RE: Jaguar XE - full details

[DonkeyApple]

XJ Flyer said:

The Vambo said:

XJ Flyer said:

The idea of whether Jaguar should,or need to be,involved in the mass market has always been an arguable point.

This stopped being a realistic question 10 years ago along with 4x4 Porsches and Diesel Maseratis.

If the punter will hand over cash for it, then every sensible manufacturer will forget some of their principles and build it.

It isn't a question of customers and cash.It is actually all about the return on investment and in general the potential returns on investment required in the volume sector can often be more of a problem than in the low volume sector.

Both right.

Strip out Land Rover and the Jaguar bit has not been doing too well. The problem with Jaguar is the exact thing that has benefitted Land Rover and that is that the margins in the more premium sector has been in SUVs. It's a trend that has been growing for 15 years as big saloons have way to SUVs but the credit crunch decimated saloon sales and sped up the shift.

While Land Rover is in rude health and the lower volume, high margin model is seemingly right for that brand, Jaguar has reached the point that it cannot survive on just GT sales, a few big saloons and a reasonable number of modest saloons. It's only option is to get into the volume market and build its revenues that way.

This has been the case for Jaguar for a long time. Ford recognised this and pumped in the cash to enter the volume, fleet market but they and Jaguar fked it up. It was then bundled with Land Rover and sold and TATA has known that they need to do this. We all know the tiny budget theyanaged to complete and roll the XF out on a tiny budget. It's taken them a very long time to be in the right position to launch the XE and try the fleet market again.

I think that everyone recognises that if this £1.5bln debt investment fails to deliver and carve a solid niche in the fleet market for Jaguar then there is an extremely strong chance that Jaguar will cease to exist in its current guise. There is no doubt this XE is hugely important.

[fatboy b]

Prawnboy said:

Redlake27 said:

Ford's legacy to Jaguar was superb chassis engineering

WTF
because Jag were not known for building excellent cars before ford came for a slice of executive badge purchasing.
Fords legacy to jaguar was giving them a sub-par product to take into this segment years ago.

+1
All Ford did really was pump money in and inhibit Jag's styling and power given they also had Aston Martin. Ford's management was pretty crap really. Tata's on the other hand has set them free.

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.

[fatboy b]

blasos said:

I think it looks outdated already. Just like the XK and XF. How Jaguar can produce such designs when they have also got the sublime F-Type and the gorgeous XJ is rather baffling.

Says the man who drives the most boring and outdated of Audi's range. FFS. The XF is still a cracking looking car compared to anything German. Yes I have one, but I also dismissed the st coming out of Germany when I was looking to replace my previous XF.

[The Vambo]

fatboy b said:

Prawnboy said:

Redlake27 said:

Ford's legacy to Jaguar was superb chassis engineering

WTF
because Jag were not known for building excellent cars before ford came for a slice of executive badge purchasing.
Fords legacy to jaguar was giving them a sub-par product to take into this segment years ago.

+1
All Ford did really was pump money in and inhibit Jag's styling and power given they also had Aston Martin. Ford's management was pretty crap really. Tata's on the other hand has set them free.

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 think you do Ford a real disservice

Gavin green said:

'Apart from some Soviet factories in the Russian city of Gorky,' Ford's first Jaguar boss, Bill Hayden, told me soon after he replaced Sir John, 'Jaguar's British factory was the worst I'd seen. The labour practices, demarcation lines and general untidiness were unacceptable.'

Ford made Jaguar a viable(ish) modern car manufacturer

[stuart-b]

DonkeyApple said:

Both right.

Strip out Land Rover and the Jaguar bit has not been doing too well. The problem with Jaguar is the exact thing that has benefitted Land Rover and that is that the margins in the more premium sector has been in SUVs. It's a trend that has been growing for 15 years as big saloons have way to SUVs but the credit crunch decimated saloon sales and sped up the shift.

While Land Rover is in rude health and the lower volume, high margin model is seemingly right for that brand, Jaguar has reached the point that it cannot survive on just GT sales, a few big saloons and a reasonable number of modest saloons. It's only option is to get into the volume market and build its revenues that way.

This has been the case for Jaguar for a long time. Ford recognised this and pumped in the cash to enter the volume, fleet market but they and Jaguar fked it up. It was then bundled with Land Rover and sold and TATA has known that they need to do this. We all know the tiny budget theyanaged to complete and roll the XF out on a tiny budget. It's taken them a very long time to be in the right position to launch the XE and try the fleet market again.

I think that everyone recognises that if this £1.5bln debt investment fails to deliver and carve a solid niche in the fleet market for Jaguar then there is an extremely strong chance that Jaguar will cease to exist in its current guise. There is no doubt this XE is hugely important.

Very well said - good market analysis.

[fatboy b]

The Vambo said:

fatboy b said:

Prawnboy said:

Redlake27 said:

Ford's legacy to Jaguar was superb chassis engineering

WTF
because Jag were not known for building excellent cars before ford came for a slice of executive badge purchasing.
Fords legacy to jaguar was giving them a sub-par product to take into this segment years ago.

+1
All Ford did really was pump money in and inhibit Jag's styling and power given they also had Aston Martin. Ford's management was pretty crap really. Tata's on the other hand has set them free.

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 think you do Ford a real disservice

Gavin green said:

'Apart from some Soviet factories in the Russian city of Gorky,' Ford's first Jaguar boss, Bill Hayden, told me soon after he replaced Sir John, 'Jaguar's British factory was the worst I'd seen. The labour practices, demarcation lines and general untidiness were unacceptable.'

Ford made Jaguar a viable(ish) modern car manufacturer

They had to invest in the production processes granted, but they then held back Jag with retro styling, and bad platforms. The latter they sorted on the facelift S-type, and XF, but The Ford styling management were stuck in the 80s with them, and didn't really know where to take them.

So in summary, lots of money (good) But no direction (not good).

[XJ Flyer]

DonkeyApple said:

XJ Flyer said:

The Vambo said:

XJ Flyer said:

The idea of whether Jaguar should,or need to be,involved in the mass market has always been an arguable point.

This stopped being a realistic question 10 years ago along with 4x4 Porsches and Diesel Maseratis.

If the punter will hand over cash for it, then every sensible manufacturer will forget some of their principles and build it.

It isn't a question of customers and cash.It is actually all about the return on investment and in general the potential returns on investment required in the volume sector can often be more of a problem than in the low volume sector.

Both right.

Strip out Land Rover and the Jaguar bit has not been doing too well. The problem with Jaguar is the exact thing that has benefitted Land Rover and that is that the margins in the more premium sector has been in SUVs. It's a trend that has been growing for 15 years as big saloons have way to SUVs but the credit crunch decimated saloon sales and sped up the shift.

While Land Rover is in rude health and the lower volume, high margin model is seemingly right for that brand, Jaguar has reached the point that it cannot survive on just GT sales, a few big saloons and a reasonable number of modest saloons. It's only option is to get into the volume market and build its revenues that way.

This has been the case for Jaguar for a long time. Ford recognised this and pumped in the cash to enter the volume, fleet market but they and Jaguar fked it up. It was then bundled with Land Rover and sold and TATA has known that they need to do this. We all know the tiny budget theyanaged to complete and roll the XF out on a tiny budget. It's taken them a very long time to be in the right position to launch the XE and try the fleet market again.

I think that everyone recognises that if this £1.5bln debt investment fails to deliver and carve a solid niche in the fleet market for Jaguar then there is an extremely strong chance that Jaguar will cease to exist in its current guise. There is no doubt this XE is hugely important.

Which seems to be a contradiction.IE by that comparison surely the XF has produced,or at least has the potential to produce,a better return on investment than the XE.The final conclusion there seems to be saying what Jaguar knew in the 1960's.In that the break even point of getting the required returns in the volume sector was/is much higher than the Mk2,S type,and XJ sector.Which is why Jaguar are still there but Dagenham and Luton are long gone.Just as getting involved in the volume sector killed off Jaguar's JRT division partners in the old Leyland group.I'll stand by the idea that the volume fleet sector is probably no place for Jaguar.With your final point showing the possible downsides which are,for a lower volume specialist producer like Jaguar,a risk that is arguably not worth taking.

[The Vambo]

fatboy b said:

They had to invest in the production processes granted, but they then held back Jag with retro styling, and bad platforms. The latter they sorted on the facelift S-type, and XF, but The Ford styling management were stuck in the 80s with them, and didn't really know where to take them.

So in summary, lots of money (good) But no direction (not good).

If you were trying to summarise in the least balanced way, then you could say that.

Or you you could say that of the many issues that Ford had to deal with with Jaguar, they sorted the manufacturing plants, sorted industrial relations, designed technically decent products and only really screwed up one thing. The styling.

Not a bad report card.

[DonkeyApple]

XJ Flyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

XJ Flyer said:

The Vambo said:

XJ Flyer said:

The idea of whether Jaguar should,or need to be,involved in the mass market has always been an arguable point.

This stopped being a realistic question 10 years ago along with 4x4 Porsches and Diesel Maseratis.

If the punter will hand over cash for it, then every sensible manufacturer will forget some of their principles and build it.

It isn't a question of customers and cash.It is actually all about the return on investment and in general the potential returns on investment required in the volume sector can often be more of a problem than in the low volume sector.

Both right.

Strip out Land Rover and the Jaguar bit has not been doing too well. The problem with Jaguar is the exact thing that has benefitted Land Rover and that is that the margins in the more premium sector has been in SUVs. It's a trend that has been growing for 15 years as big saloons have way to SUVs but the credit crunch decimated saloon sales and sped up the shift.

While Land Rover is in rude health and the lower volume, high margin model is seemingly right for that brand, Jaguar has reached the point that it cannot survive on just GT sales, a few big saloons and a reasonable number of modest saloons. It's only option is to get into the volume market and build its revenues that way.

This has been the case for Jaguar for a long time. Ford recognised this and pumped in the cash to enter the volume, fleet market but they and Jaguar fked it up. It was then bundled with Land Rover and sold and TATA has known that they need to do this. We all know the tiny budget theyanaged to complete and roll the XF out on a tiny budget. It's taken them a very long time to be in the right position to launch the XE and try the fleet market again.

I think that everyone recognises that if this £1.5bln debt investment fails to deliver and carve a solid niche in the fleet market for Jaguar then there is an extremely strong chance that Jaguar will cease to exist in its current guise. There is no doubt this XE is hugely important.

Which seems to be a contradiction.IE by that comparison surely the XF has produced,or at least has the potential to produce,a better return on investment than the XE.The final conclusion there seems to be saying what Jaguar knew in the 1960's.In that the break even point of getting the required returns in the volume sector was/is much higher than the Mk2,S type,and XJ sector.Which is why Jaguar are still there but Dagenham and Luton are long gone.Just as getting involved in the volume sector killed off Jaguar's JRT division partners in the old Leyland group.I'll stand by the idea that the volume fleet sector is probably no place for Jaguar.With your final point showing the possible downsides which are,for a lower volume specialist producer like Jaguar,a risk that is arguably not worth taking.

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.

[Redlake27]

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.

[ORD]

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.

Agreed. I really want Jaguar to succeed, not least because it might force other marques (esp BMW) to up their game.

The F-Type is probably the only car for a long time to make Porsche sit up and worry about the competition. If Jag can do the same thing in the small saloon class (but to BMW), I'll be chuffed. If I were BMW, I would take Jag more seriously than MB or Audi when it comes to this segment - the other two just don't produce credible drivers cars (except their top end stuff), whereas Jag seems eager to embarrass BMW in its own backyard in that respect.

If the XE turns out to be any good, the next generation 3 series might well be excellent. It does us no favours at all for BMW to only have the C class and Audis to beat as regards dynamics.

[DonkeyApple]

ORD said:

Agreed. I really want Jaguar to succeed, not least because it might force other marques (esp BMW) to up their game.

The F-Type is probably the only car for a long time to make Porsche sit up and worry about the competition. If Jag can do the same thing in the small saloon class (but to BMW), I'll be chuffed. If I were BMW, I would take Jag more seriously than MB or Audi when it comes to this segment - the other two just don't produce credible drivers cars (except their top end stuff), whereas Jag seems eager to embarrass BMW in its own backyard in that respect.

If the XE turns out to be any good, the next generation 3 series might well be excellent. It does us no favours at all for BMW to only have the C class and Audis to beat as regards dynamics.

That's an interesting point. BMW have trade heavily on being a driver's car but there is no doubt that a little bit like Porsche they aren't as strong at present as they have been in the past. Jaguar on the other hand has been synonymous with proper driving for far longer and have spent the last decade building that back up along with building a prestige image once again as well as working hard to get away from the sweaty/dirty old man image of the recent past.

Their recent investment in their special works division is very smart as is the relaunch of the lightweight ETypes. It's all very well times to highlight the glorious past with an exciting future. And they've had the good fortune for their hard work to seemingly coincide at a time when the claimed RWD mid level specialist seems to have dropped the ball a bit.

[XJ Flyer]

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.

[DonkeyApple]

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.

OK.

[aeropilot]

Given how aero computer models are always going to chuck out the same optimum shape and so, it's naturally going to look generically like all the other cars in the dame segment, I think it looks pretty damn good, and gets a 9/10 from me for the outside.

However, I'm mightily disappointed with that interior given how nice the Jag XF and XJ interiors are and on those photos only, barely gets a 5/10.

And then there's the bloody EPS, really didn't think Jag would go down this route, and that alone would likely mean it won't be the replacement for my BM in a few years time

[Pesty]

EPS doesn't seem to have caused a problem with Porsche. What makes you think BMW wont go down that route in the name of fuel economy.

[ORD]

aeropilot said:

Given how aero computer models are always going to chuck out the same optimum shape and so, it's naturally going to look generically like all the other cars in the dame segment, I think it looks pretty damn good, and gets a 9/10 from me for the outside.

However, I'm mightily disappointed with that interior given how nice the Jag XF and XJ interiors are and on those photos only, barely gets a 5/10.

And then there's the bloody EPS, really didn't think Jag would go down this route, and that alone would likely mean it won't be the replacement for my BM in a few years time

Really? In a car that needs to be super efficient? I would have bet my house on it having EPS. Even sports cars now have it!

[anonymous-user]

For a 99gram car, EPS is a necessity!

And it's worth noting that the reason the latest 3 series for example is "less sporty" than the old one is because that is what the market is asking for. The number of people who want a comfortable, quiet, fuel efficient car now outweigh the number who want a hard riding sports model by a factor of at least 100. BMW (and merc, and audi, and JLR) know this, which is why they release their cars tuned in this way to suit this audience!

[aeropilot]

ORD said:

aeropilot said:

Given how aero computer models are always going to chuck out the same optimum shape and so, it's naturally going to look generically like all the other cars in the dame segment, I think it looks pretty damn good, and gets a 9/10 from me for the outside.

However, I'm mightily disappointed with that interior given how nice the Jag XF and XJ interiors are and on those photos only, barely gets a 5/10.

And then there's the bloody EPS, really didn't think Jag would go down this route, and that alone would likely mean it won't be the replacement for my BM in a few years time

Really? In a car that needs to be super efficient?

Yeah, like that's goning to make a big difference with a blown 3.0V6 under the bonnet.

Fair enough fitting EPS to the 4 cyl soot chuckers that the reps will be buying, but, they could have kept the proper steering for those still interested in buying a proper Jag.

[TransverseTight]

Limpet said:

Jag > Audi > BMW > Merc for me.

Rear end of the new C-class is hideous, IMHO.

Not far off my opinion.. But Id go with :
Jag something fresher if a bit saloon shaped. But what shape could it be? I suppose they could have made it look like Lady Penelope'ss 6 wheel roller. And done matching pink and blue versions for him and her.
Audi Bit too familiar and not good looking. Just not offensive. Not since about 2006 have I really like their new designs.
Merc are trying to break the mould at bit too much and broke it. But miles better than their old round head lamp thingys.
BMW. All BMW since 2005 may as well have been made in Korea, north Korea at that and the designers were told all those concave and convex shapes are important to show our superiority in bending metal. You will include them or be used as a target on the rifle range.