Please go into detail more as I'm genuinely interested as to who its rivals are and where they outperform it in all areas?
My Jaguar XKR-S Weekend!
- Thread starter Jonnycoupe
- Start date
Please go into detail more as I'm genuinely interested as to who its rivals are and where they outperform it in all areas?
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,052
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Its direct competitors are in the GT class of cars rather than the sports cars like the 911. These are adjacent competitors that compete primarily due to their price point. There is also a limited number that will crack 0-100 in less than 8.3 seconds and 'apparently' the only car in its class with sub 300g/km.
A 911 GT3 does the B road blast very well but I'm not sure you would want to use it every just to get to work in commuter traffic, it doesn't have the duality of character.
A 911 GT3 does the B road blast very well but I'm not sure you would want to use it every just to get to work in commuter traffic, it doesn't have the duality of character.
Last edited:
The BMW M6 springs to mind
Cheaper, quicker and more efficient.
Power : 560bhp
Combined MPG : 28.5
CO2 : 232
The Audi R8 V10 is up there as well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,052
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
The BMW M6 springs to mind
Cheaper, quicker and more efficient.
Power : 560bhp
Combined MPG : 28.5
CO2 : 232
The M6 Coupe (F13) and XKR-S both declare 0-60 of 4.2 seconds and 0-124mph @ 12.6 seconds with the M6 limited to 155mph unlike the RS. The XKR-S in my book is therefore faster.
The Convertible comparison changes that aswell as the Jag picks up 47kg for a soft top whilst the F12 BMW picks up over 200kg and stunts the 0-124mph to 13.1! So the convertible is faster from the Jag stable. This is a bit of a weight hit to the Coupe Jag as the ally body of the Jaguar was designed for a convertible.
In terms of price you are looking at £94k compared to £97k. Just taking the BMW from the standard 19" to 20" to match the Jaguar would cancel the difference and proportionally to price the difference is negligable.
CO2. Not really a point that would influence decision on this type of car. Its about emotional appeal and that's subjective. Running costs are primarily depreciation.
The Audi V10 is £10k more and neither V10 or V8 are more efficient.... only on OCUK would that matter though
Its not bad when you compare the number of cars from the marques. Audi did what 1.5M cars last year? Jaguar less than 55,000
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,302
- Location
- The Land of Roundabouts
The BMW M6 springs to mind
Cheaper, quicker and more efficient.
You forget to mention you have to look at the butt ugly mush of the M6 every time you step out your door
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 20,189
- Location
- Middlesbrough
You forget to mention you have to look at the butt ugly mush of the M6 every time you step out your door
You think that's ugly?
I hope you were talking about the old model.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,302
- Location
- The Land of Roundabouts
That angle works well for it, but tbh it still not a patch on the Jag
I agree mostly with those points.The M6 Coupe (F13) and XKR-S both declare 0-60 of 4.2 seconds and 0-124mph @ 12.6 seconds with the M6 limited to 155mph unlike the RS. The XKR-S in my book is therefore faster.
The Convertible comparison changes that aswell as the Jag picks up 47kg for a soft top whilst the F12 BMW picks up over 200kg and stunts the 0-124mph to 13.1! So the convertible is faster from the Jag stable. This is a bit of a weight hit to the Coupe Jag as the ally body of the Jaguar was designed for a convertible.
In terms of price you are looking at £94k compared to £97k. Just taking the BMW from the standard 19" to 20" to match the Jaguar would cancel the difference and proportionally to price the difference is negligable.
CO2. Not really a point that would influence decision on this type of car. Its about emotional appeal and that's subjective. Running costs are primarily depreciation.
The Audi V10 is £10k more and neither V10 or V8 are more efficient.... only on OCUK would that matter though
Its not bad when you compare the number of cars from the marques. Audi did what 1.5M cars last year? Jaguar less than 55,000
The price + options (wheels) can also be applied to standard kit in the Jag i.e. smaller Nav screen and generally less equipment than the BMW.
I only quoted CO2 because Jag boast about it in all their literature and media, when in reality the BMW is significantly better in this area.
I personally prefer the M6 and I understand your loyality to your employer
Last edited:
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,052
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Shame thats partly thanks to Start Stop..... on a ~£100k V8 engine
The XK infotainment is leagues behind the XF and XJ aswell. BMW Site has a comparison table (All data published is supplied by KeeResources' KWIKCarCost. All data in comparison table is valid at February 2012.) though which probably the XKR-S literature pre dates the F13 introduction?.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 11,117
- Location
- West Yorkshire / Market Bosworth
I blame the contractors working on the software development/programming.
Love the XK though, in both R or R-S form. Think all three models are awesome.
Max torque from 1500rpm
and well over 70mph in 2nd...shorter gearing and more revs it don't need
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 11,117
- Location
- West Yorkshire / Market Bosworth
and well over 70mph in 2nd...shorter gearing and more revs it don't need
A pug 107 can nearly do 70 in 2nd, so your reply is invalid.
A pug 107 can nearly do 70 in 2nd, so your reply is invalid.
Nearly 70 compared to well over 70...valid comparison obviously