Flash ® quotes (get Flash)
 
Addendum  

August 1st, 2003

Jaguar in the next decade

Too groundbreaking for Jaguar, not enough for the market?

Does Jaguar's leaping cat sit comfortably on some of its newer cars?
No complaints here: the XJ is not ground-breaking in its design (much though it might make the case in its construction), but it is beautiful, elegant, and delicate - just as one might have expected
After all these years, it still works - the XKR may not wear the leaper, but it harkens back to the days of sleek, lithe Jaguars with long overhangs, unmistakable presence, and that special, feline way about them
One of two Jaguar models that fails to convince us: the S-Type espouses Jaguar design tenets since the 1970s yet carries forth neither MkII 'staid' nor XJ 'sleek.' Comparisons to the W210 Mercedes E-Class' fascia at launch - however valid they may have been - did not help. The look has improved with time, although we would still argue that it confuses a message of traditional elegance which seems to be timeless in its appeal
If it seems apologetic, the X-Type is likely just that: quietly wondering about the validity of its own existence too deeply to make a statement. By no means a bad car - and in fact quite relaxing at times - the smallest Jag nevertheless fails to carry the family name with sufficient conviction
Did the need to pour money into the X-Type project push aside the inspired XK180 (top) and R Coupé Concepts?
What might Jaguar founder Sir William Lyons think of the X-Type? Does it matter? We would argue that the man who built the Jaguar brand to the point where it could be experimented with did a damn good job - consider that his beloved leaping cat now graces a sedan the size of the E-Type's hood, and that his styling continues to be echoed - to different degrees and with varying degrees of success - in Jaguar's current line-up. Whatever your opinion, however, it is undeniable that, since Sir Lyons, Jaguar has hit the jackpot when it has come closest to his cars
Any list of the world's most beautiful cars would be punctuated by Jaguars of various decades. The XJC (1978 model pictured) has left its print on ours (which we hope to publish eventually)

Jaguar seems to be stuck in a constant state of debate.

When the company was turning out XJs in the '80s from old, creaky factories, it was criticized for not being modern enough; now, two Ford-sourced platforms later, questions arise about its Jaguar-ness even as the lack of evolution in Jaguar styling draws comments such as Top Gear's suggestion of "design constipation" ('On the Jagged Edge,' Top Gear, August 2003).

For how long can Jaguar go on borrowing from the past? The answer is worthy of debate.

However, one fact remains: even after the end of his stewardship, Jaguar has done best when it has come closest to Sir Lyons' cars.

The new XJ remains effortlessly elegant, and passes as perhaps the one unanimously beautiful car in a category which BMW is attempting to fundamentally change, and a car that is true to its luxury brand values in a class where Mercedes-Benz now plays with a model that has substantially less presence than its predecessor.

In the - smaller - S-Type, the mismatch of Jaguar cues turned positively awkward. Much though the late Geoff Lawson’s XK8 was a masterpiece, his S-Type showcased visual flaws which the XJ and XK8 lines have led us to believe should not be present in a Jaguar. Is the Jaguar ‘character’ line down the flanks not heavy-handed? Are the tail-lamps not too bland for the generally over-wrought detailing? Similarly, is the front fascia not too delicate for such stubby proportions?

Moving to the - smaller still - X-Type, it is evident that customers whom one would think would be thrilled at the prospect of an affordable Jaguar have mysteriously disappeared. Could this be because the car has all the presence of a baby Lexus? The outgoing Mitsubishi Diamante is more elegant (if equally quietly bland); the Acura TSX more true to its brand, and the Alfa Romeo 156 (in Europe) is more inspiring – none costs as much.

It seems almost as though the smaller a Jaguar gets, the less pleasing and 'Jag-like' its styling becomes and the less presence it has.

One can only be pleased, then, that Jaguar did not follow Mercedes and BMW into the plethora of hatchbacks and cross-overs that have filled the garages of hundreds of thousands of upwardly mobile buyers for whom more mundane badges no longer inspire. Jaguar enthusiasts will likely comment on the nobility of their favored marque in selecting - to its credit - not to burden itself with such minutia.

In reality, money was likely more of a factor. Jaguar has gone back and forth on the SUV question as frequently as its strategy has been questioned and, although we recall Sir Nick Scheele having sworn that an SUV was off the cards, we wonder how much Jaguar’s financial state had to do with the nays. Top Gear, August 2003, suggests that "Jaguar spent mountains of money in two truly questionable areas: a Formula One venture that monotonously proves Jaguar is inferior to its competitors looks particularly perverse."

We love Jaguar. How could anyone not appreciate a company with such a lustrous and enthusiastic heritage of creating some of the most gorgeous shapes ever to hit the road? Any list - and we are compiling one - of the world’s most beautiful cars would likely be punctuated with Jaguars of every decade.

However, with Volvo being Ford’s favorite pet project at this point in time (even at the expense of Lincoln) and Jaguar sitting forlorn at the sidelines with Ford platforms (and, now, diesel engines) being thrown at it on occasion, we think it is time for Jaguar to throw away Plan B.

Memo to Jaguar: produce what you know how to build... Luxury Cars.

Before you, dear reader, say we are being naïve, might we remind you that the surface promise (generally made in the name of public relations and support) of every corporate takeover in the automotive industry has been, loosely worded: 'we wanted to add this brand’s heritage to our own, and we were not about to watch a once proud and valuable company go down.'

If that seems still more naïve: efforts to push usurped brands (exotic or mainstream) beyond certain price or production points have thus far been spectacularly disingenuous - and, more to the point, unfruitful. Just ask BMW, whose "good, but not better than us"  (as Jeremy Clarkson once labeled the strategy) view toward Rover inevitably failed; talk to Saab enthusiasts (including the prolific Jamie Kitman) to whom the thought of a ‘Swedish,’ Japanese-built, Subaru-based 9-2 is the ultimate insult, and stop by your local Chrysler dealer who seems to be having a torrid time moving $40,000 Pacificas.

Still not convinced? Here, then, is the clincher: adding an exotic brand to your portfolio for public relations’ sake, and in the interest of gaining momentum from its profits and perhaps teaching it a few management ideas is all well and good. Attempting, then, to fundamentally change it by adding product across virtually every category in an attempt to add production capacity is quite another. Frankly, Ford could have pushed Mercury further upmarket as opposed to dumbing Jaguar down to the $30,000 level.

Former VW CEO and current board member Ferdinand Piech has indeed shown, as promised, that it is "easier to take a brand upmarket than it is to reach downward." Giving Škoda Volkswagen platforms was a debatable strategy that seems to be working, and one could say the same for SEAT.

In 2002, Jaguar sold 130,000 cars worldwide - while this may be, as Top Gear points out, its fifth successive record year, it is hardly the result Ford was hoping for.

Wait, Jaguar will cry - we have a diesel X-Type coming! The diesel S-Type, too, is set to follow next year.

While this may entice more customers in Europe, the fact that incentives are required to move the X-Type in the gasoline-only U.S. is not a good sign.

Evidently, something - somewhere - has gone awry. To Ford, we would suggest that there is absolutely no reason Jaguar should be expected to sell more than 150,000 cars per year.

Similarly, there is no reason for XJ sales to flounder to just above Audi A8 levels. The simple fact is that Jaguar makes "five times more on an XJ than on an X-Type," according to Top Gear, August 2003 - why not expend marketing effort where it is most useable?

We want to see:

  • an XJ (the current car will do fine, thank you),
     

  • a resurrection of Daimler for an ultra-luxury XJ,
     

  • an XJ-based coupé and cabrio to replace the XK8,
     

  • an S-Type redesign as a coupé/ cabrio along the lines of the old XJC and R Coupé Concept,
     

  • the '00 XK180 Roadster Concept (just as it was, please),
     

  • then - perhaps - another XJ220 effort.

An XJ Estate à la Audi Avantissimo (albeit lower, sleeker, and Jag-like, of course) is not out of the question, either, although execution would be key. The coming 2004 X-Type Estate has been controversial from the start.

Whether R-versions of any of the above would cannibalize Aston Martin sales is a question for Ford to answer. Frankly, we believe there is a $45,000 - $80,000 spot (XJ220 excluded) under Aston Martin which Jaguar would be well-adept at covering. Certainly, the excellent XJR should be continued (and we secretly harbor a penchant for any potential XJR Estate).

While our idea may imply an uncertain future for Jaguar’s three plants (Liverpool’s Halewood, and Coventry’s Castle Bromwich and Browns Lane), things do not look too bright for this trio as things stand. Four Jaguar models are produced at three plants, as compared with Volvo (that name seems to come up a lot when Ford is mentioned, does it not?) producing three models in one plant and more than three times Jaguar's total production from two.

That being said, we believe that Jaguar can be streamlined without the loss of skilled labor - but, also, that $30,000 cars are not the way to do it. Putting aside the usual rhetoric, we cannot understand why Jaguar might need to produce 500,000 - or even 250,000 - models per year to be viable. Profitability is not a difficult goal to achieve with a make such as Jaguar, whose brand (unlike many who continue to try) definitely stretches well into profitable price points and whose traditional elegance seems to have timeless appeal.

If Ford's recovery goes as planned, why should Jaguar be forced into mainstream manufacturing simply to push the leaping cat in a heartbreaking test of how far its desirability can carry cheaper and cheaper products?

Was not the reason Ford bought Jaguar in the first place to own and nurture an established player in the luxury category (one which the company did not previously play in outside of Lincoln in the U.S.)?

Indeed, we are not ungrateful for Ford's efforts. For one thing, the new XJ is reportedly sixty percent stiffer than the old. For another, Jaguar finished 11th in the recent J.D. Power 2003 Dependability Survey, with 50% more problems per 100 vehicles than Lexus (the perennial leader) but seven manufacturers above the industry average (and, incidentally, leapfrogging BMW - marginally - and Mercedes-Benz and Audi by a substantial margin). In addition, the use of Ford pieces does not frighten us, considering that Jaguar's history has ever been spotted with (yet unblemished by) Ford switchgear.

As a sidenote, the aforementioned Ford diesels are not as asynchronous to Jaguar as, say, to Alfa Romeos; the surge of torque seems to fit the effortless power implied by the Jaguar brand well enough.

Admittedly, the all-wheel-drive X-Type is not simply a Mondeo in drag; however, its low price tag, uninspired styling, and small size neither fit the Jaguar heritage, nor does that heritage lend itself to this type of broadening.

In contrast, Mercedes-Benz has had '190'-badged small cars around for eons; similarly, BMW can trace its popularity back to the little 2002. As for Audi, the company was not really considered a competitor until the compact A4 burst onto the scene, in the right place and at the right time.

Hooke's Law of spring extension - and eventual permanent breakage beyond a certain point - needs no further proof, and not least with one of our favorite brands.

It would be unthinkable for Maserati to make a $30,000 car. Let us not expect one out of Jaguar – whose history is at least as lustrous and who also maintains an enviable reputation for building cars sensational enough for their owners to forgive their foibles - either.

Addendum... After being gratified to hear of Jaguar's recent announcement that it would pursue profitability over volume, we were pleased again by the cover of Automotive News, October 18th, 2004. In an article entitled, 'Jaguar's Identity Crisis,' Staff Reporter Mark Rechtin recommended the following steps:

  • Kill the X-Type, at least in America - "no Jaguar sold in America should cost less than $45,000. Sell fewer vehicles but with higher margins."
     

  • Modernize design - "Keep some design cues so people know it's a Jaguar, but embrace enough new design so people know it's the new Jaguar."
     

  • Increase advertising and slash incentives in America
     

  • Remember the F-Type roadster concept? Build it - now - "Slam the 3.0-liter V6 in there. Price it at $45,000. The F-Type would kill the overpriced Porsche Boxster."
     

  • Stay out of SUVs and crossovers - "That's Land Rover's job."
     

  • Shrink the aluminum platform of the XJ and next XK to include the next S-Type - "So what if no one has proved that aluminum bodies can be profitable at S-Type volumes? Jaguar made a name in the 1950s and '60s by taking risks."
     

  • Keep assembly in England - "Yes, it's pricey, and English unions are tough. But English coachbuilding still means something to Jaguar loyalists. Building a Jaguar in Valencia or Atlanta will kill brand equity."

While we are pleased that the media has come around to the way of thinking demonstrated in the above article, it is now time for Jaguar to perform. (10-21-04)

It’s good to see that we got people thinking with the above Jaguar article. Whether you agreed or disagreed, we enjoyed hearing from you. There have been some strong points raised in our INBOX this week - albeit that were critical of our piece in no uncertain tones – and so (one week after this was originally published) we thought we’d put up a little rebuttal of our own.

 We could not start a defense of our opinion without noting that comments about our suggestion that the XK180 and R Coupe Concepts should not have been pushed aside in the name of expedience were auspicious by their absence. We take this as a grudging admission that something is wrong, even as X-Type and S-Type owners remained understandably upset. This was never our intention, and we re-iterate that neither is a bad car.

Both could, however, have been better (or may have been better as another marque) - and we retain every right to expect better from Jaguar.

It has occurred to us that perhaps Jaguar design direction and Jaguar product direction could have been two separate articles. Many of your responses took our "how long can Jaguar keep borrowing from the past?" question as an assertion that Jaguar could not. In turn, a few then expressed dismay at our love of the new XJ alongside our insistence that Jaguar’s language might need revamping. We admit a fondness for the XJ even as it borrows from the past; however, we are not convinced that this type of insistent revamping of old ideas can continue alongside Jaguar’s evident intent to break into different classes.

In other words, the XJ can stay – if the language stays only with the XJ.

The S-Type demonstrates not only how to mask a Lincoln platform (which it does, and admittedly well), but – less fortunately - it also shows a lack of understanding of how Jaguar cues should work together. We are less critical of its retro look than we are of the fact that those cues were poorly integrated into the car’s smaller size. A character line which works on the long XJ simply clutters the S-Type. This car works best in the United States, where the long and clean look of Jaguars of years past is less appreciated than the jewelry (leaping cat, chrome this and chrome that, and grille). Europe was – and continues to be – more critical of the S-Type.

Indeed, only the most ardent person on its design team would call it nearly as iconic as the Mk2 which it theoretically derives from.

If Jaguar simply had to, in a revolutionary move, go downmarket (and, with Ford providing a roof over its head, we remain unconvinced that this is necessary), then why is it too much to expect that its design language be equally revolutionary?

For our part, we did not level the usual unrealistic criticisms: we'd all like to see a Jaguar without Lincoln LS platforms or Ford engine blocks, and the return of a Jaguar inline-6 would be nice, but Jaguar has done well enough to set the S-Type apart.

However, X-Type is platform engineering at its most cynical: while BMW uses a six cylinder engine across the 3, 5, and 7 series range in Europe to retain profitability, Jaguar offers a cut-price Ford-sourced four-cylinder X-Type.

Those of you that pointed out that the X-Type was larger than some previous Jaguars seemed to disagree with our assertion that “the smaller a Jaguar gets, the less pleasing and 'Jag-like' its styling becomes and the less presence it has.” By the same token, however, we never attempted to compare an X-Type to an E-Type (which was a smaller car). The X-Type is a far more bland design. Where are its curves? Why is no effort made along its flanks? Why does it have to look like an attempt to fit a Jaguar-ish design on an existing platform, even if that is the reality of the modern Jaguar’s foray into the repmobile market.

None of the E-Type's imagination is evident in the X-Type, nor is the Mk 2's - nor, indeed, is that of any of the smaller prior Jaguars that were mentioned. Gentlemen, the point is moot (although perhaps our statement should have read, "the smaller a modern Jaguar becomes...") We would also remind you that we too noted the beauty of the little XK180 Concept.

It was suggested – perhaps rightly – that we did not provide the statistics to back up some of our comments.

The facts show that Jaguar sales fell 11% in May 2003, even as more consumers purchased new cars that month than in any since August 2002. The X-Type was a prime suspect, down 25% from May '02. We received comments about the poor economy being to blame, but let's put a few things in perspective: for the period of January-April, 2003, BMW cleared 37,284 3 series, Mercedes sold 22,436 C-Class models, and Audi managed to move nearly 15,000 A4s in the U.S. Jaguar? 7,677 X-Types, down 41.9% from the first four months of 2002.

In Europe, it is a similar story. Figures for March 2003 reveal only 7,205 sales on the Continent, down 17 per cent on 2002. While the diesel may help, it will not stem the substantial U.S. slide.

Jaguar's growth has decidedly stopped exploding, having peaked at 61,204 cars sold in the U.S. in 2002, and we're not convinced that the short-term sales gain of these experiments were worth the damage to the brand.

Most damning is the Jaguar brand's drop in J.D. Power's 2002 Automotive Performance, Execution, and Layout (APEAL) study from second place in 2001 (the year of the X-Type’s launch) to tenth place just one year later.

Interestingly, our two favorite Jaguar models remain relatively unaffected; thus far, the XJ and XK have maintained constant sales. S-Type buyers were particularly unlikely to buy or lease another Jaguar.

Thus we stand by our suggestion that Jaguar should consider competing at a higher price point, and that any efforts made (such as doubling the advertising budget in a year to stop the decline in X-Type sales) will prove more fruitful in this area.

We maintain that Jaguar should concentrate on profitability and not on sales numbers. The company lost $500 million last year, by all accounts because it delayed the 2004 XJ’s release. Tell us – which car should they be focusing on, exactly?

We should point out, too, that the purpose of the article was to discuss basic concerns that are as old as Ford’s ownership of Jaguar in a manner that would start a discussion. This it has certainly done. To all those who e-mailed us, thank you – we’re glad the material inspired you to write, whether you agreed or not. Please continue to do so – we have read every line you wrote. (08-07-03)