since shooting this video, we have been told by Jaguar that the XK is now NOT going to be replaced, not for the foreseeable future at any rate."

 

I chose my XK over the F Type for those practical reasons. Much of the ride harshness issue in my XK can be pointed straight at the RUBBER.. Unless the car is being driven at 9/10ths+, putting Max performance rubber on the car does nothing to help it except
1. make it handle poorly below 50 degrees
2. ride like a brick due to really hard sidewalls, made all the worse by higher inflation pressures to avoid flat spots.
3.Noisy.

The rubber is probably more appropriate on an F Type as it will be used more as a true sports car. I think Jag tried, esp at the end, to make the XK more than it needs to be, seen as they didn't have a true 911 eater ready yet. Steering is TOO quick IMHO, its actually quicker than my Evora (BTW Lotus does chassis setup better). I hope F Type is a home run, they make the vehicle to bring in the $$$, then make a new gen XK that returns to its GT roots a bit more.

I find it hard to say, esp as a track guy (12+ days/yr-not on XK), but I will be detuning the ride a bit on my XK over the next year via tires etc to make it behave a bit better, kind of like what he said it the video. Get rid of that bit of choppy, dartiness from brick tires and super quick steering. It'll still do 98% of what it could, but do it a bit nicer.

Thanks for the video!!

 

A review by motortrend showed for comfort the Continental DWS and even the Michelin PSS's were far superior then the standard Dunlop's in ride and quiet. Which one are you thinking about getting?

Loth

 

The XK is STILL a lot more car. Most would expect that a car designed a decade later would have superior electronics... to include the 8 speed tranny that is run by you guessed it - electronics.

The F Type does look incredible - in a trendy, chique way but it will never match the timeless handsomeness of the likes of the E type and every other 2 door Jaguar before it.

I for on am very happy that Jag came out with it though. It brought forth much needed brand recognition by creating a 100K car targeted to a generation that is to young to afford it.

 

You may be shocked at my finalist for replacement tires, but I have experience with them on my last 2004 XJ and absolutely loved them. General GMax AS03. Ultra High Performance All season catagory. They ride great and absorb seams and impacts really well->that little bit of damping our XK's need IMHO. Superior in the rain. Decent in light snow (My driveway is 350 feet uphill and I never had issues climbing it with the XJ) I could never get halfway up with the stock Michelin MXMH4's that were stock on the car.
They have a slight growl to them but it did NOT increase with age.
Put a set on my father's Caddy DTS and had same positive results.
First the Exclaim's and now the GMax AS03's are major come back tires for General.

 

I agree with some of the criticism he had for the XK. But then I bought this car for it's beauty and for comfortable, long commutes and practical road-trips, not for track racing. It still fits the bill for me in every way the F-type wouldn't. It's a tourer that looks like a sports car and still out-performs every other car I've ever owned.

As far as looks go I was at the dealership on Friday and saw and F-type coupe. It was nice, but the lines on the rear end were very disappointing to me. Like they didn't know how to end it, so they just stopped. A bit like the corvette rear-end in that regard--always the most disappointing part of that car, also.*

I don't mind that Jag is moving on with what will sell better. I'll miss all the attention when the XK starts looking dated, but that was always going to happen, and has nothing to do with the F-type. They're two different cars for two different markets, IMO.

*C4 and newer

 

The review didn't say that the XK was a bad car only that the F-Type had new improvements which made it a better sports car. Comparing a GT to a sports car is a questionable effort considering each has it's own +/- . One think I found interesting and don't as yet see the advantage is the 8 speed gearbox. The more I drive my XKR I find it mostly likes to stay in 5th so I wonder what ratio's are in the 8 speed. It would seem to me that unless you are on the interstate you would never see 8th. On the other hand if they changed 1st and 2nd which would give you a lot of wheel spin then maybe 8th isn't to much different then our 6th. Does anyone have the gear ratio comparison. Just wondering how much difference there is. It seems through all of my cars I pick ones that get replaced (TR3 , Daimler SP250 , XKE , XJS , Ferrari 308) other then my Corvette years . Cars will always evolve so enjoy what you have until you replace it.

 

First off, let me say that I think the F-type coupe R is a gorgeous car with beautiful lines and a great "***." That said, there are things about it that bother me. Several months ago when my 2002 XKR was parked next to an F-type S convertible at the Queen's English Car Show, I was very surprised at how high the front end sits, much, much higher than the first generation XKR, and even higher than the current generation as well. I understand this is dictated by (idiotic) European pedestrian safety standards, but, in my opinion, it detracts a bit from the Jaguar tradition of long, sloping hoods to a lower front grille that has forever defined Jaguar sports cars. You can see this difference in the opening shots of the video. The current vogue of stamped and creased concave door panels make the F-type more "modern" looking but not necessarily more sensual than the rounded, "full figured," XKE-reminiscent XKR. So, on looks alone, I'm not convinced one is better than the other.

Obviously, there's been 8 years of development between the 2 cars, so chassis, drivetrain, and performance upgrades are to have been expected. But, I'm not sure at this point that I'd choose the F-type over the XKR were all things equal. I think the XK's "***" is just as attractive (maybe moreso), the added room of a "back" seat a bit of a bonus, and the extra horsepower (of the F-type) fairly easily attainable through a tune and pulley upgrade to the XKR.

Let's see how the F-type evolves, will it get 4-wheel drive that enables it to really control its power that would really differentiate it from the XKR, will it get lighter and even more horsepower....? It's a phenomenal first year effort for a new car, and I think it will get even better, quickly. But I'll keep both my XKR's for now.

 

It's interesting that the HP is marginally different and it could even be argued - a marketing ploy. As you mentioned; in a decade of difference in technology and development it says a lot that little no improvements have been made on this amazing engine. The new gear box is MUCH faster which helps but even the magazine tests show little to no performance advantages.

 

The gearbox may indeed be faster, but you've got to shuffle through so many gears. On a track or even on the road, why on earth would anyone want to row through 8 gears? Where will it end, 10, 15, 20? Porsche and (I believe) the new Corvette have 7 speed manual gearboxes. Is the center console going to have be a foot and a half wide to accommodate the shifter? This is nuts! The individuals shifts of the 8 speed may be fractionally faster, but I'd rather not have to do it.

 

There does have to be a balance somewhere but remember how fast the new ones shift. The advantage is ALWAYS in the power when you want. Longer gears have a sweet spot. Think bell curve for power in each gear and more sweet spots for having more gears.

 

Really when you look at the video both cars are gorgeous, the f-type doesn't look any more stunning than the XK. I think that the XK is going to age just as well as Aston's tend to, that shape will just never get old, IMO.


even though I liked the review, it brought out to me the real problem with car review sites, and that is (to me) that the skill of the guys driving these things is so much more than mine, that they will mark down a car for things I'd never appreciate at all. I bought the XKR as a GT car, and I think as a GT car it is probably better than an f-type, just as the f-type as a sports car is probably better than the XKR.

 

I think the X150 looks extremely dated next to the F-Type. I first started realizing how dated the X150 was compared to everything else in the lineup at the 2014 DC Auto Show. It just seems like such last-generation styling. Beautiful and timeless, yes, but not fresh or edgy anymore.

 

Alan,
It's funny, but the fact that it doesn't look "edgy" like other newer models is precisely what defines what I love about the cars that I drive and collect. Give me a Ferrari Daytona anyday over a 458. I'd still take my Pantera's styling over any of the current crop of supercars (I even prefer it to the later model, wide body Panteras). Look at the grace and aggression of a 1968 GTO and compare it to the 2005 model. While I prefer many aspects of the X100 styling over the X150, I love the profile of both generations of XK's. While I appreciate many new car designs, you could never convince me that there was a better era for automotive styling than the mid to late 1960's. Dated or not, modern or classic, I have no doubt that you could find as many admirers of the XK/R series as you could the F-type.

Just my humble opinion.

 

All the new rear ends look like this to me. Aston included.

 

I wish I hadn't seen that!


I could live with the zagatto back end, given the noise it makes