• 48
Does a Jaguar crossover make sense? If you're Adrian Hallmark, Jaguar's Global Brand Director, it certainly does. Speaking to Autocar, Hallmark said that Jaguar "needs a crossover and needs to stop being a saloon-based company." We're a bit confused as to exactly why Jaguar needs a CUV when the typical Jaguar shopper could easily afford something from the Land Rover showroom.

Hallmark adds that a Jaguar XF wagon will appear shortly. That, we like, but with Jaguar making noise about a crossover, we find it hard to imagine an XF station wagon ever rolling into US showrooms. Hallmark goes on to say that lightweight cars will become part of the brand's future DNA.

Wait, so how does this crossover fit in with the brand again?

[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
      • 4 Years Ago
      Maybe bad for core identity, but surely inevitable, as long as people with money want crossovers. Jaguars are curvacious, Land Rovers are boxy -- the company can graft a new body and more carlike driving dynamics onto an existing platform and sell to a whole new group of people who don't like the way Land Rovers look and drive.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Looks like the hand-me-down practice that Ford often handed off to Mercury. No need for Jag or LR to get watered down.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'd be more interested in them making engines that are more interesting. I mean if you compare the XKR to the M5, the XKR looks better and probably handles pretty closely, but the M5's high revving V10 is a masterpiece.
      • 4 Years Ago
      If it worked for Porsche. Also, wagons-which ima are suv/crossovers- don't sell well in the US.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ DrGreenthumb, What i meant to say was that wagons, but here in the US they look down on them as "cheap" or "old fashion", but if you think about it, Wagons are Sport utility vehicles and crossovers. I myself have owned a 92 Toyota Camry (4 door not the wagon version) then I got a 2005 Mazda3 5 door-it was registed as a wagon in my insuranse so i saved a TON of money- and now i own a 2010 Escape.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @tributetodrive: I'd say it did work for Volvo. After all, the XC90 is Volvo's top selling vehicle in the United States, and their best seller worldwide in 2005. I can understand its appeal to many as a safe family vehicle.

        The Saab 9-7X wasn't a success, although I don't think a CUV would be a certain failure. The 9-7X's problem is it wasn't exactly great, and it was sooo obviously a TrailBlazer they had stuck some Saab badges onto. If they do it right, which the 9-4X seems to have been, I can see it selling well (for a Saab, that is) and make a nice alternative to the BMW X3 and Acura RDX.

        A Jaguar crossover makes perfect business sense. Jaguar is going to do what makes them money, and there are enough soccer moms that need an SUV's capability to get past the obstacles on the way to the mall to justify making one. I would rather have an XF wagon, but I don't care if they add a CUV. Just as long as they make it more attractive than that one. I don't think the XJ nose grafted onto an Evoque works very well. I guess it's not too bad, but could be better.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Oh about the Jaguar SUV? Its fine if the built it, they'd just be taking LR customers.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Thats what Land Rover is for. The dealer network needs to change however so a good majority of the Dealers have Land Rover & Jaguar out of the same showroom. Thats the only reason Jaguar dealers would ask for a CUV/SUV because they don't sell Rovers.

        And Land Rovers should be Street bias, and Range Rovers should be Off Road Base. Although the Land Rover Evoque is a nice CUV, you can only have so many CUV versions.

        You need the following products:
        - RDX/Q5/X3/SRX/GLK/XC60 - Land Rover entry level streetable CUV a la Evoque
        - MDX/Touraeg/X5/RX/ML/MKT/XC90 - Land Rover mid level 5&7 passenger streetable CUV called Discover/LR3
        - Q7/GL - Land Rover large 7 passenger streetable CUV called LR4.

        Range Rover needs these:
        - Jeep Wrangler sized Defender SUV in 2 door, 4 doors. Convertible, Hard Top, etc.
        - G550/LX570/QX56/Escalade - Range Rover top of the model Large Off Roader.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Ed: All wagons? Judging from the numbers below, I'd say that you were waaaay off in your assumption.

        The last generation Explorer did very well.

        GM's LAMBDA triplets currently sells about 15K per month. As of January 2010, GM had sold 500K LAMBDAs.

        The Ford Escape is still selling at a pretty brisk clip,14K last month. The Edge sold 10K.

        The Chevy (oops) Chevrolet Equinox is selling at approximately 15k per month and the SRX 4K+ per month, Terrain 5,902 units.

        The GMT 900 SUVs sold over 18K units last months. GMT900 = Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon and Escalades.

        Jeep sold 10,902 Grand Cherokees.

        Kia sold 9,600+ Sorentos.

        • 4 Years Ago
        I know purists are upset and will want to stick their fingers up some Jag executive's bottom, but this does make sense.

        Land Rover is an SUV biased brand, whereas Jaguar is looking to get into a crossover market. Yes there is the Evoque, but it's there to be a stylish soft-off-road alternative to a rather bland Freelander within same price range. But Evoque is not a crossover.

        The demand from emerging markets is there for an extensive range of high-riding vehicles and from that perspective I think it will help Jaguar to in context of economies-of-scale, technology sharing with Land Rover, and increase volume with profit-per-unit kept in mind. Ghosn approach.

        I don't really believe in one product stealing sales from another product. This has been proven time and time again with Q7, Cayenne, Touareg. With R8 vs. 911. With Seat Ibiza vs Golf vs Fabia vs Audi A3.

        Audience is deeply fragmented and if you look at choices people have in purchasing cell phones, clothes, watches, electronics, home fashion accessories then same approach can easily be applied to automotive industry.

        Only thing that matters is growth with low-leverage, profit per-unit and volume increases. Keeping quality, brand heritage and all that jazz in mind.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Agree but not sure it will work for Saab or Volvo, although it did for acura, lexus. Jaguar seems to me to be much more of a volvo, saab style brand then a Porsche, Mercedes, BMW style brand...
      • 4 Years Ago
      NOOOOOO! Don't do it!
      • 4 Years Ago
      Terrible Again! What the Hell is wrong with Jaguar. I was thinking that it was changing for the good with Tata, and now again talk of a freaking crossover. They have been screwing around for decades and never coming back to the good stuff. Finally, they say the 2 seat real sports car is coming and then they get a marketer to make thsi silly crossover remark. I have been ready for years to buy-- but this stinks! And I know it stinks with the great majority of members in the JCNA-- just in case Jaguar cares. Keep up the dilution and changing all the time and never find your direction!

      Meanwhile, do they think they can play catch up with everyone already in it? No wonder I go to Audi etc for the good stuff and stick to Jaguar for the old stuff. I think a crossover will fall on it's face and drag Jaguar's resources with it.

      Adrian Hallmark! Global Brand Director! What BS- they need people who know and love cars-- not more Brand Directors and Marketing Crap. I certainly suspect Ian Callum is not for this! But, I also suspect we, the public, will never know his true feelings. But, read a little about how he feels about Jaguar cars and styling and you will know what he feels.
      Jaguar = sports car/saloon
      Land Rover= SUV/crossover

      What is so hard about this?
      • 4 Years Ago

      Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

      IMO Jaguar (and LR) needs to concentrate more on its reliability of the products it now offers ( I haven't checked recent reliability numbers but going off recent history).

      A Jaguar three series fighter would be intriguing as long as they don't add some of the cheese ball interior "features" of its big brother but I really don't see Jaguar trying ot go head to head with the 3.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I know it's just a rendering, but kill it with fire anyway.
      • 4 Years Ago
      hard to say because we all know that if you want a British car you go for the Jag and if you want a British SUV you go for the Land Rover problem is that the typical consumer that shops at the other tier 1 luxury automakers does not know that...so in order to drive away customers from buying an ML550 Jag will need it's own SUV. In this day in age it's all about customer retention...I.E once a Junior Executive is ready to move up from a C350 theres plenty to choose from in the Benz Portfolio...Jag does not have that.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Yes please - a sedan trunk is never, ever, big enough to cart my stuff about.

      And I so much prefer the handling of a vehicle that hugs the highway with a lower CoG than any SUV made.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Kill it with fire.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ladies and Gents, your new Escalade!
    • Load More Comments