2014 Jaguar F-Type: Smartly-Integrated Tech And Almost 500 Hp

[tuanies]

Jaguar invited us to its North American F-Type launch event. Naturally, we accepted and spent a day cruising around in the company's first sports car in almost 40 years. The F-Type integrates technology where necessary, and horsepower quite liberally.

2014 Jaguar F-Type: Smartly-Integrated Tech And Almost 500 Hp : Read more

 

[xPandaPanda]

Torque > Horsepower...

 

[FloKid]

Where are the benchmarks?

 

[thasan1]

shut up and take my bank account and my house and my kidneys!

 

[Grandmastersexsay]

Torque > Horsepower...

No.

Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252

The only reason you want more torque is because it gives you more horsepower. Having more low end torque simply gives you more low end horsepower, which equals more average horsepower, or more power under the curve. Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque. You could gear a bicycle to produce 1000 ft lbs of torque, but the person peddling it still will only be able to produce about 1/4 hp.

Saying torque > horsepower is like saying mass > force. It just doesn't make any sense. Force = mass x acceleration.

 

[vertexx]

Having more low end torque simply gives you more low end horsepower, which equals more average horsepower, or more power under the curve. Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque.

Thanks for the physics lesson - you had it almost right, though, until you said that Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration - wrong.

You actually answered your own question. F=M*A, so conversely, A = F/M. Torque is angular force. So, angular or rotational acceleration is proportional to Torque, not Power. The key, though, is that Torque at the wheels is what matters. Therefore, rotational horsepower of an engine can be applied through the appropriate rotational speed reduction (in the transmission) to result in the greatest amount of Torque at the wheel.

But ultimately, Torque at the wheel results in acceleration.

 

[vertexx]

Great write-up guys! Definitely my kind of hardware review, and I'm sure it certainly is a nice break from the tireless redundancy of hardware performance testing.

Is there a performance benchmark for car navigation systems? Haha! My bet though is you'll eventually need one. Or how about that Adaptive Dynamics System, can it be OC'd to get 600 steering input samples per second?

Regarding the car, overall awesome design, but I'm a little mixed on the details. I think Jaguar has its work cut out to come up with a design that is their own. Right now, the front-end (picture 2) is a little too "Lightning McQueen" and the back-side view (picture 3) is a little too "Miata".

Overall nice to see something fresh in this segment though.

 

[bambiboom]

Gentlemen?,

The Jaguar F-type could not help having a degree of disappointment, given the years of teaser-hype expectation building and numerous car show and rendering false starts of the E-type successor, but my disappointment goes deeper, into the realm of market research pandering.

The problem is that with the F-type, Jaguar has embodied Jaguar's marketing position as a rich man's mid-life crisis demographic/ style / branding marketing committee driven company rather than from the individualist car-enthusiast's mold.

It's not the shameless copying of the BMW Z8 (of 1999!), the addition of a boring, turn of the Century interior ( and nowhere as interesting as the Z8's), and a small helping of Ferrari California, it's that overwhelming sense of market pandering and brand/ line position in which the F-type can't be more exciting than an XK8. This is a page from the Porsche corporate playbook that hobbled the looks and performance potential of the mid-engined Boxster- so as not to detract from the market-core rear-engine 911 series. The market dialed-in Jaguar of today, like Porsche, can't afford to make the cheaper car better in any way than the top end one.

They'll sell a pile thanks to the marketing committee's fine work with target group surveys and the number of recently divorced, 55-year old CPA's in Los Angeles earning more than $110,000 per year, but the F-Type is nowhere near the league of inspiration of the E-Type.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

[1957 Jaguar XK-140MC roadster]

 

[tuanies]

Great write-up guys! Definitely my kind of hardware review, and I'm sure it certainly is a nice break from the tireless redundancy of hardware performance testing.

Is there a performance benchmark for car navigation systems? Haha! My bet though is you'll eventually need one. Or how about that Adaptive Dynamics System, can it be OC'd to get 600 steering input samples per second?

Regarding the car, overall awesome design, but I'm a little mixed on the details. I think Jaguar has its work cut out to come up with a design that is their own. Right now, the front-end (picture 2) is a little too "Lightning McQueen" and the back-side view (picture 3) is a little too "Miata".

Overall nice to see something fresh in this segment though.

We do have navigation system benchmarks but those are reserved for the week-long loaner vehicles. I wanted to give the picture story for a launch event a shot because we only get to spend a day with the car paired with another journalist. Its fun but we don't quite have the time to get detailed footage and benchmarks of every tech aspect as we usually do. Unfortunately, the events are the only place we get access to the product managers, designers and engineers to ask our tech focused questions.

Gentlemen?,

The Jaguar F-type could not help having a degree of disappointment, given the years of teaser-hype expectation building and numerous car show and rendering false starts of the E-type successor, but my disappointment goes deeper, into the realm of market research pandering.

The problem is that with the F-type, Jaguar has embodied Jaguar's marketing position as a rich man's mid-life crisis demographic/ style / branding marketing committee driven company rather than from the individualist car-enthusiast's mold.

It's not the shameless copying of the BMW Z8 (of 1999!), the addition of a boring, turn of the Century interior ( and nowhere as interesting as the Z8's), and a small helping of Ferrari California, it's that overwhelming sense of market pandering and brand/ line position in which the F-type can't be more exciting than an XK8. This is a page from the Porsche corporate playbook that hobbled the looks and performance potential of the mid-engined Boxster- so as not to detract from the market-core rear-engine 911 series. The market dialed-in Jaguar of today, like Porsche, can't afford to make the cheaper car better in any way than the top end one.

They'll sell a pile thanks to the marketing committee's fine work with target group surveys and the number of recently divorced, 55-year old CPA's in Los Angeles earning more than $110,000 per year, but the F-Type is nowhere near the league of inspiration of the E-Type.

Cheers,

BambiBoom

[1957 Jaguar XK-140MC roadster]

Interesting thoughts. But you are right, they will sell a ton of them. But that is exactly what Jaguar needs. Their sales are on the upswing and I find their entire lineup very attractive, the cars look angry but still classy. I know there was a lot of opposition when the XJ debuted and lost the signature 4 round headlights, but that was a big gamble that paid off for them. These designs and positioning are how Jaguar manages to stay alive as a brand and not get killed off like Saab. Sure it doesn't have the character or class as the older E-Type, but incorporating some of the design cues is a nice nod to the E-Type. The F-Type is a much more refined car that you can live with as a daily driver and it won't try to kill you.

 

[clownbaby]

Oh jaguar, your cars are so shiny and always sport such lofty "specs", but end up in cheap used car lots, full of broken plastic, bad wiring, broken motors etc, and being sold to poor schleps that buy them as a status symbol. When I see a jaguar on the road with more than 30k miles and it's not a complete piece of garbage, I'll think about taking them seriously. But really, why would anyone even consider a jaguar when there are so many other great cars out there in a similar price range that won't fall apart 2 blocks off the lot.

 

[JPNpower]

This is a good successor to the E-Type

 

[Grandmastersexsay]

Having more low end torque simply gives you more low end horsepower, which equals more average horsepower, or more power under the curve. Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration, not torque.

Thanks for the physics lesson - you had it almost right, though, until you said that Horsepower dictates your rate of acceleration - wrong.

You actually answered your own question. F=M*A, so conversely, A = F/M. Torque is angular force. So, angular or rotational acceleration is proportional to Torque, not Power. The key, though, is that Torque at the wheels is what matters. Therefore, rotational horsepower of an engine can be applied through the appropriate rotational speed reduction (in the transmission) to result in the greatest amount of Torque at the wheel.

But ultimately, Torque at the wheel results in acceleration.

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

 

[vertexx]

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

L M A O.... Wow... Who is condescending? I won't even get into it, but you are wrong in so many ways, and the details don't pertain to this article. Perhaps review your high school physics and then come back to discuss in another forum....

 

[zakaron]

I was intrigued until slide 13. Reading that an automatic gearbox is the only option, I got that same sad feeling when first learning about the Nissan GTR. This car looks fantastic, sounds beautiful, and has a nice functional layout to the controls. For a soft top convertible, the blind spot detection is a nice touch (my wife's eclipse spyder has bad blind spots that really need attention). Oh well, maybe some day a car maker will design a car this nice that doesn't insult my driving ability*.

* For those that argue a proper dual clutch will shift faster than my left foot / right hand (left hand drive), you are most likely correct, but that doesn't concern me. It's just a personal preference and a deal breaker when I can't get the transmission of my choice when I'm paying all that money for a vehicle.

 

[tuanies]

I was intrigued until slide 13. Reading that an automatic gearbox is the only option, I got that same sad feeling when first learning about the Nissan GTR. This car looks fantastic, sounds beautiful, and has a nice functional layout to the controls. For a soft top convertible, the blind spot detection is a nice touch (my wife's eclipse spyder has bad blind spots that really need attention). Oh well, maybe some day a car maker will design a car this nice that doesn't insult my driving ability*.

* For those that argue a proper dual clutch will shift faster than my left foot / right hand (left hand drive), you are most likely correct, but that doesn't concern me. It's just a personal preference and a deal breaker when I can't get the transmission of my choice when I'm paying all that money for a vehicle.

Yea its disappointing but makes sense. The take rate of proper manuals are fairly low compared to automatics and DCTs. Its hard for a company like Jaguar to have such a low volume option while they're working on their comeback.

 

[zakaron]

I was intrigued until slide 13. Reading that an automatic gearbox is the only option, I got that same sad feeling when first learning about the Nissan GTR. This car looks fantastic, sounds beautiful, and has a nice functional layout to the controls. For a soft top convertible, the blind spot detection is a nice touch (my wife's eclipse spyder has bad blind spots that really need attention). Oh well, maybe some day a car maker will design a car this nice that doesn't insult my driving ability*.

* For those that argue a proper dual clutch will shift faster than my left foot / right hand (left hand drive), you are most likely correct, but that doesn't concern me. It's just a personal preference and a deal breaker when I can't get the transmission of my choice when I'm paying all that money for a vehicle.

 

[Narcissistic_Martyr]

Or, for just a few thousand more you can get a restored e-type convertible. One of the most beautiful cars ever made with a wonderful engine and decent suspension. Sure the electrics are terrible from the factory but that all got sorted out during the restoration. Of course the 265 HP i6 only gives you a 7 second 0-60 time but that's a small price to pay for a car that only increases in value.

Textfield,

If you want a car like that you can build it with existing tech, just don't expect a decent ping time on your wifi. Also gaming while driving would be illegal as would be obstructing the front windows, windshield, and rear window, but your passengers could play.

 

[falchard]

I thought this was a tech site. Here is the only review a tech site should give the F-Type. Its infotainment system is 4 years behind its competition. Bam DONE.

 

[rashaen]

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

L M A O.... Wow... Who is condescending? I won't even get into it, but you are wrong in so many ways, and the details don't pertain to this article. Perhaps review your high school physics and then come back to discuss in another forum....

Neither of you is using the math required, though both have a point. Low end torque ties in closely with suspension geometry, weight transfer, and tire grip. Meanwhile horsepower mainly applies once the tires have full grip and the engine is fighting only inertia and wind resistance. This is why cars with massive torque will win a short drag while cars with mass horsepower will win a longer one, for example a quarter mile versus a half mile drag race. Simply put torque gets you up and moving, then horsepower takes over. Either way you want both.

 

[danwat1234]

I'd rather have a Model S, or a Volt

 

[sanilmahambre]

JLR owned by TATA is redefining luxury and sporty to the leading car makers from germany, italy and japan

 

[daswilhelm]

first jag i've liked in about 50 years.

 

[JPNpower]

Carbon carbon carbon

 

[Grandmastersexsay]

In your rush to be condescending you failed to realize we are talking about the acceleration of the vehicle, not the instantaneous rate of acceleration. The instantaneous rate of acceleration tells us nothing of importance for this discussion. We need the acceleration of the vehicle for an amount of time or for a specific distance. In other words we need Force × Distance which equals work. This is the work done by the tires though, not the engine. Torque produced by the engine can only translate to force at the tire, because, as you mentioned, torque refers only to rotational force. On the other hand, power produced by the engine translates to the work done by the tire. This is why power dictates how fast a car accelerates over a distance.

I can understand why you are confused, as this is not the easiest subject matter to grasp. Just try to picture a bicycle geared to produce 1000 ft lbs at the wheel, and you will realize the force at the tire is not what is responsible for acceleration, but is instead responsible for the instantaneous rate of acceleration.

L M A O.... Wow... Who is condescending? I won't even get into it, but you are wrong in so many ways, and the details don't pertain to this article. Perhaps review your high school physics and then come back to discuss in another forum....

Neither of you is using the math required, though both have a point. Low end torque ties in closely with suspension geometry, weight transfer, and tire grip. Meanwhile horsepower mainly applies once the tires have full grip and the engine is fighting only inertia and wind resistance. This is why cars with massive torque will win a short drag while cars with mass horsepower will win a longer one, for example a quarter mile versus a half mile drag race. Simply put torque gets you up and moving, then horsepower takes over. Either way you want both.

Thanks for bringing the conversation full retard. I love being told I'm wrong by a guy whose education on the subject matter is derived solely from watching Spike TV on Sunday afternoons. Please tell me what kind of math I should be using? Long division?

 

[acadia11]

Just wanted to point out that the discussion on torque and hp, it's easy to find a solution by looking at real world.

The answer is not torque or HP, HP is just used to describe the work that can be done. The answer is actually the formula itself describes the potential speed of the car, factor in weight. The formula itself is the answer but who is going to explain that to people, it's just much easier to say a higher HP car is generally faster than a lower HP car.