It's interesting that people think Ford was badge engineering. There was ONE car that was basically shoved into the Jag market line that could actually be thought of that, and that's the Mondeo twin. And the reason it was done is that Jag didn't have a 3 series size car to really compete with- which is a pretty large market. The time and money it would take to make a brand new chassis didn't make sense, so the odd car was made.
The S type did share a chassis and motor with Lincoln, but Jag really limited what Lincoln could do, not the other way around. And that chassis was good enough to share a lot of features up market to Aston Martin, and nobody minded that. Heck, even the V8 was upsized and used at Aston.
Jag never understood how Mercedes could spend a lot of stuff and get value from it- they just spent a lot of money on stuff and never got anything out of it.
In terms of not figuring out who they were- that theme was exactly the same (and continues to be so) for Lincoln. So I'm not really sure where that originated from. In the early 2000's, we were promised that Lincoln/Jag/LR/Volvo would provide 40% of our profits for a fraction of the sales. Never happened, and I attribute a lot of that on what Adrian said about lack of identity.
In terms of F1, that was Ford and Ford only. The Jag name was just a name- there was no Jaguar attention shifted to that program at all, and the money would not have gone to Jag anyway- it was really a very expensive ad campaign for Jag that was a failure. And I do see how the Ford management system doomed it. But I will contend if Jag managed it, it would have been worse.
BTW, funny side story about Jaguar and Ford, the only reason that came true was that Ford was not able to buy Alfa Romeo. Ford did a massive amount of homework and offered a really good and honest bid to the Italian government for Alfa, but Fiat came in and made a fake bid- which somehow convinced the Italian government. The backlash made them go out and get Jaguar and Aston Martin.
IMO they have killed anything that would make them appealing. The XF is just another luxury sedan that doesn't stand out versus the competitors. If you want a British SUV, why would you buy a Jag over a Land Rover? Other then F-Type, none of them are wow in styling, from what I have seen none of them stand out in driving and of course the reliability isn't amazing.
The older XJ at least had some charm.
alfadriver said:
It's interesting that people think Ford was badge engineering. There was ONE car that was basically shoved into the Jag market line that could actually be thought of that, and that's the Mondeo twin. And the reason it was done is that Jag didn't have a 3 series size car to really compete with- which is a pretty large market. The time and money it would take to make a brand new chassis didn't make sense, so the odd car was made.
The S type did share a chassis and motor with Lincoln, but Jag really limited what Lincoln could do, not the other way around. And that chassis was good enough to share a lot of features up market to Aston Martin, and nobody minded that. Heck, even the V8 was upsized and used at Aston.
Jag never understood how Mercedes could spend a lot of stuff and get value from it- they just spent a lot of money on stuff and never got anything out of it.
In terms of not figuring out who they were- that theme was exactly the same (and continues to be so) for Lincoln. So I'm not really sure where that originated from. In the early 2000's, we were promised that Lincoln/Jag/LR/Volvo would provide 40% of our profits for a fraction of the sales. Never happened, and I attribute a lot of that on what Adrian said about lack of identity.
In terms of F1, that was Ford and Ford only. The Jag name was just a name- there was no Jaguar attention shifted to that program at all, and the money would not have gone to Jag anyway- it was really a very expensive ad campaign for Jag that was a failure. And I do see how the Ford management system doomed it. But I will contend if Jag managed it, it would have been worse.
BTW, funny side story about Jaguar and Ford, the only reason that came true was that Ford was not able to buy Alfa Romeo. Ford did a massive amount of homework and offered a really good and honest bid to the Italian government for Alfa, but Fiat came in and made a fake bid- which somehow convinced the Italian government. The backlash made them go out and get Jaguar and Aston Martin.
In fairness to jag and the x type what they did is no different then the Audi a4 which shares its stuff with the vw Passat.
93EXCivic said:
IMO they have killed anything that would make them appealing. The XF is just another luxury sedan that doesn't stand out versus the competitors. If you want a British SUV, why would you buy a Jag over a Land Rover? Other then F-Type, none of them are wow in styling, from what I have seen none of them stand out in driving and of course the reliability isn't amazing.
The older XJ at least had some charm.
The biggest problem with the later xj in my opinion is that while very nice its styling is just a bigger xf. The xj was very iconic and you knew what it was when you saw it and you new it was an expensive car where the new one was just cookie cutter and could look like various other cars.
MotorsportsGordon said:
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:
The problem with "a really nice Ford with Jag badges" is that the build quality and general ownership experience doesn't seem as good (I haven't owned one, I'm speaking from a position of perceived quality as an outsider). Also, what other Fords shared platforms with a Jag besides the X-type, which seems like a fairly awful car? I can't imagine a case where I would have paid for an X-type, and dealt with Jag dealers and service to own one, when the Mercury Milan was sitting right there. Or something else entirely.
If I had Berk-off money I could see looking for a creampuff F-type convertible with the V6 and a manual trans. I think they looked amazing, sound amazing, and would be fun to own if I didn't care about servicing and insurance costs. But I don't. Not a lot of other cars in Jag's lineup that can't be replicated with another brand that seems better at supporting the product.
The Jaguar s type Lincoln ls and ford thunderbird convertible all used the same platform.
Oh and the 5th gen mustang except it used a live axle ofcourse
In reply to MotorsportsGordon :
By the time the Mustang did that, Jaguar was on the way out. So nobody cared about hurting their feelings.
Both the xk8 and the db7 are based on the evolution of the xjs platform. In fact the db7 was originally supposed to be the xjs replacement before it was given to Aston Martin.
MotorsportsGordon said:
Both the xk8 and the db7 are based on the evolution of the xjs platform. In fact the db7 was originally supposed to be the xjs replacement before it was given to Aston Martin.
Normally, people think that badge engineering takes a car down market, that took it up.
BTW, the DB7 chassis was pretty much exactly an XJS, whereas the XK8 was a derivative. I can't fully remember the reasoning, but the mostly aluminum front subframe for the XK8 didn't fit in the DB7, especially with the V12.
As it turned out, the DB7 really revived AML enough to come with the Vanquish, later the DB9, and the Vantage V8 - all of which are a derivative of the S type suspension.
alfadriver said:
The S type did share a chassis and motor with Lincoln, but Jag really limited what Lincoln could do, not the other way around.
Not quite, many important platform decisions were made in the US by the Ford team. I was working on what would end up as the new suspension on the 02 Panther platform, and the Chief was the same for the DEW98 platform. I know he dictated a lot of the geometry decisions, not all of which were popular with the Jag team.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
I think the most obvious to me was the 3.9lV8 instead of a 4.0l. That was laughable, and pretty stupid.
Still, the geometry was pretty good since it was also shared with Aston Martin. Based on my ETC experience, Jag was upset because they didn't come up with it, not that it was actually worse. We presented a really solid set of data and engineering judgment to support some of the major electronic throttle decisions that had to be made- they disagreed and took an entire year to get to the exact same point. What a waste. Let alone some really expensive changes to the powertrain module that they didn't need or even use.
In contrast, Aston Martin heard a presentation, asked questions, accepted it, and maybe even helped make it better with their tiny engineering team.
Apparently there was talk of retiring the old Jag V12 and having Mazda build a nice, new, modern 4.0L v12 for Jag, but the Jag purists screamed bloody murder at the idea of Jaguars with a Mazda-built V12.
I am just sitting here thinking about buying a Mazda 4.0 V12 at junkyard Jaguar prices.
And also pushing the "Japanese Ferrari" idea a little further by swapping one into a 240Z...
Really once Jaguar lost Lyons. Jaguar lost its way.
Lyons passed in 1985. And the last car he had a hand in was the XJS That was introduced in 1975.
By then it took 20,000 cars a year to stay viable. A good year for Jaguar was 15,000.
Believe it or not, a lot of owners gladly accepted the lack of quality control. Considered that was part of the price of owning a beauty, exciting car.
Like a beautiful women isn't expected to be a good housekeeper and practical?
Maybe that's what we lost? Cars that are stunningly beautiful and exciting? Oh sure there are cars that look better than others. But nothing like a XK120 in 1948 or an XKE in 1961?
matthewmcl said:
Apparently there was talk of retiring the old Jag V12 and having Mazda build a nice, new, modern 4.0L v12 for Jag, but the Jag purists screamed bloody murder at the idea of Jaguars with a Mazda-built V12.
I am just sitting here thinking about buying a Mazda 4.0 V12 at junkyard Jaguar prices.
And also pushing the "Japanese Ferrari" idea a little further by swapping one into a 240Z...
That's actually pretty funny, since Aston Martin purists were fine with the Ford V12 in their car. One that was labeled as two Taurus engines welded together.
frenchyd said:
Really once Jaguar lost Lyons. Jaguar lost its way.
Lyons passed in 1985. And the last car he had a hand in was the XJS That was introduced in 1975.
By then it took 20,000 cars a year to stay viable. A good year for Jaguar was 15,000.
Believe it or not, a lot of owners gladly accepted the lack of quality control. Considered that was part of the price of owning a beauty, exciting car.
Like a beautiful women isn't expected to be a good housekeeper and practical?
Maybe that's what we lost? Cars that are stunningly beautiful and exciting? Oh sure there are cars that look better than others. But nothing like a XK120 in 1948 or an XKE in 1961?
"A lot" isn't enough for the company to survive. That was a pretty core problem.
frenchyd said:
Global sales is reduced to about 5000 a month. In the 1980's to survive they needed to sell 300,000 cars a year. Only Range Rover has been able to keep them afloat.
There are no new exiting cars on the horizon. The one electric they have is old school. Not really made by Jaguar in England ( made in Austria). The rest of their line has been around long enough to need updates and replacements.
Rumor has them closing 50 of 70 dealerships in England. Plus raising prices to compete with Bentley.
What they will do here in the states? I don't know. We are 50% of their global sales.
The market for expensive cars is crowded. Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, Bentley, Lexus, Land Rover, Infinity, Audi, Porsche, Maserati, Volvo and even Genesis. Everybody is chasing the high end buyer. Maybe Jaguar is just the first one to fall.
alfadriver said:
matthewmcl said:
Apparently there was talk of retiring the old Jag V12 and having Mazda build a nice, new, modern 4.0L v12 for Jag, but the Jag purists screamed bloody murder at the idea of Jaguars with a Mazda-built V12.
I am just sitting here thinking about buying a Mazda 4.0 V12 at junkyard Jaguar prices.
And also pushing the "Japanese Ferrari" idea a little further by swapping one into a 240Z...
That's actually pretty funny, since Aston Martin purists were fine with the Ford V12 in their car. One that was labeled as two Taurus engines welded together.
I honestly feel the whole 'the AM V12 is just two ford engines stuck together' has been an attempted insult since day one that has never really hit home. People keep trying to roll it out, but the general consensus is 'so what'.
NickD
MegaDork
4/5/23 3:29 p.m.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:
alfadriver said:
matthewmcl said:
Apparently there was talk of retiring the old Jag V12 and having Mazda build a nice, new, modern 4.0L v12 for Jag, but the Jag purists screamed bloody murder at the idea of Jaguars with a Mazda-built V12.
I am just sitting here thinking about buying a Mazda 4.0 V12 at junkyard Jaguar prices.
And also pushing the "Japanese Ferrari" idea a little further by swapping one into a 240Z...
That's actually pretty funny, since Aston Martin purists were fine with the Ford V12 in their car. One that was labeled as two Taurus engines welded together.
I honestly feel the whole 'the AM V12 is just two ford engines stuck together' has been an attempted insult since day one that has never really hit home. People keep trying to roll it out, but the general consensus is 'so what'.
And then you have the weird Jaguar V6 that was a V8 block with two empty cylinders.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
Other than the "welded together" part, it's mostly true. The entire valvetrain other than the cams are production 3.0 parts, the pistons, rods, and bearings are also production 3.0l parts, and the electronics is almost production parts, too- but had to be modified for reasons. Sensors are all carryover, too.
The unique parts are the intakes, cam covers, heads, cams, block, headers, crankshaft and front cover (as it had 2 position sensors instead of one).
Which does make it pretty funny.
It's also lighter and more powerful than the boosted I6 it replaced, which I thought was really cool.
In reply to matthewmcl :
Toyota already built a Japanese Ferrari.
frenchyd said:
Believe it or not, a lot of owners gladly accepted the lack of quality control. Considered that was part of the price of owning a beauty, exciting
Yeah they might have in the 60s, 70s and maybe the 80s. But the Japanese showed that you could have an exciting car without it being a massive headache. The owners that would be willing to put up with that are very few now.
Mr_Asa
UltimaDork
4/5/23 6:04 p.m.
See, GM stole their I6 design and then improved it to the point that it could take 24PSI of boost on a stock block, and of course after they sued Chevy for patent infringement and lost they just couldn't financially recover.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
It's a totally different mind set, yet we see it all the time.
We don't demand beautiful women be great housekeepers and thrifty. We tolerate those shortcomings because we love beautiful things.
Just like we don't demand practicality out of a painting or statue. We are content to simply enjoy their beauty. If that beautiful women is fun or exciting. Like Marilyn Monroe who was beautiful and fun. That was enough.
Sir William Lyons made many beautiful and exciting cars at relatively modest prices. That was enough.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:
frenchyd said:
Global sales is reduced to about 5000 a month. In the 1980's to survive they needed to sell 300,000 cars a year. Only Range Rover has been able to keep them afloat.
There are no new exiting cars on the horizon. The one electric they have is old school. Not really made by Jaguar in England ( made in Austria). The rest of their line has been around long enough to need updates and replacements.
Rumor has them closing 50 of 70 dealerships in England. Plus raising prices to compete with Bentley.
What they will do here in the states? I don't know. We are 50% of their global sales.
The market for expensive cars is crowded. Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, Bentley, Lexus, Land Rover, Infinity, Audi, Porsche, Maserati, Volvo and even Genesis. Everybody is chasing the high end buyer. Maybe Jaguar is just the first one to fall.
Oh no! Duesenburg and Packard, Bugatti and well, There are endless numbers of predecessors.
What is remarkable is a company started in 1922 should survive over 100 years. Think of all the brands that have fallen in that period.
