Lister to Build the 670hp, 200mph LFP, the World's Fastest SUV

[GTPNewsWire]

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

Lister to Build the 670hp, 200mph LFP, the World's Fastest SUV

This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on September 6th, 2018 in the Automotive News category.

 

[TexRex]

The F-Pace is an attractive car, particularly in that very striking green, and they haven't gone overboard with the hardscape modifications, but those neon yellow accents are... blecch. I don't see the point in the product, purely bragging rights is just obnoxious.

 

[Dsavage27]

I know Lister and Jaguar have a partnership but this honestly is nothing more than a powerful version of an f Pace with a paint job. Could have at least changed SOME of the body modifications. Even Ruf which I feel is comparable to this changes a few things on the outside of the Porsche shells that they use.

 

[TexRex]

Could have at least changed SOME of the body modifications.

The proposal doesn't exactly leave it untouched.

 

[Dsavage27]

Lol close enough though. If I saw a Lister LFP rolling down the street I probably wouldn't even think twice of it not being a F Pace SVR. But hey still looks good though, no denying that.

 

[Danoff]

The SUV is taking over automobiles. I don't know about in other countries, but in the states it is just taking over, and for good reason. It's high enough off the ground that it's easy to get in and out of, and see out of. Ground clearance is good for speed bumps, potholes, snow, and dirt. Handling has gotten excellent (not as good as sports cars but better than most people will ever notice), and in a straight line (like this example) they're monsters. I'm sure this is helped by fuel economy/emissions relaxation for larger vehicles too. It's also helped by the fact that it's not too huge to park like a pickup or van.

It is becoming the ultimate vehicle for the street, and for good reasons. I love that these beastly SUVs are getting produced. It's such a sweet spot in terms of vehicles.

 

[HuskyGT]

Sos! Lister is back? Nice! Now this will make a good livery for the F-Pace in Forza.

 

[SiriusR]

Meanwhile I'm scratching my head on why this is a thing and why people want to buy it.

 

[UnkaD]

The SUV is taking over automobiles. I don't know about in other countries, but in the states it is just taking over, and for good reason. It's high enough off the ground that it's easy to get in and out of, and see out of. Ground clearance is good for speed bumps, potholes, snow, and dirt. Handling has gotten excellent (not as good as sports cars but better than most people will ever notice), and in a straight line (like this example) they're monsters. I'm sure this is helped by fuel economy/emissions relaxation for larger vehicles too. It's also helped by the fact that it's not too huge to park like a pickup or van.

It is becoming the ultimate vehicle for the street, and for good reasons. I love that these beastly SUVs are getting produced. It's such a sweet spot in terms of vehicles.

I hate the whole SUV craze in the US. It keeps us from getting really cool wagons that are seen in other countries, and straight up blocks potential sport wagons from ever seeing the road with some manufacturers. No M3 wagon still, but we get heaps of pointless SUV's with M badges slapped on them. Don't even get me started on the Guilia wagon. A lot of the new ones don't even seem practical as far as ground clearance is concerned. They just look like really tall bloated cars.

I know there are still wagons available, but the SUV-driven market really limits the choices. Even then... The current 3-series has been around for like seven years now. In that time I've seen two wagons. Two! Stupid public for liking things that I don't like. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Starting to forget what my point was.

I don't mind that people like SUV's, but I'm not looking forward to a possible future where that's all you can buy.

 

[Danoff]

I hate the whole SUV craze in the US. It keeps us from getting really cool wagons that are seen in other countries, and straight up blocks potential sport wagons from ever seeing the road with some manufacturers. No M3 wagon still, but we get heaps of pointless SUV's with M badges slapped on them. Don't even get me started on the Guilia wagon. A lot of the new ones don't even seem practical as far as ground clearance is concerned. They just look like really tall bloated cars.

I know there are still wagons available, but the SUV-driven market really limits the choices. Even then... The current 3-series has been around for like seven years now. In that time I've seen two wagons. Two! Stupid public for liking things that I don't like. Anyway, I'm rambling now. Starting to forget what my point was.

I don't mind that people like SUV's, but I'm not looking forward to a possible future where that's all you can buy.

So... out of curiosity... why do you like wagons better than SUVs? SUVs have an obvious advantage of ground clearance and ease of entry/exit. I can think of reasons, but I'm wondering what yours are.

 

[05XR8]

SUVs are pretty much going back to the start of the automobile: high riding covered(some uncovered too) wagons.
It's always bragging rights when a manufacturer wants to push limits. In my opinion, less so, when a "tuner" does the same. They just want to try something new and/or test their own engineering. Cool stuff.

 

[UnkaD]

So... out of curiosity... why do you like wagons better than SUVs? SUVs have an obvious advantage of ground clearance and ease of entry/exit. I can think of reasons, but I'm wondering what yours are.

I guess for me, it's like this. I would rather have a car with the extra space than a compact enclosed truck. A wagon is an extension of car choices exclusive from vans and trucks, and I would prefer a wagon to any sedan or coupe. If I was looking at something to fit large groups of passengers or carry large items I would be looking at vans. I have no need for an extra inch or two of ground clearance, and frankly neither do 90% of the folks who buy cross-overs and SUV's. In the end it's a matter of taste, and mine just don't line up with those of everyone else I suppose. I like my center of mass to be low, and you will never find an SUV that I think looks better than the same make wagon.
Where I live I see a lot of fad SUV owners that don't use them for anything that a small hatchback couldn't do. Same kind of people who get full-size pickup trucks that never see a single rock or pound of load and are kept spotless year-round. But for those that put a lot of thought into what they need eventually landing on an SUV that they actually utilize, all the power to them.

 

[Danoff]

I have no need for an extra inch or two of ground clearance, and frankly neither do 90% of the folks who buy cross-overs and SUV's.

Except for every time they don't have to bend an inch or two to get into the car, or get stuff out of the back, or buckle their kids in, or look over an obstacle...

In the end it's a matter of taste, and mine just don't line up with those of everyone else I suppose.

👍

Same kind of people who get full-size pickup trucks that never see a single rock or pound of load and are kept spotless year-round.

...or a car designed for the track that never sees the track amiright?

 

[UnkaD]

Except for every time they don't have to bend an inch or two to get into the car, or get stuff out of the back, or buckle their kids in, or look over an obstacle...

Fair enough. I've grown up with performance enthusiasts with lowered cars so I guess I'm just used to it. Never thought twice about height even when loading and unloading kids and groceries. I'll probably be eating those words in about 15 or so years.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Is it correct to say that SUVs are less safe than cars for the roll over risk at high speeds or a very sharp cornering ?
Also riding cars are (mostly) alot easier than SUVs right ?
I like SUVs but i prefer normal cars
Here is a certain points from a certain site which addresses SUV issues ( without adding direct link )

1- Cost Of Fueling :
The large size of SUVs require it to burn more gas than standard cars, meaning an increase in cost when fueling.

2- Environmental Impact :
Because SUVs require more gas, which leads many to refer to them as "gas guzzlers," they have a negative environmental impact through increased pollution and decreased sustainability of the finite natural resource of oil.

3- Decreased Safety :
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SUVs are three times more likely to roll over than standard vehicles.

4- Risk To Other Drivers :
SUVs are top heavy and therefore are less able to quickly maneuver out of possible accidents and are also likely to cause more damage to other vehicles in the event of an accident.


5- Increased Insurance Rates :
SUV owners pay 10 percent to 20 percent more for car insurance on average because of the increased risk of a serious accident.

 

[Danoff]

Is it correct to say that SUVs are less safe than cars for the roll over risk at high speeds or a very sharp cornering ?
Also riding cars are (mostly) alot easier than SUVs right ?
I like SUVs but i prefer normal cars
Here is a certain points from a certain site which addresses SUV issues ( without adding direct link )

1- Cost Of Fueling :
The large size of SUVs require it to burn more gas than standard cars, meaning an increase in cost when fueling.

2- Environmental Impact :
Because SUVs require more gas, which leads many to refer to them as "gas guzzlers," they have a negative environmental impact through increased pollution and decreased sustainability of the finite natural resource of oil.

When you're talking 670 hp.... I feel like that's kinda not relevant

3- Decreased Safety :
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SUVs are three times more likely to roll over than standard vehicles.

Most people driving these don't care to get anywhere near the limits of turning of these vehicles. They also are terrible at assessing something like a high speed situation where they input a sharp turn leading to a rollover. That kind of thing is not going through the typical SUV buyer's mind.

But if you are thinking about that, then you know how to handle yourself so it's mostly moot.

4- Risk To Other Drivers :

SUVs are top heavy and therefore are less able to quickly maneuver out of possible accidents and are also likely to cause more damage to other vehicles in the event of an accident.

The typical response is that it is safer for the driver than a sports car. I do happen to know someone who was brain damaged in an accident in a miata.

5- Increased Insurance Rates :
SUV owners pay 10 percent to 20 percent more for car insurance on average because of the increased risk of a serious accident.

Again, 670 hp...

 

[McLaren]

Didn't they just build a F-Type as well? Might as well have Tata buy them & rename the current Lister to Jaguar's own AMG.

 

[MockngBrd]

Sometimes. . Just because you can doesn't mean you should

 

[SiriusR]

So... out of curiosity... why do you like wagons better than SUVs? SUVs have an obvious advantage of ground clearance and ease of entry/exit. I can think of reasons, but I'm wondering what yours are.

I know that this reply wasn't directed to me, but as far as my points go:
- SUVs are generally heavier than "normal" cars, which affects them negatively (bigger fuel consumption, larger braking distance, etc.)
- SUVs are also generally larger than "normal" cars, which can be an issue for the SUV's owner and other people dealing with its presence if it's used in a heavily populated city (squeezing an SUV in a tight parking space is a pain); on a side note, same issue could be addressed to some supercars as well, such as Lamborghini Aventador, which is known to be as wide as Grand Canyon; but regardless of what car type we're talking about, "normal" cars are better city cars
- ...and for offroad usage, you might want to go with a proper offroader than with a SUV, as SUVs generally have subpar (or in some clinical cases, null) offroading capabilities and are more expensive to repair.
- oh, and did I tell you that S in SUV standing for "Sports" is practically a(n almost literal) big, fat joke? Any performance-oriented SUV will be smoked by any sportscar with a similar power output, even if it's just a sporty-ish sedan.

SUVs nowadays try to be jacks of all trades, obviously ending up being masters at none. I can't think of a particular SUV quality it would be better at than any car from any other class. Unless you somehow really want all qualities in one package (at the price of them being abysmal), there's no point in picking an SUV.

Also, from my tiny (and probably unaccountable) personal experience with driving SUVs, they feel more boat-y to drive and it's harder to feel their overall dimensions while driving them. This might be ok for large cars, but for me personally, these are negative qualities.

 

[CaptainTNT]

That car looks nice but to me it looks more like a Jaguar F Pace with fancy paint job I see no distinction for this car at all from its Jaguar counterpart. Unless it has a V12 of sorts I just cant see this being an actual Lister & if it not, it only bears the Lister name.

Personally I think Lister should've made a V12 powered sedan or coupe with its own look like its predecessor did the Storm.

 

[Epic B]

Didn't they just build a F-Type as well? Might as well have Tata buy them & rename the current Lister to Jaguar's own AMG.

Except Jaguar Land Rover already have their in house Special Vehicle Operations. I'd say Lister is operating more like Alpina or Ruf.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

When you're talking 670 hp.... I feel like that's kinda not relevant



Most people driving these don't care to get anywhere near the limits of turning of these vehicles. They also are terrible at assessing something like a high speed situation where they input a sharp turn leading to a rollover. That kind of thing is not going through the typical SUV buyer's mind.

But if you are thinking about that, then you know how to handle yourself so it's mostly moot.



The typical response is that it is safer for the driver than a sports car. I do happen to know someone who was brain damaged in an accident in a miata.



Again, 670 hp...

My opinion was in general.
670 or 1000 - in general it's more dangerous in any HP.
No matter what reason people buy them for - extended caution is more necessary in SUV ( which i think you've agreed on your reply )
Miata is a small sports car - not to mention it's an exposed roadster for more danger from the roof compared to like Mazda 3 or etc since you get better protection on normal sized cars + solider roof.
I have a feeling that your direction on sports cars is that they're a small cars mostly.
In our generation - it is too easy to make a sports cars sedans - like Dodge Charger - BMW M5 - Subaru Impreza - Maserati Quadroporte - Mercedes Benz E-Class AMG & etc.
Or larger GT's like - Maserati Gran Turismo - BMW M6 Gran Coupe - Alfa Romeo Giulia - Kia GT Stinger - Porsche Panamera & etc.

 

[Joey D]

1- Cost Of Fueling :
The large size of SUVs require it to burn more gas than standard cars, meaning an increase in cost when fueling.

Now there's something I never thought I'd see, someone in Kuwait talking about fuel prices

and for offroad usage, you might want to go with a proper offroader than with a SUV, as SUVs generally have subpar (or in some clinical cases, null) offroading capabilities and are more expensive to repair.

Most proper off-roaders are SUVs though. I can only think a few that aren't, and they're pick-ups.

 

[Danoff]

SUVs nowadays try to be jacks of all trades, obviously ending up being masters at none. I can't think of a particular SUV quality it would be better at than any car from any other class. Unless you somehow really want all qualities in one package (at the price of them being abysmal), there's no point in picking an SUV.

That's exactly what SUVs are all about. And technology (such as the example that started this thread) is making it so that you really can have it all in one package. It doesn't matter that a sportscar with the same horsepower would be faster or handle better. It doesn't matter that a jeep might be a better offroader. Because the person buying the car doesn't need the last little bit in any particular category.

They're not a serious off roader (few people that own off roaders are), they're not a serious track driver (few people that own sports cars are), they're not a drag racer (few people that own muscle cars are). What they are is someone who is honest with themselves about what they're going to be doing, and realize that they can get everything they actually care about in those categories out of one car.

It's beautiful. This Lister is just a pure demonstration of what technology has brought us... cars with so much capability in all areas that nobody even cares to test the limit in any of those areas, and so they get everything they want.

 

[SiriusR]

Most proper off-roaders are SUVs though. I can only think a few that aren't, and they're pick-ups.

Well, that's the quirk here, proper offroad machines fall into the same SUV category as fancy bloatmobiles that can't offroad at all (like Lotus's upcoming SUV). It would be nice if there'd be distinctive categories for them.

That's exactly what SUVs are all about. And technology (such as the example that started this thread) is making it so that you really can have it all in one package. It doesn't matter that a sportscar with the same horsepower would be faster or handle better. It doesn't matter that a jeep might be a better offroader. Because the person buying the car doesn't need the last little bit in any particular category.

They're not a serious off roader (few people that own off roaders are), they're not a serious track driver (few people that own sports cars are), they're not a drag racer (few people that own muscle cars are). What they are is someone who is honest with themselves about what they're going to be doing, and realize that they can get everything they actually care about in those categories out of one car.

The question is, do you really need all of the qualities SUVs offer? By shaking some off, you can get a car that's excellent at what it's designed to do, rather than a car that tries to do everything but also sucks at everything.

Also, most SUVs are really bloated station wagons. As in, they can't do much beyond what station wagons can (except, maybe, extra clearance, but who really needs it without going offroad? for average city needs "normal" cars' clearance is enough). There are a few exceptions, but the most of them fall into "proper offroader" category.

Performance-oriented SUVs are especially dumb IMO because, well, let's be honest, if you're going for an SUV, you probably don't care about performance that much (or don't care about it at all), right? And if you do to the point that you want a performance-dedicated model, why exactly would you want performance in a package this large and heavy?
And then there are "coupe SUVs", which are just SUVs but with less trunk space. I cannot find an explanation to their existence.

 

[Danoff]

The question is, do you really need all of the qualities SUVs offer?

No, they want all of the qualities. They don't need them. Just like nobody needs extra horsepower.

By shaking some off, you can get a car that's excellent at what it's designed to do, rather than a car that tries to do everything but also sucks at everything.

What exactly do you think this Lister is going to suck at? Going fast in a straight line? Turning? Stopping? Snow driving? Getting groceries? Hauling a dog?

Also, most SUVs are really bloated station wagons. As in, they can't do much beyond what station wagons can (except, maybe, extra clearance, but who really needs it without going offroad?

I did actually address that point earlier in this very (short) thread.

Except for every time they don't have to bend an inch or two to get into the car, or get stuff out of the back, or buckle their kids in, or look over an obstacle...

Also I can tell you from experience, that extra inch or two makes a huge difference in snow.

Performance-oriented SUVs are especially dumb IMO because, well, let's be honest, if you're going for an SUV, you probably don't care about performance that much (or don't care about it at all), right? And if you do to the point that you want a performance-dedicated model, why exactly would you want performance in a package this large and heavy?
And then there are "coupe SUVs", which are just SUVs but with less trunk space. I cannot find an explanation to their existence.

Why would you want a performance oriented package in a wagon that's larger and heavier than a sedan? Why would you want a performance package in a sedan that's larger and heavier than a coupe? Why would you want a performance oriented package in a 2+2 that's larger and heavier than a 2-seater?

Because people want to have fun in their cars but they don't want to sacrifice other capabilities.

 

[TexRex]

Unless it has a V12 of sorts I just cant see this being an actual Lister & if it not, it only bears the Lister name.

The first Lister-badged V12 car came 32 years after the company's founding, two years after the company traded hands. Prior to that, Lister cars were constructed around MG and Coventry Climax inline 4s, Jaguar, Bristol and Maserati inline 6s and Chevrolet V8s.

The first Lister-badged V12 car was also the first time the company didn't develop its own car that used an existing engine, rather it was basically an uprated Jaguar XJS. The Lister Storm followed that.

 

[SiriusR]

Just like nobody needs extra horsepower.

Actually, as you're speaking of this, no car designed for use on public roads needs to go faster than speed limits allow...

What exactly do you think this Lister is going to suck at? Going fast in a straight line? Turning? Stopping? Snow driving? Getting groceries? Hauling a dog?

Snow driving is the first thing I have my doubts about, as capabilities on surfaces that aren't solid are normally performance SUVs' weak point. If that's so, that immediately puts this Lister on the same shelf with (optionally tuned) Impreza WRX STi station wagon/hatchback (sadly these are discontinued), which can do same things for less buck, so why pay more?

Why would you want a performance oriented package in a wagon that's larger and heavier than a sedan? Why would you want a performance package in a sedan that's larger and heavier than a coupe? Why would you want a performance oriented package in a 2+2 that's larger and heavier than a 2-seater?

As much as I get your point here, there's a much smaller difference between station wagons and sedans and, at times, sedans and coupes than between SUVs and station wagons. Like, station wagons are practically sedans with larger trunk space, and some coupes and sedans share the same wheelbase. The only differences would be length and weight, and they're not too drastic.

Except for every time they don't have to bend an inch or two to get into the car, or get stuff out of the back, or buckle their kids in, or look over an obstacle...

I honestly had no idea it's that much of an issue. Not that you can't complain about that, but it's the first time I hear someone complaining about this, really.

Also I can tell you from experience, that extra inch or two makes a huge difference in snow.

In that case, why not just take a "normal" car and lift its ride height up by an inch or two?
You sure it's just the ride height and the four-wheel drive tech has nothing to do with it?

 

[Danoff]

You sure it's just the ride height and the four-wheel drive tech has nothing to do with it?

Yes. When the plow goes down my street it leaves a berm of snow off the end of my driveway. I have beached my 330i on that berm (twice). AWD would not have helped. Ride height makes a big difference in snow in general too. Also helps prevent giant ice balls dropped in the middle of the freeway from ripping body panels.

(I do an expecially good job of clearing snow out to the middle of the street now because of this issue).

 

[Joey D]

Snow driving is the first thing I have my doubts about, as capabilities on surfaces that aren't solid are normally performance SUVs' weak point.

This is primarily due to the tires them come equipped with. Change them to snow tires like a sensible person would who lives in a snowy climate and they wouldn't have an issue. A buddy of mine drives a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 year around in Michigan, he's never had an issue and for a time that was the fastest SUV you could buy.

You sure it's just the ride height and the four-wheel drive tech has nothing to do with it?

Ride height does make a difference in the snow. My car is AWD, but it's also low to the ground. It struggles when we get the random 16" snowfall and our snow is super dry too. I can't imagine what it'd be like with wet snow, probably really stuck.

Tires still make the biggest difference, but ride height is beneficial in many cases. The wheels being powered are less of an issue assuming the tires and ride height are adequate. A FWD crossover with winter tires will almost always do better than an AWD car on all-seasons.

4WD is a little different, but I can't think of a car that actually has 4WD built in the last 30 or so years. They've all pretty much been AWD.

And as for the statement you crossed out, why would you lift a car? You'd ruin pretty much everything in the suspension and driveline since most car lift kits are poorly engineered garbage.