As already said, lets think outside the box for a second here, and clarify a few things while we're at it.

The z06 is rated i believe 17/25, maybe 24hwy. The base vette is 18/26.(anyone correct me if im wrong). To these companies, 25 vs 30 mpg is a HUUUUGE difference. Food for thought: the zr1 was rated 20mpg hwy because of its fairly aggressive trans gearing. To get their extra bonus points, GM has made the "regular" m6 6 speed the zr1's transmission since 2011 and made its original gearing optional included in the zr1 performance pack. This bumped its hwy up to 22mpg and I forget what city rose to, thereby avoiding the gas guzzler tax. Possibly the biggest loop hole in EPA ratings is that they don't include different mpg ratings for when you add options to a car. Makes sense since those HID headlights obviously don't change what kind of gas you get right? However because of that, a new mustang gt that comes with 3.31 rear, is rated the same as one with optional 3.73 rear. Now that the original zr1 trans gearing is optional it doesn't count against its mpg rating weather you order it or not. That's how important 2 mpg is. Which btw, the new 7 speed would probably only bump it up by about 2. After all, the vette almost idles along doing 65 mph. You can only drop the rpms so much till something has to give.

Also, although I have driven in neither the new m3(drove the older one) nor a new 3 series, I invite you yo drive a 400hp modded 335i and then the m3. The much better power band of the twin turbo (or twin scroll single turbo)6, would put the m3 in its place. Check video's on youtube. I can almost guarantee there are videos of said race, where the m3 gets left behind. Who cares about the m3's crazy 8400rpm redline, when from idle to 7500 rpm's a turbo 6 make more torque and hp. Plus with 290ish lb ft, the only reason the m3 is as quick as it is is because of crazy quick gearing which means it eats gas. This low torque, crazy rpm's and hp is how ferrari goes about things, only they don't give a flying fuss about mpg's untill last few years. They can sacrifice 2mpg, GM can't.

 

I've always loved the look of the Vantage V8, but that C-X16 concept makes it look a tad dated. If the Jag actually goes into production looking like that I may very well choose it over the C7 if the Jalopnik renderings are accurate.

 

Saw it at the LA Auto Show....that is one gorgeous car!!

It is definitely competition along with the way over-priced Porsche 911. It will be priced probably around $80K and don't be surprised if a loaded C7 Coupe costs around $80K IMO.

If GM comes out with a breathtaking interior in the C7 for about $20K lower than the 911 then I hope all the car magazines will finally have the ***** to expose Porsche as what it is....fine cars but way over-priced cars that have master marketing that give perception of value!

 

That give "perception of value"?? I'd offer that it's not "perception" at all.

 

3500 lbs and 375 hp? not competition for the C7.

 

I'm only 23, but especially lately, I've grown to view Porsche for what they really are as well... one of the best damn sports car builders ever. They truly are the the best of the exotic big 3. Other then the astronomically priced Carrera gt, there cars have grown to be monsters. 599gto, murcielago SV (sp?), or gt2? Without a doubt the gt2. And when comparing prices to their more mainstream cars, 599gtb, Aventador, or turbo S the price of the turbo S humiliates the others. Expensive compared to a base vette? Yeah but I'm interested to see what the new, larger 911 does. They are expensive, but compared to a base c6(which isn't even compared any more in the mags you notice? They always pick at least the grandsport) the new carrera and carrera S may not exactly be rip offs.

Would I like an lambo SV over any Porsche? You bet, but when it comes to performance, Porsche are expensive, but both them and Corvette still undercut their competition by a lot.

 

The specs say 380hp with a 95hp electric motor as well and 0-60 times of around 4 seconds. I'd say that's competition for the C7.

 

The base price of a 2012 Carrera S is $82,100 while a 2012 GT-R is $89,950. Leave all the arguments about looks, Japan vs. Germany, etc. out of it and just concentrate on performance. On that basis, the GT-R is still probably the best bang for the buck car in history.

 

i WILL be surprised if any level of equipment trim on a coupe is 80k. maybe a fully loaded vert gets up to 65ish, but from everything i have been reading, there is nothing coming with this C7 that gives GM a rationale for increasing the price 1.6 times over. think you're off on this one.

 

Actually, no, that's the (notably slower) base Carrera.
The Carrera S starts at $96k. $97,350.00 (with destination) to be exact.

 

Honestly, I would not own a Porsche simply because of repair costs, regardless of how they drive. You have to consider repair & service costs as well is initial purchase price.

 

0-62 4.4 seconds and it's only good for 10 sec., given jags spotty rep with electrics I'm not sure I'd want to be a 1st or even 2nd year buyer.

 

It's just a guesstimate from me, we'll see how they'll price it. But isn't a fully loaded C6 coupe now over $70K?

 

a loaded to the hilt Grand Sport vert probably could get that high on the sticker. And certainly, a Z06 with an option or two will run around there. but your base coupes with Z51 and some other goodies can be had for under $55k around here *shrug*

anyway, i really hope your wrong about the pricing because that would change what i am looking at for my next sled

 

Performance: The Jag performance is very good. I want something exciting to drive, but it doesn't need to be a ZR1 / 911 Turbo / GT-R caliber competitor. I'm not driving on the track very often, I don't need or want a roll cage or 4 point harness in my car.

Style: The Jag (and the Aston for it's similarities) are refined, stylish and sexy looking sports cars. The Jag interior on the XK-R is elegant, with expensive looking materials. They build a great looking car. We haven't seen the C7 yet.

Distinctive: The Jag is a distinctive looking car, and I see fewer on the road than Corvettes. For me, that is a plus... except at the Corvette club meets.

Reliability: Jaguar has produced some of the most beautiful sports cars ever built, but they had a reputation for poor reliability. I know, it's not like GM or Corvette has a spotless reputation either! (I'm on CF so I see the ugly stuff, too.) My perception of Jag is admittedly dated, so I'll pull my head out of the sand and give them another look. Jag may have improved quality over the last decade, just like GM has improved. They must have improved. If Jag were as bad as some tell you, they'd have gone out of business decades ago with the other fallen Euro brands.

Service: If I lived in a small town in middle America, this might kill the Jag's chances. But, both Chevy & Jag dealers are located within 15 minutes. Buying new, I'll get a nice warranty to cover most costs. Also, specialty repair shops for Corvettes and foreign exotics like Jag are similar distances, about 15 minutes away.

Price: A Jag at ~$75K USD isn't far from the price I'd expect to pay for a loaded C7 GS 4LT.

Conclusion: Yes. For me, they are direct competition. And competition for my $$$ is a very good thing whatever I choose.

Cheers,
JB

 

Great post. I'm on vacation down in Naples, FL. right now and some of the XK-R models they have on display at the Jaguar dealership are absolutely stunning. They even have one of the rare XKR-S coupes in the showroom. Another thing that really impressed me is what a deep, growling exhaust note the XK-R has....sounds absolutely awesome. Can't wait to see how the C-X16 turns out.