Autoblog: Report: Jaguar planning major overhaul?

argatoga

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,200
Location
Zagreb
Car(s)
'08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/04/report-jaguar-planning-major-overhaul/

Report: Jaguar planning major overhaul?
The current Jaguar lineup is as good as it has been in a long time, but a report from UK site Autocar claims that good isn't good enough for overlord Tata. Tata vice chairman Ravi Kant reportedly talked with Autocar about Jaguar and Land Rover, and it appears that the Indian automaker would like to see more progress in less time, adding "our key advantages should be speed to market and agility, that should be the DNA of any small company." One complaint Kant leveled against Jaguar was that the company was thinking too much like a British company even though only 25 percent of its business emanates from the island.

More exciting than that is reported talk about expanding the Jaguar lineup with more choices and even a smaller, baby Jag. Autocar quotes Kant as saying, "It has to happen if you want to keep the brand alive. We need an entry-level car." Tata and Jaguar could possibly work with another automaker on an entry-level rear-wheel-drive chassis so the storied British automaker could produce a competitor for the BMW 3 Series. After the new XJ is officially launched, the next step will reportedly be an XE sports car due at the end of 2012. A refresh of the XK is also reportedly scheduled for the same time frame.

[Source: Autocar]
Click to expand...
 
Heh. I don't think he will be happy with any Ian Callum design.
 
Jaguar really only needs one major overhaul - fire Ian Callum, hire Keith Helfet.

I don't really have a huge problem with a 'baby Jag' so long as it's not a character violation (X-Type) and so long as it doesn't suck (X-Type), though my own personal preference would be for the smallest Jag to be about S-Type or (ugh) XF sized. Let the preowned Jags be the 'entry level'.

If the X-Type had been more along the lines of the 190E/S-Class relationship (when that was happening) and less of a "well, let's take the Mondeo, add half a ton of crap to it and call it a Jag", it might have been a good Jag. There really isn't anything inherently wrong with the idea so long as you do it right; keep the project focus on 'we're just going to make a smaller copy of the big car and sell it for what we have to' instead of 'we have to build a car for this much money.'
 
Last edited:
Who would you trust to design a new Jag?

1_Ian_Callum.jpg


New XJ:
800px-JaguarXJX351.JPG


keith_halfet.jpg


XJ41 - design later tweaked to become the DB7
xj41_02.jpg
 
(1) Make a baby Jag that looks like this:

Jaguar-C-XF_Concept_2007_photo_06.jpg


Jaguar-C-XF_Concept_2007_photo_0b.jpg


(2) Give it three pedals, at least as an option.

(3) Sell a car to Mitlov.
 
keith_halfet.jpg


Wait a minute... is it..

de_niro2.jpg


No, nevermind..

Anyway, as much as I don't generally care, I still hate everything Bangle did (I used to like the old Z4 for some time, but that is gone too now). But for the life of me I can't see your problem with newer Jags. I can't quite see how the XK is beautiful (despite JC's constant babbling), but the XF is really nice, and if anything, it's even better in person than on photos.
 
freefall said:
Anyway, as much as I don't generally care, I still hate everything Bangle did (I used to like the old Z4 for some time, but that is gone too now). But for the life of me I can't see your problem with newer Jags. I can't quite see how the XK is beautiful (despite JC's constant babbling), but the XF is really nice, and if anything, it's even better in person than on photos.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of exceptionalism. To the non-enthusiast, Jaguars don't have Lexus's reputation for reliability or BMW's or Mercedes's image. Therefore they have no choice but to stand out with their styling, and the XF looks too much like a Lexus GS with a body kit. I agree it looks better in person...at night, when all you can see are the taillights and maybe a glint of the wheel, but you avoid seeing the completely unoriginal profile.

By contrast, take a look at the pre-aluminum XJ or XK. They were seriously like nothing else on the market in profile or detail. Yes, they had tiny interiors compared to their dimensions, but nobody was look at Jaguars for their roominess. Jaguars can't be just "really nice" to win in the market; they have to stand out and be noticed. And that's the problem with the XF: it's just "nice". It doesn't have to be retro, but it has to be damned good no matter what it is. The C-XF was great; the XF wasn't. Next time they produce a ground-breaking concept like that, they should take a page out of Chrysler's book and just produce the damn thing without making any drastic changes.
 
New Callum designs don't look like Jags. There's none of the curves or the profile needed for the marque. Plus they're pretty damn generic; the point of a Jaguar is that it should look different from everything else on the road. Period.

I'll repost something I said earlier; give me a minute to go find it.

Edit: Here we go:

Spectre said:
...if your Jaguar has a catastrophic driveline failure that makes it uneconomical to repair, you can polish it up, park it in your living room (if you have enough room) or place of business, call it art, and simply contemplate it of an evening - because it *is* art. Some people might think it's a little eccentric to have one indoors, but everyone will stop and look at it, and nobody will ever say that its not art or ask why its there. Again, it's something that sets Jaguar apart that the XF just doesn't have.
Click to expand...

That pretty much defines whether a car is a Jaguar right there.

Labcoatguy said:
It's a matter of exceptionalism. To the non-enthusiast, Jaguars don't have Lexus's reputation for reliability or BMW's or Mercedes's image. Therefore they have no choice but to stand out with their styling, and the XF looks too much like a Lexus GS with a body kit. I agree it looks better in person...at night, when all you can see are the taillights and maybe a glint of the wheel, but you avoid seeing the completely unoriginal profile.

By contrast, take a look at the pre-aluminum XJ or XK. They were seriously like nothing else on the market in profile or detail. Yes, they had tiny interiors compared to their dimensions, but nobody was look at Jaguars for their roominess. Jaguars can't be just "really nice" to win in the market; they have to stand out and be noticed. And that's the problem with the XF: it's just "nice". It doesn't have to be retro, but it has to be damned good no matter what it is. The C-XF was great; the XF wasn't. Next time they produce a ground-breaking concept like that, they should take a page out of Chrysler's book and just produce the damn thing without making any drastic changes.
Click to expand...

Exactly so. If you're a non-enthusiast or non-traditional-Jaguar-buyer looking at this class of cars, you're going to buy a BMW or Merc or Infiniti (or until recently a Lexus). You're not going to buy a 'Jag' that looks similar to the others and doesn't stand out - the reputation of unreliability and the reality of terrible resale will drive you away if nothing else will. Jaguar sells on both styling and performance, not just one or the other. The XF looks too much like 'generic Japanese luxury car' from the A pillars back.

Non-enthusiasts/non-Jag-fanatics bought Jags in the past due to the stunning looks and great performance (not to mention the traditional value for money) and simply put up with everything that went along with it because of those virtues. Hell, people kept buying the terrible ones made during the 70s and first third of the 80s (the ones that literally blew up as you drove off the showroom floor), saying, "Yes, the reliability is terrible, but oh, when it's running it's such a joy to drive and those looks...." When you have customers who willingly admit your product has crap reliability but keep buying because of the styling, you're doing something right (and the entire Italian motor industry works off this principle, come to think of it). Losing part of that equation (as has been done with the XF and new XJ) is a recipe for disaster - because without looks, why the hell would you buy one? I still get people approaching me in parking lots who enquire about the car and say, "I had one of those in the <insert decade here>. It was terribly unreliable, but I loved it; I got rid of it because <insert reason here>. It was a huge mistake, I wish I'd never done that because despite the unreliability it was desperately pretty and a joy to drive."

And while I do prefer more retro looking Jaguars (and think that if properly executed, they could still sell), it's not IMHO mandatory for the brand - you don't have to look retro, you just have to look completely different from everything else out there that's not a Jag.
 
Last edited:
Well, I see what you mean. I used to turn my head every time I saw a late XJ6 (and luckily, I often had one parked near where I lived back in the days). I wouldn't go as far as calling it an object of art and considering putting it inside, but then for me only the most iconic cars could probably qualify: Shelby Daytona, Ford GT 40 ... just, Jaguar D-Type (which I like better than the E-Type) - to name a few.

But. If you want Jag to hang around for a while, it has to sell something that appeals to the silicon breasts & tanning generation, no matter how much you despise it. I said that the XF looks 'nice', what I meant was 'great'. Day or night, it has presence. Maybe it's not there yet by your standards, but me - I certainly wouldn't write it off as a design failure.
 
I don't know. For some reason, I really like the new jags on the road/coming on the road (except the back black things in the XJ). I have hopes for this....rwd is still an option the choice, and they most likely this time, they won't be sticking an old xj front to a smaller car.

BMW 3 series, Merc C Class, Audi A4....thats a huge market that could be entered for jag if the car is actually good.
 
Last edited:
freefall said:
Well, I see what you mean. I used to turn my head every time I saw a late XJ6 (and luckily, I often had one parked near where I lived back in the days). I wouldn't go as far as calling it an object of art and considering putting it inside, but then for me only the most iconic cars could probably qualify: Shelby Daytona, Ford GT 40 ... just, Jaguar D-Type (which I like better than the E-Type) - to name a few.

But. If you want Jag to hang around for a while, it has to sell something that appeals to the silicon breasts & tanning generation, no matter how much you despise it. I said that the XF looks 'nice', what I meant was 'great'. Day or night, it has presence. Maybe it's not there yet by your standards, but me - I certainly wouldn't write it off as a design failure.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. I didn't like Jag styling before the XF came out, but then the Jags are like that you either love them or hate them no in-between.
 
I personally didn't like the major over haul that Chris Bangle did to my favorite automaker. I hated it so much that I don't see BMW's the same anymore. The Bangle era, from my viewpoint, was too much of a departure of the elegance BMW?s designs where know for (Z8, E46-M3, V-8 M5, ect.. ). However, the new Jaguar design is downright beautiful, and most importantly it has crossed over to their interiors (Jaguar had some of the ugliest interiors ever). That being said, Jaguars designs are still conservative, elegant, and beautiful in design. I too, wish there were still some older elements of the previous generations, but you have to admit that this company has done a complete 180 in the positive direction. I may be wrong with my conclusions (since I haven't paid any attention to the automobile industry in the last 3-4 years), but I must say, I notice Jaguars when I see them on the streets now and salivate madly.
 
Last edited:
Different cars. The Aston is made for, and only sold to, those who own the bigger cars.
 
argatoga said:
The Aston is made for, and only sold to, those who own the bigger cars.
Click to expand...

You might want to tell that to Aston Martin, as they are talking about selling the Cygnet in Australia for around AUD$60k, without any sort of obligation to buy a bigger AM to go with it. Maybe this is due to the size of the Australian market vs other markets?

goauto.com.au said:
The company?s regional operations manager Marcel Fabris told GoAuto at the unveiling of the $366,280 V12 four-door Rapide in Melbourne on Friday that the Cygnet officially remained a concept car and that Aston Martin was still assessing its viability around the word.

?The thought at this point is that it will go into production and be released initially in Europe and the UK,? he said.

?If that does happen, then it will be very, very strongly considered for the Australian market because we have actually seen quite a lot of local interest for the car.

?By the time we bring that to Australia with duties and taxes, it is probably going to work out in the $60,000 bracket,? he said.

Mr Fabris said Aston Martin was not considering a package deal for Cygnet with each of its other models.

?But if someone wanted to buy two cars, we would of course look after them,? he said.
Click to expand...

:hmm:
 
Last edited:
Way to go Aston.
 
Or should I say Austin ...

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top