News : Bumper profits for Jaguar Land Rover

Jaguar Land Rover in Brazil

Jaguar Land Rover has posted record results for 2013, with a £2.5bn pre-tax profits for year-ending April 2014 – an improvement from £1.67bn the previous year. Overall revenue is also up from £15.78bn to £19.38bn – a remarkable turn-around in fortunes for the company since it was sold to Tata in 2008.

The Jaguar Land Rover success story seems to be one borne from a product-led recovery, with demand for the new portfolio of models, including the Range Rover, Sport, Evoque and Jaguar F-Type running at unprecedented levels.

During the year, the company sold 434,311 cars and it’s now in an all-out scramble to improve capacity and introduce more models at the lower-end of the range. The true turning point will be the Jaguar XE, which is set to make its debut at the Paris Motor Show later this year.

These results represent four years of record-breaking profitability for Jaguar Land Rover and the company is keen to continue the trend. Jaguar Land Rover Chief Executive Dr Ralf Speth said: ‘2013/14 has proven to be a solid year for Jaguar Land Rover, based on the demand around the world for our engaging products including the Range Rover Sport and F-Type Coupe.

‘Together, these activities have driven a solid financial performance for the company which continues to deliver on its strategic growth plans. These plans will see us invest in 50 new product actions over the next five years supported by our nurturing parent Tata Motors.’

Keith Adams


  1. Britain will have its BMW after all. Forty years behind schedule, but noneless, it will happen. Only JLR will be better and more focused than BMW. Now, it just needs one more brand to round out its portfolio…

  2. 10% profit margin – I bet there’s a lot of teeth gnashing going on at Ford and BMW….

  3. It’s great news, almost fantasy stuff. What will the model line-up (and more importantly the sales figures) look like in 5 or 10 years time?

    @Richard – if only JLR had the rights to the Talbot marque…

  4. @ Richard – Daimler? Lanchester perhaps 🙂

    Amazing results and production volumes, the sort of numbers ARG were producing, but for vastly more revenue and profit.

  5. It’s all on the back of the current SUV mania. Why do people like these things so much ?

    Jaguar, (my preference), are doing well, but it’s the Land Rover side that is generating the big money. I see these LR Evoques everywhere I go. My wife calls them ‘elephant seats’, because they look like an elephant has sat on top of them and hasn’t quite squashed them.

    Well done, though, to TATA for being bold with design and allowing their designers more freedom. Ford were far too prescriptive by far.

  6. The weird thing is that apart from the F-type and XF Sportbreak, this has been achieved by following Ford’s plan, but with smaller engines in some models, especially gasoline stuff in the Jags for China. So what’s the difference? There’s no highly paid, know-all Americans on 2 year secondments from Dearborn for one thing.
    The next few years will be more interesting and challenging…
    Oh, and people like SUVs for any number of reasons, practicality, multi-purpose capability, stand out from the crowd, higher driving position.

  7. Reading the news story based on the official press release, I was rather intrigued why there was no mention of any Land Rover branded models, just Range Rovers. Going by a press release issued by Land Rover Ltd only a few weeks ago to do with the 2015 MY Land Rover Freelander, “there is huge demand for this model”.

    Aside from this, this is excellent news from Jaguar Land Rover. Admittedly they do need to consider entering other market sectors in the medium to long term (e.g. Medium market, and potentially with a different brand so as not to make Jaguar perceived as being too accessible) and considering the implications of taking the Land Rover models too upmarket in terms of starting price. There is also a need to firmly establish a design and ‘image-led’ boundary between the Land Rover and Range Rover brands, as the recent Discovery design concept clearly blurs the boundaries between Discovery and Range Rover even further. Moreover, the Defender’s replacement needs to recognise why a large proportion of its once loyal customer base has bought Japanese alternatives in more recent years such as the Mitsubishi L200, Toyota HighLux and the Nissan Navara. Trying to claw back some of these lost sales should be a priority for Land Rover when the Defender replacement goes on sale.

    I am also hoping their fortunes will ultimately not focus on simply being product-led, but will embrace other initiatives such as ongoing shared engine projects with other manufacturers and even the joint venture opportunities with Chery Autombiles (and potentially other manufacturers too). After all, Project ‘Lion’ developed in partnership with the PSA Group (the 2.7/3.0 litre TDV6/SDV6 engine), proved to be a very productive and cost efficient opportunity for Jaguar and Land Rover. Even more so when you consider that Land Rover were able to use it as the basis for their own TDV8/SDV8 engine.

    Someone mentioned rejuvenating the Daimler name. An interesting idea although it would ultimately need to sit at the higher end of Jaguar Land Rover’s product portfolio and, based on JLR’s finances, buyers would probably expect a lot more than just a thinly retrimmed and rebadged Jaguar XJ.

  8. Fabulous news. With a great product line up and funds rolling in for further developments.
    It will be interesting to see what the Chery JLR Joint venture produces…….

  9. Excellent news, this totally buries any lingering doubts about Jaguar and once the BMW rival comes on stream, let’s hope profits break the £ 3 billion barrier. Jaguar has now totally moved on from its sixties retro obsession that held back sales to developing new models that are highly regarded and popular.

  10. At Richard – “JLR will be better and more focused than BMW” – im not sure where you thought this up from. I think BMW have had a great selection of cars for a long time. JLR however have been through change after change due to lack of funds, change of ownership blah blah. JLR have a lot of catching up to do (and yes they are getting there). The 318 in particular is a great little car (although bits of it are a bit rubbish).

    At Pete Bog. ive not been a fan of the MG 6 styling, however it has warmed on me somewhat. to the point that if was buying NEW a car in that class – I think I would seriously consider it. the only “other choice” for me – what be a second hand Subaru, Mazda, BMW or something. (not a Toyota or Nissan and probably not a honda).

    The only real option for Rover is to get right what was tried with the City Rover, that is bring in something from India, and finish it in Britain (properly this time). the City Rover I thought was a styley little car with class, but wasn’t made properly.


  11. @8 – Shared Engine Projects? – They are doing the exact opposite, ditching the Ford/PSA alliance for in-house hotfire/geranium engines (or whatever they are called) – Regardless, this is very good news indeed.

  12. @12 No – Why waste millions trying to convince people to buy Rovers again when the Jaguar brand is now so well established? – There just arnt enough bearded people in the world to justify the marketing costs.

  13. fantastic i always new they had it in em, glad ive always bought BRITISH ie landrover and rover.. i feel proud indeed..

  14. I think that a new Rover, properly executed and positioned, would do very well for JLR. What you lot have to remember is that whilst the brand has an image problem in Britain, outside that one small island it still invokes a positive response. A global Rover, rather than one simply cast adrift on the British market, has a chance to build upon the marque’s well known and much-admired traditional values; positioned below the premium Jaguar range, but still with a touch of class.

  15. Great news on the massive profit. I believe most of it came from me having my S-Type serviced at a main dealer . . . .

  16. Re 17: Which “well known and much-admired traditional values” would they be? Performance and handling beloved of aunties in the Home Counties? Piss-poor build quality? Designed in rust? If (and it’s a big if) a British name were to be revived, Triumph is a far better bet – it actually meant something of value in World markets.

  17. #19. Until the “Austin Rover” debacle Rover had a reputation for quality which in volume car terms was unrivalled . This reputation was maintained from the 1930s by its rather conservative cars ( which you so deride) and in the 1960s by its extraordinarily innovative and ingenious P6 models alongside the much more conservative P5 which in V8 P5B form was a stunningly good car . Triumph, however, was known principally for its sports cars which were very basic , and until the 2000 arrived in 1963 had no real volume seller , and whilst in 2.5 PI form it was more exciting than the 2000 , its quality was not a patch on that of Rover. Incidentally, I had all of the cars I have mentioned ( except a P4 saloon ) when they were current products, so I speak from experience

  18. @ Paul – Comment 15:

    Quote: “There just aren’t enough bearded people in the world to justify the marketing costs.”

    I am neither bearded nor elderly, so I am one Rover enthusiast who does not fall into your stereotype.

    @ Kev – Comment 19:

    Quote: “: Which “well known and much-admired traditional values” would they be? Performance and handling beloved of aunties in the Home Counties? Piss-poor build quality? Designed in rust?”

    I would say there are many long established, active and non-active British marques that could claim to have these demerits, not just Rover! My mate’s 10 year old Jaguar X Type is one such contender which I had the “pleasure” of helping to de-rust all the suspension components for when I should have been making my way to PoL back in April. If I had not helped with this it would have failed its MOT. And it was previously owned from new by a retired Auntie from Surrey!

    Triumph is now owned by BMW so that sentiment is a non-starter.

    At others:

    I won’t get into another debate over the desire by those on this website to see the Rover name reincarnated, as I have had my fingers burnt far too often in the past and now deliberately avoid this subject. However, I would ask everyone to remember that there was a distinctly different perception to the brand outside of the UK in a number of key export territories, which was actually significantly more favourable. The negative comments on here do not take this into account.

  19. Re 21: “…there was a distinctly different perception to the brand outside of the UK in a number of key export territories…” Yep, that’s spot on. The term used was ‘unsellable’. The only export markets that Rover succeeded in were Commonwealth countries. They treated the SD1, P6, and P5B, in the same way they treated Land Rovers and Range Rovers. As soon as anything else came along, they abandoned them in droves. In the US and Canada, the Rover reputation was so poor, a new brand – Sterling – had to be invented to enter the market.

    Early on, Ford looked at acquiring the Triumph name to use on X400. BMW wouldn’t sell, but did offer Rover. Ford walked away.

    Daimler is unlikely to be revived due to restrictions on use of the name outside of the UK.

  20. Until the SD1, which was otherwise a good car, the Rover brand stood for durable, conservative cars that appealed to the upper middle class and which were very well engineered and resisted rust better than most of their rivals. The spiritual successor to the Rover P4/P5 would have been the Volvo 240, an extremely sturdy, reliable and durable car with conservative design and comfort associated with Rover. Indeed many Rover owners moved on to these in the late seventies.

  21. @9 Evoques for a start – white one first off the line seen on Car News China website (although it reminded me of Nanjing’s TF relaunch in that there was little sign of any behind it.) Let’s hope they get a load more out before people start buying the much cheaper Landwind ripoff copy.

  22. @ 19 said:

    Re 17: Which “well known and much-admired traditional values” would they be? Performance and handling beloved of aunties in the Home Counties? Piss-poor build quality? Designed in rust? If (and it’s a big if) a British name were to be revived, Triumph is a far better bet – it actually meant something of value in World markets.

    When you are out and about have a look at Rover 75s – they suffer from very little rust.

    How about Triumphs such as TR7s and Stags they rust / rusted extremely well

    The engineering in a P6 v Triumph 2000 was far superior.

    Some of Rovers problems in the past were due to Leyland. The Rover 3500S Auto was released on to the US market before Rover wanted but Leyland insisted. Rover were developing the V8 injected engine for the US market but Leyland insisted that an engine with a hotch potch of emission gear on it which rendered it unable to be tuned correctly.

  23. I wonder if the Lucas “Prince Of Darkness” reputation is still remembered by Americans?

    From what I’ve heard Lucas electrics seemed to be the bane of American owners of Triumphs, MG’s Austin Healeys et el, probably overblown though.

  24. Re 26: In the market place, the Triumph name was perceived as being the sporty, and more attractive brand. This was to the extent that BMW deliberately positioned itself to occupy the niche that Triumph sold into. That is the reality of the situation, whether you accept it or not.

    To compare early 70’s sports cars with a mid 90’s saloon, seems a little stupid to say the least. Yes, TR7s and Stags incurred more corrosion that a Rover 75. So what? The Rover was produced with galvanised steel panels. Hardly anything made in the 70’s was. Try comparing a TR7 with an SD1 instead. Neither are great, but fortunes were squandered on the Solihull white elephant.

    When the 75 was launched, Jaguar were scared it would take sales from S-Type. The 75 really was that nice a car. In the event, a year later it had all passed. Not withstanding that the S-Type was a very flawed product, the 75 didn’t trouble S-Type sales at all. The 75 was a better product, but the Rover image was so poor that it seriously hindered sales.

  25. re 29 : I think the reference to a Rover 75 was to a P4 . Before … long before judging by your posts… your time I suspect !

  26. Re 30: Maybe so, but invoking comparisons with a car that ceased production 50 years ago is a very fraught activity. Particularly one that averaged less than 9000 units a year production. Hardly a ringing endorsement of a P4’s advantages! To be fair, a P4 is a car from a different era, one long forgotten by most. My point really is that to call for a modern car to be badged as a Rover, has about as much value and merit as calling for it to be a Wolesely or a Riley. Or how about Standard? Or Alvis?

  27. In USA the Land/Range Rovers are referred to as Rovers so why not have Land Rovers Jerry McGovern and his team design the new Rover cars using the old grill and badge but with the Range Rover flair and swagger. Rover cars could be luxury and elegant (like a smaller Rolls) while the Jags could be Sporty and energetic l(like Porsche and Maserati). Plus being connected to LR would make it instantly profitable.

  28. Plus JLR should invest in a small brand so they have a mainstream model like Audi and Volkswagen. The best brand for this should be Austin which they should resurrect with BMW using the Mini as the sub compact. That new Mini convertible could be the Austin Healey/Sprite while the Focus Rival could be the Austin Seven. A larger Mondeo Rival could be based on the IQ(AL) platform and be the simple affordable RWD platform.

  29. Someone above say that “until teh S1 Rovers were conservative”, I think you will find that the P6 was a total revolution, for not only the brand but the market as a whole, it was the first proper rep mobile, for upper management, police and the general public alike.

    The P6 was for Rover at that point, what the 3-Series is for BMW now.

    As much as we would all love for Rover to come back, it wont, teh costs for a Rovers Return would be so astronomical, just the marketting alone to get the new model known would be prohibative these days, we can see what the lack of advertising is doing to MG, yes it is selling more cars now than ever before under new MG, but not because of HQ advertising.

    JLR are succeeding because they are giving the people what they want, a great British product that can and does beat the Germans at their own game, the XF and XJ were under Ford directorship, yes, but nothing else, the Evoque, F-Type, Sportbrake, XE, LR2 faceilft and abviosuly new Discovery are all in house.

    And thats not all, there is far more to come, more derivatives of existing and brand new niche models too, not just the XC SUV!

  30. Now that JLR have embarked on a Chinese JV, as I understand it the Chinese authorities insist on a new brand to be created within the JV. This could be a way to resurrect the Rover brand for (initially) the Chinese market.

    The issue with bringing back names like Lanchester, Wolesley, Standard and Riley is that they sound like “old” names – how many kids today are christened Ethel or Doris? At least Triumph, Rover and MG feel a bit more valid (well to me anyway)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.