Re: S-Type R vs. M5

Discussion in '2002 Jaguar S-Type R' started by stars, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. I would far far far be more impressed if someone told me they were driving a JAG over a guy tellin me he drove a Bimmer. Everyones got a Bimmer, few own a Jag. I'd be 2wice as impressed if he said I own a Stype R over M5. The average Car fan maybe somewhat familiar with the term M5. It takes a true enthusiast to know an Stype R. Chances are, only real AUTOheads knows what an Stype R is.

    To recap on any given day either of the 2 cars could win that day if they decided to race. But to know what an Stype R gives more of an impression he's truly not ignorant to the automotive scene. An M5 owner probably does too! But theres a better chance with the Stype owner that hes a real autohead.
     
  2. You own an Stype R? and you chose it over an M5? shit man, hook me up with the job you do!!!

    was that the only reason you bought it over an M5? Traffic? Shit man come on! There had to be more!!!
     
  3. hmmm how about the S-type R is $9,000 cheaper...
    and if you live in the UK, you can have the supercharger upgrade, the tranny upgrade and exhaust upgrade.
    Supercharger pumps up 20-30% more HP and torque across the band,
    tranny upgrade, gives you the F1 6 speed shifter, and the exhaust upgrade, gives you a nice 20hp.
    price? $3,000 for the supercharge, $1,500 for the exhaust, and $2,000 for the tranny.
    plus you can add ground effects, skirts for $2,000 more.
    However, you can get the whole package combined for $7,000.
    plus an optional suspension and tire upgrade of another $2,000.
    So now, let's compare the S-Type R with the M5 at the same price.
    S-Type R then will have 450HP, and 440 ft torque, and 0-60 in 4.6
    well look at that, the M5 got beaten handidly by an S-Type...
    oh, and by the way, have you look at the 2nd generation X-Type?
    time to say bye bye to M3
     
  4. S Type R for sure. performance and price is about equal but like all Jaguars the S Type looks so damn sweet.
     
  5. id have to go the m5 aswell. manual transmission, and sweet looks get the better of me. the s type looks alright from the back, but the front is hidious and the overall shape looks to floppy or bent. apparently the j shift automatic is shocking aswell.
     
  6. id have to go with the M5 its smaller and more for running but this car can still go pretty dam fast and it looks nice!
     
  7. Re:

    well i dont know what to say except for the fact that ford and jag are as independent as it gets, i mean chrysler is part owned by daimler... and GM owns 50% of other makes. Jag is the shit, the beemer is dated, gimmy an improved m5 and ill re think my decision, but jag for me!
     
  8. Re: Re:

    I prefer the M5, or even better, the M3. I don't know whats faster but I prefer BMW over Jaguar.
     
  9. M5 all the way...
     
  10. a manual XJR would beat the M5.
    An automatic XJR does 0-60 in 5.0 seconds.
    A sequential XJR does it in 4.6, beated the M5 4.8
    M5, just got beatened by a larger car, with a smaller engine. :)
    Tends to show you where true performance technology lies.
    Oh, the Jaguar XK-RS currently beats all current production BMWs.
     
  11. This exerpt is from Evo Magazine


    "Though more entertaining through low-speed corners, the M5 just can't seem to maintain enough composure through the faster stuff to stay comfortably in touch with the S-type. Try to match its point-to-point pace and, while things remain relatively serene in the Jag, you're either itching to turn off the M5's intrusive DSC and cursing the soft brakes, or switching out the electronics and spending your time containing momentum understeer, controlling power oversteer and still cursing the brakes. Don't get me wrong, the Jag doesn't comprehensively blow the M5 into the weeds. Rather it enables a good but not exceptional driver to cover the ground at a speed that would require a committed wheelman to cajole the M5. Granted, the BMW is happier to be driven balls-out than the Jaguar, which could equate to it being the better driver's car, except for the fact that cars like this are rarely driven on the lock-stops. "

    Stated by one of the most authorative magazines in Europe, the Jag just handles better.

    Go to evo.co.uk to read the whole article.



    This sums it up

    "But whatever the future holds, one thing is clear now: the S-type R is the best driver's Jaguar of recent years, one that can stand toe-to-toe with a car like the M5 and teach it a thing or two dynamically, without compromising Jaguar's traditional strengths of refinement, ride comfort and interior luxury. It doesn't possess the M5's raw appeal, but it's the better car, a true all-rounder. We predicted the S-type R had the makings of an evo hero. Now we know for sure. It was worth the wait. " - Evo magazine

     
  12. M5 is much more sportier looking and has better performance. I'm gonna go for the M5
     
  13. thank you. the arden version is Jaguar plans for a sportier car.
    For $4,000 you get the power upgrade, and for $10,000 you get the body kit, etc. and you get yourself, a nice upgrade including 450HP, choice of 6 speed sequential or manual, plus aerodynamic upgrades, and tire/brake upgrades.

    The M5, might be good for a track, but for normal driving the Jaguar is just more easier and more comfortable. Plus, Jaguar owns the 0-40 MPH advantage, making it faster in that normal driving situations. Seriously who in New York can go 0-60 without crashing into the car in front of them?
     
  14. m5....hands down!
     
  15. 8 pages of post, not gonnna read all of them, excuse me if i say any thing someone else has already said.

    1. when was it ever good to have a performance manual in a luxury cars, manuals arent as smooth, and in the quickness of their shifts they arent as fast, just look at a road and track when they graph a cars 1/4 mi. there is always a .2 sec gap when someone shifts a manual, but there is no perceptible gap when they use an auto. luxury cars like the 5 and s are suposed to comfortable and elagant. why would you have an m5 for perofrmance wehn an m3 is so much more in character. the m3 is smaller and has better hadling, and is equally fast.

    2. also we all look at the performance stats, something to think about. if you had an m5 and a s-typer lined up for performance testing, on a perfect run the m5 would win by a little, but jag pulls harder on the mid and low range becuase of the extra power, so it is better for highway passing. also if you were driving the m5 you would have to be perfect to beat the jag. the jag has an auto so it is perfect every time, all you do is push the pedal down. im betting that most people with an m5 cant do 0-60 in 4.5 and would get beat by the jag because anyone can repeat its performance stats, but you have to be good to reproduce the m5 stats if you are driving them.

    3. the jag has lesser capabilities only because it was designed that way, when jag made this they wanted no tire screech at all because tire screech isnt luxurious, it represents a car that is almost out of control, they wanted confidance and control.

    4. bottom line if you want the best luxury car, consistant performer and elegant styling you should get the jag. if you want a pure driving experiance and a manual you would probably get an m5 even though you should get an m3 cuz they are cheaper and just as fast and smaller for better track peformance.
     
  16. Re: Re:

    Ok um... NO. GM has nothing to do with DaimlerChrysler genius. Daimler-Benz and the Chrysler Corporation merged with one another back in the early 90's to form DAIMLERCHRYSLER. Gee, I wonder where they came up with that name?
     
  17. Too bad the XJR isn't offered with a manual transmission huh. Oh and BTW, Jaguar's website quotes a 5.4 sec run to 60 for the XJR, not 5.0. And as for this fantasy XJR of yours equipped with a sequential manual transmission, Jagaur offers no such transmission on their cars. Strictly automatics for the R cars. And don't talk about Arden or other aftermarket tuners modifying Jags because we're not talking about Alpina's, Dinan's or Hartge modified BMW's. We're talking about factory M products from BMW which stack up against factory R products from Jaguar. And nevermind talking about Jag's which don't even exist yet because I could say the same thing about theoretical BMW's.
     

  18. Quote from 944turb0
    ------------------------------------------------
    "**** Ford! Ford is #$%#ing up Jag big time <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/sad.gif"></A> "
    -------------------------------------------------

    Jaguar had no oney to build cars. If they could afford to continue to operate they wold nothave sold, would they? Ford provides funding, and do very little to actualy jaguar cars, they are built by jaguar. In general, british cars are not as good as german cars, (exception to lotus elise). This is NOT the fault of ford. Ford's main purpose is to provide funding, and withthe large amount of funding they have available, they make jag better not worse. Stop your whining.

    To add to this, I want to alpologise for my earlier post, as I made it sound like I had driven those cars. I am only 19 and I have driven nothing but a 1983 corona and a 1984 laser, so this is dfiantely not the case. That statement was merely sayign that i would prefer the Falcon and Benz, if given that choice, although I now must say i would take an M5 over th Falcon for sure. I let bias the the fact I do not like BMW affect my words there, which was wrong, and I admit my mistake (although it doesnt seem anyone noticed). I do however consider T series bbetter then HSV without bias. Again, big apology for my hipocracy.
     
  19. quote by jaguar X
    _----------------
    "oh, and by the way, have you look at the 2nd generation X-Type?
    time to say bye bye to M3"
    ---------------------

    umm..the current % series has been out FAR longer then teh current X-type so thats just a stupid point to make entirely. It's very easy to say have u had a look at the new M5? Since an M3 will kill the S-type R, i think it wouldhave little chance against the next M5...And also, this is not a criticism, merely an enquiry. Are those upgrades you mentioned factory jaguar options, or aftermarket additions? If they are the Former then fair enpough, if they are the Latter then they have mo purpose to mention.

    Quote from analogic
    _----------------------
    "You own an Stype R? and you chose it over an M5? shit man, hook me up with the job you do!!!

    was that the only reason you bought it over an M5? Traffic? Shit man come on! There had to be more!!! "
    ---------------------------
    I'm a luxury type person, and both M5 and X-type R ARE luxury cars with performance inspirations as opposed to the opposite. This means comfort is a big factor in my opinion. I have not driven either car, nor seen reviews or comparisions comparing comfort of the cars. To be honest, if the jag was more comfortable (incldign ride quality) then yes i WOULD chose the Jag over Beemer over traffic. Why? if you pay that much for a LUXURY car then you expect comfort above all i think. I also do admit that Jaguar do have a more exclusive and special feeling then BMW's, and agree that BMW's are everywhere. I think JAguars interior designs far outclass BMW'. If Mercedes or Audi were in the comparison id take opne of those,but if its just out of these gimme the jag iof its more comfortable. Fuel economy? these cars cost $200,000+ AUD..If you can afford that, i think fuel bills are NOT an issue, and most people with a car liek this is probably in a business where they can claim alot of fuel as a business expense. I doubt it a big factor. Reliability is, and although Jag's dont have the best reputation there, BMW dont either from what i have heard around. To me, out fo the 5 big luxury makes (BMW, Benz, Audi, Jag, Lexus), BMW is probably the least desirable and "speacial". BMW tome is soo much more of the "P plater with money" car whereas the Merc, Jag, LExus and Audi come across tome as more "mature exclusive" cars. Rarely would i ever thrash a $200,000 luxury-sports saloon, so does handling make that HUGE a diff? I doubt many rich people would take their cars on racetracks often, and on the road i doubt the difference in performance would be hugely noticable. Even if it were, the Jag is more then adequate. Hell, a mercedes E320 is enough performance for the road. On the open road in europe its all about high speed stability, comfort and speed really, and not much separation betweent the 2 there i doubt (save for stability maybe). Basically, at that price, most customers will buy with their heart and go for th ebrand they like most, not the better car. This is because they can afford to, and because any of these cars are so great they wont lose a great deal no matter what the choice. As a performance car, BMW is the winner no doubt. As a road car, gimme the JAG. If i werent so limited, I'd wait for the next Audi RS6 or else buy myself a new E55 (oh how i am dreaming).
     
  20. Quote from JaguarX
    ------------------------------------
    "a manual XJR would beat the M5.
    An automatic XJR does 0-60 in 5.0 seconds.
    A sequential XJR does it in 4.6, beated the M5 4.8
    M5, just got beatened by a larger car, with a smaller engine. :)
    Tends to show you where true performance technology lies.
    Oh, the Jaguar XK-RS currently beats all current production BMWs."
    ------------------------------------

    Again pointless. What is it with these pointless statements. You cant brag taht a car has better power per litre if u are comparign forced induction to natural aspiration !! You think BMW couldnt get those figures out of a supercharged 4 litre? Also, that mag says the jag handles better, mags ive read have stated teh complete opposite, big time. You know, its probably harder to get power out of a 5 litre (BMW) then a supercharged 4 litre (jag). Compare the naturally aspirated jag 4.0 V8. If THAT has more power and torque, and is faster, THEN ill take your point. IT doesnt, thus your point is irrelevant and pointless. Audi gets 280kw give or take out of the RS4 which is only 2.7 litres, which is MUCH smaller then either, so does it make it a better car, or make audi more "advanced" ? no. In fact, gettign high power out of natural aspiration from an engine takes more technology, asdoes making great torque from such an engine. it seems like every time i post i am defendign a differetn car, but oh well i try to speak what i feel is the truth no matter what and be as unbiased as possible. The only instance that getting high power out of natural aspiration isnt anythign special is in the case of engiens approacing or exceeding 6 litres, and in that case it starts to get a bit rediculous to not have huge power. e.g. dodge improvingpower and torque in their 8 litre viper via increasign displacement by about 0.2-0.3 litres (simply pathetic). To the point? A car with a 5 litre engine, or a car with a 4 litre blown, should both be quite capable of producing big numbers, although ud kinda expect the blown one to make more.
     
  21. Well its close coz nothing beats a jag for comfort and driver appeal but in terms of value for money and speed (this is supercars.net afteral), id have to choose the M5 coz of its racing engine and appeal...
     
  22. Perhaps you miss the point.
    BMW has a larger displacement. The M5 uses a 5.0L engine.
    And how much does it produce? 394HP.
    the XJ engine regular 4.2L produces 300HP.
    with the the R version being higher tuned is around 350HP, without the supercharger.
    not to say, that jaguar didn't produce a 400HP 4.0L car, seen in prototypes. Jaguar went to the supercharger for the acceleration, and not the HP.
    The Supercharger accounts for 10-15% of the car's HP.
    Jaguar really do not use the supercharger to a normal perimeter. That's why the cars are easily tuned to 450 and higher power easily.
    and i assume you can also do the litre / HP, shows that Jaguar has a better engine, even without the supercharger.
    I just showed to you (again) that Jaguar produces better engines in terms of HP, without a supercharger.
     
  23. "Jaguar went to the supercharger for the acceleration, and not the hp."

    Ok that's it, I'm forced to state the obvious. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Why else does a manufacturer bolt on a supercharger you moron More power means quicker acceleration. How the hell do you get a car to accelerate faster through engine tuning without increasing power or moving power around in the rev range. Acceleration is directly related (in addition to other things which I won't get into because you might say something else that's stupid and makes no sense) to power. Yah sure, just slap on a supercharger and all of a sudden Harry Potter shows up, waves his wand, and the car accelerates faster without a power increase of some sort.

    As for the whole hp/l arguement. It's bullshit. People cry about the Viper's 505 cube V10 because they know THEY CAN'T TOUCH IT. What these morons don't realize, is that oftentimes less hp/l means less stress on the engine, and that increases engine longevity. Hey man, you don't see me crying about how my dad's 1.3L 13B Twin Turbo Rotary can outrun my 350 cubic inch V8 powered truck because he has a pair of turbos and I don't do you? So why do you guys cry when a larger displacement engine is capable of moving a car more quickly than a blown small displacement motor.

     
  24. Oh yeah and BTW, while I don't usually talk about hp/l because it's pretty much a number many people use as an excuse for their slow cars, it should be noted that BMW's NATURALLY ASPIRATED 3.2L S54 straight 6 makes 333hp compared to the 300hp your naturally aspirated 4.2L Jaguar V8 makes. The Jag V8 still makes more torque(310 lb.ft. compared to the BMW's 269 lb.ft.) but considering that you said "Jaguar used the supercharger for acceleration and not hp" I don't think we should get into concepts as complicated as torque.
     

Share This Page