This is very relevant to me because the JPG images take a lot less space in the SD card with no apparent image quality loss.
Can anyone please comment and provide their experiences?
Honestly, I'd just shoot RAW unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. While you do save compression losses by doing that, there are a couple of other good reasons to do so.
I've noticed that I need that extra head room, I tend to shoot outdoors almost exclusively, and having the extra stop or two makes it much less likely that I'll lose detail to blown highlights or lost shadow detail. A proper exposure often times involves giving up detail on one side or the other, raw helps me limit that somewhat. And it allows me a little bit of wiggle room if I want it to be somewhat between stops.
I've also noticed that for some sorts of images you'll lose the yellow, red at the high end unless you under expose. Basically choosing between exposure and proper color, not a decision I like to make in the field.
You've since you've got all the color information there, you can decide whether or not the camera's being faithful to your vision, rather than the other way around. This may or may not be important, there's definitely something to be said for guessing what the camera's going to do, but you can always opt for that later on.
Additionally you can make an informed decision about how much sharpening to apply when you're sitting in front of a full sized monitor rather than hoping that the camera will get it right, this will very somewhat depending upon the type of photography and gear, but you can see the results rather than trying to second guess the camera.
Hope that helps somewhat, there may well be no apparent image quality loss, but unless you start working with the RAW files you're not likely to notice what you're not getting. At least with RAW you can change your mind later and go for the quicky auto conversion.