It appears that Indian carmaker, Tata Motors, is going to be the new owner of Jaguar and Land Rover. Several recent articles, including this one in the Financial Times, show Tata in a leading position to buy the brands from Ford. We've already discussed the premium brand Ford is keeping, Volvo, so today let's look at the two nameplates Ford is looking to unload.
Jaguar -- As one of the few brands to see minimal success over the past 20 years (Saab is another one), Jaguar's new owners will have their work cut out for them. I think much of the company's failure stems from one simple (and glaring) oversight in the product line-up: Where are the SUVs? Let me first state what many of you already know -- I'm not a huge SUV fan. Basically I think people who need them should buy them, the other 90 percent of SUV buyers are wasting gas and parking space.
But I'm in the minority, and a quick glance at Porsche's Cayenne and Volvo's XC90 proves you can't be a profitable carmaker without at least one SUV-like model in the showroom. You say a Jaguar SUV is akin to finger painting on the Mona Lisa? Whatever. Go cry to all the Porsche freaks who hate the Cayenne -- even as it puts that company in a position to take over Volkswagen. And yes, this argument still holds true in a $3-a-gallon-gas market. Check the latest truck/SUV sales if you don't believe me.
The other problem with Jaguar is one we typically see when domestic car companies try to sell a premium brand: parts sharing. That concept works for platforms and suspension designs (assuming those are at least competitive, of course), but it doesn't work for interior switches, door handles and seat frames. The Jaguar X-Type? Let's go back to my finger painting/Mona Lisa discussion...
Land Rover -- So if SUVs are the key to success, Land Rover should be swimming in profit, right? Well, they're doing better than Jaguar, that's for sure. But the major "fix" for Land Rover is even simpler than Jag's -- just make them work reasonably well. I barely have the patience for mechanical failure in a 20-year-old Ferrari. When I buy a brand new SUV for $40,000-plus I expect the reliability of a C.S.I. plotline, but with Land Rover I get out-of-the-blue complications ala 24. Are these just my personal observations that don't represent the majority of LRs on the road? Not according to all the consumer surveys out there.
I'm also not a fan of Land Rover's quirky ergonomics, but plenty of people love 'em, so I'll leave that aspect alone, for now.
Both companies would also benefit from "green" endeavors they can hype in press releases and media coverage. If these efforts are genuine, and result in real-world reductions of fuel use and/or emissions, even better! (but certainly not necessary).
That's what I'd tell the guys at Tata if they asked me. What would your advice be?
By chavis10
on December 4, 2007
08:15 AM
What a great name for a company, Tata. Sign me up!!!
I like the exterior of the XJ but the interior just appears too out of date to be considered. I assume they design it to appear "classic" but compared to its peers, it looks low-tech and old school. Also, the AJV8 has reached the end of its road. It needs to be expanded beyond 4.2L as plenty of V6s are making the same amount of power these days. You have to slap the super charger on that baby just to get some competitve horsepower.
The XF looks promising and is definitely eye catching so hopefully it'll sell. I also love the styling of the XK inside and out. It's definitely got road presense but I don't see many on the road. Does anybody know how well it's selling?
I don't really care about Land Rovers. I agree with Karl as far as the ergonomics go- tragic. When I got behind the wheel of the Sport, I felt as though I was going to be attacked by the buttons, read-outs and screens. Even if I had the money, I don't think I'd ever buy a Sport, LR3 or RR.
By flicmod
on December 4, 2007
08:54 AM
Can I just say that I think it's extremely ironic that two formerly-British nameplates are going to be owned by an Indian company? :-D
Ahhh... civil disobedience.
By kurtamaxxxguy
on December 4, 2007
09:38 AM
Lack of reliability's a deal killer in my case for considering the LR2 - a pity, as it seems to offer some nice capabilities and better utilization of space than other small Suvs'
By blackadder5639
on December 4, 2007
10:18 AM
Karl, I agree with your assessment of the two companies. My attitude to SUVs are the same as yours too. However, I have a question. Are SUVs really that necessary for Jaguar? I mean, SUVs are profitable but I feel there must be something about the current Jaguar models that are unappealling.
For example, I bet BMW would still be very, very profitable if they didn't have SUVs because their cars are great. I live in West Texas, where SUVs and pick-ups are the norm but I don't remember the last time I saw a BMW or Mercedes SUV. Luxury SUV buyers tend to opt for the Escalade, GMC trucks and the Range Rover. Almost all BMWs and Mercs I see are cars, and there are quite a lot of them. So it appears like it's the cars that's making BMW the profitable company it is. (I also lived in South Africa where BMWs are so popular and just too common, and the X5 wasn't particularly popular either.....everyone loved the 3 and the 5.)
So I suspect there's just something about Jags that are not right. I don't know what it is....
By editor_karl
on December 4, 2007
11:10 AM
Trust me, if was that first RX from Lexus that put them over the top on the luxury sales pyramid, and it was the success of the X5 (versus the low-quality first ML from M-B) that pushed BMW past Mercedes on the luxury sales chart.
And of course if was the Escalade that really revived Cadillac's fortunes (more than even the company expected).
It's been SUVs making these companies truly profitable for the last 10 years.
By blackadder5639
on December 4, 2007
06:38 PM
That certainly explains why I see so many Lexus RX SUVs. (I forgot to include those in my previous post.........)
By domesticdude
on December 4, 2007
08:57 PM
I certainly hope Jaguar can become a real profitable player in the luxury market, and with the new xk and xf they should. As long as Ian Callum keeps creating fantastic cars I have high hopes for Jaguar. As for SUV's, I personally like them and can see how they are profitable even with higher gas prices affecting demand. I live in Orange County and see tons of Land Rovers and they are really starting to look bland to me, but the only real problem with them is the reliability and electrical problems, same with Jag.
By tysalpha
on December 4, 2007
10:16 PM
"Can I just say that I think it's extremely ironic that two formerly-British nameplates are going to be owned by an Indian company? :-D "
Well... they were already owned by an American company in the meantime, so it's just transfering from one former colony to another! ;)
By flicmod
on December 5, 2007
07:30 AM
tysalpha,
True. It just adds to the irony. I bet the Brits that have any historical knowledge are cringing at this :-)
By rayainsw
on December 5, 2007
11:11 AM
Karl -
So:
Are you suggesting that if Jag had a SUV, the sales of the S-Type, the X-Type and the ( newly re-styled ) XJ would not be off 44.3%, 44.2% and 11.2%, respectively ??
[[ Source: Forbes ]]
By editor_karl
on December 5, 2007
11:27 AM
No, I'm suggesting that if Jaguar had at least one SUV in the product lineup (preferably more, ala BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, etc.) it could still be a profitble division, even with those sedans selling so poorly.
By daytona_500
on December 5, 2007
02:28 PM
As someone of Indian origin, I find it downright funny and ironic that a company best known for making trucks and buses is taking over two British luxury brands. I think it's great, it's a symbol of India's growing economic power.
I also agree about the SUV part, I don't know why they're holding back. They've got to be the only mainstream brand without one.