RE: Jag: we got it wrong
Discussion
I actually tried to buy one, I wanted the sovereign diesel estate with 4wd...but unfortunately they only did the diesel in 2wd so I told them they had missed the sale and I bought a Cayenne instead!
in estate form it was actually quite a good looking car, just did not want to have the full petrol consumption of the 3 liter.
perhaps next time jaguar?
in estate form it was actually quite a good looking car, just did not want to have the full petrol consumption of the 3 liter.
perhaps next time jaguar?
y2blade said:
Jag: we got it wrong.
I knew this would be about Ford Diluting the brand!
"Ford's Premier Automotive Group"
All Ford have done is make those in the "premier Automotive group" worse! .......look at what Ford have done to Aston Martin, Volvo Cars and Land Rover as well.
Too add: I knew this would be about Ford Diluting the brand!
"Ford's Premier Automotive Group"
All Ford have done is make those in the "premier Automotive group" worse! .......look at what Ford have done to Aston Martin, Volvo Cars and Land Rover as well.Hopefully Tata are sorting Jaguar out along with Land Rover, while Volvo are in the hands of Geeley.
nickbee said:
405dogvan said:
The X Type was only 4WD because the Mondeo is a FWD car and Jaguar could not bring itself to sell a FWD car
There were far more FWD X Types then there were 4WD X Types!P6 and Triumph 2000/2500/2.5PI were 3-box saloons. SD1 was the first full size 5-door mass production hatch. Anyone who thinks the decapitated Daytona looks better than the fastback ought to go to Specsavers IMO... especially as I seem to recall Ferrari never built a Daytona drophead, they're all conversions IIRC. The 'classic' three box saloon is dying and I for one am very glad that Jaguar has abandoned it. X351 looks fantastic and it's the only XJ which is entirely in proportion and wouldn't make me look ancient.
tadaah said:
Dblue said:
i thought that was the previous generation S Type?
Must be a seriously modified development of the older car and of course its all aluminium
DEW98 underpinned the original S type X200. X202 (2002 MY) got rid of a fair chunk of Ford parts and its developed ever since and so the "platform" XF shares is barely like DEW98Must be a seriously modified development of the older car and of course its all aluminium
However, XF is most definitely made from steel!
Of course it is.getting confused with XJ
Always liked the facelift 3.0 V6 AWD estate: nice pointy-ish steering, decent grip (obv') and nicely damped. Looks OK, too, but the cabin is a wee bit naff 
If only Ford/PAG had launched the X-type before the mk3 Mondeo, then the latter would've been perceived as 'an X-type in drag', as opposed to vice-versa. Short-sighted product planners, eh, don't you just love 'em?
If only Ford/PAG had launched the X-type before the mk3 Mondeo, then the latter would've been perceived as 'an X-type in drag', as opposed to vice-versa. Short-sighted product planners, eh, don't you just love 'em?
Well I like my 3.0 x-type, despite paying far too much for it. I think the problem is they aren't big luxo barges like old jags, but neither are they practical family cars. Plus they lack the BMW/AUDI badge that seems to appeal to tosser brigade these days.
2.1v6 and the diesels are FWD. 2.5/3.0 petrols are AWD and go quite nicely. I think they are a well kept secret for those in the know, a bit juicy but generally very reliable and comfortable.
2.1v6 and the diesels are FWD. 2.5/3.0 petrols are AWD and go quite nicely. I think they are a well kept secret for those in the know, a bit juicy but generally very reliable and comfortable.
VladD said:
I think there must be some irony in claiming the X-Type wasn't styled very well now that we have the hugely bland XF. Being in mind that I own an S-Type, when I first showed my wife an XF and asked her who she thought made it, she said she wasn't sure, but thought it must be Japanese. At least when you look at the X-Type you know it's a Jag without having to check the badge. Jaguar have swapped character and brand recogintion for mass sales. Fair enough, but I miss proper looking Jags.
Couldn't agree more. Modern Jags look like every other euroblob out there. I miss the class Jag look. [quote=MadDog1962]Quite a lot of people thought the X type looked nice, and still do. It's really no more Ford than the S type was, and the Ford switchgear is actually very good.
The S-Type was based on the US Lincoln LS (a division of Ford) The X-Type was just a Mondeo with a fancy suit and that was no bad thing!
The original X-Types were 2.5 or 3 litre petrol 4X4 models. FWD arrived with the 2.1 V6 and 2.0/2.2 diesels.
The S-Type was based on the US Lincoln LS (a division of Ford) The X-Type was just a Mondeo with a fancy suit and that was no bad thing!
The original X-Types were 2.5 or 3 litre petrol 4X4 models. FWD arrived with the 2.1 V6 and 2.0/2.2 diesels.
A few observations. The Rover SD1 was well received when it was launched - it won the Car of the Year award in 1977. Several journalists, when it was to them revealed, compared it with the Ferrari Daytona. David Bache, who styled it, was highly regarded in his day. Poor build quality was its undoing, like so many cars coming out of Midlands factories in those days.
When buying a Jaguar Sportbrake, I enquired about the absence of AWD, then being launched on N American spec Jaguars. The reason given for not offering it in the UK was poor take-up in the UK on previous models (presumably referring to the X type).
The earlier comments shows how important it is for manufacturers to try to manage perceptions about their products. The X type clearly suffers in this respect because of its perceived Mondeo associations. Someone earlier commented that it would have been better if the more expensive product was launched first and the less expensive launched later. I think there is something in this. The most successful current example of shared platforms and components appears to be the VW Group. Most VW Group customers of the many brands seem totally unaware of this - a remarkable achievement in this day and age.
When buying a Jaguar Sportbrake, I enquired about the absence of AWD, then being launched on N American spec Jaguars. The reason given for not offering it in the UK was poor take-up in the UK on previous models (presumably referring to the X type).
The earlier comments shows how important it is for manufacturers to try to manage perceptions about their products. The X type clearly suffers in this respect because of its perceived Mondeo associations. Someone earlier commented that it would have been better if the more expensive product was launched first and the less expensive launched later. I think there is something in this. The most successful current example of shared platforms and components appears to be the VW Group. Most VW Group customers of the many brands seem totally unaware of this - a remarkable achievement in this day and age.
A few observations. The Rover SD1 was well received when it was launched - it won the Car of the Year award in 1977. Several journalists, when it was to them revealed, compared it with the Ferrari Daytona. David Bache, who styled it, was highly regarded in his day. Poor build quality was its undoing, like so many cars coming out of Midlands factories in those days.
When buying a Jaguar Sportbrake, I enquired about the absence of AWD, then being launched on N American spec Jaguars. The reason given for not offering it in the UK was poor take-up in the UK on previous models (presumably referring to the X type).
The earlier comments shows how important it is for manufacturers to try to manage perceptions about their products. The X type clearly suffers in this respect because of its perceived Mondeo associations. Someone earlier commented that it would have been better if the more expensive product was launched first and the less expensive launched later. I think there is something in this. The most successful current example of shared platforms and components appears to be the VW Group. Most VW Group customers of the many brands seem totally unaware of this - a remarkable achievement in this day and age.
When buying a Jaguar Sportbrake, I enquired about the absence of AWD, then being launched on N American spec Jaguars. The reason given for not offering it in the UK was poor take-up in the UK on previous models (presumably referring to the X type).
The earlier comments shows how important it is for manufacturers to try to manage perceptions about their products. The X type clearly suffers in this respect because of its perceived Mondeo associations. Someone earlier commented that it would have been better if the more expensive product was launched first and the less expensive launched later. I think there is something in this. The most successful current example of shared platforms and components appears to be the VW Group. Most VW Group customers of the many brands seem totally unaware of this - a remarkable achievement in this day and age.
VolvoT5 said:
VladD said:
I think there must be some irony in claiming the X-Type wasn't styled very well now that we have the hugely bland XF. Being in mind that I own an S-Type, when I first showed my wife an XF and asked her who she thought made it, she said she wasn't sure, but thought it must be Japanese. At least when you look at the X-Type you know it's a Jag without having to check the badge. Jaguar have swapped character and brand recogintion for mass sales. Fair enough, but I miss proper looking Jags.
Couldn't agree more. Modern Jags look like every other euroblob out there. I miss the class Jag look. RoverP6B said:
P6 and Triumph 2000/2500/2.5PI were 3-box saloons. SD1 was the first full size 5-door mass production hatch. Anyone who thinks the decapitated Daytona looks better than the fastback ought to go to Specsavers IMO... especially as I seem to recall Ferrari never built a Daytona drophead, they're all conversions IIRC. The 'classic' three box saloon is dying and I for one am very glad that Jaguar has abandoned it. X351 looks fantastic and it's the only XJ which is entirely in proportion and wouldn't make me look ancient.
It's obviously all a matter of personal perception but if I was running Jaguar I think I'd have preferred the idea of at least keeping onging developments of the X350 in production thereby keeping all sides of the argument happy.As for the Daytona regardless of who actually chopped the roofs off the convertibles it certainly made them look better depending on point of view.It's my bet that the idea was a factory option based on the demands of those who agreed now with current values to match resulting in more retro roof chop conversions.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnl4Y-nYdJE
All very well the Jaguar traditionalists on here decrying the loss of their traditional "three-box" big saloon, but, can I just point out that staying in that particular comfort zone for too long [as the Ford management did when they owned the brand], came with two consequences. Neither were good ones....
1) Global Jaguar sales stagnated; there was nothing new on offer.
2) That traditional "three-box" saloon image just reinforced market perception that Jaguar was a brand for your grandad.
Jaguar recognized it had to move on. It must, because the "three-box" saloon market sector is dying underneath it. Even the mighty Mercedes S-Class is suffering from a long, slow, inevitable decline in annual sale volume. Buyers in that sector are now much more into premium sector SUV's, upmarket 4X4's, big coupe's and so on. Even the company chairman isn't by default in a "three-box" saloon any more.
Arguably, the X-type was also far too "three-box" saloon traditional. As others have said, it sold far better when the estate version eventually came out. Ditto for the XF estate just recently. Another case where Jaguar were late to get product out to where the market is now at. They have to stop bowing to tradition; I believe current management really "gets" this and will now innovate.
1) Global Jaguar sales stagnated; there was nothing new on offer.
2) That traditional "three-box" saloon image just reinforced market perception that Jaguar was a brand for your grandad.
Jaguar recognized it had to move on. It must, because the "three-box" saloon market sector is dying underneath it. Even the mighty Mercedes S-Class is suffering from a long, slow, inevitable decline in annual sale volume. Buyers in that sector are now much more into premium sector SUV's, upmarket 4X4's, big coupe's and so on. Even the company chairman isn't by default in a "three-box" saloon any more.
Arguably, the X-type was also far too "three-box" saloon traditional. As others have said, it sold far better when the estate version eventually came out. Ditto for the XF estate just recently. Another case where Jaguar were late to get product out to where the market is now at. They have to stop bowing to tradition; I believe current management really "gets" this and will now innovate.
So why did Ford manage to make such a pigs ear of Jaguar whilst doing a decent job at Volvo around the same time?
Under the (10 year?)tenure of Ford, Volvo knocked out the S60/V70, S80 (although already in production), C30, C70 and S40/V50.
Maybe because the S60/V70 and S80 were already pretty much developed by Volvo before the take over and that's why they are considered to be 'proper' Volvos, whereas the S40/V50 and C30 were all based on the Focus platform?
Just something to ponder on....
Under the (10 year?)tenure of Ford, Volvo knocked out the S60/V70, S80 (although already in production), C30, C70 and S40/V50.
Maybe because the S60/V70 and S80 were already pretty much developed by Volvo before the take over and that's why they are considered to be 'proper' Volvos, whereas the S40/V50 and C30 were all based on the Focus platform?
Just something to ponder on....
Hi Garett,
Several reasons, I would say.
1) Jaguar had no "small car platform" lurking round the back of the R&D sheds, so Ford got to tell them/show them how to engineer a smaller car. You have to be smarter to build a smaller car than a big one - less profit margin to play with and your cost-of-build is more critical.
Outcome was:- go a way down that road with the Ford US-culture running the show - and you likely end up with another Ford..
2) Diversification leads to top management distraction. [I learned this one for myself the hard way back when I ran a company in the IT industry]. Ford had Jaguar, Volvo, Aston Martin and what-all else cooped in together under that PAG umbrella. Cue an outbreak of senior managers jockeying & competing for development funds, the distractions of keeping 6 balls in the air 24X7 rather than 2 or 3...you get the picture..
Volvo - yes, probably were just far enough ahead on that curve that Ford management let that stone keep rolling down the chosen path. There was far less to work with at Jaguar; cue Ford getting (too) heavy-handed?
I don't really blame Ford for their tenure of Jaguar; they did get the quality up and spent a fortune modernizing the production facilities there. But it ain't easy to bring a tired brand back from the near-dead. The BMW top management team were thought to be capable of walking on water - before they tried to turn Rover around, that is......
Several reasons, I would say.
1) Jaguar had no "small car platform" lurking round the back of the R&D sheds, so Ford got to tell them/show them how to engineer a smaller car. You have to be smarter to build a smaller car than a big one - less profit margin to play with and your cost-of-build is more critical.
Outcome was:- go a way down that road with the Ford US-culture running the show - and you likely end up with another Ford..
2) Diversification leads to top management distraction. [I learned this one for myself the hard way back when I ran a company in the IT industry]. Ford had Jaguar, Volvo, Aston Martin and what-all else cooped in together under that PAG umbrella. Cue an outbreak of senior managers jockeying & competing for development funds, the distractions of keeping 6 balls in the air 24X7 rather than 2 or 3...you get the picture..
Volvo - yes, probably were just far enough ahead on that curve that Ford management let that stone keep rolling down the chosen path. There was far less to work with at Jaguar; cue Ford getting (too) heavy-handed?
I don't really blame Ford for their tenure of Jaguar; they did get the quality up and spent a fortune modernizing the production facilities there. But it ain't easy to bring a tired brand back from the near-dead. The BMW top management team were thought to be capable of walking on water - before they tried to turn Rover around, that is......
I thought the gypo jag was let down by its build quality.
While test driving at launch I was impressed with the 2.5 v6 and it's road holding.
I didn't like the interior, thought it was trying to be a jag and failed, also (and I don't have long nails) my nail clipped the centre console when changing gear and the cream became black.
That put me right of them. Thought they were cutting corners, excuse the pun.
While test driving at launch I was impressed with the 2.5 v6 and it's road holding.
I didn't like the interior, thought it was trying to be a jag and failed, also (and I don't have long nails) my nail clipped the centre console when changing gear and the cream became black.
That put me right of them. Thought they were cutting corners, excuse the pun.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff