GT-F and Jaguar F Type Coupe 5.0 Tested by N.Z. Autocar Sept 2014 Edition

Rodge · 22-08-2014, 02:07 PM

Having garnered something of a reputation for getting fast times with several cars recently tested bettering manufactures claims by as much a quarter of a second the best they could manage for the GT-F was:-
0-100 k.p.h. 4.85 seconds
80-120 k.p.h. 2.45 seconds
100-0 k.p.h. 33 metres
Measured weight with a full tank 1,855Kg's

They liked the R Spec suspension kit but commented it felt a few clicks slower through some of their usual back country corners than the GTS and put that down to the GTS's trick torque vectoring.

In other interesting news in that mag they tested the new Jaguar F Type Coupe 5.0 and despite a manufacturers claimed 0-100 of 4.1 seconds could only manage a 4.3. 80-120 was just on 2.3 seconds.
Much is made by Jaguar of the weight savings with extensive use of aluminium and they claim a weight of 1665 kg's but quite shockingly the weight with a full tank as measured on the weigh bridge was 1790 kg's, hardly the lightweight sports car Jaguar are claiming. That weight is an epic fail in my opinion.

2242100 · 22-08-2014, 02:13 PM

Was the GTF an Auto?

Rodge · 22-08-2014, 02:14 PM

Yes it was NZ GT-F 001 a white auto.

2242100 · 22-08-2014, 02:19 PM

Thanks mate.
It seems like Wheels driver Nathan Ponchard did OK getting a 4.68 zero to 100 time.

Rodge · 22-08-2014, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2242100

Thanks mate.
It seems like Wheels driver Nathan Ponchard did OK getting a 4.68 zero to 100 time.

Yeah it does.
Interestingly Autocar N.Z. tested a VF HSV R8 in August 2013, (0-100 in 4.88 seconds) and despite having a larger fuel tank than the Jaguar F Type coupe came in at 1,771 kg's on the weigh bridge with a full tank, just on 20 kg's lighter than the aluminium Jaguar, who would have thought that !!!

fgpsi · 22-08-2014, 04:39 PM

Probably Rodge behind the wheel :p

Rodge · 22-08-2014, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Probably Rodge behind the wheel :p

LOL I wish...(I'd love a drive of the new Jag).

futura · 22-08-2014, 04:58 PM

4.85 secs 0-100 with an auto is slower than EVO magazine effort of 4.46 sec 0-100 time acheived with a manual. How many kms did the auto NZ GTF 01?

2242100 · 22-08-2014, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

Yeah it does.
Interestingly Autocar N.Z. tested a VF HSV R8 in August 2013, (0-100 in 4.88 seconds) and despite having a larger fuel tank than the Jaguar F Type coupe came in at 1,771 kg's on the weigh bridge with a full tank, just on 20 kg's lighter than the aluminium Jaguar, who would have thought that !!!

I think they've done well to get the HSV weight down that low.
Was it an Auto and what was the 80-120 time, also was it the 340 kW motor?

futura · 22-08-2014, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2242100

Thanks mate.
It seems like Wheels driver Nathan Ponchard did OK getting a 4.68 zero to 100 time.

No. Nathan Ponchard was no where near EVOs magazine time of 4.46 Seconds and that time was with a manual not an auto.

2242100 · 22-08-2014, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by futura

No. Nathan Ponchard was no where near EVOs magazine time of 4.46 Seconds and that time was with a manual not an auto.

I think Jesse Taylor (EVO AUSTRALIA) did an excellent job just as he did with the RSPEC.

futura · 22-08-2014, 06:43 PM

Would of been interested to see Jesse Talyor (EVO Australia) test an Auto GTF.

BHDOGS · 22-08-2014, 08:45 PM

lmao useless drivers get the fpv cars back and give them to the enthusiasts to drive not these knobheads.

Bossxr8 · 23-08-2014, 11:21 AM

Might have been outside the transient overboost window lol.

Rodge · 23-08-2014, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2242100

I think they've done well to get the HSV weight down that low.
Was it an Auto and what was the 80-120 time, also was it the 340 kW motor?

I agree. Auto, 340 kw motor and IIRC it was in the late 2.8's somewhere for the 80-120.

Quote:

Originally Posted by futura

4.85 secs 0-100 with an auto is slower than EVO magazine effort of 4.46 sec 0-100 time acheived with a manual. How many kms did the auto NZ GTF 01?

My friend at Ford N.Z. told me its going to auction shortly with approx. 2,000 km's on it.

**Sorted** · 24-08-2014, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

My friend at Ford N.Z. told me its going to auction shortly with approx. 2,000 km's on it.

Hope they do it for Prostate Cancer instead if giving more money to Breast Cancer - bit ine sided with charity support atm imo

Cobra · 24-08-2014, 04:11 PM

I've driven an F Type Coupe, but only the Supercharged V6 (280kw). Apart from sounding rather average, I thought that it was a superb car. I'm surprised to hear just how much they weigh as it didn't feel that heavy. It went like the clappers and handled like it was on rails. I would love to try the the 5.0 litre version.

Rodge · 24-08-2014, 05:48 PM

A good strong chassis and excellent turn-in will disguise weight but to some extent you're right. According to the official technical stat's the V6 S is 51 kg's lighter than the V8
http://www.jaguar.com/nz/en/ftype/specifications

Here's what the V8 sounds like, turn your speakers up too the max

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMbSfkh9WaQ

Just looking back on the previous test Autocar N.Z. did in the F Type V8 S convertible, (remember that has the 5.0 with the 364 kw tune) and the coupe R has the 404 kw tune, anyway they got a remarkable 4.04 seconds in that test so these cars in the right conditions are extremely quick. The convertible weighed in at 1794 kg's with a full tank so it looks like the weigh in of the coupe wasn't an anomaly and Jaguar are telling porkies about the weight...but does it really matter...just look at it and the way it sounds and goes

mik · 26-08-2014, 10:40 AM

It's not really a dedicated sports car, it still has all the jag bells and whistles, despite being a factory hotrod, 1790 is probably not to bad Rodge all things considered.

stazza · 26-08-2014, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

It's not really a dedicated sports car, it still has all the jag bells and whistles, despite being a factory hotrod, 1790 is probably not to bad Rodge all things considered.

Oh come on, 1790 is woeful! He's gotta have something to whinge about

Alan D Segal · 26-08-2014, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

That weight is an epic fail in my opinion.

Not as bad as the 1980kg+ that a SRT8 weighs. When they test it with fuel etc. in NZ Autocar magazine what does it weigh in at? I'll bet it is over 2,000kg. Can you confirm please? You know, since you like talking about SRT8s so much

futura · 26-08-2014, 11:57 AM

Just out of Interest Roger, what times did NZ auto achieve with the SRT8 tank?

Rodge · 26-08-2014, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by futura

Just out of Interest Roger, what times did NZ auto achieve with the SRT8 tank?

Well seeing as you asked...(ducks for cover as the natives are bound to be very upset)
0-100 4.80 SRT8
0-100 4.85 GT-F
And just in case anyone's forgot

0-100 4.13 HSV GT-S

Oh dear....I guess the all conquering GT-F, well, how to put this, just doesn't.

And what was Rob Herrod saying about his new SRT8 Jeep the other day, oh yes that's right...best vehicle he's ever owned, still what would he know right ?

chookaradley · 26-08-2014, 02:35 PM

OOPS, that wasnt meant to happen. Isnt it a slow tank with an antique gearbox :0

Alan D Segal · 26-08-2014, 02:41 PM

What's it weigh Rodge?

futura · 26-08-2014, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

Well seeing as you asked...(ducks for cover as the natives are bound to be very upset)
0-100 4.80 SRT8
0-100 4.85 GT-F
And just in case anyone's forgot

0-100 4.13 HSV GT-S

Oh dear....I guess the all conquering GT-F, well, how to put this, just doesn't.

And what was Rob Herrod saying about his new SRT8 Jeep the other day, oh yes that's right...best vehicle he's ever owned, still what would he know right ?

I would not get to far ahead of yourself there. Figures on there own, unless times were achieved at a drag strip are only used by people like yourself to stir trouble on forums.

same day, same conditions is the only way to compare vehicles, and just in case you forgot or anyone else for that matter, we all know what happened at the redyno test by wheels under controlled supervised conditions.

Furthermore, there is no way in the world that a GTS can achieve a time of 4.13 sec if the best the GTF can achieve was 4.85. as for the SRT8 achieving 4.80 Obviously not under the same conditions.

chookaradley · 26-08-2014, 03:13 PM

4.8 is about right. Both the GTF and GTS should be around 4.4- 4.5, anything else is squabbling over thousandths of a second

Smoke Pursuit · 26-08-2014, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

Well seeing as you asked...(ducks for cover as the natives are bound to be very upset)
0-100 4.80 SRT8
0-100 4.85 GT-F
And just in case anyone's forgot

0-100 4.13 HSV GT-S

Oh dear....I guess the all conquering GT-F, well, how to put this, just doesn't.

And what was Rob Herrod saying about his new SRT8 Jeep the other day, oh yes that's right...best vehicle he's ever owned, still what would he know right ?

Lol... And what time did they get from the R Spec?

As for Rob Herrod he hasn't owned a GTF. So let's not get too carried away. Of course he's going to say the Jeeps the best car he's ever owned. It's his new bread winner!

Smoke Pursuit · 26-08-2014, 08:46 PM

Quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

For A long time now I've taken more interest in the 80-120 k.p.h. times than any other performance measure simply because that's the best proxy for how quick a vehicle is in real world conditions.
You've made some interesting suggestions about how various mags set up their timing equipment and i don't know how N.Z. Autocar do it so can't comment on that other than to say I woulsd assume they test the same way for all vehicles. They don't print 0-10 or 0-20 times so we can't give any visibility from that.

There's a bunch of timnes that are all more or less the same that they've tested. 80-120 k.p.h. times for the BMW M5 & Mercedes-Benz E63S & HSV GTS & the new Audi RS6 which are all around 2.25 - 2.30 seconds.

Slightly off that pace they've twice tested an FPV GT and got 2.51 seconds each time and twice tested a Jaguar XFR which also got identical 2.51 secopn times on each ocassion. Based on their testing it appears a SC FPV and a Jaguar XFR are slightly off the pace of the very best high performacne Euro sedans but nonetheless fantastic performers and a very satisfying drive.

I agree that overboost certainly can't go on forever but makes for some interesting applications especially in colder weather with stock Dunslop tyres

Perhaps worth noting that if FPV stripped out their spare wheel and jack and ran with a can of goo like HSV does with the GTS a stock GT would be bang on 100 kg's lighter than a GTS.

Each to their own, I have a very high level of satisfaction with my GT-P but am happy to acknowledge the engineering effort that's gone into the GTS and am comfortable accepting its a more "complete" package than anything FPV have been capable of providing, albeit at a different price point.
I think the GTS represents an extremly good effort for a small niche Australian manufacturer and clearly foots it with some of the vastly more expensive cars from Europe.

XBGTFGGTP · 27-08-2014, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

Well seeing as you asked...(ducks for cover as the natives are bound to be very upset)
0-100 4.80 SRT8
0-100 4.85 GT-F
And just in case anyone's forgot

0-100 4.13 HSV GT-S

Oh dear....I guess the all conquering GT-F, well, how to put this, just doesn't.

And what was Rob Herrod saying about his new SRT8 Jeep the other day, oh yes that's right...best vehicle he's ever owned, still what would he know right ?

I'm happy to meet you at Meremere Rodge. Manual vs Auto should be no contest according to the magazines.