The future of Jaguar could hinge on the success of brand's upcoming BMW 3-Series rival, a top executive at the automaker has revealed.
Jaguar recently expanded its lineup to include more R-performance models as well as the sensational F-Type Roadster, but the British automaker remains a low-volume player in the global auto market. Jaguar is banking on its 3-Series rival – codenamed X760 – to drastically increase its sales volume, with the company's future relying on the success of the sports sedan.
"This is the only choice as Jaguar is not viable at 60,000 units [per year]. If the X760 fails, it will probably be the end for the brand," an unnamed Jaguar Land Rover executive was quoted as saying by Autocar.
Although we won't see the X760, which could be called the XS in production, until next year's Paris Motor Show, all indications suggest the compact sedan will be a hit for Jaguar. The XS will be based on a new aluminum architecture and place a heavy emphasis on styling and driving dynamics.
According to Jaguar boss Adrian Hallmark, the XS will be "the most advanced, most efficient, most refined car in that segment. Not almost as good as, but better than the best in the world."
The XS will hit the market in sedan form in early 2015, followed by a wagon in 2016. Jaguar is also mulling a coupe variant for 2018.
Tata needs to let Jag market a lux'ed out version of the Nano.
No wonder nobody wants to build cars for enthusiasts. Every time they do they start selling fewer cars.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 03:14:08 PM
No wonder nobody wants to build cars for enthusiasts. Every time they do they start selling fewer cars.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: MrH on October 16, 2013, 03:27:25 PM
:rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want, it doesn't make it less true. Why do you think Toyota and Honda sell exponentially more cars than Mazda? Jaguar has revamped itself and is focusing their lineup towards enthusiasts and they are in danger of folding in a few years. VW started selling more Passats when they stopped being fun. Volume sellers are the inoffensive boring ass mainstreamers. Performance cars are always at the bottom in terms of sales. BMW seems to be the one exception though.
Mazda doesn't sell well because their cars aren't that damn special.
"fun to drive" doesn't matter if it doesn't do well at it's original intended purpose.
The new Passat still drives well; it sells better because it's CHEAPER not because it doesn't drive as well. The old one was not priced competitively.
New Jaguars aren't all that strong. The best product in their portfolio is probably the XJ. The XF is using an old as platform (S-type/Lincoln LS), and the F-type (although pretty) is a niche. I forgot the XK existed, and did the rest of the market. No reason to buy any of the cars over the competition.
What was Jag's volume before the recent crop of sportier models (before Ford sold the brand)?
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2013, 04:27:39 PM
Mazda doesn't sell well because their cars aren't that damn special.
I stopped reading after this.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 04:35:00 PM
I stopped reading after this.
The New Mazda 3 is OK, the Mazda 2 isn't that economical, the old 3 was pretty good (and sold well), but the old Mazda 6 and the first Mazda 6 were fleet queens. The first one drove OK, but was too small (and has corrosion issues). The 2nd one was nothing special to drive, look at, or particularly cheap. I guess the new Mazda 6 is OK, but it doesn't have an option for more power. The 2.0L in the CX-5 is useless, since the 2.5L is faster with the same economy.
And the rest of the lineup is a wash...
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2013, 04:27:39 PM
Mazda doesn't sell well because their cars aren't that damn special.
"fun to drive" doesn't matter if it doesn't do well at it's original intended purpose.
The new Passat still drives well; it sells better because it's CHEAPER not because it doesn't drive as well. The old one was not priced competitively.
New Jaguars aren't all that strong. The best product in their portfolio is probably the XJ. The XF is using an old as platform (S-type/Lincoln LS), and the F-type (although pretty) is a niche. I forgot the XK existed, and did the rest of the market. No reason to buy any of the cars over the competition.
You've driven an XF, have you, to be able to dismiss it this glibly?
I have, and I've also sampled an A6, a 5 series and an E Class. They were in three separate countries and not comparable versions, but I can tell you that of the four, if I wanted the non-top of the range models, I'd pick the XF 3.0 D S over the German trio (actually, I suspect I'd choose the XFR over the others, too!).
Strong in the sense that no one has any reason to buy it over the competition.
The XF looks good, but why the hell should I buy one over a BMW/Audi/Lexus, etc?
OK, did a little digging into the sales volume matter. Can't find a number for Jag alone, but in 2012 Jaguar Land Rover moved over 350,000 units. I find it hard to believe that LR branded vehicles outsell Jags by more than 4:1, meaning that Jag isn't a 60K unit per year business at the moment. Also, another article I read that was published earlier this year, a Jag rep states that Jag's production facilities are nearly at capacity. They are already producing cars around the clock.
Quote from: MX793 on October 16, 2013, 05:28:18 PM
OK, did a little digging into the sales volume matter. Can't find a number for Jag alone, but in 2012 Jaguar Land Rover moved over 350,000 units. I find it hard to believe that LR branded vehicles outsell Jags by more than 4:1, meaning that Jag isn't a 60K unit per year business at the moment. Also, another article I read that was published earlier this year, a Jag rep states that Jag's production facilities are nearly at capacity. They are already producing cars around the clock.
IIRC, isn't that on old Ford/Volvo tooling, though? I can't imagine that Tata has any interest in leveraging or even the market or ability to share any Jaguar anything with a basic Tata....
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2013, 05:31:14 PM
IIRC, isn't that on old Ford/Volvo tooling, though? I can't imagine that Tata has any interest in leveraging or even the market or ability to share any Jaguar anything with a basic Tata....
Point is, the OP makes it sound all doom and gloom like Jag is on the brink of crumbling and is barely selling any cars, when in fact that's not the case. Their profits for the past two years have been good (and increasing), as have sales volume. Other articles indicate that Jag is selling as many cars as they can build. They may not yet have the volume that Tata hopes them to someday have, but they aren't up against the ropes hoping that this new model will be their Hail Mary to pull them back on track.
I just read another report that says September was a record sales month for Jag. I can, however, believe that they must sell A LOT more cars to make it viable. Don't forget the Jag was one of the reasons FoMoCo was losing so much money.
Quote from: MX793 on October 16, 2013, 05:36:43 PM
Point is, the OP makes it sound all doom and gloom like Jag is on the brink of crumbling and is barely selling any cars, when in fact that's not the case. Their profits for the past two years have been good (and increasing), as have sales volume. Other articles indicate that Jag is selling as many cars as they can build. They may not yet have the volume that Tata hopes them to someday have, but they aren't up against the ropes hoping that this new model will be their Hail Mary to pull them back on track.
They never had huge targets to begin with. The only thing worse than this article is some of the comments in this thread :lol:
They desperately need a competitor to the 3 series and it has to be good. Hopefully they pull out all the stops.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 05:59:36 PM
I just read another report that says September was a record sales month for Jag. I can, however, believe that they must sell A LOT more cars to make it viable. Don't forget the Jag was one of the reasons FoMoCo was losing so much money.
Ford sold Jag because they needed capital due to all of their brands' sales taking a nose dive and they needed to cut loose whatever they could to keep operating. They put up their own headquarters to keep cash in the accounts.
According to JLR's '11/'12 annual report, they were in the black both 2011 and 2012.
They were losing money like crazy when Ford owned them.
Quote from: MrH on October 16, 2013, 07:10:34 PM
They never had huge targets to begin with. The only thing worse than this article is some of the comments in this thread :lol:
You like making snide remarks from the sidelines, but you have yet to offer up any evidence to prove me wrong. Cars geared to enthusiasts never sell as well as more mundane competitors...except for BMW. But that has more to do with badge snobbery then anything.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 04:24:02 PM
Roll your eyes all you want, it doesn't make it less true. Why do you think Toyota and Honda sell exponentially more cars than Mazda? Jaguar has revamped itself and is focusing their lineup towards enthusiasts and they are in danger of folding in a few years. VW started selling more Passats when they stopped being fun. Volume sellers are the inoffensive boring ass mainstreamers. Performance cars are always at the bottom in terms of sales. BMW seems to be the one exception though.
They were in way more danger before. The fact that they're still in danger (if they are) is an indicator of how bad things were before the latest batch of cars.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 08:06:47 PM
You like making snide remarks from the sidelines, but you have yet to offer up any evidence to prove me wrong. Cars geared to enthusiasts never sell as well as more mundane competitors...except for BMW. But that has more to do with badge snobbery then anything.
You're just talking non sense. There isn't much to debate. No, enthusiasts cars aren't some sort of death mark for manufacturers. They don't sell in huge volume typically, which makes it much harder when you've got a fixed cost to spread around, but that can all be managed to some degree. There's an entire industry and profession based around trying to quantify this, and you're saying that enthusiast car = you're dead.
Never mind the fact Jaguar is doing the best it has in years and is profitable right now.
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
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 07:24:09 AM
"Well those entry level cars are selling, why shouldnt Jaguar?"- Mr H
SportySPIN at its finest. Where did I say this? You just blatantly made that up and attached my name to it.
Quote from: MrH on October 17, 2013, 08:09:52 AM
SportySPIN at its finest. Where did I say this? You just blatantly made that up and attached my name to it.
Naw, I anticipated that would be your response, so I addressed it ahead of time.
ATS is not hitting its targets because nobody wants a store brand 3 for a name brand price. If Jag goes the ATS route they will fail too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 08:23:16 AM
Naw, I anticipated that would be your response, so I addressed it ahead of time.
ATS is not hitting its targets because nobody wants a store brand 3 for a name brand price. If Jag goes the ATS route they will fail too.
You're now arguing with things you'll predict I'll say? :wtf:
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2013, 04:27:39 PM
The new Passat still drives well; it sells better because it's CHEAPER not because it doesn't drive as well. The old one was not priced competitively.
The new Passat drives well
in comparison to its competitors. But it is a far cry from the B5 and B6 in terms of driving dynamics.
Quote from: MrH on October 17, 2013, 08:43:14 AM
You're now arguing with things you'll predict I'll say? :wtf:
We had damn near the same discussion with the ATS and I know consistency, even in the absence of changing contexts, maturity or even logic is tantamount to you
Cute that you have to resort to arguing semantics rather than discussing the content of my post though
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 08:03:05 PM
They were losing money like crazy when Ford owned them.
Yeah, but look at the products. The XJ from two generations ago was almost S class money, but E class sized on the inside. The XJ that came after that remedied it, but despite its achingly good looks, people still overlooked it.
The S-Type seemed fairly successful at the beginning, but it also seemed like it fell off quickly. I went from seeing them all the time to seeing other cars parked where they normally were.
The X-Type was never a convincing car. Again, very good looks with not much substance behind it, other than standard AWD, which was then more of a niche product, the market mostly being sewn up by Audi. Remember, this was a time when people didn't know that driving a RWD car in light rain would cause instant explosion of your heart and cause your children to make bad sexual decisions.
They made a horribly ugly XJ under Tata, which is what people want these days. I'm assaulted by these monstrosities all the time. People seem to love them. I see 10 XJs for every one 7 series I see, if not more. Ugly is in, as long as it's high tech, apparently.
The XF came out and got a lot of sales by confusing people into thinking it was a Lexus, but once people got to the dealer, realized it wasn't a new Lexus, they stuck around and bought it because it was actually a pretty good car. I tried to get my mother to look at one. I ran it by my brother because he's considering replacing his S4 (he's keeping his S4). The XF was well received by the media and seems to be doing well in the marketplace considering how many I see.
The F-Type and XK are cars I don't see much anymore, but normal people have less money for toys these days, so it's understandable. I haven't seen an SL in months, when I used to see half a dozen a day.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 08:48:59 AM
We had damn near the same discussion with the ATS and I know consistency, even in the absence of changing contexts, maturity or even logic is tantamount to you
Cute that you have to resort to arguing semantics rather than discussing the content of my post though
I've never made the point your contesting in your post. Not sure what you expect me to argue with you about. :huh:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 07:24:09 AM
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.
Quote from: MrH on October 17, 2013, 09:07:48 AM
I've never made the point your contesting in your post. Not sure what you expect me to argue with you about. :huh:
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on October 17, 2013, 09:11:21 AM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 09:25:43 AM
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.
Quote from: MrH on October 17, 2013, 10:39:08 AM
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.
Quote from: MrH on June 01, 2012, 12:44:21 PM
Speaking of fail...
Somebody grab a fork and knife, time for sporty to eat his humble pie:
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2122/atsproductionvolume.jpg)
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
Quote from: MrH on October 17, 2013, 10:39:08 AMI'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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 09:25:43 AM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 11:58:06 AM
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on October 17, 2013, 12:09:53 PM
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.
Quote from: MiataJohn on October 17, 2013, 12:14:52 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 11:58:06 AM
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.
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).
Quote from: ifcar on October 17, 2013, 01:41:23 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 11:58:06 AM
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.
Wait, do they even make a 1 series sedan? I didn't think so.
Quote from: Tave on October 17, 2013, 03:47:29 PM
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
Quote from: Raza on October 17, 2013, 03:53:33 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 03:54:46 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 04:15:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Tave on October 17, 2013, 04:23:08 PM
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...
Quote from: Tave on October 17, 2013, 03:47:29 PM
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.
Or maybe not, hell, maybe the government just steps in and slaps Porsche down.
Quote from: MX793 on October 17, 2013, 04:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Tave on October 17, 2013, 04:43:58 PM
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)
Quote from: MX793 on October 17, 2013, 05:19:47 PM
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 (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
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).
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.
Quote from: veeman on October 17, 2013, 08:49:10 PM
- which of these companies has the worst reliability? - probably jaguar. definitely worst perceived reliability
(https://pictures.dealer.com/j/jdpower/1048/d113c91c0a0d02b701d3ac6eb051e9f9.jpg)
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.
Unreliable cars are still pretty reliable these days.
Why is Scion worse than Toyota?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 17, 2013, 10:03:07 PM
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.
Regarding Porsche: The profits they make with vehicles are quite spectacular, but in the last few years of being independent they made most of their money with financial transactions, in fact the German regulators were considering forcing Porsche to be regulated as an investment bank. Then their investments caved in on them.
Some interesting facts in this week's Autocar:
50% of all the profits in the global motor industry come from 12% of the sale volume, the "premium" sector. There are 13 so-called "premium" brands in the market, but 80 - 90% of the profits that they generate come from just three of those brands: BMW, Audi and Mercedes. Porsche is only still alive because of the Cayenne, which generates more than 50% of its sales volume and makes a huge contribution to its profitability. Given that, it is very clear that to survive, Jaguar simply have to have a success in the biggest parts of the premium sector, which are the " 3 series basher" and the SUV space.
If we go back to the start of this thread (before all the pages of ill-informed nonsense), then JLR is indeed on a high at present. They cannot build cars fast enough, and have added extra shifts to try to catch up. It is mostly down to the success of the Evoque which not only added 30% to the LR sales volume, but is a highly profitable product. Whilst every recent car in the JLR range is well regarded by many (if not some by some of the uninformed on here), the reality is that none of them compete in sectors where the total sales volume is big enough. The F Type was only ever going to be an image-enhancing car, and whilst it has met sales projections, the 8000 or so sold since it became available earlier this year is a drop in e very big ocean. Whilst the American data would suggest otherwise, in Europe, the XF has far higher levels of customer satisfaction than the German trio and the surveys also suggest it is more reliable. But even with the addition of the SportBrake, it is never going to beat the sales dominance of the E Class, 5 series and A6 on a global basis despite the excellence of the product.
Can JLR do it with their new models? I hope so, but it will not be easy, and it may well take time. And they won't be the only ones trying. The article that contained the above figures was actually an interview with the VP of Infiniti, who candidly admits that Nissan is not in the sector either, and that historically, Infiniti has been what he calls "Nissan Plus" and that they need to distance themselves far more from Nissan like Audi has from VW. Infiniti clearly have aspirations to achieve the same thing - in a way they have an even lower base to start from. In the UK they have just 8 dealers, and their total European sales last year did not reach 6000 cars (almost all of which were FX models), so they've got a long road to go down. I can't believe that Lexus won't be trying, too, though they seem still to be utterly focused on the US market (where they have been successful), and are making token efforts for Europe (where they are barely more successful than Infiniti).
It's not just the brands that are trying to climb up from humble roots, either. Look at Maserati with their Ghibli and the forthcoming SUV Levante. Their ambition is to quintuple sales from less than 10,000 units a year to 50,000. Many scoffed, but they've received over 20,000 orders already this year, and also cannot build Quattroportes fast enough (Thank you China!). Indeed, the UK sales date for the new model and the Ghibli have been put back as they cannot meet demand from elsewhere.
Whatever, it is going to be fascinating to see how this all pans out.......... and I for one am looking forward to the additional new products that will be available to us.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 11:58:06 AM
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.
We already discussed this. Usually cars don't hit peak sales until middle of their life cycle, and it's predicted the entire industry is slowly on the rise. They're going to hit somewhere around 45k this year, which splits the difference of what you said you'd be surprised they'd hit, and what I said would it hit at one point. There's still many years of sales ahead of it. For some reason, you want to drag this out into just an argument on gut reactions instead of actually looking at some meaningful data.
I said they were pretty spot-on. Enough so, that it's a better source than the volume the OEMs give out. And it's a metric fuck-ton better than your gut reaction.
But most importantly, the ATS has nothing to do with this thread. The article, which is questionable at best, didn't say what volume the new vehicle needs to sell at or what volume they predict. Why you're bringing this up, the world will never know.
Quote from: Raza on October 17, 2013, 09:05:24 AM
I haven't seen an SL in months, when I used to see half a dozen a day.
I see SLs daily, but I have seen an F-Type on the road a grand total of one time. Which is fine with me. I hope Jag maintains its terrible resale value. I would love to rock an F in a few years...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2013, 09:25:43 AM
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 don't see where I was "defending" the ATS. My case was that Cadillac has never had a steady lineup like the German competition and a car to compete with the 3er is a necessary piece of the puzzle. And despite all of the complaints about the touch screen, most people seem to agree that the ATS is a better car to drive than the F30, which was kind of the point. At the end of the day, Caddy needs a consistent lineup that competes with the Germans and the ATS is a natural fit for that battle. The ATS is the first American car to go against the 3er in, arguably, decades. And I think they did a kickass job with it. Fine, maybe the touch screen/CUE sucks. Fix it in another model year. Eventually, driving dynamics will win out. The 3er has a following because it encompasses intangibles that engage even the non-enthusiast driver. The ATS can do the same thing, especially as it improved over time. I hope Caddy doesn't give up like they did when the XLR didn't outdo the SL in its first generation. Caddy needs a steady lineup that improves over time. Period.
You, as I recall, were trying to make a case that Caddy should emulate Chrysler and sell boats like the 300.
QuoteJag'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.
With this, I agree. Jag also needs an SUV. I hate to say it, but they need to badge engineer an Evoque and sell it as a Jag. It really wouldn't be a big deal. LR fans don't really care about the Evoque anyway (a lot of them don't care about the LR2 either... I know... so cutting that off at the head...).
A few years back, Audi was in the toilet and nobody cared about the 90. Now, 15 years later they're a beloved brand in the U.S. and everyone is buying A4s. A turnaround can happen with solid products that compete. There's no reason Jag can't do what Audi did. They just have to be smart and competitive without reinventing the wheel – arguably, the same thing Caddy should be doing.
Jag and Caddy have similar images they have to shed. They both are viewed as brands that cater to the older crowd and are unreliable. Both have improved their reliability exponentially and are featuring fresh designs. I have confidence in both brands if they stay the course and make competitive vehicles. Especially in the U.S. market, people are forgiving.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 17, 2013, 09:53:32 PM
Unreliable cars are still pretty reliable these days.
Exactly. The gulf between the "most" and "least" reliable is pretty small. Back in the day, there was a massive difference. Today, it's practically nothing – almost statistically insignificant. There is not a single production vehicle sold in the U.S. today that I would hesitate in buying due to reliability.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 19, 2013, 01:39:41 AM
I don't see where I was "defending" the ATS. My case was that Cadillac has never had a steady lineup like the German competition and a car to compete with the 3er is a necessary piece of the puzzle. And despite all of the complaints about the touch screen, most people seem to agree that the ATS is a better car to drive than the F30, which was kind of the point. At the end of the day, Caddy needs a consistent lineup that competes with the Germans and the ATS is a natural fit for that battle. The ATS is the first American car to go against the 3er in, arguably, decades. And I think they did a kickass job with it. Fine, maybe the touch screen/CUE sucks. Fix it in another model year. Eventually, driving dynamics will win out. The 3er has a following because it encompasses intangibles that engage even the non-enthusiast driver. The ATS can do the same thing, especially as it improved over time. I hope Caddy doesn't give up like they did when the XLR didn't outdo the SL in its first generation. Caddy needs a steady lineup that improves over time. Period.
You, as I recall, were trying to make a case that Caddy should emulate Chrysler and sell boats like the 300.
Still have me all wrong. I disagree that Caddy needs to compete with the Germans within the framework the Germans have laid out, which is proving to be less and less relevant as time goes on. Car companies are in the business of turning profits, not building automotive penises to wave around. A 3/5/7 lineup is irrelevant. You look at Lexus, the RX and ES make up 60-80% of the sales volume, and I would bet they make up a significant chunk of Lexus' profits too; but they do not fit in the classic 3/5/7 lineup. Lexus' 3/5/7 models don't really sell much. Infiniti's 5 fighter is a niche model volume wise and they dumped their 7 fighter. Etc. BMW & Mercedes can work in that framework because they have the brand cachet that enables them to sell pretty much anything. Caddy & Jag don't have that luxury.
And I never said Caddy should "build a boat". I said Caddy should create a new niche relevant to Americans today like Chrysler did when they came out with the 300. The 300 is not relevant today, but then neither is a 3 series fighter with a non German badge either. There is no reason to get an ATS over a 3 series.
Quote from: TurboDan on October 19, 2013, 01:39:41 AMWith this, I agree. Jag also needs an SUV. I hate to say it, but they need to badge engineer an Evoque and sell it as a Jag. It really wouldn't be a big deal. LR fans don't really care about the Evoque anyway (a lot of them don't care about the LR2 either... I know... so cutting that off at the head...).
A few years back, Audi was in the toilet and nobody cared about the 90. Now, 15 years later they're a beloved brand in the U.S. and everyone is buying A4s. A turnaround can happen with solid products that compete. There's no reason Jag can't do what Audi did. They just have to be smart and competitive without reinventing the wheel – arguably, the same thing Caddy should be doing.
Jag and Caddy have similar images they have to shed. They both are viewed as brands that cater to the older crowd and are unreliable. Both have improved their reliability exponentially and are featuring fresh designs. I have confidence in both brands if they stay the course and make competitive vehicles. Especially in the U.S. market, people are forgiving.
I agree that Jag needs to reinvent itself as a young brand, but the opportunity that Audi had is not here for Jag/Caddy today. We are talking nearly 20 years. 20 years ago you could damn near count all the luxury cars on both hands (3,5,7,8,C,E,S,SL,M,Q,ES,GS,SC,LS). AWD was niche for example. There were no SUVs for example. There was a shitload of opportunity. Today, the 3 segment is at capacity and the 5/7 segments are shrinking in sales to irrelevance. Jag at its peak was a company about style, high performance and value. They need to get back to that in segments that are relevant to the 2013 consumer... a 3/5/7 lineup is not the way to do that.