New Jaguar must succeed or it's all over

[Byteme]

Some perspective

Jaguar has been selling ~13K cars annually in the US for the last 5 or so years. They are on pace to sell maybe 20K this year. Not sure how that's a record year when they were selling ~60K cars in 2002. Their sales plummeted as Cadillac & Infiniti ate up their market share.

Meanwhile, Infiniti moves ~55-60K Gs a year. Caddy is only moving ~40K ATSs this year but that's still better than Jag's overall volume. Etc.

"Well those entry level cars are selling, why shouldnt Jaguar?"- Mr H

Well heres the thing. Sure there is an enthusiast market, but it's not the high volume market Jag needs to be sustainable. People are not going to stop buying 3s and Gs en masse to buy an unfamiliar Jag 3. Caddy is putting money on the hoods of ATSs and nowhere near the 60K they were hoping to do, at least yet. This segment is largely about brand, image/style and value, and a 3 box 3 series fighter that will "better at everything" than the 3 series will have none of these things. Jag's only chance at success in that market IMO is to really turn up the style. The Evoque is doing super well and the A5 Sportback market is wide open, plus can make a connection to the attractive (IMO) fast back looking XJ. I think if they come out with a small crossover and a swoopy 5 door hatch they will be able to make way better inroads than with a boring ass sedan. Why go for a Jag when a 3 with more brand recognition is there for the same $$$ (since that is really what matters to most consumers in this market)? There's gotta be something more

Good post,but you forgot one thing that still turns some buyers away.  Jaguar's lingering and often underserved reputation for unreliability.

[12,000 RPM]

I've never made the point your contesting in your post.  Not sure what you expect me to argue with you about.

Sure you did... it was you and TurboDan defending the ATS, saying shit like "analysts predict X amount of volume and they are never wrong". I can pull up the thread if you like.

Good post,but you forgot one thing that still turns some buyers away.  Jaguar's lingering and often underserved reputation for unreliability.

Given the way these and cars in its class are generally purchased (LEASED), I don't think reliability is as big a deal to its market.

Jag's problem is image. Current XK is kind of a poor man's Aston. XF looks like a Lexus with a Bentley grille. XJ looks good to me, but moves about 5K units a year in the US and prob not much more worldwide. Jag doesn't have the cash to come up with or risk redoing their lineup with an exciting + cohesive design language, so it will be OK if this thing looks totally different from the rest of their cars. I think they really need to do something bold, pretty much exactly like Land Rover did with the Evoque. If this thing looks boring nobody will buy it.

[MrH]

Sure you did... it was you and TurboDan defending the ATS, saying shit like "analysts predict X amount of volume and they are never wrong". I can pull up the thread if you like.

I never said they were never wrong, but it's a hell of a lot better source than your gut reaction.

I'm still missing what the ATS has to do with this now.  All I said was that enthusiast vehicles aren't the mark of death like SVT claimed.

[12,000 RPM]

I never said they were never wrong, but it's a hell of a lot better source than your gut reaction.

Your tone was way less hesitant in that thread. You were down right 90 yard play end zone cocky.

Speaking of fail...


Somebody grab a fork and knife, time for sporty to eat his humble pie:



Production forecast for the ATS from a giant third party analytics company that a ton in the industry use.  They're usually pretty spot on (closer than the OEMs predict for their own programs at least).

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, in reality, they are already off the mark for the first two years of production. If you didn't think analysts weren't 100% spot on you wouldn't have cited them with such misplaced zest

I'm still missing what the ATS has to do with this now.  All I said was that enthusiast vehicles aren't the mark of death like SVT claimed.

It has everything to do with it because Jag is looking to take the same failed course as Cadillac with way more at stake , according to a more credible source than you.

He's right- companies that cater to enthusiasts exclusively have a harder time. If this wasn't the case Lotus wouldn't be in dire straits and Mazda wouldn't be on the ropes. Porsche would not have had to pull itself back from the brink with the Cayamera, and the whole Japanese sport coupe bubble wouldn't have popped and never returned. You can call whoever an idiot and act cocky but history disagrees with you here.

[Byteme]

Sure you did... it was you and TurboDan defending the ATS, saying shit like "analysts predict X amount of volume and they are never wrong". I can pull up the thread if you like.
Given the way these and cars in its class are generally purchased (LEASED), I don't think reliability is as big a deal to its market.

Jag's problem is image. Current XK is kind of a poor man's Aston. XF looks like a Lexus with a Bentley grille. XJ looks good to me, but moves about 5K units a year in the US and prob not much more worldwide. Jag doesn't have the cash to come up with or risk redoing their lineup with an exciting + cohesive design language, so it will be OK if this thing looks totally different from the rest of their cars. I think they really need to do something bold, pretty much exactly like Land Rover did with the Evoque. If this thing looks boring nobody will buy it.

Note that I said some buyers; not all, not most.  It's simply another negative to be overcome.

Jaguar used to stand for something.  The XK120, 140, 150 series were wonderful cars for their time and became legendary.  Same for the C-type and D-type.  The E-Type, of course is still will known and respected in classic car circles.  But to the majority of current potential customers those are nothing but old cars some company in England once made.  What the heck does Jaguar stand for today.  Try to sell a motto like "Grace, Pace and Space' today and you'll get laughed out of the showroom.  I'm pretty much agreeing with you if you are saying Jaguar's problem is an image and identity problem.

[Byteme]

Your tone was way less hesitant in that thread. You were down right 90 yard play end zone cocky.

Meanwhile, in reality, they are already off the mark for the first two years of production. If you didn't think analysts weren't 100% spot on you wouldn't have cited them with such misplaced zest
It has everything to do with it because Jag is looking to take the same failed course as Cadillac with way more at stake , according to a more credible source than you.

He's right- companies that cater to enthusiasts exclusively have a harder time. If this wasn't the case Lotus wouldn't be in dire straits and Mazda wouldn't be on the ropes. Porsche would not have had to pull itself back from the brink with the Cayamera, and the whole Japanese sport coupe bubble wouldn't have popped and never returned. You can call whoever an idiot and act cocky but history disagrees with you here.

Limited market.  "Everybvody" needs a car, but everybody doesn't need, nor do they want, a sports or sporty car or evey a particularly fast or quick car.  In fact, I'd bet that's a negative for many buyers who are after affordable reliable transportation.  I suspect there is a perception that a sporty car costs more to buy, operate, insure and repair, so why buy that capability to go to the corner grocery.

[12,000 RPM]

Note that I said some buyers; not all, not most.  It's simply another negative to be overcome.

Jaguar used to stand for something.  The XK120, 140, 150 series were wonderful cars for their time and became legendary.  Same for the C-type and D-type.  The E-Type, of course is still will known and respected in classic car circles.  But to the majority of current potential customers those are nothing but old cars some company in England once made.  What the heck does Jaguar stand for today.  Try to sell a motto like "Grace, Pace and Space' today and you'll get laughed out of the showroom.  I'm pretty much agreeing with you if you are saying Jaguar's problem is an image and identity problem.

Well, to be fair, I think folks were a lot more susceptible to that kind of "head on apply on forehead" marketing. Jag is just not a hot brand, and to a large degree that is what moves volume in the luxury realm.

Limited market.  "Everybvody" needs a car, but everybody doesn't need, nor do they want, a sports or sporty car or evey a particularly fast or quick car.  In fact, I'd bet that's a negative for many buyers who are after affordable reliable transportation.  I suspect there is a perception that a sporty car costs more to buy, operate, insure and repair, so why buy that capability to go to the corner grocery.

I think it just comes down to practicality & profitability, if we are talking about sporty vs non sporty cars in general. 20 yrs ago a secretary's car might have been a Toyota Paseo or Nissan 240SX. Now she might lease her way into a VW Tiguan or something like that. Even though the Tiguan will cost more to buy and operate than a Golf, and it has percieved off road capability that will never be used. Plus now w/o the bubbles that funded a lot of the old awesomeness manufacturers don't have room for the niche platforms that damn near defined the 90s. Nissan had about 6 separate RWD platforms, some of which were for cars that weren't anywhere near global, high volume or expensive enough to warrant them. Manufacturers just smartened up.

Small stylish CUVs are the rage and CUVs in general seem poised to damn near displace sedans. Look how the only variants of the 1 series here are the 1 coupe and the X1 for example. CR-V is like 30K/yr away from the Civic for example. CUVs are more profitable too. A new sedan, especially in that crowded ass entry level luxury segment, just doesn't make any sense to me, as much as I like that class of car.

[ifcar]

Your tone was way less hesitant in that thread. You were down right 90 yard play end zone cocky.

Meanwhile, in reality, they are already off the mark for the first two years of production. If you didn't think analysts weren't 100% spot on you wouldn't have cited them with such misplaced zest
It has everything to do with it because Jag is looking to take the same failed course as Cadillac with way more at stake , according to a more credible source than you.

There's more to a car's success than what it tries to be -- execution is also critical, and the ATS execution was mixed. It's gotten great reviews for handling, but mediocre at best for the engines, interior space, and CUE. It's also been facing internal competition from rebated old CTSes.

The fact that one particular fun but flawed car isn't meeting sales projections doesn't mean that sporty cars are doomed.

[MexicoCityM3]

Last weekend I went out looking ad mid-sizer luxury cars. Had a look at an A6 3.0T S-Line, a 528i and a few XF's.

I liked the Audi's interior best, then the Jag, last the bimmer (but the Bimmer was relatively base, not M-sport).

I'll be driving these 3 somewhat soon to test them. I'll try to arrange a single-day test drive of the 3 so that I can compare them. Right now the A6 is looking good. It's also the least expensive (when comparably equipped).

[12,000 RPM]

There's more to a car's success than what it tries to be -- execution is also critical, and the ATS execution was mixed. It's gotten great reviews for handling, but mediocre at best for the engines, interior space, and CUE. It's also been facing internal competition from rebated old CTSes.

The fact that one particular fun but flawed car isn't meeting sales projections doesn't mean that sporty cars are doomed.

"Doomed" is a strong word. And I was speaking specifically to the entry level sport sedan segment.

[Tave]

He's right- companies that cater to enthusiasts exclusively have a harder time. If this wasn't the case Lotus wouldn't be in dire straits and Mazda wouldn't be on the ropes. Porsche would not have had to pull itself back from the brink with the Cayamera, and the whole Japanese sport coupe bubble wouldn't have popped and never returned. You can call whoever an idiot and act cocky but history disagrees with you here.

The sports-niche market is tough, no doubt, but I wouldn't group Porsche with the others. They've done pretty good on low-volume, those problems were related to investments and VWAG infighting.

[Raza]

Wait, do they even make a 1 series sedan?  I didn't think so. 

[12,000 RPM]

The sports-niche market is tough, no doubt, but I wouldn't group Porsche with the others. They've done pretty good on low-volume, those problems were related to investments and VWAG infighting.

Porsche is doing OK now, and their recent troubles stem largely from VWAG nonsense, but around the time of the 964/993 they were in pretty bad shape. Projects like the Benz 500E were done to generate the cashflow to survive. They turned it around with all the cars Porsche purists hate... pretty much everything from the 996 forward

Wait, do they even make a 1 series sedan?  I didn't think so. 

They are thinking about it for the next generation, but yea, tough sell when something like an ILX or whatever will be a much better value outside of the whole performance thing.

[MX793]

Porsche is doing OK now, and their recent troubles stem largely from VWAG nonsense, but around the time of the 964/993 they were in pretty bad shape. Projects like the Benz 500E were done to generate the cashflow to survive. They turned it around with all the cars Porsche purists hate... pretty much everything from the 996 forward
They are thinking about it for the next generation, but yea, tough sell when something like an ILX or whatever will be a much better value outside of the whole performance thing.

I can't believe anyone would buy an ILX.

[12,000 RPM]

I've seen em, they look good.

To a chick who just wants a badge, content and a $299 lease payment, an ILX fully loaded is gonna look better than a 120i with cloth seats and an AM/FM radio for the same money.

[Tave]

Porsche is doing OK now, and their recent troubles stem largely from VWAG nonsense, but around the time of the 964/993 they were in pretty bad shape. Projects like the Benz 500E were done to generate the cashflow to survive. They turned it around with all the cars Porsche purists hate... pretty much everything from the 996 forward
They are thinking about it for the next generation, but yea, tough sell when something like an ILX or whatever will be a much better value outside of the whole performance thing.

Porsche was the most profitable brand in the world on small volume before the lending market tanked and Piech flexed his gub'ment muskulls. Had it started the takeover a year earlier, it'd be Worldwide Big-3.

[MX793]

I've seen em, they look good.

To a chick who just wants a badge, content and a $299 lease payment, an ILX fully loaded is gonna look better than a 120i with cloth seats and an AM/FM radio for the same money.

I haven't compared lease payments, but an A3 2.0T can be had for the same money from a purchase standpoint.

[MX793]

Porsche was the most profitable brand in the world on small volume before the lending market tanked and Piech flexed his gub'ment muskulls. Had it started the takeover a year earlier, it'd be Worldwide Big-3.

Most profitable per vehicle sold...

[Byteme]

The sports-niche market is tough, no doubt, but I wouldn't group Porsche with the others. They've done pretty good on low-volume, those problems were related to investments and VWAG infighting.

One reason they do well is their insanely high pricing for the vehicles, options and service.   

Porsche 911.  Want your front spoiler painted?  $640. 
How about the airvent slats?  $1,710 to paint those. 
Want decorative stitching on steering wheel rim in contrasting color?  Be prepared to shell out $1,025
And my favorite:  Vehicle key painted, $335.

[Tave]

Or maybe not, hell, maybe the government just steps in and slaps Porsche down.

[Tave]

Most profitable per vehicle sold...

Yeah but we aren't talking pennies on the dollar, they were banking $30K/per while everyone else was lucky to get $500. Not the largest cap, you're right, but accumulating cash like mad. Had they taken over VW holy cow they'd be one of the biggest in the business.

[MX793]

Yeah but we aren't talking pennies on the dollar, they were banking $30K/per while everyone else was lucky to get $500. Not the largest cap, you're right, but accumulating cash like mad. Had they taken over VW holy cow they'd be one of the biggest in the business.

If Porsche were really making bank just selling sports/performance, they wouldn't have had to start making volume models with greater mass appeal like the Cayenne (which is also Porsche's entry model, price wise)

[12,000 RPM]

If Porsche were really making bank just selling sports/performance, they wouldn't have had to start making volume models with greater mass appeal like the Cayenne (which is also Porsche's entry model, price wise)

Yea I am talking about back in the late 80s early 90s. They became profitable with the 996 and the Boxster but before that they were in really bad shape.

http://www.porschemag.com/render.cfm?source=Op175~911_Production_volumes

80s-90s pretty much all they had was the 911... 996 drops in 1998 along with the Boxster, their volume damn near doubles overnight, coupled with the fact that the 911 and Boxster shared damn near every major component = crazy profitability. But before that they were not doing well. And even with that, they still made the Panamera and Cayenne, for no other reason than to help profitability... they wouldn't have invested in those new platforms if they didn't need to

[MX793]

That's just 911 volume, though.  In the 80s, Porsche was also selling 928s (not particularly many of them), 924s and 944s (both pretty common, especially the 944).

[veeman]

jaguar competes with mercedes, bmw, audi, lexus, infiniti, and cadillac.

- how many of these companies have changed owners in the last 20 years? - jaguar (twice)

- which of these companies has the worst depreciation of their product? - jaguar

- which of these companies has the worst reliability? - probably jaguar.  definitely worst perceived reliability

- which of these companies has the fewest number of dealerships? - either infiniti or jaguar

- which of these companies has the least number of models available - jaguar

- which of these companies does not have an SUV in its product portfolio - jaguar


how jaguar is still a viable entity is a minor miracle itself.  porsche survives because it sells a bunch of SUVs and it has a very loyal fan base willing to pay exorbitant amounts for great product.

jaguar has not had any loyal fan base since ford took over the reigns.  it needs to make a beautiful sleek SUV to take on the lexus rx in addition to a bmw 3 series competitor. 

[Byteme]

- which of these companies has the worst reliability? - probably jaguar.  definitely worst perceived reliability

[CJ]

I find it odd that Hyundai/Kia score so low there. Our car hasn't had any issues. The Bluetooth didn't work when we got it, but the dealer had to go in and activate something. I don't remember. And the tires need to be replaced, but it has almost 30k on it. Good car.

[SVT666]

Unreliable cars are still pretty reliable these days.

[280Z Turbo]

Why is Scion worse than Toyota?

[ifcar]

Why is Scion worse than Toyota?

It's just an average of the different models. And with a brand with a small lineup, it just takes one car that's not doing well to quickly drag everything down.