RE: Jaguar XE - full details
Discussion
Redlake27 said:
fatboy b said:
+1
Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I disagree. Every new Ford of the 1995-2010 era was class leading when it came to steering, damping, feel and feedback. Possibly only BMW had such a consistently strong range in this period for customers who prioritized handling over nice dashboards and blingy bodykits. When I drove an XF,XK or the last two generations of XJ it reminded me of a very posh Ford. And that's not an insult, it's an accolade. Even Land Rovers gained some Focus-esque feel during this time. Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I have no particular affinity to Jaguar as a brand, never owned one and never even driven one. I think the XE looks great, with nice clean lines compared to most of its competitors.
I'm glad that JLR decided to build it as I've spent the last 12 months primarily working on structures supporting the production lines in the new BIW facility in Solihull - JLR expenditure massively helped the small engineering/construction company I work for through the recession, without them I'm not 100% sure we'd all still have our jobs. I hope it succeeds and is very popular.
I'm glad that JLR decided to build it as I've spent the last 12 months primarily working on structures supporting the production lines in the new BIW facility in Solihull - JLR expenditure massively helped the small engineering/construction company I work for through the recession, without them I'm not 100% sure we'd all still have our jobs. I hope it succeeds and is very popular.
Wills2 said:
Redlake27 said:
fatboy b said:
+1
Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I disagree. Every new Ford of the 1995-2010 era was class leading when it came to steering, damping, feel and feedback. Possibly only BMW had such a consistently strong range in this period for customers who prioritized handling over nice dashboards and blingy bodykits. When I drove an XF,XK or the last two generations of XJ it reminded me of a very posh Ford. And that's not an insult, it's an accolade. Even Land Rovers gained some Focus-esque feel during this time. Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
That's all beside the point though, if the Jag XE has a longitudinal engine, double wishbones, aluminium body panels and rear drive it's going to start from a much better place than a Mondeo (and at a much higher starting price) and I think it would be unfair to compare them.
Wills2 said:
Redlake27 said:
fatboy b said:
+1
Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I disagree. Every new Ford of the 1995-2010 era was class leading when it came to steering, damping, feel and feedback. Possibly only BMW had such a consistently strong range in this period for customers who prioritized handling over nice dashboards and blingy bodykits. When I drove an XF,XK or the last two generations of XJ it reminded me of a very posh Ford. And that's not an insult, it's an accolade. Even Land Rovers gained some Focus-esque feel during this time. Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I've yet to drive a Ford that handles and drives well. The original Lincoln platform they gave Jag for the S-Type wasn't good. Jag re-jigged it over the years, and is now (still) a class leader in the XF, which was one of the reasons for me buying one over the Germans.
The Mondeo platform they gave the X-Type was way too soggy, in fact every Mondeo derivative I've driven has been soggy, but to be fair, the x-type was done during Jags soggy stage. Not a good set up, but as said already 99% of Ford drivers today are happy with the mediocre stuff they turn out in the low-mid market they target.
DonkeyApple said:
XJ Flyer said:
DonkeyApple said:
When you loon at JLR you need to understand that it is the LR bit that has been delivering the profits. Not the J bit.
You can't sell enough GTs to stand alone, you can't sell enough big saloons or even mid sized saloons to stay in business.
If Jaguar hadn't come with Land Rover then Jaguar would have long gone at the point that Ford needed cash and had no cash to keep investing.
Even today Jaguar cannot stand on its own.
The whole purpose of the XE is to break Jaguar into the one non SUV sector that will allow it to pay its own way and start delivering profits. After the XE the little SUV will get them into the next biggest volume sector.
Jaguar simply doesn't make the right products to be a profitable and long term viable business regardless of how wonderful the products are. The volumes and margins don't combine to deliver more than they need to keep spending to keep those products going and advancing.
Jaguar has been running a deficit since they set out in this road with the new XK, then the XF, the XJ and the F. They've all been building up to attacking the company car and mini SUV sector without which they cannot survive.
I think most people want Jaguar to survive and thrive and some of is want them to to start sticking it to not just ze Germans but also the happy chappies at Land Rover. No one wants them to keep being the niche builder that they are in segments which they cannot be long term profitable in. It only leads in one direction.
Logically either the premium/low volume sector is delivering or it isn't.It seems difficult to believe that Jaguar would have invested so heavily in a range of supposed loss makers.Therefore I'd guess that the idea that Jaguar as it stands isn't a net contributor to the JLR Group's fortunes seems over pessimistic.From the point of view of Jaguar's core market it has always been a specialist low volume maker of premium/performance ranges which is a good thing.There doesn't seem to be any real reasons which would show that sector is not at least as profitable as the volume sector if not more so.With the volume sector having the most potential to go wrong in a bigger way in that regard. You can't sell enough GTs to stand alone, you can't sell enough big saloons or even mid sized saloons to stay in business.
If Jaguar hadn't come with Land Rover then Jaguar would have long gone at the point that Ford needed cash and had no cash to keep investing.
Even today Jaguar cannot stand on its own.
The whole purpose of the XE is to break Jaguar into the one non SUV sector that will allow it to pay its own way and start delivering profits. After the XE the little SUV will get them into the next biggest volume sector.
Jaguar simply doesn't make the right products to be a profitable and long term viable business regardless of how wonderful the products are. The volumes and margins don't combine to deliver more than they need to keep spending to keep those products going and advancing.
Jaguar has been running a deficit since they set out in this road with the new XK, then the XF, the XJ and the F. They've all been building up to attacking the company car and mini SUV sector without which they cannot survive.
I think most people want Jaguar to survive and thrive and some of is want them to to start sticking it to not just ze Germans but also the happy chappies at Land Rover. No one wants them to keep being the niche builder that they are in segments which they cannot be long term profitable in. It only leads in one direction.
The new XE body architecture is engineered to be modular, adaptable to other products. If successful these could include the Jaguar XE crossover and XE coupe. I expect we will also see, at some point, a Land Rover based on it. The same goes for the new 2 litre engine which, we are told, will eventually be installed across the whole JLR range in either diesel, petrol or hybrid form. This is necessary if JLR is to meet forthcoming fleet fuel economy/CO2/CAFE standards. If the small Jaguar bombs, the facility and the engineering will be employed making Land Rovers - a fail safe reason, I suspect, for it being built in Solihull in the first place.
I, too, hope that the XE will be a resounding success; but it has a mountain to climb.
fatboy b said:
Wills2 said:
Redlake27 said:
fatboy b said:
+1
Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I disagree. Every new Ford of the 1995-2010 era was class leading when it came to steering, damping, feel and feedback. Possibly only BMW had such a consistently strong range in this period for customers who prioritized handling over nice dashboards and blingy bodykits. When I drove an XF,XK or the last two generations of XJ it reminded me of a very posh Ford. And that's not an insult, it's an accolade. Even Land Rovers gained some Focus-esque feel during this time. Ford's is not, and will not be known for superb chassis engineering. They don't need to be given the market they are in.
I've yet to drive a Ford that handles and drives well. The original Lincoln platform they gave Jag for the S-Type wasn't good. Jag re-jigged it over the years, and is now (still) a class leader in the XF, which was one of the reasons for me buying one over the Germans.
The Mondeo platform they gave the X-Type was way too soggy, in fact every Mondeo derivative I've driven has been soggy, but to be fair, the x-type was done during Jags soggy stage. Not a good set up, but as said already 99% of Ford drivers today are happy with the mediocre stuff they turn out in the low-mid market they target.
This seems to be the general consensus amongst people in the know (or even people with just a bit of knowledge about ride and handling), rather than people who regurgitate Top Gear scripts 
The thing worth noting in Ford's defence is that from looking at their fleet/hire prices their £15k Fiesta or £20k Mondeo etc are much cheaper cars than, for example, the same priced Honda, Toyota or BMW. For the price I suspect it costs Ford to build their cars they're not bad. They find their value quickly in the secondhand market too, so Fords make good nearly new or low mileage purchases. They're hardly a benchmark for ride and handling though (with the exception of that fiddled press car I mentioned, and maybe others!).RobM77 said:
This seems to be the general consensus amongst people in the know (or even people with just a bit of knowledge about ride and handling), rather than people who regurgitate Top Gear scripts The thing worth noting in Ford's defence is that from looking at their fleet/hire prices their £15k Fiesta or £20k Mondeo etc are much cheaper cars than, for example, the same priced Honda, Toyota or BMW. For the price I suspect it costs Ford to build their cars they're not bad. They find their value quickly in the secondhand market too, so Fords make good nearly new or low mileage purchases. They're hardly a benchmark for ride and handling though (with the exception of that fiddled press car I mentioned, and maybe others!).
Fords are, in my experience, unpredictable things. My 2000 or so Fiesta Z S handled very nicely for a FWD shopping car (albeit its ride was a bit iffy); Fiesta of the next generation had a God awful ride and slightly worse handling; every Focus I have ever driven has handled better and had a slightly worse ride than the equivalent Golf. The current Focus is slightly better as regards handling than the Golf, in my view, and its ride is slightly harsher (but still fairly pleasant). I've only ever driven a couple of Mondeos and thought both very average (but cheap as chips, to be fair).
I see the Hitler point has been reached already; Top Gear has been mentioned. Game over. As ever, conveniently forgetting that people had opinions way, way before they were spouted on TV thus making them instantly void among PH cognoscenti.
To precis: "Well I've driven every car ever, and so have my friends and we all agree that Fords all handle like crap. And to prove my point, Top Gear say they are great."
Well there we are then, game over. All those reviews you ever read are totally wrong, as are all the opinions of PHers who have driven them. Strange that.
To precis: "Well I've driven every car ever, and so have my friends and we all agree that Fords all handle like crap. And to prove my point, Top Gear say they are great."
Well there we are then, game over. All those reviews you ever read are totally wrong, as are all the opinions of PHers who have driven them. Strange that.
fatboy b said:
The Mondeo platform they gave the X-Type was way too soggy,
Sure about that?X- Type Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,500 Nm/deg
Are you just making up facts to support your argument?
ZesPak said:
The Vambo said:
Sure about that?
X- Type Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,500 Nm/deg
Are you just making up facts to support your argument?
Can you put the 159 in there for good measure? X- Type Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,500 Nm/deg
Are you just making up facts to support your argument?
There had to be some benefit from weighing slightly more than the moon
kambites said:
I suspect there will be no more new mainstream cars released with hydraulic power steering.
At least one manufacturer is listening and replacing EPS with hydraulic PS http://blog.caranddriver.com/oh-thank-hydraulic-in...
ORD said:
RobM77 said:
This seems to be the general consensus amongst people in the know (or even people with just a bit of knowledge about ride and handling), rather than people who regurgitate Top Gear scripts The thing worth noting in Ford's defence is that from looking at their fleet/hire prices their £15k Fiesta or £20k Mondeo etc are much cheaper cars than, for example, the same priced Honda, Toyota or BMW. For the price I suspect it costs Ford to build their cars they're not bad. They find their value quickly in the secondhand market too, so Fords make good nearly new or low mileage purchases. They're hardly a benchmark for ride and handling though (with the exception of that fiddled press car I mentioned, and maybe others!).Fords are, in my experience, unpredictable things. My 2000 or so Fiesta Z S handled very nicely for a FWD shopping car (albeit its ride was a bit iffy); Fiesta of the next generation had a God awful ride and slightly worse handling; every Focus I have ever driven has handled better and had a slightly worse ride than the equivalent Golf. The current Focus is slightly better as regards handling than the Golf, in my view, and its ride is slightly harsher (but still fairly pleasant). I've only ever driven a couple of Mondeos and thought both very average (but cheap as chips, to be fair).
The Vambo said:
fatboy b said:
The Mondeo platform they gave the X-Type was way too soggy,
Sure about that?X- Type Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,500 Nm/deg
Are you just making up facts to support your argument?
RobM77 said:
I'm certainly not pro-BMW: don't get me started! I think my post is pretty fair to be honest and not too critical of Ford - if you think of them as worth two thirds of what they sell for, they're not bad.
mk1 Ford Ka and mk1 Focus have fantastic ride and handling IME and all those fantastic reviews of the new Fiesta ST can't be wrong surely? Never found the Mondeo anything special to be honest and test drove a mk3 Focus recently which was a bit "meh". No worse than anything else in its sector but crucially no better either. Would rather have a mk7 Golf to be honest. With regards to the new Jag, I quite like it and on looks alone would have one over the equivalent BMW/Audi/Mercedes. It is quite conservatively styled but contemporary and pleasant enough all the same. The new Alfa Romeo may look better when it gets here but can't see it doing as well commercially as the XE in the UK at least. New BMWs do nothing for me, even the M3/M4, which I believe are close to F-Type money now? I like the rather lovely 6-Series Gran Coupe, but it is way out of my price range, so for me, lovely but irrelevant! Audis are just dull (quite like the S model Audis but expect they are still competent but dull) and I'm a fan of Mercedes but get the impression that quality is up and comfort and driving dynamics are down in the recent staple models.
Crucially, if the Jag is best to drive in class, it has a good chance of doing very well. Perhaps a turn as Commander Bond's next company car (V6 not diesel, obviously) would also do wonders for its public image and be a shrewd move by JLR? Personally, I'm not currently in the market for one but if I was, a petrol option priced somewhere between the 27k diesel and 40k V6 (but closer to 27k) with a blown 4-pot or NA V6 and a manual gearbox option would be very nice to see. I like the XF/XJ/XK too but the F-Type and this are the only current models in the Jaguar range that I think are relevant to me and I would consider buying.
fatboy b said:
The Vambo said:
fatboy b said:
The Mondeo platform they gave the X-Type was way too soggy,
Sure about that?X- Type Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 18,000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 Saloon Torsional Rigidity 22,500 Nm/deg
Are you just making up facts to support your argument?
I didn't like the Puma or first gen Ka either, by the way. I thought both felt cheap compared to the contemporary Nissans I had access to. Pretty, sure, but they drove like cheap cars, bouncing and rattling along compared to the smoother riding, predictable and all-round engineered until finished feeling the K11 Micra and Almeras gave. Back to the Cougar - ironically that was vastly improved by fitting the Eibach springs and dampers offered in the options brochure. It should have come with those as standard. It rode a little firmer but at least was damped properly and the car came alive a lot more on the road. Had the press cars had the Eibachs fitted chances are it wouldn't have been panned in comparison to the Puma which I really didn't rate highly at all.
aeropilot said:
kambites said:
I suspect there will be no more new mainstream cars released with hydraulic power steering.
At least one manufacturer is listening and replacing EPS with hydraulic PS http://blog.caranddriver.com/oh-thank-hydraulic-in...
fatboy b said:
Soggy as in soft springs. Your figures, though probably true, will mean nothing to 99% of drivers. It's the springs and dampers they care about.
The springs and dampers were not Ford items, they were Jaguar specific. So what you actually mean is that Jaguar ruined the perfectly good Mondeo chassis by fitting their own rubbish bits to it. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff