Part of the fun of changing cars is the testing of all sorts of vaguely suitable machinery. And a back to back test helps highlight differences between the options.
My expectations were a bit biased, I was sceptical of both the F-Type hype and the bit of a knocking the C2S had from purists when it was launched.
So, I started with the 911. Nice day, clear roads, gave it the beans. Fast, but not a lot faster than my 987. Very easy to place accurately on the road, and the manual gearbox was slick, but not as smooth as that on the 987, and there's no short shifter option, so the throw's a bit long. All cars are a compromise so I expected the Porsche to soak up the back road bumps and wrinkles, er no. It clattered, probably as much as a 987 but no better. In Sport mode the
PASM
was actually usable, and the mapping became a bit crisper. Electric steering was very good, but you can't feel the road surface like you can in a hydraulic Cayman. The car had Sports
Exhaust
. With it on, bloody loud, with it off, still very loud. And it droned a bit at speed with the engine sound very much in the background. My conclusions: lovely car, very safe, some raw edges but not very exciting. Probably not right for me.
Next the Jag. Seats comfy enough, not enough support at the shoulders, busy cabin like the Porsche but a bit less cohesive. Paddles perfecly placed behind the wheel. And on the go, well there's the thing. Hugely exhilerating, crisp changes accompanied by a blat blat on downshifts. Held the road very well, maybe 9/10 of the Porsche's precision. Overall: amazing and a big step up from the Cayman. Forget the weight, miniscule storage and new fangled flapy paddles. This is an exceptional car to drive. And I think I should have tested it against a Boxter S with
PDK
.
So the net net is Jaguar F-Type > C2
I would have to agree, I would take the F-Type over the base 911 any day for "fun" to drive, even if it is slightly slower around a track, most miles are not spent on a track.
Yup. F-Type > C2S. So no Anniversary Edition for me, which is a great shame as I just love the retro looks.
Trouble with the F-Type is it seems expensive, £80k for the car I drove, and the residuals are a complete unknown. Jags traditionally do quite badly. You just feel they should be 981 money.
The man in the shop said that Jaguar are deliberately building fewer than the market wants in order to protect values, but that won't last! He also said several potential buyers are holding on for the coupe which will be here quite soon.
Jaguar have also done a good job with the colours. British racing Green (a dark green metallic) is fabulous with a dark tan interior, and the Firesand (dark metallic orange) is a real wow. They had a V8 one of those on show with gloss black wheels - £95k
I think it's totally a matter of personal preference as the two are so close... unless you're going to the track. Most of my driving in the 991S these days is on the track, and I'd take it any day of the week over the heavier and less stiff F-Type. I think both are good looking cars, but if I wanted a convertible (I don't), I'd get the F-Type.
Thanks for the write-up... I would still recommend that you test a Boxster 981S. I yet have to drive the F-Type V6S. From the looks I like them both, but unless the F-Type can mask its weight, I think the Boxster (with
PSE
or aftermarket
exhaust
) is the better driver's roadster... I hope I find the time to test my hypothesis soon though
I've seen a few F Types around our area and it seems rather bland looking. Haven't read the reviews or the forums. Obviously it drives well based on the comments here, it just appeared rather ordinary to me on the street.
Great write up. Never been a fan of Jaguars but I think they got a hit on their hands. I mean I've never heard Porsche and Jaguar said in same sentence before without it sounding silly. Now it doesn't sound so silly
Wonder how the V8 F type would be like?
Search YouTube. Chris Harris has a great review of the F type
People tend to focus on the cost of buying a car, but that's only half the story. The monetary value that's left in the car when the time comes to part with it is the other half...and, at least here in the U.S., Jaguars are
horrible
in this regard. Leaving maintenance costs out of it...that F-type V6S could very easily end up costing GT3 (or even Turbo) money when all the dust has settled. You'd have to want "a Jaguar" really badly in order for it to be worth the financial beating...JMO
Perhaps in England, everything would shake out differently...?
I agree and disagree. I agree that Jaguar residual values have been horrible the last 20-30 years (they were actually quite good in the 50's, 60's and until the mid 70's.) They are, however, moving back up from their lows and if they continue to make good cars under new ownership I would expect their residuals to come inline with other similar car makers in the next few years.
I disagree that you have to think about residuals because they only matter if you are going to sell the car later. When I bought my Cayman in 2005 (took delivery in January 2006), I never once thought about what the residual or resale value of the car would be because I had no intention of selling it within any timeframe that mattered. Now some 8 years later I still have the car. Will it's resale value change much in the next 5 years? probably not. Heck if I hold onto it long enough it becomes a classic and starts going up in value right? Conceivably you could make that argument that buying and selling a GT3 within 3-5 years costs a lot more than buying an F-Type and holding onto it for 40 years after which it sells for more than you bought it for.
So in the end it all depends on your perspective and what you intend to do. Can you think about resale value? Sure. Is it important to some buyers? Sure. Is it an absolute? No....
:thanks:
