News : Jaguar C-X17 teased pre-Frankfurt

Keith Adams

Jaguar C-X17

It’s the worst kept secret in the industry – and now we have official confirmation that Jaguar will be revealing its all-important crossover at the Frankfurt Motor Show. In true modern-day car launch style, this is the start of the drip-feed in the lead-up to the moment the covers come off on the motor show stand in a few days’ time.

The C-X17 is an important step in the development of the Jaguar marque. Currently, within the JLR stable, it’s Land Rover that’s doing the volume, with a fresh range that of cars that people actually want to buy. Hopefully, the new crossover will help readdress the balance, attacking one of the fastest growing sectors of the market, currently dominated by the Audi Q5, BMW X3 and Range Rover Evoque. Jaguar’s entrant in this market will undoubtedly be pitched as a sporting challenger, with a very different set of qualities to those of its in-house counterpart, the Evoque.

Interestingly, Jaguar has confirmed that the C-X17 will be underpinned by the company’s new ‘highly-advanced, modular aluminium architecture’. Given that Jaguar has yet to truly capitalise on its current and previous aluminium products (the XJ), we can expect to see more being made of this in the coming months. It’s also a even money bet that the long-awaited 3-Series rival will be spun from this, as well as the replacement for the XF, which is still around four years (and one upcoming facelift) away.

No doubt, we’ll learn more about the crossover C-X17 in the coming days – but the word from the inside is that the production version won’t hit the showrooms until 2016, which we hope won’t be too late to really capitalise on the potential of growing markets in the East.

Keith Adams


  1. Unsurprisingly, to most people an FD Cortina and Mk III Victor look ‘a bit similar’. Car designed to fit small SUV segment looks like popular small SUV shocker.

    Though how you can tell anything from that other than “it’s got haunches and F-type-esque rear lights” is beyond me!

  2. I am sure it will sell especially in the Middle East, Far East and the USA, providing it is priced to sell. The Germans are good at capturing the £25 – £35k market for themselves. Jaguar has yet to crack this even with XF. Lets hope the new architecture can spawn a 4 seat convertible, coupe, tourer, SUV, 5 door and 4 door saloon to take on 3 series and sell 250,000 units a year. The X Type never made it despite being priced to sell and being very reliable. Did not attract the Audi Driver. This new range needs to do just that.

  3. @2 Yes, unsurprisingly…

    But why release a teaser shot where the only recognisable thing (to ‘most people’) is the Jaguar badge? Surely there are other styling cues they could have exploited to make this car look new & different. Which is presumably the point of the whole thing.

  4. That will sell well in the UK, never mind overseas markets.

    What’s interesting about this is how different it will be from the Evoque, with a completely different platform, with it’s RWD bias and longitudinal engine, rather than the transverse engined Freelander/Evoque chassis.

  5. Oh dear, I suppose this means we’re going to get that awful Alfa Romeo SUV thing too now. Since when did anyone need to sit in a small van all the time? When I was young families who needed space drive estate cars. Jaguar make a beautiful estate car. Once upon a time Alfa Romeo did too. I guess I’m just behind the times. I don’t see the point in HDTV either…….:D

  6. @6 I dont quite get what you mean by priced to sell, the Germans SUV’s whatever the price look the same until they get John Terry’d or Wayne Rooney’d by then you are well into the tosser zone.

    Put black wheels gold roof and mirrors on a specced up Evoque and it looks like nowt elseand you have parted with £44k but you are still in the tosser zone.

    These cars are not my bag,but i would like to think it will have taste and not 22″drug dealer rims on it come option and spence time.
    Im also not qualified to comment on “they are making cars what people want”.

  7. So it will be about the same size as an Evoque, compete in the same market but use completely different Architecture. British Leyland tried this approach with the Allegro and Marina.

  8. Looks stunning from what I can see, bet it’s a winner, can’t be any worse than those awful, tacky German Show-off-mobiles…

  9. I hope it does look stunning, the completely beautiful XJ is a car of envy, the XF is superb in all areas given that its platform is a aging Lincoln item,but that is no critisism in any way.

  10. @14: Overlap. Chances are, the NEXT Evoque will use the same platform as the Jaguar SUV, freeing it from Ford IP. Also allowing V6/V8 options. Four cylinder engine is the primary reason I wouldn’t have an Evoque.

  11. That did occur to me. In 2016 the Evoque will be knocking on of course and out of step with other Land Rover products by still having a steel body. JLR also seem to be going flat out to ditch Ford technology so your probably right.

  12. @12 Not quite right. The Pug 605 and Alfa 164 were both designed by Pinifarina, as were the Austin Cambridge / Pug 404, and also the FIAT 130 coupe / Pug 504 coupe – being the work of the same designer, these cars can hardly be compared with differing design teams who just happened to opt for the same styling trends……more laziness!

  13. @2 & @3
    Saw an Insignia at the weekend that had had a Ford badge put in the middle of the grill. Had to look twice, but it didn’t look too much of a stretch.

  14. Jaguar dealers need this car ! At the moment, around half of the people with the income to afford an up-market automobile are walking past their showrooms. I have loved Jaguars as they used to be for a long time, but times change and Jaguar must change too,or go out of business. With the draconian speed limits and even more draconian enforcement we have in Europe and the USA, the high-speed and elegantly styled saloon is now dead, basically.

  15. @12 or A Toyota 107, Citroen Aygo and Peugeot C1 😉


    Kia Toaster, Hyundai Microwave etc

    Cars that people want to buy… well, there are droves of Evoques round here but I would not be seen dead in one (rather have my Disco 2). My daily drive is a German estate car that averages 57 mpg, and I understand SUVs (previous car was a Honda FRV) because when you have kids, prams, booster seats, half a junior footy team, weekly shopping and aged granny to cart round and SUV is just what you need.

    Unless it’s a Nissan Joke, which is sort of a reverse Tardis, big outside, tiny inside and given a beating with the ugly stick…

    Will I be in line for a Jag C-X17 — no. What I really wanted was an X-type with sufficient interior space and decent fuel economy and preferably not on a bastardised Mondeo chassis.

  16. @16. The XF is based upon the S-type which was used a platform JOINTLY developed by Lincoln AND Jaguar. Keith a history of the modern S-type would be great addition to this esteemed website.

  17. @dolomitefan:

    Quote: “Another 4 years for XF, the model cycle is waaaaay too long. It’s a good car but will be very old come replacement.”

    I suppose a lot of its continued success will depend on how comprehensive the rumoured facelift will be, and what new innovations it will present.

    At others:

    I am looking forward to seeing this concept and really hope that Jaguar Cars will pull its finger out in terms of the time factor involved in getting the production SUV to the marketplace, as Jaguar Cars is not exactly known for being quick on the uptake.

    Clearly the new platform that will underpin the production car will be utilised for other new Jaguar products, not to mention the replacements for the Land Rover Freelander and Range Rover Evoque. It is a good move on the part of Jaguar and Land Rover.

  18. Re 23: It was actually the DEW98 platform – Ford’s in-house midsize RWD platform. It was offered to Jaguar on pretty well a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. It wasn’t ‘jointly developed to any real degree. That’s why the pre 2002 cars are so dynamically flawed compared to the later ones. The DEW 98 platform was also used on such delights as the Thunderbird and Mustang. Jaguar’s input was limited.

  19. 26@. I beg to differ. Then DEW98 platform was co-developed by Lincoln / Ford US AND Jaguar. It did not pre-exist and was not some sort of hand-me down from Ford. You do disservice to the UK engineers that contributed to the Jaguar S-type and then wider family. Jaguar were part of Ford so it made sense that there was rationalisation. As you say it has proven, with improvements, to be a good and long lasting platform that also made a good, European influenced, Lincoln.

  20. Re 26: My friend, I was one of those “UK engineers”. The DEW98 was developed for the Lincoln LS, from 1993. Jaguar picked it up from 1995. About the only ‘development’ (and that’s stretching the term!) at Jaguar, was to use elements of the rear end underframe and rear subframe from the S-Type in the so-called XKRR, to enable us to have multi-link rear suspension.

  21. The Mustang isn’t DEW98… it doesn’t have the IRS, it’s vastly simplified.

    One thing I was told was that the oddities under my late Scorpio (last six months of production, black headlight model) were due to it carrying developments of DEW98. Cosworth’s documentation also points at the 2.3 16v Twin Cam as being originally designed as a four cylinder engine for DEW98. I don’t think that either of these things are true, particularly, but it’s fascinating what people claim.

  22. Re 29: You’re kind of correct. The DEW98 based Mustang was indeed (mostly) built with a live rear axle. It was available with a Roush designed – but track fitted – IRS, as a listed option. But in any case, the DEW98 was dropped by Ford in 2006.

  23. @30: Front suspension is different too, with McPherson struts – there is no “DEW98 based Mustang”, there’s the original, Fox and then D2C, which is at best ‘some leftovers of DEW98 but with all the good stuff taken away due to cost’.

    The 2005 on Mustang had no factory option for IRS, and the previous Mustang is a Fox platform (that does have IRS options). Whilst I also remember discussion of high-end, IRS options for the 2005 on Mustang, I don’t believe any production IRS option exists or existed.

    Happy to be shown evidence to the contrary, mind.

  24. @24 – Absolutely. The XF is already starting to smell a bit. In 4 years time riga-mortise will have set in. With all the gaps in Jaguars current range – a 3 series competitor, a credible 5 series competitor, even something smaller like 1 series/A Class alternative – I dont understand why a small SUV is being given priority when the company – It is Jaguar Landrover – effectively has every conceivable corner of that market already covered.

  25. @27 “Jaguar were part of Ford so it made sense that there was rationalisation. As you say it has proven, with improvements, to be a good and long lasting platform that also made a good, European influenced, Lincoln.”

    It made sense to the bean counters, but Jaguar buyers deserted in droves to BMW and Audi. I seriously looked at the X-type estate when it was new — and bought a Saab instead.. The chassis was dynamically flawed and the compromised 4WD/2WD compromised [kludge] engineering ruined the internal space.

    The XF is getting a bit long in the tooth and Jaguar are seriously missing out on the A3 / C Class / 3 series sector which sells like a 1980s Cortina. What Jaguar needs is a range of competitive vehicles to compete with the Audi A4 / A6 and A8 et al i.e. a range of vehicles that can allow customers to trade up or down within the range as families grow and shrink rather than move brands.

  26. How dramatic do you think the platform changes from Audi, Mercedes and BMW have been? The XF doesn’t compete for a couple of reasons, but the platform is not the issue. Dress an E39 platform with a dressed-up body, LED lights and a few gadgets, and people would still flock to it.

    The XF’s issues as I see them are:

    Poor contract hire deals. They’re not as compelling, as discounted… as cheap.
    Poor rear visibility. Assuming the market tends to be ‘family/professional’, the XF is not a great car for kids. An SUV would sort that out in seconds.

    The XF is only five and a half years old and due a facelift. Saab’s 9000 went from ’84 to ’98. Audi’s platforms generally last 8-14 years. OTOH, I find the idea that the X-type chassis was dynamically flawed, and the alternative being a GM-based Saab pretty funny.

  27. Not a great deal to see here but the rear lights look good. The only thing I dread from this is a Porche Cyenne or new Bentley SUV styled vehicle (which both have a good shake of the ugly stick). However The JLR design team are very talented and haven’t produced a vehicle I don’t like since the X type which should allow us some confidence.

  28. “Offering a rare insight into events at the British luxury carmaker following its purchase by Ford for $1.4bn in 1989, Mr Callum indicated that there had frequently been tensions in the relationship. He disclosed that, in spite of Jaguar management denials at the time, the X-Type small Jaguar – sales of which have fallen far below expectations – was essentially designed in Detroit and presented as close to a fait accompli to reluctant designers and engineers at Jaguar’s Whitley design centre, near the Midlands city of Coventry.”
    FT 2008

  29. @31 AlFa Romeo did indeed make a van. It was a typical van with an AlFa grille glued on the front – big deal. I like driving vans when going to the tip, moving house and delivering furniture. Vans are very useful for that. But I wouldn’t drive one instead of a car. Similarly, I also quite like driving 4x4s across muddy tracks. But I have driven them in lieu of a car, and it was like piloting a small ship – wallowy, vague steering (it was a Mitsubishi Shogun if you’re wondering). I’ve also driven SUVs, and frankly as I haven’t got lots of kids, felt a bit of a berk in them. Cars for roads, vans for deliveries, 4x4s for muddy tracks, SUVs if you are Old Mother Hubbard. Various vehicle hire companies are available if you need something for a special purpose – ie, a van. I always liken cross-overs to men of a certain age who wear walking boots, a ‘leisure gillet’ with a lot of pockets and those walking trousers you can zip the bottoms off to make shorts, all the time, whatever the occasion. They look silly. Rant over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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