Tuesday 16th February 2010

Former GM Europe Boss To Head-Up Tata/JLR

Carl-Peter Forster takes the reins as CEO of Tata and will oversee Jaguar Land Rover

---

Carl-Peter Forster, the former head of General Motors Europe, has been appointed group CEO of Tata Motors.

The appointment means that Mr Forster will oversee the whole of Tata Motors' global interests, including Jaguar Land Rover.

Tata chairman Ratan Tata was predictably ebullient about Forster's appointment: "Tata Motors expects that Mr. Forster's induction will greatly facilitate its ambition towards being a truly international company," he said.

But Forster himself was a little more equivocal. "People normally get 100 days, plus or minus. Give me that time and we'll meet again," he told a news conference in Delhi.

Forster's caution is perhaps understandable. Tata motors recently swung back into profit and JLR's sales were up by 93 per cent in January, but Tata posted its first loss for seven years last March.

So what does Forster's arrival mean for JLR? It's too early to say, but one thing for certain is that it is an indication of just how seriously Mr Tata takes his car businesses - which range from the tiny £1400 Nano to the rather more rarefied ranks of Jags and Range Rovers.

Tata clearly has ambitions towards becoming a global force, and a man of Forster's experience in the industry ought to constitute a pretty safe pair of hands.

[u81922]

So that's based on GM's years of success in the European market then?

[Frimley111R]

u81922 said:

So that's based on GM's years of success in the European market then?

LOL, that occurred to me too. He is a FORMER head of GM Europe. Why former?

[Robert80]

I for one hope he manages to do some good things, he's got the experience.

He stepped down from GM Europe last year when the GM board canned the sale of GM Europe to Magna.

Edited by Robert80 on Tuesday 16th February 14:35

[anonymous-user]

I’m quite interested to see what this guy does! I’m a secret JLR fan! What I think they need is another brand, sub JLR but above TATA. This would allow for some sort of Platform sharing, which seems the only way to do things these days. It would allow Jag to move up a little with another brand covering the smaller potentially profitable cars lower down (Audi A3 in the top 10 UK sales). Range Rover and Land Rover could then move up and little further apart (Luxury/Family). TATA could sell its next gen cars in Europe as Kia/Hyudai have proved it is very much a growing market at the bottom. The new brand could cover the middle ground rivalling the VW area! Pity there are no brands available that would suit ,pity MG isn’t available, as it would sit well with JLR.

[Robert80]

They may not have the rights to MG but they do to Rover, that could suit your idea well.

[waremark]

Jag is positioned against BMW and Merc at the top end; it is a suitable brand for attacking their smaller cars. The fact that the X Type failed does not mean that the strategy was wrong. But whether and when Tata will be able to afford to try again ...

Why do people think the X Type (which was a pretty good car) failed: wrong range (diesel and estate too late), wrong looks, image damaged by link to Mondeo, or wrong marketing?

[anonymous-user]

waremark said:

Jag is positioned against BMW and Merc at the top end; it is a suitable brand for attacking their smaller cars. The fact that the X Type failed does not mean that the strategy was wrong. But whether and when Tata will be able to afford to try again ...

Why do people think the X Type (which was a pretty good car) failed: wrong range (diesel and estate too late), wrong looks, image damaged by link to Mondeo, or wrong marketing?

I think in the case of the X-type all the things you mentioned were to blame. I would have been much better if the X-type had been a more individual looking car and maybe a design more like the new 4/5 door coupes would have been better (similar to a stretched RX-8).

I do think It would be better to protect the brand from going too down market as although BMW and Audi have managed it, I think the Jag brand is a little more fragile.

As for the Rover brand, I think it is damaged beyond repair and somthing fresher would work! maybe the could resurect an old brand? Austin, Wolsley or Triumph anyone!

[Villan57]

Robert80 said:

They may not have the rights to MG but they do to Rover, that could suit your idea well.

BMW still own the Rover plus Austin, Riley, etc name and SIAC own MG brand I believe.
We sure are brain washed by brand names aren't we , not just with cars but with everything !
I once read a which report on the Honda Accord and Rover 600 no need to say which one they slated !
Anyone who knows anything about cars knows they are the same car with cosmetic changes! Ys i know some Rovers had the T series but these were Jap engined versions

Edited by Villan57 on Wednesday 17th February 09:56

[Robert80]

I believe BMW kept hold of the Rover name when selling other parts of the company assests to Shanghai Auto, who sell them under Roewe.

At a later date Ford purchased the rights to the Rover brand, which were then sold on again when Tata bought JLR.

I don't see why the Rover brand couldn't be brought back, VAG managed to turn the Skoda image around in less then a decade largely. I'd like to see any of the old British brands brought back.

The X-Type was unlucky I think, Jaguar were trying to challange BMW's sales of the 3 series but for the reasons you mentioned it couldn't achieve it's potential.

It's funny how quick people are to call the X-Type a Mondeo when VAG manages to share it's platforms across many different brands.

[king arthur]

Villan57 said:

Robert80 said:

They may not have the rights to MG but they do to Rover, that could suit your idea well.

BMW still own the Rover plus Austin, Riley, etc name and SIAC own MG brand I believe.

Nope, BMW sold the rights to the Rover brand to Ford who transferred it to Landrover so in the end, the offspring is looking after the parent. BMW still retains the rights to Triumph (cars) and Riley, everything else now belongs to SAIC including Austin and Morris.

[king arthur]

waremark said:

Why do people think the X Type (which was a pretty good car) failed: wrong range (diesel and estate too late), wrong looks, image damaged by link to Mondeo, or wrong marketing?

I don't think it did fail. I just think projected sales figures were far too ambitious. I don't think you can enter a new sector of the market and immediately take a significant chunk of it, it takes time to become established in that market and gain a reputation. Look at the S-Type - never really fully sold at its potential but it laid the foundations for the XF which is killing the competition. A new smaller car could have done the same if they could have developed one.

[nelly_h]

Space for a larger driver in an X-type was hopeless. My head was on the roof no matter what I did with the seat. Boot space was also iffy in both saloon and estate compared to rivals. I always liked the looks and it was a good 1st try at that size car, but it didn't quite match up to it's competition.

Building on the dynamics of the XF with a light, rear drive setup would be an interesting proposition though as JLR have shown they can get it right, and there are plenty of people around the world who would happily pick up a Jag over something German.

[mondayo]

I think the X-type was a relative success....there are plenty of them about. Partly they were affected by all the issues you mentioned, and I think partly by taking too long to facelift it and then improve it.

On the basis that BMW sell shed loads of 3 series, there has got to be a palce for a new smaller Jag. However, I guess they want to concentrate on getting the X F/J/K all selling well before spending money on devloping a new car. However, with everyone seemingly (maybe not on here) trying to be more green, they need a smaller car to compete as currently there greenest car is 2.o diesel than only does about 35mpg.

My dad would love a jag, but they don't make anything small enough or economical enough for him.