Jaguar F-Pace Forum banner
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So my 3.0d S just spent some time at the dealer for the Topix notices (ICTP 2.5, rear spring, coolant check) and a re-alignment of the bonnet... whilst it was in, I asked them to investigate a smell I noticed when giving it some welly - turns out that the front drive unit was leaking from the pinion input seal, I am guessing that it only occurred when I stuck my foot down and the ASI distributes torque to the front wheels. Anyway, all back now with a completely new front drive unit (the whole thing was replaced).

My courtesy car was a 2.0d Portfolio for a week which gave me an interesting insight and comparison to my 3.0d S which I thought I would share (before the Portfolio, I was in a loan XE 2.0d R-Sport for a few days):

The XE was a nasty step down from my 3.0d S - of course, it's a totally different car but my oh my did it feel rough and rattly compared to my F Pace! I was astonished by the difference... and then I took over the 2.0d Portfolio F Pace which confirmed that the F Pace is a big step up. I'm not bashing the XE as it isn't a bad car but I was surprised by the level of improvement the F Pace offered over the XE.

The Portfolio F Pace had the standard InControl whatsit whereas my FP has the ICTP - I am so glad I paid for the ICTP! Going back to the standard version really highlighted how clunky and dated it is, I even missed my digital instrument cluster display! As an aside, I didn't really have the ICTP issues others have experienced - I had the odd glitch but nothing too problematic. The upgrade has definitely made the system much smoother and quicker to respond.

The Portfolio also had a pano roof - I nearly spec'd a pano roof on mine and am glad that I saved my money as I genuinely couldn't tell the difference between 'with pano' and 'without pano' from the driver's seat. Mrs Matt has a pano on her mini and it's great as the driver really benefits but the a-pillars are much more upright on a mini so the pano roof reaches over the drivers head.

Suspension - big difference here. I hadn't appreciated how much smoother the active suspension on the S is compared to the passive suspension set up - the Portfolio felt stiffer but not in a racey way, it was stiffer in a more brittle way (hard to describe) - the S is much more refined. Again, no surprises but I hadn't appreciated how much smoother the active suspension set up is. Interestingly, the Portfolio had the rear suspension creak (it was first registered Jun'16) - I feel for you guys that have suffered this, it sounds awful!!!

Engine - 2.0d v 3.0d is not a fair competition but I found it very interesting to note that the mpg on my like-for-like daily commute and weekend journeys was only 3-5mpg better in the 2.0d! I find that astonishing!!!!! I'm talking about general pootling about here, not flooring it on the open, winding roads ;) . I also noticed how 'laboured' and noisy the 2.0d felt compared to the 3.0d - the 2.0d can of course keep up with traffic and overtake when needed etc but, for me, the excitement was missing. The 3.0d is so refined and effortless by comparison.

Overall, I found the 2.0d Portfolio a nice enough car - stepping up from the XE reminded me of that but, for me, wrapping up the whole package of the 3.0d S with it's super smooth torque, delightful engine note, active suspension and ICTP, the difference was like night and day - it's a thrill to drive my 3.0d S and I missed it immensely for the 269 hours that we were apart! I nearly ordered a 2.0d R Sport F Pace with lots of extras but I ended up taking most of those extras off and spending the money on the S. Different needs for different drivers but if, like me, you really appreciate a spirited drive, the 3.0d won't let you down :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
Good post and some very good points and observations.
I've tried the other version (2.0 litre twice - not for long) - the feel of the engine, lack of response, noise clunkiness of engine and suspension is a world away from the 3 litres. (The petrol I find superior to diesel in many regards except that lovely torque and higher speed cruising and of course way better MPG)

The standard infotainment feels very old school and small with that horrible surround making it look a bit chunky and basic. The Pro really is a sleek nice big piece of kit and a huge boost to the overall pleasure of the car. (Yes there are a few problems but I feel it's getting there at last)

The 2 litre isn't a bad car but is very different despite all It's similarities
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
I don't think it's fair to compare them. There's a massive difference in price and I think the 2.0d sits more comfortably amoung its peers than the V6 models. As a £40k ish car I don't think anything touches it. As a £65k car some of the cost savings look a bit out of place and you're knocking on the door of some seriously well put together competitors. I think your SC stands alone and could be judged good value. I think the 3.0d is overpriced. The engine is a little long in the tooth but still a great unit. They've played a crafty game by creating a new segment between an X3 and an X5 (or Q5 and Q7) and just about got away with it.

Every time I think I spent too much money though I just take it for a blast and stop worrying about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Having spent no time in a 2.0d FP, I cannot compare, but I know two things. The XE was really not nice at all, in fact I had an extended test drive and took it back early, to then try an XF, which I found was still not on a par with my 3 year old 520d MSport....then I tried the 3.0d F-Pace, it was instant, the looks, the power, the handling, all of a sudden I couldn't bring myself to sign for my new 535d paperwork...even with my issues, I love it, I love the demo FP I have had for two weeks as well, in fact we have bonded extremely well on late night fast runs home ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
From my own extensive test drives I think you have summed up the difference between the adaptive and passive suspension perfectly.

The engine is more complex. I agree with JLR#5, there's a big price difference in the UK between the two engines. Against all of the other 4cyl, two litre diesels I think the F-pace is a compelling proposition.

Step up to a V6 and your choices diminish considerably. BMW X4, X3, Porsche Macan, Cayenne, Audi Q5, Maserati Levante or Mercedes GLC. Some look nice but are really expensive while some just look dull...... and then there's the Macan which is plain ugly. BTW, ever sat in the back of an X4? I have and your knees are twisted up at a funny angle because BMW dropped the rear seats to prevent your head from hitting the roof, just.

The 3.0 V6 versions of the F-pace are amazing but they don't come cheap.

Regards,

Arianne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
Extremely pleased that you two were condescending enough, having torn the 2L to bits, to at least proclaim that it's not a bad car. Please bear in mind that cost, usually associated with upmarketness(sic), is not the only reason that people choose a specific gendre of a type of motor car. There were umpteen reasons why I, for example, did not consider the 3 version, petrol or otherwise, and neither cost nor assumed upmarketness(sic) entered my mind for a moment. I could have paid the cost of my version twice over had it been necessary but it wasn't and, this may surprise someone like you two, but it does everything I wanted it to do. There is nothing, legally in this country, that any other version of the F Pace can do that my version can't. I can wind it up to 70 MPH, the maximum permitted speed limit, and I can get it to overtake when it is safe to do so without making a heck of a racket and leaving a trail of vapour, impolitely, in the wake of the overtaken vehicle. :mrgreen:

I am quite experienced at tackling those who perceive that their choice of vehicle must be proclaimed superior to those of a lesser spec having seen it on just about every car blog I've ever read or subscribed to. Remind me not to wave to passing 3L drivers in future. :roll

Edited: the two I am refering to above are matt and badger. :evil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Agree with all of the above - I don't think I fully appreciated what a completely different experience the two variants offer. It's not simply a case of the S being a faster F Pace - the whole package is greater than the sum of its parts..... but, as has been said, it comes at a cost!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Yorkie, I know your comment isn't aimed at me, however I just wanted to mention, that for the past six years, I have had two new 520d 5 series BM's and they had been perfectly adequate, and fun.
The FP is however a heavier vehicle, and as I said I have no experience of the 2.0d in it, but as above, I expect it is perfectly adequate, I just fancied a bit more oomph after trying my friends 3.0d Vogue RR and fancying a change, no one upmanship on my part mate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
YORKIE said:
Extremely pleased that you two were condescending enough, having torn the 2L to bits, to at least proclaim that it's not a bad car. Please bear in mind that cost, usually associated with upmarketness(sic), is not the only reason that people choose a specific gendre of a type of motor car. There were umpteen reasons why I, for example, did not consider the 3 version, petrol or otherwise, and neither cost nor assumed upmarketness(sic) entered my mind for a moment. I could have paid the cost of my version twice over had it been necessary but it wasn't and, this may surprise someone like you two, but it does everything I wanted it to do. There is nothing, legally in this country, that any other version of the F Pace can do that my version can't. I can wind it up to 70 MPH, the maximum permitted speed limit, and I can get it to overtake when it is safe to do so without make a heck of a racket and leaving a trail of vapour, impolitely, in the wake of the overtaken vehicle. :mrgreen:

I am quite experienced at tackling those who perceive that their choice of vehicle must be proclaimed superior to those of a lesser spec having seen it on just about every car blog I've ever read or subscribed to. Remind me not to wave to passing 3L drivers in future. :roll

Edited: the two I am refering to above are matt and badger. :evil:
Apologies there Yorkie, no offence meant to anyone - not bashing anything. Sorry you feel that way and certainly don't think anything was 'torn to bits'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
F-Pace S said:
Yorkie, I know your comment isn't aimed at me, however I just wanted to mention, that for the past six years, I have had two new 520d 5 series BM's and they had been perfectly adequate, and fun.
The FP is however a heavier vehicle, and as I said I have no experience of the 2.0d in it, but as above, I expect it is perfectly adequate, I just fancied a bit more oomph after trying my friends 3.0d Vogue RR and fancying a change, no one upmanship on my part mate
In that case you are not on my don't wave list. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
I think the most sensible spec on here is Jagscat's. He went for the RWD 2.0d manual in R Sport trim. Looks every bit as gorgeous as a version £20k more and with the weight difference by lopping off a couple of cylinders, the AWD and the auto box has the best handling too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
I'm currently in the 2.0 disco sport and I despise the engine. For a heavy car like the DS or the FP you need the torque to carry the weight. I have driven the 2.0 FP and found it to have the same problem. Yorkie, I'm sure nobody was doubting your ability to fund the more expensive car but I find it strange, personally, why anybody would pay for what is less of a car when they have the capability to buy the better more expensive one. You say that you don't need that extra power as the limit is only 70 mph but when someone finds the self in a sticky situation and need to get past another car, or you really want to catch that green light, even accelerating away from the lights up to the 30 mph limit in a town, I am going to get to my destination before you.

Clearly, for me, this is all irrelevant as I am posted to Germany and have access to the mighty autobahn!!! :twisted: :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
YORKIE said:
Extremely pleased that you two were condescending enough, having torn the 2L to bits, to at least proclaim that it's not a bad car. Please bear in mind that cost, usually associated with upmarketness(sic), is not the only reason that people choose a specific gendre of a type of motor car. There were umpteen reasons why I, for example, did not consider the 3 version, petrol or otherwise, and neither cost nor assumed upmarketness(sic) entered my mind for a moment. I could have paid the cost of my version twice over had it been necessary but it wasn't and, this may surprise someone like you two, but it does everything I wanted it to do. There is nothing, legally in this country, that any other version of the F Pace can do that my version can't. I can wind it up to 70 MPH, the maximum permitted speed limit, and I can get it to overtake when it is safe to do so without making a heck of a racket and leaving a trail of vapour, impolitely, in the wake of the overtaken vehicle. :mrgreen:

I am quite experienced at tackling those who perceive that their choice of vehicle must be proclaimed superior to those of a lesser spec having seen it on just about every car blog I've ever read or subscribed to. Remind me not to wave to passing 3L drivers in future. :roll

Edited: the two I am refering to above are matt and badger. :evil:
Don't think it's condescending at all. It's just partially fact and partially opinion. If both cars were 35k then nearly every single person would have a 3L variant and probably ICTP Pro if they were sure it was all working.
I've driven the 2 litre and my opinion is it's vastly inferior on a number of areas and feels very different to drive.

There is a huge price difference so it's not unexpected there is a difference. Nobody is looking down and it's not about how much money somebody has OR wants to spend it's about comparing the cars and for me the 2.0 was not a nice experience.
I also was given a loan entry level XF when my 5 yo portfolio XF was in for service. In theory I should have liked the newer car with newer interior and tech but I found it very average to drive. I hated the smaller engine and jumping up and down the gear range. Now this was a car worth twice as much as my old XF but my old XF beat it hands down for driving at 30mph or getting to,any speed fast.

Just my opinion and I'd feel cheated spending 40Kfor the 2litre non ICTP spec rather than 62K on my version. Others will think the 62K is way overpriced and utterly useless for them personally.
I've always actually looked if I have a budget to buy the upper end second hand rather than buying the lower end nearly new as I look for certain things.
Again this is the beauty of spending your money how you choose and having an opinion - I think it's still allowed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Mbadger77 said:
Don't think it's condescending at all. It's just partially fact and partially opinion. If both cars were 35k then nearly every single person would have a 3L variant and probably ICTP Pro if they were sure it was all working.
I've driven the 2 litre and my opinion is it's vastly inferior on a number of areas and feels very different to drive.

There is a huge price difference so it's not unexpected there is a difference. Nobody is looking down and it's not about how much money somebody has OR wants to spend it's about comparing the cars and for me the 2.0 was not a nice experience.
I also was given a loan entry level XF when my 5 yo portfolio XF was in for service. In theory I should have liked the newer car with newer interior and tech but I found it very average to drive. I hated the smaller engine and jumping up and down the gear range. Now this was a car worth twice as much as my old XF but my old XF beat it hands down for driving at 30mph or getting to,any speed fast.

Just my opinion and I'd feel cheated spending 40Kfor the 2litre non ICTP spec rather than 62K on my version. Others will think the 62K is way overpriced and utterly useless for them personally.
I've always actually looked if I have a budget to buy the upper end second hand rather than buying the lower end nearly new as I look for certain things.
Again this is the beauty of spending your money how you choose and having an opinion - I think it's still allowed
Well said mate, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. If you don't want to spend the extra money then you will get less of a car. For example, I would rather spend £25k on a tenth hand, twenty year old Ford Capri with nothing but wheels connected to an engine by a steel pipe than a brand new entry level Ford Edge.

If you enjoy driving and a car is not just a thing to you then at no point will the make do attitude be enough. I want a car that puts a smile on my face every time I get in it (The DS does but only when im off roaming in it) not one which will do until I find the next cart horse to carry my shopping in. A car is part of the family, it is such an important part of your life that why wouldn't it be the best one you could get?

P.S. I imagine this has successfully got me on the don't wave list :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
What point are you trying to make to all us F-Pace owners? Don't you think we are all aware of the differences between the 2 cars? Of course if I had the money I would have bought the 3L version probably like most of the 2L owners on this forum.
Anyways in the spirit of a forum from one Jag owner to another enjoy your 3L F-Pace...maybe in 2018 I will compare the iPace with your F-Pace :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I wasn't trying to make a point - I am surprised by how some of this thread has kicked off TBH but then there seems to be more of that going on with this forum these days :roll: I was simply sharing experiences as I know how useful I found other people's views when making my choices at the beginning of the year - just giving a little back to a forum that I once found a very useful resource for information and different perspectives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
I selected the 2.0d purely on cost, there is nothing in either 3.0 versions that I valued at £9k (in June) extra that I had to have. I've had cars with 3.0 & bigger engines, I just don't need it anymore. I find the comment about a noisy 2.0d odd, but then again this is probably Jaguar build issues, the engine in my car is really quiet, so much so that I thought it wasn't running (I turn off the stop/start 99% of the time as its rubbish in car parks and the like) on occasions, its a gem.

Fully expect the 3.0 to wipe the floor on performance, I admit the economy of the 2.0d is disappointing, but it is improving. I suspect I have a tight engine which is just going to get better and better in time. I'm not knocking anyone's choice of car/spec/engine that's as unique as we are, just enjoy.

I do agree the 2.0 in XE and XF seems poor, but again, I think I've just got a quiet one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,228 Posts
I went from three V8 supercharged (4.2 & 5.0) cars to a 2.0 4 cylinder petrol Evoque. I thought I would miss the performance, but on most journeys I really didn't. Yes there were times when I missed the burble of the V8 and the effortless overtaking. I certainly didn't miss the fuel bill, the insurance, or the servicing costs.

This time around my demands changed as we are house hunting in the south-west of france and will be travelling between there and London, so the 3.0d made perfect sense, if not I probably would have considered the 2.0d. Certainly when I drove it in the Disco Sport I thought it had plenty of poke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
MyNameIsMatt said:
I wasn't trying to make a point - I am surprised by how some of this thread has kicked off TBH but then there seems to be more of that going on with this forum these days :roll: I was simply sharing experiences as I know how useful I found other people's views when making my choices at the beginning of the year - just giving a little back to a forum that I once found a very useful resource for information and different perspectives.
I suppose some Jag owners are a bit touchy now and again, probably I read your feedback about the 2L in the wrong way. I did test drive the 3L and yes I totally agree with your comparison. I had my heart set on the first edition in blue but alas my situation would not allow me so I settled for the younger brother. Totally love the car and proud of owning a Jag...I had an F-Type and I love the quote from another F-Type owner on the forum I was with:

Its not how fast you go, its how you go fast.

For me its sums up Jaguar cars. :D
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top