• Mar 4, 2010
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]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 36 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      I think tata's comments might have been taken out of context..."the company was thinking too much like a British company even though only 25 percent of its business emanates from the island. " I read this saying that the jag of the past was thinking to brititsh, with it's old english man styling, lack of tech, and interior design. The jag of the future is coming now, thinking globally, appealing to a younger taste and with more tech and better interior designs. Tata is just saying as sales increase and to be truly successfull they need to step it up and continue with their successes like the XF and coming XJ.

      I think a new small jag will be fantastic. Back when the X came out jag wasn't cool, it was boring old and stodgy. The new XF and XJ have many young people saying they wish they could afford them. A new small jag with aggressive styling will appeal to so many people and will be a success. I think the small jag has more to do with a brand than an individual car, if young people actually want the xf or xj, then a nicely styled small jag in their price range fills that need....at least i would buy one if the styling was right even though i'd rather have the xj.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Noooooooooooooo!!!! Not another baby Jag. I just got rid of the damn thing and hope I never see another Jaguar in my driveway again. Handled well? In the snow. Reliable? Yes, because I was able to get it to the dealer before it needed to be towed to the dealer. Refined? Yes. It had a nice ambiance with fine woods and leathers, but squeaked and rattled something horrible. Traded for a Mercedes C300. It's a much better car!
      • 4 Years Ago
      "but BMW and Mercedes can amortize their development costs over much higher volumes."

      Development costs are amortised over a period of time, not over volumes. As with all capitalised intangibles, the life of the asset over which the amortisation will take place reflects the period of time the finished product will generate revenue for the company. As far as the return on the invested expenditure is concerned, the net profitability of each product is the driving factor as opposed to mere volumes shifted.
      • 4 Years Ago
      The problem was for so long Jags, despite their heritage, were seen as big luxury sedans, you can't truly bring ultra luxury down market. But what you can bring downmarket is performance. A 3-series competitor with the look of all the new jags would be great.
      Tim
      • 4 Years Ago
      NO

      I'm tired of seeing luxury car companies go down market. Everyone isn't supposed to have a Jaguar...THAT'S THE POINT!!!

      Small companies are supposed to be....well.....small.


      baby Jag = Jaguar Nano
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Tim
        Seriously, why does every brand need to be a full line brand. What's next, the Jag Minivan and the Jag SUV? Maybe a Jag pickup? Offering a vehicle of every type for every budget works great for Ford, Chevy , and Toyota, but not for Jag. Jag would do best to do one thing and do it best rather than try to compete in every class.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Tim
        sounds like the x-type all over again; a veneer as opposed to a ground up design embodying unique jaguar qualities.

        they should call the project "how to kill a brand"
      • 4 Years Ago
      Having spent some time around english manufacturing engineers, he probably meant that, like many british companies, they have a long 'time to market' for their products. This means that they spend too much time planning and developing what they want to sell. An example was the XF. It took a year longer than the Lexus LS to reach the market, even though it involved fewer patents (ie more parts were carried over from existing models).

      I used to study under a former ford design-engineer, at Queen Mary College, University of London.
      • 4 Years Ago
      i think it would be great if they could make a 3 series competitor. not that i would buy one but it would be a nice entry level car for somepeople that love jags but cant really afford them.

      @JD and yes their last entry level car was sooooo bad. you cant polish a piece of crap(unless your the myth busters)
      blue3874
      • 4 Years Ago
      If JLR wanted to move down market, why not revive the Rover brand below Jaguar? Help make JLR a economy brand for South America/Australia/Africa and Asia, amortize JLR development costs. This whole thing reminds me of what happened with Packard.
      • 4 Years Ago
      The BMW 3-series is not a scaled down 7-Series.
      The C-Class is not a scaled down S-Class.

      The X-Type was a scaled down XJ.

      Which failed?


      The top-shelf C-Class is S-Class money. A car needs an identity of its own if it is to sell. Not just a constant reminder that you couldn't afford the flagship.
      • 4 Years Ago
      If I recall correctly, their last entry-level or rather cheap-Jag was a major flop.
        • 4 Years Ago
        "Bloke: All manufacturers need to refresh their platforms on a regular basis. That's true for BMW, MB, and Jaguar as well. The amount of time is roughly the same as well, typically around 6 years or so if they want to remain competitive."

        For a manufacturer to develop a brand new chassis cost money. Lots and lots of it. Most manufacturer stick with the same chassis for the same model for a long period of time b/c of the cost of new chassis. Other manufacturer like Chrysler whom probably cant/afford to create a new chassis borrow from better company like Merc, ie chrsyler 300. Its not about the manufacturer not making a new chassis its about them not having the money to make one. Designing a car is easy, get opinion of people from your market, keep it main stream and bam you got yourself a new design. However with a chassis, you have to make the chassis, than fit a car on top of it. And tune and fix it, than test, and repeat. Unless your lotus(the best chassis maker in the world) it is hard for your engineers to create new chassis without the proper money.

        With that said, having been on a test drive with the new jag, im happy to say that it is a very nice chassis. I am guessing its not going to change for a long period of time. And if jaguar was to make a small size sedan to compete against 3 series n C type, might as well be the Vaxhuall VXR, borrowing their chassis wont cost as much if jag was to use BMW's chassis. And the VXR's chassis is great for rwd, which i hope is that the car will turn out to be.
        • 4 Years Ago
        "If I recall correctly, their last entry-level or rather cheap-Jag was a major flop."

        In the States yes, but it sold well in Europe.
        • 4 Years Ago
        "It was a flop, but I think that was more due to execution than due to the concept of a small jag sedan. The Jaguar X-type was a gussied up, front-wheel-drive Mondeo (nee Contour)."


        Firstly, the X-Type used a heavily modified version of the Mondeo mk2's underpinnings, not the earlier Mondeo mk1 which spawned the North American Contour variant. Only the base 2.0 X-Types used a FWD drivetrain - the rest were AWD. Thirdly, the X-Type sold well in Europe, but not in the United States, which is a crucial market for Jaguar.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I think the failure had less to do with strategy and more to do with product. The car looked like a Jag and was priced like a Jag but the materials and driving experience were not up to standard. JMO
        • 4 Years Ago
        "but BMW and Mercedes can amortize their development costs over much higher volumes."

        Development costs are amortised over a period of time, not over volumes. As with all capitalised intangibles, the life of the asset over which the amortisation will take place reflects the period of time the finished product will generate revenue for the company. As far as the return on the invested expenditure is concerned, the net profitability of each product is the driving factor as opposed to mere volumes shifted.


        • 4 Years Ago
        It was a flop, but I think that was more due to execution than due to the concept of a small jag sedan. The Jaguar X-type was a gussied up, front-wheel-drive Mondeo (nee Contour).

        A proper, purpose-built, Jaguar sedan of 3-series proportions might fare better. The difficulty, of course, will be financing the development of such a platform given the small volume that Jaguar will sell. It will cost Jaguar a similar amount to develop the platform as it costs BMW and Mercedes to develop the 3-series and C-class (around $1B), but BMW and Mercedes can amortize their development costs over much higher volumes.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Eh, a rebodied Ford Mondeo doesn't really count...

        The X-Type was more than that. The Mondeo's chassis was heavily revised in the transformation. In any case, the Mondeo's chassis dynamics are so good it's hardly a bad thing for them to underpin any junior executive machine which isn't a rear-driver.
        • 4 Years Ago
        "If I recall correctly, their last entry-level or rather cheap-Jag was a major flop"

        Precisely.
        Most Jag owners were terribly offended when Ford went downscale. They were hoping for something more exquisite to compete with Aston Martin and the like. Jaguar should be going after this clientele instead. After all, they got the cash already, and are just looking for another toy to play with.
      • 4 Years Ago
      the x- and s-type days of jaguar proved to me that if you 'buy brand,' you will be disappointed. as for jaguar being a repeat offender re liability, it is but a negligible ailment, especially when the company now fails to accept its past and treat previous customers with disdain and contempt so as to insinuate 'this is posh territory, stay away.'

      rubbish company, no-longer rubbish cars... but do consumers buy cars or brands... ?
      • 4 Years Ago
      Maybe they might share platforms and components with Fiat.
    • Load More Comments