By on April 11, 2012

Among the various rumor-mongers in the automotive world, UK rag Auto Express has a pretty good track record of publishing “spy photo renderings” that look just like the real thing. So when they published some drawings and a video of the Jaguar F-Type, it was worth paying attention.

The F-Type is Jaguar’s long-awaited sports car, designed to be more focused and less expensive than the XK grand tourer. Styling is said to be “95 percent of the C-X16″, that lovely concept that Jag debuted a year ago. The F-Type will apparently use a 3.0L V6, which will be a cut down version of the XK’s 5.0L V8. Like its big brother, there will be normally aspirated and supercharged versions, as well as an aluminum spaceframe chassis.

Two notable absences for the F-Type; a hybrid powerplant, as was used on the C-X16 (it’s apparently not yet ready for production) and a manual gearbox. The only option is said to be a six-speed automatic, something that will doubtlessly attract its share of criticism from the sports car faithful.

A ragtop will debut first, followed by a coupe in the next 18 months following the launch. Jaguar decided to release the droptop first, since it required more engineering, and the release of a coupe down the road could help capitalize on the unending search for novelty that many sports car buyers undertake. Speaking of which, the F-Type’s hallmark is said to be a fantastically loud exhaust. Auto Express claims it resembles the legendary D-Type, but it’s hard to think that a fuel-injected modern V6 could ever equal a carb’d race-spec I6. Check out the video (which was produced for Jaguar’s New York Auto Show press conference)

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

24 Comments on “Jaguar F-Type To Be Offensively Loud...”


  • avatar
    imag

    I think “fantastically” is the more appropriate adverb. It’s a sports car, after all.

    I do get the feeling that TTAC headlines are being increasingly designed to pull in the clicks. Some of them are becoming outright trolls.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    From the linked article…

    “Jaguar anticipates that many F-Type customers will be new to the brand – people who might otherwise buy a 911, a Mercedes SL, a Lotus Evora or a BMW M3.”

    Might just be me but I think potential customers(excluding Mercedes SL drivers) would expect a manual or dual clutch. Maybe Jag isn’t comfortable with their engineering abilities as they relate to DCT but at least give us a manual as an option…they’re (relatively) easy.

    From the linked video…

    Mike Cross-Jaguar Chief of Vehicle Dynamics

    “Jaguar is all about sports cars.”

    Really?

  • avatar

    No clutch pedal = no interest, no matter how much the UK rags insist that they’ve brewed old-school XK cough-of-a-hunting-cat into the exhaust note. But then, I’m feeling really close to being done with modern sports cars, as electronic wizardry continues to substitute for the driving skill we all sought to cultivate back in the old days. Something really is being lost, and not just at Jaguar.

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      Totally agree. A sports car is supposed to be about driving pleasure; shifting is a huge part of that.

      I recently co-purchased a Datsun roadster. That car is more fun to drive than anything I have been in recently. It won’t outdrag a modern Prius, but it is almost impossible not to smile when driving, and it’s a blast on twisties.

      I think it’s a huge shame that Jaguar hasn’t approached this car from that perspective. Just listening to the slurred shifts in the video is horrifying. The fact that the car is based on the XK platform doesn’t bode well either…

  • avatar
    B.C.

    “Modern” Jags have always been more cruiser than sports car. I remember some Top Gear episode from the 90s where the presenter was surprised that an XK-R prototype had a manual, and even today the XK-RS has an auto. I’m still disappointed that the smaller F-Type won’t have a stick but I’m really far from surprised.

  • avatar
    another_pleb

    If I were head designer at Jaguar, I would get the blueprints for an MX5 and photocopy them at 120%.

    As for dual-clutch boxes, I’m sure that Jaguar could source one from ZF or Borg Warner off the shelf.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert Gordon

      “If I were head designer at Jaguar, I would get the blueprints for an MX5 and photocopy them at 120%.”

      Given that the MX5 was designed by Jaguar styling chief Ian Callum’s younger brother Murray, I’d say that is a distinct possibility.

      • 0 avatar

        Moray Callum joined Mazda in 2001, sometime after Tom Matano designed the first MX-5. Callum did have a big role in the ’05 redesign of the Miata. Since the first Miata/MX-5 was essentially an updated take on the original Lotus Elan, if Ian Callum wants to look at a small roadster for inspiration, Hethel is closer to Coventry than Hiroshima.

        Ian Callum was on a panel of designers that named the Elan one of the ten most beautiful cars ever. FWIW, Gordon Murray owns one and says that it’s his favorite car.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert Gordon

        Thanks for the wiki dump, but 1) I’d already read it before posting and 2) given another_plebs sentiment I think we all took it as read that we were talking about the NC MX5 and not a suggestion to copy an 1980′s tech car.

    • 0 avatar
      another_pleb

      I didn’t have any particular iteration of the MX5 in mind.

      I just think that a front-engined rear-wheel-drive sportscar with relatively simple mechanics and unadorned styling would be a good starting point for the Jaguar F-Type and the inevitable Daimler Dart version.

  • avatar
    tallnikita

    so the journo is being driven across three lanes and his comment is that his ribs are getting squeezed? yeah that’s credible.

    another car for poseurs. i wonder if Camry SE v6 would beat its ass.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    I’ve never heard an aluminum chassis described as stiff. Flexi-flyer I’ve heard, but not stiff, then again I been surprised by weirder things.

    • 0 avatar

      Check out high end bicycles. Aluminum frames are generally considered to have the least compliant rides, so yes, aluminum can be stiff.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I’d be curious to know which aluminum chassis car has a reputation as a flexible flyer. I’ve heard difficult and expensive to fix after an accident, but not flexible.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert Gordon

        “Aluminum frames are generally considered to have the least compliant rides”

        By whom?

      • 0 avatar

        By serious bike riders. Steel and titanium have a bit more comfortable ride than aluminum.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        There are Carbon Fiber frames that are compliant as well. A friend just picked up a Specialized Roubaix carbon fiber bike to get a smoother ride than he was getting with his aluminum bike.

        I train on a bike with a smooth riding lightweight steel Columbus Tubing frame. Despite the fact that my friend was younger and in better shape, when he had the aluminum frame I could easily leave him in dust anytime the pavement got rough – which was most of the time. Now that he has the Roubaix (designed for cobblestone roads in France) it’s a different story.

        The beauty of the CF frame over the steel is that they tune the frame to flex vertically, but at the same time retain side-to-side stiffness.

  • avatar
    Robert Gordon

    “By serious bike riders.” Oh them…what sort of bike riders? BMXers? Mountain biker? Road Racers? Sprinters? or just ones with a stern disposition?

    Most cyclists be they serious or jovial, are not materials engineers. Their belief that cycles with aluminium frames give less compliant ride may well be correct (or it may be only perceived), but it may be due to factors other than the frame being made of aluminium.

    If you can point to some real evidence not just anecdote which may support this assertion that would be genuinely interesting and would add to the debate about the use of alternate materials in vehicle engineering.

    • 0 avatar
      RB

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_frame#Aluminum_alloys

      In practice, the stiffer aluminum bicycle frame is likely the result of the application rather than the inherent properties of the materials. Because aluminum is weaker than steel (for a given size), the tubes must be larger, creating a stiffer frame. Automobile frames are constructed differently than bicycle frames and the ultimate stiffness of the frame is the product of the design. Also an automotive frame has a suspension so the frame should ideally be as stiff as possible (excepting crumple zones) whereas a bicycle frame with no suspension can benefit from some compliance to smooth the ride.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert Gordon

        Thank you, at last some actual analysis rather than spouting trite dogma.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        “Check out high end bicycles. Aluminum frames are generally considered to have the least compliant rides, so yes, aluminum can be stiff.”

        That doesn’t sound like spouting trite dogma to me. Unless you’ve got an giant economy sized axe to grind, that just sounds like a statement and a conclusion based on widely held opinion. “Generally considered” and “can be” aren’t dogmatic phrases.

  • avatar

    For reference: The sound of an original D-type Jaguar…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India