1923? Jaguar. Actually SS side car created by William Lyons. I believe it's on an Arial Square 4 from 1927.
1923? Jaguar. Actually SS side car created by William Lyons. I believe it's on an Arial Square 4 from 1927.
Jaguar"SS100
In reply to frenchyd :
People try not to think of women like that anymore, if they do they certainly try not to say it publicly. Beauty doesn't mean incapable of doing other things well. That goes from people to cars. Please, don't compare a car that is pretty but somewhat awful everywhere else to a beautiful woman and your expectations based on her looks. And "we don't demand beautiful be housekeepers and thrifty"? Geez dude
frenchyd said:forgetting that the most expensive Ford product, the Lincoln sold for only 1/3 of what Jaguars did.
XJR MSRP was 68k
Navigator MSRP was 40k
So...hows that 1/3 working out?
Sheesh. So much hostility. So many people being wrong.
frenchyd said:
Actually ss Jaguar 100. ss cars was renamed jaguar partly due to ss use by nazi germany
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.
It's very interesting to read what Sir William Lyons said about Formula 1 versus the 24 hours of LeMans.
LeMans really made Jaguar and whenever Jaguar raced at LeMans sales immediately picked up.
But Ford did that and wanted to relive their Formula 1 ( and Indy ) days.
frenchyd said: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.
It's very interesting to read what Sir William Lyons said about Formula 1 versus the 24 hours of LeMans.
LeMans really made Jaguar and whenever Jaguar raced at LeMans sales immediately picked up.
But Ford did that and wanted to relive their Formula 1 ( and Indy ) days.
Enzo Ferrari also said winning Le Mans sold more cars etc then f1
yupididit said:In reply to frenchyd :
People try not to think of women like that anymore, if they do they certainly try not to say it publicly. Beauty doesn't mean incapable of doing other things well. That goes from people to cars. Please, don't compare a car that is pretty but somewhat awful everywhere else to a beautiful woman and your expectations based on her looks. And "we don't demand beautiful be housekeepers and thrifty"? Geez dude
Obviously you weren't alive in the 1950's and 60'. I'm anything but a sexiest. But attractive people still have an advantage over us fat old guys. ( it would have sounded weird if I said the same thing about guys). I did talk about paintings and statues!
MotorsportsGordon said: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.
The XJ had Lyons touch. I have one in my shop downstairs. People not at all familiar even with the name Jaguar take one look and smile. 
frenchyd said: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.
It's very interesting to read what Sir William Lyons said about Formula 1 versus the 24 hours of LeMans.
LeMans really made Jaguar and whenever Jaguar raced at LeMans sales immediately picked up.
But Ford did that and wanted to relive their Formula 1 ( and Indy ) days.
How did LeMans racing in the 80's help sales? They won in 1988, and then Ford bought them out in 1989.
Generalizations don't always work.
Other than the F type they don't seem to have anything available that's very exciting.
The F pace was somewhat interesting with the surge in EV's but the price and performance doesn't seem to match a Tesla Model X or Y.
TATA started out strong but Jag looks like it's withering on the vine (again). After the Japanese brands proved you can have performance and styling without reliability hassles and build "quirks" few buyers suffered the old euro brand ways.
In reply to frenchyd :
Except that buyer doesn't exist anymore. You have to offer incredible performance with good reliability now or you have to offer insane performance that comes at an extreme price as a play thing for the very well off.
Buyers now have more information regarding reliability, reviews, etc then they did back then. There is less brand loyalty and less loyalty to buying a car from your country which helped Jag massively in Britian. You can't offer something with subpar reliability any more and expect it to sale. I mean look at the Alfa Guila. It is a beautiful car and it doesn't sell for E36 M3 cause it's reliability is not good enough.
alfadriver said:frenchyd said: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.
It's very interesting to read what Sir William Lyons said about Formula 1 versus the 24 hours of LeMans.
LeMans really made Jaguar and whenever Jaguar raced at LeMans sales immediately picked up.
But Ford did that and wanted to relive their Formula 1 ( and Indy ) days.How did LeMans racing in the 80's help sales? They won in 1988, and then Ford bought them out in 1989.
Generalizations don't always work.
I know that the xjs wining Bathurst resulted in a big increase in xjs sales in Australia.
In reply to MotorsportsGordon :
Not enough to help.
93EXCivic said:In reply to frenchyd :
Except that buyer doesn't exist anymore. You have to offer incredible performance with good reliability now or you have to offer insane performance that comes at an extreme price as a play thing for the very well off.
Buyers now have more information regarding reliability, reviews, etc then they did back then. There is less brand loyalty and less loyalty to buying a car from your country which helped Jag massively in Britian. You can't offer something with subpar reliability any more and expect it to sale. I mean look at the Alfa Guila. It is a beautiful car and it doesn't sell for E36 M3 cause it's reliability is not good enough.
It's almost as if Jaguar and frenchy are both living in the past and can't understand why the product isn't as appealing as it used to be.
Perhaps they need a new ad campaign
frenchyd said:yupididit said:In reply to frenchyd :
People try not to think of women like that anymore, if they do they certainly try not to say it publicly. Beauty doesn't mean incapable of doing other things well. That goes from people to cars. Please, don't compare a car that is pretty but somewhat awful everywhere else to a beautiful woman and your expectations based on her looks. And "we don't demand beautiful be housekeepers and thrifty"? Geez dude
Obviously you weren't alive in the 1950's and 60'. I'm anything but a sexiest. But attractive people still have an advantage over us fat old guys. ( it would have sounded weird if I said the same thing about guys). I did talk about paintings and statues!
I'm pretty sure he's glad he wasn't alive back then not that it's all that much better today.
frenchyd said:yupididit said:In reply to frenchyd :
People try not to think of women like that anymore, if they do they certainly try not to say it publicly. Beauty doesn't mean incapable of doing other things well. That goes from people to cars. Please, don't compare a car that is pretty but somewhat awful everywhere else to a beautiful woman and your expectations based on her looks. And "we don't demand beautiful be housekeepers and thrifty"? Geez dude
Obviously you weren't alive in the 1950's and 60'. I'm anything but a sexiest. But attractive people still have an advantage over us fat old guys. ( it would have sounded weird if I said the same thing about guys). I did talk about paintings and statues!
I'm glad I wasn't born in the 50s or 60s, I would have been killed or in prison with the mouth I have lol. I'm 34, but that doesn't have anything to do with what you said about women. Unless, you're saying that makes it more okay to say such things. Anyway, I'll leave you to it!
alfadriver said:frenchyd said: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.
It's very interesting to read what Sir William Lyons said about Formula 1 versus the 24 hours of LeMans.
LeMans really made Jaguar and whenever Jaguar raced at LeMans sales immediately picked up.
But Ford did that and wanted to relive their Formula 1 ( and Indy ) days.How did LeMans racing in the 80's help sales? They won in 1988, and then Ford bought them out in 1989.
Generalizations don't always work.
In the 1980's sales went from 15,000 annual to 30,000 annual.
Sales numbers indicate Jag has hung on via nostalgia for a while and now they're truly circling the drain. Not unlike the car magazines I eagerly read each month as a kid.
Cause of imminent death: stubbornness (failure to evolve).
In reply to frenchyd :
When you double not many sales, you still have not many sales.
alfadriver said:Surprised nobody has blamed Ford yet.
To me, it sounds like they continued doing what they were doing when Ford owned them, but Tata doesn't have enough money to keep letting them do that. When I started working, I thought highly of Jag, and then I experienced working with them, and lost every little bit of that. I saw first hand what put them into a situation that they were cheap for Ford to get, and saw it continue that pretty much force their sale to Tata.
Basically, they always wanted to put the most expensive and complicated engineering on their vehicles, and do it cheaply. Winning combination there.
I know Ford didn't always do the right thing, I get that. But IMHO, Jag dug their own hole, and could not get out.
I mean if Ford owned them isn't it kind of Ford's fault they continued to do the same thing? That just sounds like bad management to me. But I will say it seems like Jag's reliability improved a lot during the Ford years.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
Can't disagree- I really don't understand why the engineers were allowed to continue to do what they were doing. Sure don't think that Ford management were something great- as seen what Nassar did to the company. And maybe the fact they could not really manage them was a reason they were sold to Tata.
wae said:Perhaps they need a new ad campaign
Just call it a Tata. That would work on several levels.
You'll need to log in to post.
