Installshield

True...

I slightly remember a 1/4 mile time on a GT-2 in the low 11's.

reefruner5

have u guys seen the new Mclaren powered Lincoln LSE, looks awesome and is said that it will be an American competitor to the BMW M%, and the Jag and AMG Mercedes

kc5zom

I saw the review in Autoweek but I think I would rather have the German or British versions. I don't have the article anymore but I don't remember it being all that stellar a performer. Plus, I hate the stupid emblem they sewed on the seats. Double kiwi or something like that. I haven't had a chance to look (and don't really feel like it) but the M5 has been out for awhile now so I would not be surprised if one of the tuned AMG versions was able to take it.

Makaveli

Actually if I had 120,000$ I would get the X-Type out of all those cars and save the money. I mean really, if that's a luxury car, you won't be dragging on street lights. How fast do you want it to be anyways. I could live with a 6 seconds 0-100 km/h car hehe

Actually I might buy the M5 afterall....... but I'm just trying to say that they should work on making them a bit cheaper instead of faster.......

kc5zom

The X-Type is nice but it falls a little short as a traditional luxury car. A lot of people I know with more expensive cars find it a little too "Ford" for their tastes. But for less than 40k loaded I think I would buy one too. I like the looks (plus it has real wood something a lot of cars in that range do not). I kind of like the added safety of AWD.

On another topic I have been pondering. Dual supercharging from my opinion would not be very efficient. You are putting two large loads on the engines drive belts. That has got to be a huge power robber. I would rather have twin turbos.

kc5zom

Nope. But it gives good off the line performance. For anything less than a V8 I would turbocharge. With a V8 I'll stick with the superchargers (single). Reason there being the torque and horsepower arriving low on the V8. Why wait for a turbo to spool up and then just have to shift when it starts to get interesting? But Bentley seems to have good luck with their turbocharged V8 and the Lingenfelter (sp?) Corvettes are awesome.

Installshield

Supercharging is inefficiant compared Turbocharging, but it is still more efficiant at delivering air to the engine than the natural Vacuum created by the combustion chambers. Luxury/sport sedans and large coupes with V8's like these use supercharging becuase of the smoothness of how the power and boost is created. The boost increases with engine RPM I think so this would create a steady increase in power with no lag. These engines are for the most part huge, and don't need the radical increase of power that a turbo can create. Turbos are better for small, high revving engines like we have. For the same price a turbo would give you a bit more power than an SC because it runs off wasted energy, not off the engine's crankshaft.


And I would spend the extra $ on an M5, if you are going to spend around $65,000, why not spend 5 more and have the best riding and handling sedan ever created. I believe the only car in its class tuned by AMG is the E55, which did not take the M5. The BMW by the way has a 4.9L 400Hp N/A engine unlike that of the Jag and mercedes V8's in its class, which are S/C ed

Makaveli

Installshield, M5 starts at $70,000 US, while the X-Type starts at $30,000

That's a BIG difference

Thxbrett

Actually the fastest sedan ever made is a Lotus Carlton with a 3.6 liter twin turbo inline 6 making 377 horsepower. It has a top speed of 177 MPH and in a recent test against a new M5 it was quicker to 100MPH by 1 second and pulled away after that. Unfortunately this car was never offered for sale here in the U.S. The current Aussie HSV GTS is also pretty quick with 404 horsepower, but still a touch slower than the M5.

http://www.lotus-carlton.co.uk/

Brett.

kc5zom

Installshield, also the fact that the X-Type is meant as a competitor for the 3 series and not the 5 series. The S-Type is the 5 series competitor. Oh. And before anyone mentions the M3, Jaguar is planning an R version of the X-Type. Should be out soon.

kc5zom

I just read at this week's Autoweek and they had a review of the new Jaguar S-Type R. They state 0-60 in 5.3 seconds and the M5 does the same in 4.96. I have not been able to find anything that touches that so I guess I'll declare the M5 my winner on that (at least for cars sold in the US). My only question for Jaguar is why no manual? I bet a good 6 speed manual could have shaved some time off of that. Maybe bring it down around 5 flat. Oh well.

kc5zom

No. S-Type is RWD too. The X-Type is the first Jag to have AWD. Besides the acceleration advantage of AWD is short-lived. It only lasts until the time when the RWD is able to calm down its rear tires (stop giving the road a fresh coat of rubber). After that RWD is superior since you are not carrying around all the extra weight and inefficiency. Notice that when Porsche decided to do a high performance car they made the 911 with AWD but when they did their ultra performance car they made the GT2 and only spun two wheels.

kc5zom

It is if you are trying to spin those tires too much. But a good drag driver will try and minimize his wheelspin while getting the maximum traction to the ground. Once a RWD vehicle finishes its initial burnout (which at power around 400HP both vehicles are going to spin the tires whether they are AWD or not) its all over. Plus I don't know about your experience but when I was driving the WRX I noticed it kind of took it a second to figure out what the hell it was doing when you launched it. It was very hesitative initially and then spun off like a demon. Probably not just the AWD systems fault. Maybe the turbo lag was to blame too.

kc5zom

You are right that AWD does launch better. But once that 60' is over the RWD vehicle (with similar HP and torque numbers) will eat it alive.

Installshield

I was comparing prices of the M5, AMG E55, and Jag XJR, not a X type