is that a picture of a facelifted s-type?
#1
Jaguar is perhaps the slowest of Ford’s Premier Automotive Group's luxo-brands to show some life. Land Rover and Aston Martin are turning the corner with a solid showing of new product and energy, and Volvo is a cash cow. Not so at Jaguar. Even with great new product like the very traditionally styled XJ sedan, Jaguar has yet to find its stride. Ian Callum’s handsome new XK coupe and convertible show plenty of promise, but you can’t bottle promise and the old cat’s going to need more new tricks than that in order to win customers over from Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus and Infiniti – all at the top of their games with some of the strongest offerings we’ve seen from any of those companies in years.
In that regard, it’s going to take more than fancy penwork from Mr. Callum to save Jaguar. It’s going to take attitude, and it’s going to take breadth of product much better than the misunderstood X-type and much broader than the evolved S-type and its newer and larger siblings. Fortunately for Jaguar, Ford recently announced a cash infusion of $2.1 Billion to help revive the iconic British brand and make it a competitor.
Considering all of this, here are twelve steps the Brits seemingly could take to make Jaguar strong – at least from the perspective of this laymen’s armchair.
#3
Quote, originally posted by viperssd » is that a picture of a facelifted s-type? No, it's of a car they should have made and didn't.
And if they had maybe the 12 point plan could have been a 6 point plan.
#4
'desperate housewives' should be capitalized.Good article- Jaguar really does need a boost to help it shine like it's Aston and Land Rover siblings in the FoMoCo group. If the said group wouldn't have chassis and bin dipped with Ford products proper so much to have better build quality in the Jaguar brand, they might not be in the situation they're in now. Let's hope that $2.1b cash influx does some good. Like taking the Explorer head units out of the dashes.
#5
Quote, originally posted by viperssd » is that a picture of a facelifted s-type? No, it was a concept from about a year or two ago called the RD-6. There's a rear shot in the article as well, shot in a factory somewhere. It was a unique diesel 5-door with side-hinged E-type style hatch. It was revolutionary when it was first shown because it was the first heavily modern design to come out of Jaguar, dropping retro in most every way, but still keeping elements. Many say it hints at next-gen S-type at the front, and many others use pics of it to make 'spy photo' interpretations of next-gen Jags. It's a very handsome car.
#6
George, George...you know I lova ya, but you also know I love Jag. I've owned them, raced them, worked for them. Hell, even my handle is loosely Jaguar-related. I've got to say, some of your observations are just way off base.As far as the X-Type replacement goes, I do agree that their needs to be one. But why use Mazda's platform, when the DEW98 that underpins the S-Type and XJ also fits within Jaguar's price point for the vehicle?
Here's a little-known fact: the first-generation X-Type was originally supposed to be RWD, and use the DEW98 as a basis. However, that sh!thead Jacques "I screwed up Ford then walked away" Nasser, went ahead and pushed the release date of the car up from 2004 to 2001, and in the process, also moved the platform from the DEW98 to the Mondeo. Had Jaguar developed the car on its own timetable, it would've been a success.
An SUV? Jaguar already has three SUVs with a fourth on the way: the LR3, the Range Rover Sport and the Range Rover. Why does it need a fifth? In case you're wondering, 80% of Jaguar dealers are already paired with Land Rover franchises.
What Ford needs to do is better link Jaguar and Land Rover as one entitiy in advertising. And why not? What two car lines are more complimentary? Ford needs to make sure that every ad for one brand features the logo of the other, and that people are encouraged to visit their local "Jaguar-Land Rover" showroom.
Consistent naming? That's nonsense. Now that Lincoln is essentially throwing away its heritage with the equity built up in names like "Continental" and "Zephyr", Jaguar becomes the only luxury brand left with a series of historically significant nameplates. And besides, Jaguar enthusiasts--myself included--would have a kinipshin at the idea of an X-Type being named "XJ6". There's also an XJ6 currently existant anyway--it's a six-cylinder version of the current XJ sold in Europe.
AWD and manual transmissions? Entusiasts whine they want them, but nobody really buys them. And a six-speed manual simply doesn't fit the character of a proper Jaguar sporting sedan. "Grace with pace (and not much space)" is an appropriate descriptor of what an "R" should be.
I do agree that Jaguar needs both to bring its award-winning diesels to the States, as well as put a V12 back into the XJ and XK. For reasons that mystify Jaguar fans, the public is enamored with the Jaguar V12. So it's time to add one back into the line-up. More importantly, though, I'd like to see the return of the inline six that made Jaguar great. Volvo has a new one in the 2007 S80--how hard would it be to adapt that engine for use in the X-Type, S-Type and XJ? There's nothing better than a Jaguar straight-six--except a supercharged Jaguar straight-six.
So what would I like to see? How about this:
X-Type (Sedan/Wagon)
Mid-level Coupe
F-Type (Roadster)
S-Type (Sedan/Wagon)
XJ (Sedan)
XK (Coupe/Convertible)
XKSS (Halo Car)That would be a nice line-up in my mind for Jaguar. There should be more power across the board, plus the usage of the aluminum spaceframe in every car (take that, Audi!). Styling needs to become daring and provocative, and it should shock, awe and wow the same way cars like the original S-Type, E-Type and XJ did when they were introduced. Sensual, soft and daring needs to be the order of the day--something that says "Jaguar" while also saying, "Wow--I've never seen anything like that before."
That, to me, would be Gorgeous indeed.
Originally Posted by alleghenyman
#7
Quote, originally posted by Swallow Doretti » George, George...you know I lova ya, but you also know I love Jag. I've owned them, raced them, worked for them. Hell, even my handle is loosely Jaguar-related. I've got to say, some of your observations are just way off base.
, I got you riled up. Good. That's the point.
Quote » As far as the X-Type replacement goes, I do agree that their needs to be one. But why use Mazda's platform, when the DEW98 that underpins the S-Type and XJ also fits within Jaguar's price point for the vehicle? Here's a little-known fact: the first-generation X-Type was originally supposed to be RWD, and use the DEW98 as a basis. However, that sh!thead Jacques "I screwed up Ford then walked away" Nasser, went ahead and pushed the release date of the car up from 2004 to 2001, and in the process, also moved the platform from the DEW98 to the Mondeo. Had Jaguar developed the car on its own timetable, it would've been a success.
You know, I keep hearing DEW98 is dead. The Lincoln LS is about to meet its maker, and who knows about the S-type. The latest rumors are that S-type won't go to aluminum, but be an updated version, and in MT this month, they say Ford may even dust off DEW98 for a Ford product (they should have done that anyway, remember the 427 concept?).
That said, is DEW98 scalable to fit the footprint of a BMW 3 and the like? I'm not sure. The Mustang makes it look like it could go shorter, but the Mustang is still a pretty wide car and may not work that well in Europe for a mass market product such as the X-type (Mustang is more niche for Europe).
Quote » An SUV? Jaguar already has three SUVs with a fourth on the way: the LR3, the Range Rover Sport and the Range Rover. Why does it need a fifth? In case you're wondering, 80% of Jaguar dealers are already paired with Land Rover franchises. What Ford needs to do is better link Jaguar and Land Rover as one entitiy in advertising. And why not? What two car lines are more complimentary? Ford needs to make sure that every ad for one brand features the logo of the other, and that people are encouraged to visit their local "Jaguar-Land Rover" showroom.
Doesn't help Lincoln and Mercury all that much. If anything, I'd argue promoting more independence for those two lagging brands would help them, not hurt them. Same for Jag and Landy who have their own distinctive clientele. Further, the RR Sport isn't exactly the Cayenne fighter the RangeStormer hinted at. LRs are big and blocky. I envision something more swooping and elegant, with the dimensionality of the Infininti FX but without all the kitschy disjointed styling.
Quote » Consistent naming? That's nonsense. Now that Lincoln is essentially throwing away its heritage with the equity built up in names like "Continental" and "Zephyr", Jaguar becomes the only luxury brand left with a series of historically significant nameplates. And besides, Jaguar enthusiasts--myself included--would have a kinipshin at the idea of an X-Type being named "XJ6". There's also an XJ6 currently existant anyway--it's a six-cylinder version of the current XJ sold in Europe. Maybe start lower in the numbering then. XJ3, XK3, and on up. I don't know. Point is, unless I'm a Jaguar purist, I don't see the value. Following the letters, the theory I guess is that the later in the alphabet, the smaller the car. Sedans go J, S and X. Coupe is K. However, if you do an F-type, then the smaller is earlier in the alphabet. It's very hard to follow.
Quote » AWD and manual transmissions? Entusiasts whine they want them, but nobody really buys them. And a six-speed manual simply doesn't fit the character of a proper Jaguar sporting sedan. "Grace with pace (and not much space)" is an appropriate descriptor of what an "R" should be. Manual trannys may be small potatos in sales numbers, but all of the serious sportscars and all of the (at least smaller) performance sub-brand models have them. Why? They add to legitimacy and they do well in media comparos, netting the brand headlines. The enthusiasts drive them and enthusiasts normally evolve into brand ambassadors.
#8
Quote, originally posted by George@Fourtitude » You know, I keep hearing DEW98 is dead. The Lincoln LS is about to meet its maker, and who knows about the S-type. The latest rumors are that S-type won't go to aluminum, but be an updated version, and in MT this month, they say Ford may even dust off DEW98 for a Ford product (they should have done that anyway, remember the 427 concept?). Actually, the XJ is basically an aluminum version of DEW98, believe it or not. And the next S-Type (which looks FAN-TAST-IC) is basically a reskin of the current car, so DEW98 will live on under that.
That said, the new S-Type won't go aluminum under the skin like the XJ, unfortunately. It may, however, use some aluminum body panels.
And yes, Ford definitely needs the 427 to replace both the Crown Vic and the Five Hundred.
Quote, originally posted by George@Fourtitude » That said, is DEW98 scalable to fit the footprint of a BMW 3 and the like? AFAIK, yes, it is.
Quote, originally posted by George@Fourtitude » Doesn't help Lincoln and Mercury all that much. If anything, I'd argue promoting more independence for those two lagging brands would help them, not hurt them. Same for Jag and Landy who have their own distinctive clientele. Further, the RR Sport isn't exactly the Cayenne fighter the RangeStormer hinted at. LRs are big and blocky. I envision something more swooping and elegant, with the dimensionality of the Infininti FX but without all the kitschy disjointed styling. But L-M isn't the same relationship as J-LR. There's nothing complimentary about the former; it just exists because neither brand generates enough sales volume on its own to keep a single-channel dealership afloat. By comparison, both J and LR are undeniably "British", and there exists the common link.
As for the RR Sport, the #1 trade-in for that vehicle is the Infiniti FX, while the #1 trade-in for the regular Range Rover is the Cayenne. So, in terms of that, both vehicles taken together have very successfully beaten the Infiniti and the Porsche (especially when you also compare sales figures for the last 12 months).
Quote, originally posted by George@Fourtitude » Maybe start lower in the numbering then. XJ3, XK3, and on up. I don't know. Point is, unless I'm a Jaguar purist, I don't see the value. Following the letters, the theory I guess is that the later in the alphabet, the smaller the car. Sedans go J, S and X. Coupe is K. However, if you do an F-type, then the smaller is earlier in the alphabet. It's very hard to follow. But illogical naming hasn't hurt Lexus, has it? Think of the RX, the GX and the LX--the former is the low-end SUV, while the latter is the high-end SUV, with the GX in the middle. And IS, GS, ES and LS? Eek.
As long as the products are strong, you can pretty much name the vehicles whatever you like IMO.
Quote, originally posted by George@Fourtitude » Manual trannys may be small potatos in sales numbers, but all of the serious sportscars and all of the (at least smaller) performance sub-brand models have them. Why? They add to legitimacy and they do well in media comparos, netting the brand headlines. The enthusiasts drive them and enthusiasts normally evolve into brand ambassadors. Well, there's definitely a need for a manual on the F-Type. But I simply don't see it fitting the character of an XJR, or even an S-Type R. And Jaguar definitely has no lack for brand enthusiasts and ambassadors. The problem is the cars of late have either been lackluster (X-Type) or indistinguishable (XJ).
Now, a DSG, OTOH...
#9
X-type R (if they did one) should be manual, and if the S-type R didn't have a manual, it ought to have something like DSG or SMG.I also think the XK should have a manual, at least in the R.
#10
I think they need a 3-series coupe competetor.. price it 20-35k, and make it look like its big brother the xk..
#11
Quote, originally posted by GLIGuy18 » I think they need a 3-series coupe competetor.. price it 20-35k, and make it look like its big brother the xk.. A $20K Jaguar should never exist. There should never be a Jaguar under $40K.
#12
No? The Compact Premium segment is growing, with A3 and 1-Series doing quite well. Further, A4 and 3er both price in the 30s.
#13
Two reasons why Jaguar shouldn't compete there:1) It removes the premium aspect that goes with owning a Jaguar. Jags should be exclusive, not accessible.
2) Volvo
#14
Quote, originally posted by Swallow Doretti » Two reasons why Jaguar shouldn't compete there: 1) It removes the premium aspect that goes with owning a Jaguar. Jags should be exclusive, not accessible.
2) Volvo
Volvo's not a great argument in my mind. Volvo, though they have the R, is not currently focused on being a 'performance' brand. They focus more on the safety of ownership.
Vic Doolan pushed the safety thing as being 'Safe Performance, feeling the security to have fun because of the safety', but Vic is gone and with the R about to go on hiatus, my guage is that their focus is on safety which their name is synonymous with.
Jaguar, like Mercedes, is both known for premium luxury and also a strong sportscar heritage. In as much, Merc may not be synonymous with performance like BMW, but they still push AMG and make some good money doing so.
Even if Volvo pushed performance, I think there'd be room for both.
Swallow, I have a question for you. Who in the marketplace do you think Jaguar competes with? What brands?
#15
I'm not Jaguars number one fan, but there is something that would make me buy one, something that Audi, Mercedes and certainly BMW could never capture. And that is class.The new Jaguar XK is possibly the sexiest vehicle to come out in many years (bar new Astons). The current X type hits the road at £20k flat, and thats fine, I would even say push that up to £23-24k, but at the moment the product isn't good enough.
When it is, they will. Look at the S Type, it was poor to start, but they have really improved it, and slowly but surely with the new diesel engines sales have really started to pick up.
With Ian Callum, Jaguar should have a bright future. The Jaguar needs to be more accessible than say 15 years ago, but owning a Jaguar and driving a Jaguar should always be an occasion. It should always maintain status.
They have class and they don't want to loose that, a X type is needed, but be as good as a C Class and price on par. The C starts at around £26k but is a far superior vehicle.
Loose the Mondeo chassis - this isn't an A4 from 10 years ago - and get rear wheel drive and rear wheel drive only!
Keep the interiors modern, but obviously a Jaguar - mebbe influence from the A8, modern with beautiful materials, but in a more Jaguar-esque manner - the new XK is getting there.
I love Audi's but there is only one brand in similar price brackets that could tempt me away, and thats a Jaguar, but at the end of the day the product must be competitive.
As Jaguar themselves say a Jaguar is "Born to Perform" and for me to consider one in 10 years (realistically when I could afford one) it will have to be special and have the same sense of occasion that owning a Jaguar did in the 60s and the magic that the E type, had, I think the new XK is getting there.
Looks alone that car is a winner, the sound makes it even more successful in my opinion!
NEVER SHOULD A USD 20K JAGUAR BE MADE. THATS £12K AND THATS GOLF TERRITORY!
Modified by SEAT_UK at 3:31 PM 2-8-2006
#16
If you parallel Audi, the A3 bases at $25K here in the USA, but you'd be very hard pressed to find one below $30k, and the A4 about $5K on up above that. If Jag did a compact 3-door sportbrake kind of car on the proposed usage of the small Mazda RWD platform and like the TT Sport Brake concept, I don't see them selling it for less than $30-$35K anyway. There'd be no need.
#17
Quote, originally posted by George@Fourtitude » If you parallel Audi, the A3 bases at $25K here in the USA, but you'd be very hard pressed to find one below $30k, and the A4 about $5K on up above that. If Jag did a compact 3-door sportbrake kind of car on the proposed usage of the small Mazda RWD platform and like the TT Sport Brake concept, I don't see them selling it for less than $30-$35K anyway. There'd be no need. There'd be no point in having Jaguar make a 3 door hatch for 35k, especially given that's about the right range to get an X-type. While the X-type isn't hugely "Jaguar", it's certainly moreso than a 3 door hatchback. There's no sense in Jaguar entering that market. There was something in the Car Lounge about the "Blue Seas" market strategy for Ford recently. I don't see how entering a crowded class with cars of better value or performance could possbly be in Jaguar's best interest. Within that class you'd have nice hot hatches such as upper level Mini's, VW's, Alfa's and entry level luxury hatches like the A3, 1 series and C-coupe. It's an area where Jaguar has no real heritage or experience and has very little to do with Jaguar's brand image.
#18
Then I guess I'll never own one..........
Quote, originally posted by Swallow Doretti » A $20K Jaguar should never exist. There should never be a Jaguar under $40K.
Posting Permissions
