But yes, any Jag dealer that has put money into a dealership recently is surely pissed. Not only because of this stupid campaign, but also because - supposedly - part of the move to this upscale EV-only plan is to drastically reduce the number of dealers, so franchises are getting yanked all over (even though that's probably a gift in disguise).
I have to feel that if JLR dealers were suddenly told if you said "All you have to sell is Land Rover", some of them would rejoice over not having to take allocation of slow-moving Jaguar units.
It depends on what year, but the mechatronics on the first version loved to go boom. In general, the 6MT of that generation had significantly less problems because it's a much simpler system, and they didn't screw that particular one up (as they sometimes do).
The DSG is nice, just risky for cost if anything goes wrong. The 6MT has been very minimal for maintenance over 14 years (oil changes, brakes, thermostat, water pump). Replacing or upgrading the 6MT would be a couple grand total, which is nice.
It's a nice vehicle to drive, especially with a short shifter and a stiffer spring (deletes the annoying reverse track when going from 1st to 2nd gear).
For a vehicle with AWD systems, mine recommends front 35 Psi and back 39 Psi for the tires. The guy I bought it from just did 36 on all and recommended it. I'm doing 36 even right now on all the tires and it actually feels a little wobbly and floaty in comparison to my other set of tires at 35/39 on dry roads.
What's the biggest downsides if I do 35/39 for the winter? I'm aware that a difference like that likely increases the chances of fish tailing, but I assume that if the vehicle was designed for 35/39, AWD systems can handle it and it wouldn't undriveable in inclement weather?
I'm thinking of doing 35/39 and having a more comfy ride on dry roads, improved 180 turns and assuming snow storms shouldn't be a white knuckled mess on a driving setting with TCS not disabled (fun mode)?
Those tire pressures by manufacturers are recommended for comfort, handling and fuel economy. They aren't always optimal. I've actually found mine to be too low causing tire wear. Keep a close eye on that, and if you notice wear patterns, adjust. Wear on the outer edges means too low, more central wear means too high. Obviously keep your adjustments in reasonable ranges. I went from recommended 32/33 to 35.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
For a vehicle with AWD systems, mine recommends front 35 Psi and back 39 Psi for the tires.
Is this a big SUV? The rear tire pressure could be to account for the maximum payload, which typically has more weight over the rear. People don't usually add air when they are towing or hauling, so they recommend something safe for those conditions, even if not ideal for daily driving.
For most front engined passenger cars, tire pressure is higher in the front to account for engine and typical passenger weight.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Check your owner manual too, some manufacturers specify different pressures based on anticipated usage / load. The Range Rover has switchable F/R pressures in the TPMS for light load (230kPa / 250 kPa) and normal load (250 kPa / 300 kPa). Light load is better for comfort at the cost of higher rolling resistance, while regular is better on fuel but the ride is a bit less plush.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Is this a big SUV? The rear tire pressure could be to account for the maximum payload, which typically has more weight over the rear. People don't usually add air when they are towing or hauling, so they recommend something safe for those conditions, even if not ideal for daily driving.
For most front engined passenger cars, tire pressure is higher in the front to account for engine and typical passenger weight.
Not SUV, it's an older BMW 5 series sedan. No towing, but kids, car seats and some spare stuff in trunk adds a wee bit of weight back there. Nothing more than perhaps the weight of a small individual or two though. Standard tire pressure recommendation is higher in the back than front though.
I think I recall reading that this recommendation was for typical usage, comfort, performance, fuel economy and idea weight distribution? But if I were to tow or make any modifications to expected usage (ie: towing or roof boxes) to re-evaluate it for the circumstances. But I don't recall reading a recommended alternative.
The system occasionally shows it doesn't expect to be Calgary climate at times. It's constantly warning me that the temps are below 3C when I start up. I constantly get a "charge battery" recommendation if it's -20C and below, even if it has been fully topped up via trickle charge. (Although the battery is apparently the original to the vehicle, but I've had multiple mechanics say it's still performing to required spec and doesn't need replacement).
I'm assuming I'm OK doing 35-39psi vs 36 even for the winter, even in snow storms and slushy/icy road conditions. I assumed the tire pressure on 4 identical tires with relatively identical wear wouldn't be automatically something weird like having the two grippy tires in front and two bald in the back during winter debate, due to the tire pressure and the abilities of the AWD systems. 36C even has this weird ####ty bubble feeling that reminds me of the lifeless Camry I used to drive. 35/39 is fun.
Aside from vehicle weight distribution, there's definitely an element of cornering / handling that is considered, too. Higher pressures in the rear versus the front will contribute to understeer versus oversteer, which is preferred in the general population as it is considered the safer of the two -- though I say that's because our driver training sucks, we don't teach people how recover from loss of control or oversteer.
Immediate thought was "I kind of want to play Burnout Revenge", reminding me of one of the cars in the game.
But then I watched Harry's Garage and he mentioned 'Gotham' and it hit me... the Batmobile from Batman - The Animated Series.
Spoiler!
It's a design concept and apparently we won't see the real deal for another year, but I really, really want manufacturers to stop using cameras to replace rear-view mirrors. The way the eye has to re-focus when using a rear-view screen in a mirror housing kind of sucks ass. Otherwise, I'm interested to see what they actually come out with.
Aside from vehicle weight distribution, there's definitely an element of cornering / handling that is considered, too. Higher pressures in the rear versus the front will contribute to understeer versus oversteer, which is preferred in the general population as it is considered the safer of the two -- though I say that's because our driver training sucks, we don't teach people how recover from loss of control or oversteer.
This is what I'd love to know though. Naive tire physics for the BMW in question:
- RWD car
- Fairly even weight distribution
- Higher pressure in rear = smaller contact patch, less grip
- Lower pressure in front = larger contact patch, more grip
Doesn't that actually create more oversteer? Is this setup to make the car feel sportier? I can't wrap my head around it.
I would love a BMW engineer who knows exactly what this achieves to chime in, but I'm doubting we have one of those in the house.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
I don't know where Jag went wrong with their previous design structure. Was it build quality? Because the type F is a masterpiece in design. The F-pace I think was the most accessible European SUV, the SE had potential and then they just kind of let it twist in the wind and die. I felt like they had a good foundation for a 3 series fighter with the SE, but they gave up.
Maybe they think the neuvo riche market is ripe for the plucking and are going to make frilly EV cruisers moving forward.
I'm not going to mock Jaguar for this new direction change but I'm gonna miss the F type era. It had beauty and hope for the brand.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
The Following User Says Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
I don't know where Jag went wrong with their previous design structure. Was it build quality? Because the type F is a masterpiece in design. The F-pace I think was the most accessible European SUV, the SE had potential and then they just kind of let it twist in the wind and die. I felt like they had a good foundation for a 3 series fighter with the SE, but they gave up.
Maybe they think the neuvo riche market is ripe for the plucking and are going to make frilly EV cruisers moving forward.
I'm not going to mock Jaguar for this new direction change but I'm gonna miss the F type era. It had beauty and hope for the brand.
F-Type was amazing, but the rest of the Jaguar line was kind of a boring 'meh' fest in terms of appearance.
Let's take the XJ(R), which has been dead for a few years now.
2009 and prior...
Spoiler!
... and the 2010-2019 model that ended it.
Spoiler!
It's hard to fathom the same company built both cars, nevermind that they're a year apart and supposed to be representing the same model.
Jags got kind of generic looking once they were sold to Tata with Land Rover in 2009. While LR's brand and design got stronger, Jag's direction suffered, IMO. XK stagnated and Jaguar left the sports GT market. I loved the XFR for what it was, but the reality is that if you look at the 2007 XF (X250) and the 2024 XF (X260), they barely look any different.
The F-Pace was a nice drive. I had an F-Pace R-Dynamic S as a loaner when my RR was getting a new windshield, and I went in to test drive the 2020 F-Pace SVR, bloody great car. But if I didn't know anything about cars, I don't think anything about them would have stood out. There was something lacking there.
I'm hoping when all is said and done, Jag is making some really amazing cars. I just always saw them as a Mercedes and BMW fighter, not a Bentley competitor.
To each their own... I had a 2012 XJR when it was near-new and absolutely loved it for the short time I had it... The looks were distinctive, and the interior was warm and inviting relative to the teutonic sterility that the Germans were doing at the time (my preceding car was a B7, so I had a good feel for both)... The car deserved to be more successful than it was.
I think Tata was the worst thing to happen to Jaguar... The brand didn't suit the push into mass-market segments that the investment from Tata required... I don't know how it would have worked, but the best thing that could have happened to Jag would have been to be folded into another large group (i.e. VW) where they could share some platforms and retain / leverage their niche as the builder of "connoisseurs" sedans, roadsters and coupes, with a lineup consisting of the XJ, XK, F-type and maybe (maybe!) a mid-size sedan... Somehow it feels like it would have been perfectly sensible if Jaguar was the last manufacturer standing that didn't build an SUV.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
This is what I'd love to know though. Naive tire physics for the BMW in question:
- RWD car
- Fairly even weight distribution
- Higher pressure in rear = smaller contact patch, less grip
- Lower pressure in front = larger contact patch, more grip
Doesn't that actually create more oversteer? Is this setup to make the car feel sportier? I can't wrap my head around it.
I would love a BMW engineer who knows exactly what this achieves to chime in, but I'm doubting we have one of those in the house.
I wonder if there's a difference in a vehicle behaving in a way that "feels" sportier to the average consumer vs "performing" sportier to a high skill racing driver. Some might assume they're the same at the lower and higher levels of driving, but perhaps it's possible they're not?
I have pride in my skills as a driver, but I honestly would say I don't really know the difference between over/understeer. Stability, fish tailing, power slides... I am absolutely able to note those observations. I assume these are just some of the lower levels that contribute before a set of several situational things are combined together into an over/understeer scenario analysis/evaluation.
After tweaking the tire pressure yesterday, the vehicle seems more stable/less floaty in a straight line, more sporty/responsive, and the back swings out a little easier and seems slightly easier to control/accelerate through when turning. Hell, the back feels like an anchor pulling the vehicle straighter and the front doesn't really have a moment of wobble when braking. Whether this continues translating towards improved performance in a racing level situation, I don't know. But as a consumer who has a pretty good level of observation, I'd say I notice a difference in improved control when attempting more aggressive maneuvers at lower speeds. Power slides so far seem easier to do and more fun, as are 180 degree ish turns on snow.
I'll probably try to practice more lower speed power slides on the snow to better confirm how the vehicle handles in those situations, but as far as I can tell, the vehicle at 35/39 seems more stable and capable of evasive maneuvers than 35/35. But... this is also an AWD vehicle, not a RWD. Things could be totally different than what I notice with RWD.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
Interiors on those XJs was definitely an improvement over the previous generation, and yes, I would expect the design would still feel distinctive just two years in. But at some point, I feel like design in the industry evolved in the same direction, and the XJ didn't look 'different' any more.
I also agree that Jag should have left SUVs to LR and focused on niche segments, as you mention. Then again, when even Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, and bloody Ferrari start building goddamned SUVs, it's hard to say "We'll pass." Hell, even Lotus and McLaren have SUV models in the works. LOTUS! The brand whose founder's key design principle was 'simplify, and add lightness'.
Interiors on those XJs was definitely an improvement over the previous generation, and yes, I would expect the design would still feel distinctive just two years in. But at some point, I feel like design in the industry evolved in the same direction, and the XJ didn't look 'different' any more.
I also agree that Jag should have left SUVs to LR and focused on niche segments, as you mention. Then again, when even Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, and bloody Ferrari start building goddamned SUVs, it's hard to say "We'll pass." Hell, even Lotus and McLaren have SUV models in the works. LOTUS! The brand whose founder's key design principle was 'simplify, and add lightness'.
You could tell that Jaguar was giving up on the XJ and not investing in updates, etc. I still think they look distinctively elegant today, but again, to each their own.
Agreed that everyone's doing the SUV thing, but that's why I thought Jag's best bet would have been to be swallowed up as a smaller cog in a giant machine, allowing them to retain their unique-ness.... Oh what could have been (which I think we can all agree is better than what we have!)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
Man, the automotive industry is wild with things right now. Everyone's looking at Jaguars marketing change and kind of turning their heads away at the fact Nissan is likely shutting their doors in March, Stellantis is collapsing and Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler might be gone as early as q1 of 2025 as well.
I can't imagine a world where 1 of the big 3 American car makers dies. Dodge really effed up by not being the last V8 at the table like they should have been.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
LOTUS! The brand whose founder's key design principle was 'simplify, and add lightness'.
