Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NewsFeeder

Jalopnik: Jaguar Pusses Out Of Jalopnik Vs. GM Race [Jalopnik Vs GM]

28 posts in this topic

500x_locat_4.jpgJaguar PR just called saying they've withdrawn their pledge to let Wes race the XFR Thursday against GM's Bob Lutz in a Cadillac CTS-V. Apparently, not because they're afraid to lose, they're afraid the XFR just can't take it. Pussies.

It's true. Stuart Schorr, Jaguar's main product PR man, told us flat out he expected the XFR would lose to the CTS-V, so it's not that he's afraid to lose to "Maximum" Bob Lutz.

Instead, they're afraid the XFR can't handle the strain. Specifically, the brakes. Without better brake cooling, Schorr tells us his folks are concerned the XFR just cant put the necessary laps in.

So what does this mean for us? Well, it means we're still racing Lutz — except now, since Mercedes and now Jaguar weren't willing to stand by their product for five laps in a time attack race versus the CTS-V, we're beginning to believe the CTS-V is the only production luxury sedan on the market wiling to stand by its lofty claims of performance cred. So we'll race against Lutz using his own CTS-V — and probably the Evo we'll drive up there in.

Unless, of course, some other automaker's less feline than those we've already tried. Any automaker want to put their fast four-door where their mouth is — e-mail me.

di
di

full?d=H0mrP-F8Qgo full?d=yIl2AUoC8zA full?i=z5Uov_U-hZA:DjXG7fAM_co:D7DqB2pKE full?i=z5Uov_U-hZA:DjXG7fAM_co:V_sGLiPBp
z5Uov_U-hZA

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, SNAP. What will smk say? Straight from Jag's mouth: Cadillac CTS-V is a better performance car.

I missed why Benz chickened out, I'd love to know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for Jaguar's "return to greatness."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge mistake on Jaguar's part!

...and maybe on Jalopnik's.

You have to question their logic in calling Jaguar the "P" word.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it was a perfect setup... pussy = cat, jaguar = cat. It's beautiful and it fits.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's ugly, but why don't they try to get a Panamera to race against the Cadillac?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see it go up against the Caddy. IIRC it's the sedan that finally beat the CTS-V around the `Ring.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it's ugly, but why don't they try to get a Panamera to race against the Cadillac?

I don't know who said it, but I quote:

"If it takes Porsche $60k more to beat the CTS-V using the Panamera Turbo... then I say 'Mission Accomplished'"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it was a perfect setup... pussy = cat, jaguar = cat. It's beautiful and it fits.

I agree, and it made me laugh.

But I doubt Jalopnik will have any friends at Jaguar any more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know who said it, but I quote:

"If it takes Porsche $60k more and a flogging with the ugly stick to beat the CTS-V using the Panamera Turbo... then I say 'Mission Accomplished'"

Fixed :AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know who said it, but I quote:

"If it takes Porsche $60k more to beat the CTS-V using the Panamera Turbo... then I say 'Mission Accomplished'"

By that logic, if it takes Cadillac $20k more to beat the Holden Maloo-Bathurst-HSV-Waltzing-supercharged-Matilda-whatever using the CTS-V... :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By that logic, if it takes Cadillac $20k more to beat the Holden Maloo-Bathurst-HSV-Waltzing-supercharged-Matilda-whatever using the CTS-V... :lol:

And by that logic, Evos have beat Corvettes before....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car and Driver just tested these cars, the Jaguar has better braking than the CTS-V and E63, and tied the CTS-V in 0-60 and 0-100 time. The E63 had the best acceleration. I doubt the Jaguar would have won, but they should have tried anyway. The problem with the XFR in races like this, is it is built for luxury first and sport second, it is a softer car than the AMG and M models. But its weakness in racing, could be a strength for people that want a sports car that is calm and soft when they their looney toons headgear off to quote Clarkson. The XFR is way too heavy though, the aluminum chassis is needed badly on that car.

The Porsche Panamera turbo would beat all these cars though. 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, 11.7 second 1/4 mile, 193 mph top speed, those are GT-R type numbers.

Personally, the Jag is my favorite, it looks the best inside and out. I don't care if it is slower, just like I'd take an XK over a 6-series or 911 any day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And by that logic, Evos have beat Corvettes before....

and they used one to beat up on a lambo on top gear too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Car and Driver just tested these cars, the Jaguar has better braking than the CTS-V and E63, and tied the CTS-V in 0-60 and 0-100 time. The E63 had the best acceleration. I doubt the Jaguar would have won, but they should have tried anyway. The problem with the XFR in races like this, is it is built for luxury first and sport second, it is a softer car than the AMG and M models. But its weakness in racing, could be a strength for people that want a sports car that is calm and soft when they their looney toons headgear off to quote Clarkson. The XFR is way too heavy though, the aluminum chassis is needed badly on that car.

sometimes endurance counts as much as performance... at least thats what she said...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Car and Driver just tested these cars, the Jaguar has better braking than the CTS-V and E63, and tied the CTS-V in 0-60 and 0-100 time. The E63 had the best acceleration. I doubt the Jaguar would have won, but they should have tried anyway. The problem with the XFR in races like this, is it is built for luxury first and sport second, it is a softer car than the AMG and M models. But its weakness in racing, could be a strength for people that want a sports car that is calm and soft when they their looney toons headgear off to quote Clarkson. The XFR is way too heavy though, the aluminum chassis is needed badly on that car.

The Porsche Panamera turbo would beat all these cars though. 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, 11.7 second 1/4 mile, 193 mph top speed, those are GT-R type numbers.

Personally, the Jag is my favorite, it looks the best inside and out. I don't care if it is slower, just like I'd take an XK over a 6-series or 911 any day.

So... just to be clear. It's ok to make excuses for Jaguar, but not Cadillac.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Car and Driver just tested these cars, the Jaguar has better braking than the CTS-V and E63, and tied the CTS-V in 0-60 and 0-100 time. The E63 had the best acceleration. I doubt the Jaguar would have won, but they should have tried anyway. The problem with the XFR in races like this, is it is built for luxury first and sport second, it is a softer car than the AMG and M models. But its weakness in racing, could be a strength for people that want a sports car that is calm and soft when they their looney toons headgear off to quote Clarkson. The XFR is way too heavy though, the aluminum chassis is needed badly on that car.

The Porsche Panamera turbo would beat all these cars though. 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, 11.7 second 1/4 mile, 193 mph top speed, those are GT-R type numbers.

Personally, the Jag is my favorite, it looks the best inside and out. I don't care if it is slower, just like I'd take an XK over a 6-series or 911 any day.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but reading through every review shows the CTS-V outperforms the XF-R in every way, including braking (with the CTS-V consistently outbraking the Jag by 3-4 feet) and acceleration. Even C&D's review of the XF-R says this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Car and Driver just tested these cars, the Jaguar has better braking than the CTS-V and E63, and tied the CTS-V in 0-60 and 0-100 time. The E63 had the best acceleration. I doubt the Jaguar would have won, but they should have tried anyway. The problem with the XFR in races like this, is it is built for luxury first and sport second, it is a softer car than the AMG and M models. But its weakness in racing, could be a strength for people that want a sports car that is calm and soft when they their looney toons headgear off to quote Clarkson. The XFR is way too heavy though, the aluminum chassis is needed badly on that car.

The Porsche Panamera turbo would beat all these cars though. 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, 11.7 second 1/4 mile, 193 mph top speed, those are GT-R type numbers.

Personally, the Jag is my favorite, it looks the best inside and out. I don't care if it is slower, just like I'd take an XK over a 6-series or 911 any day.

because brakes that might not hold up contributes to a softer car?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew smk would make up excuses. If this were the Cadillac he would call it inferior.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaguar admitted the CTS-V is the better car and backed out. No excuse from smk can explain that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jag isn't as much of a racer as the CTS-V or M5, but it beats both in styling and interior. A Mitsubishi Evo can beat a CTS V6 around a track, is the Evo a better overall car than the CTS? Jaguar never claimed their car was the fastest sedan, style and luxury are their top priorities.

I got my numbers from the Dec. 2009 Car and Driver. CTS-V and Jag both did 0-60 in 4.3, 0-100 in 9.5, and 1/4 mile in 12.6 seconds. The Merc was slightly faster. In 70-0 braking, the Jag was 160 feet, CTS-V, 162 ft, and the Merc was 168 ft. The XFR had the lowest skidpad at .88 g, the E63 had the highest at .92 g.

I take issue with the CTS-V's ad that says it is the fastest V8 sedan in the world, because the Panamera does 0-60 in 3.3 seconds and has a top speed of 193 mph, which are both faster than the CTS-V.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaguar admitted the CTS-V is the better car and backed out. No excuse from smk can explain that.

So what if Jaguar were to challenge Cadillac to a luxury features and interior materials contest with the XJ? Cadillac would back out. Jaguar does some things really well, and some things not as well as other brands. Although, I wished the XFR was in this race, because I think it would be close.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0