Blog : Jaguar off-roader? Here’s why they should

Keith Adams

Jaguar 4x4

This year’s Frankfurt Motor Show looks like it’s going to be a hum-dinger for all those who love the thrill of the unveiling of new metal. We’ve already been teased a bevvy of new models, although one which we won’t be seeing, but know is now well on its way to production is the upcoming Jaguar crossover. The sporting off-roader,which is conceptually similar to the Infiniti FX or BMW X6, but rather smaller, being based on JLR’s Compact PLA architecture, will be an entirely new departure for one of the UK’s most iconic car companies.

I can guarantee that the feedback to the news that this car is coming – which has hardly been a secret for some time now – will be peppered with lots of  ‘that’s not a Jaguar – William Lyons would turn in his grave – why build something that Land Rover already does rather well‘ comments. That’s because Jaguar is one of those emotive marques that means something to just about everyone and generally different people have different ideas about Jaguar.

There are the traditionalists, who think the E-type will never be topped; there are the gaffers who love smoking round in their £1500 X308s; there are the golfers, who wear funny jumpers and judge their XF Sportbrakes on how many clubs will fit in the boot; and there are they aestheticians, who can’t do without the humped haunches on their leaping cats. Brits love Progressive Jaguars, Europeans and Americans need a clubby wood ‘n’ leather ambiance; and everyone else just wants to see elegance in abundance.

The trouble is that no one’s going out of their way to ask for an SUV-flavoured Jaguar.  So surely it’s madness for the company to build this car? Not really… Unlike the Land Rover part of the JLR grouping, Jaguar needs to sell more cars. The XF is doing okay, as is the XJ and XK, but none are selling in anywhere near the numbers of their German rivals. The company’s image is all over the place – and, although the new F-Type will give it a shot in the arm, it’s not going to sell in volume – especially as it appears to be £15-20K overpriced.

So that leaves new models. The conventional wisdom is that Jaguar needs its 3 Series rival. Be under no illusions – that’s also on its way, and if it goes to plan, this stylish hatchback won’t sport a conventional three-box body like its rivals (why not?) and certainly won’t be wearing a Rover badge, no matter how appealing an idea that may seem. A 3 Series rival would bring volume and it would help justify the massive investment currently being ploughed into the upcoming Hotfire engine and Wolverhampton factory.

Why favour the SUV, then? In global terms, these cars are hot property and growing markets, such as China and India, can’t get enough of them. Past glories such as the D- and E-type have less resonance with the new world than the do the old and, as such, there’s less baggage for the SUV to overcome in these markets. Finally – most importantly – people want SUVs. Highly specified, high profit, poor value for money SUVs. So give them what they want. Because for goodness’ sake – we really do want a profitable Jaguar as well as Land Rover.

That’s why a Jaguar SUV is going to happen. And it is going to be a truly sporting crossover. Get used to it…

However, I haven’t given hope on my revived Rover dream. Land and Range Rover might be doing well right now but, if there’s a four-wheel drive backlash in the coming years, it would do no harm to be offering something a little lower, a little more useful, a lot more efficient and a tad more two-wheel drive. Imagine, if you will, a range of luxury hold-alls based on the Evoque, Sport and Range Rover – what would you call them? Why, Rovers, of course…

Keith Adams


  1. There’ll be a market for SUVs. Look how many SUVs on the road that are by: Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volvo, Porsche and Lexus. It might be a controversial move for Jaguar to make one, much in the same way that Porsche did in making a Cayenne. But they sell well.

  2. Keef

    The SUV is not based on the Evoque’s steel platform, it’s the small PLA ally platform, giving it a serious tech advantage over BMW and Audi. (Though Audi shifts to a mixed steel/ally platform soon)

  3. Thanks HH – stupid on my part. I said it in the first par, and then wittered on about Evoque later. My friend says it’s going to be similarly sized to the Evoque…

    I’ve removed the offending sentence.

  4. I’m afraid not using the Rover badge for a 3-series competitor will be a hughe mistake which can bring JLR back down.
    As for years Jaguar is selling small numbers of cars and this won’t change with extra models carrying the same badge. The image of Jaguar is too prestigious, old fashion and upper class associated. Landrover is selling 3x times more cars with ease. The X-type couldn’t match sale figures of the Rover 75 in the past. Why should it be different now? Despite of the fact a Rover 75 had also an image of being a car for elderly people this was even more applicable to a Jaguar X-type. Besides if the new car wants to have a chance against its german competitors it must be distinctive compared to them in technical terms. Just an alternative “to buy something else” won’t be enough.
    In fact What I want to say is that a Jaguar batch for that type of car is an overkill. If they want volume, they need the Rover badge and nothing else. Far more popular.

  5. Any thoughts of the Rover name coming back are just wishful thinking. The X-Type didn’t sell in the hoped for numbers for any number of reasons, other than the badge.

    For a company as small as JLR to launch another brand is just madness, even one with reasonable awareness in Europe. Look at the experience of Lexus and Infiniti in Europe vs. the same brands in the US.

  6. @4, Alain, the problem with the X-Type was more the quality of the product. It wasn’t a bad car, quite the opposite, it just wasn’t good enough. A good X-Type replacement can be a fitting Jaguar and be successful product in terms of sales volumes and changing the image of Jaguar. If the car is good and Hotfire produces class leading figures the small Jaguar can appeal to the 3-Series market. A market that has no British option as things stand.

  7. @6,It would indeed nice to see a Jaguar 3 series rival-which of course are a superb drive but are just plain boring now,the Jag would have not only to be a match in dynamics but would have to look more sensational than even the F-type.

    I dont see the F-type as a volume car or £20k overpriced-you cant buy a car that looks that good! Even the brother in law wants to jump out of the lease of his SLK 350 to get into the Jag.

  8. I still find the resoning behind this a bit odd. Jaguar and Land Rover are the same company! When you have the best 4×4 brand in the world, selling more cars than you can build, why waste valuable development money bastardising the Jaguar brand? Perhaps they should do a 4×4 version of the F type and give it a Land Rover badge! As noted above, all Jaguar need to achieve higher volumes is a 3 series.

  9. For those who think Jaguar is ‘old fashioned’ and a 3 Series challenger should wear a Rover badge…..Get a grip!!
    Nothing smacks of musty old beige cardigan like a Rover badge. Stick a Rover badge on it and it’ll be like kryptonite to everyone under the age of 65, or with any common sense.
    Jag = Pretty cool.
    Rover = Surgical stockings, whist drives and sanatogen.
    (except P5s and P6s, but then I’m biased on those two counts)

  10. I tend to agree with the first comment here from Luke – I understand the Cayenne is Porsche’s best selling car ever. Will the Jag SUV be a badge engineering job or new from the ground up utilizing Land Rover technology? That said, I am looking forward to the new SUVs from Ferrari, Aston Martin and Rolls-Royce!

  11. Further to what Paul H wrote above, during the BL days, similar cars that were competing to each other within the same company were perceived as an awful mistake, therefore they axed a lot of worthwhile cars.
    Now the Jaguar SUV won’t be competing with Land Rover products? Or this is now a good thing?
    It’s all a little confusing.

  12. I dont think Jaguar’s image is confused – it is starting to become a real competitor to its german friends with a modern range of cars. All Jag need is a 3 series competitor and a some new engines that will be better than BMW who seem to have the edge over everyone in terms of performance and economy. I think an SUV is mainly for the US and Middle Eastern markets, and if they can raid the Land Rover bin it could be very good.
    As for Rover brand, I can see TATA eventually using the brand on cars, as part of a Rover Family – Rover, Land Rover, Range Rover. But first they need to build make Jag strong with a 3 series car, and it has to be a saloon if it wants markets outside of europe.

  13. An SUV is essential for Jaguar dealers because 50% of their target customers just walk past the showroom because they have no SUV to sell. Dealers need sales of profitable cars to stay in business and there are not enough saloon buyers, certainly not in the UK and the US.

    Jaguar are alone in not having such a vehicle; the German manufacturers recognised market facts years ago. The daughter of my neighbour turns up regularly in some enormous black VW double-decker bus thing with a VW badge on it, (is it a Tuareg ? ) Anyway, talking to her, it is obvious she would never buy a Jaguar as they have no suitable vehicle for her to buy.

    Thank God Jaguar have recognised the truth at last. The old traditional Jaguar buyers are now retired or dead.

    OK, I admit, I am retired and have a 2003 XJ6 of traditional shape !!

  14. Keith, I don’t hold out much hope for Rover. The brand has zero, or even negative (after the Sterling debacle) equity here Stateside. In this market, with Audi, Merc and BMW all pushing smaller cars, Jag has to follow suit. Jag know that it has to be a ground-up Jag (and not a gussied up Mondeo) this time around. They clearly have the engines and the stylists and the chassis know-how to make it happen, and the timing is not bad, particularly with BMW falling off their previously invincible-looking sport sedan perch. I think this is a given.

    If Jag do go the SUV route as well, then there is a definite distribution risk. When I was looking at F-Types recently, every Jag dealer I went to was also a LR franchisee, so those dealers are going to have the same conflicts that Chrysler dealers do, justifying the Durango over a Jeep.

    What will differentiate the Jag SUV? “Sportier”? – oh look, there’s the RR Sport in the way – just the group’s biggest selling product in the market.

    Another risk: the big reason BMW are falling off their perch is their obsession with SUVs and “i”. Hopefully Jag can avoid making similar mistakes. Following the Porsche path rather than the BMW path, they will have to invest the revenue from the gullible SUV punters back into the core brand properties, not into ever smaller niche markets. And they should avoid trying to buy VW of course!

    It’s going to be interesting to watch this one play out…

  15. @cjp, your argument that Rover has zero or even negatige equity holds no water I am afaraid.
    1: Very fee americans even know sterling existed.
    2: Even few know it was a rover
    3: Every amercian that has been in my Vitesse coupe or the current 75 has reacted in the same way on being told it was a rover, and that is ‘I thought they only made 4X4s’

    So the reaility is for the vast majority of amercans the brand has a LOT of equity stateside, and the image is of a prestige high end car

  16. Autocar has a blurry shot of what is alleged to be the Jag SUV

    XF style rear lights, and a BMW-X6 style fastback shape are evident.

    Can imagine the Jag fans roaring in disgust. It was the same on the Alfa forums with the MiTo and the prospect of an Alfa SUV. (But then the Jag fans reacted badly to a diesel engine and an estate Jag, combined they make the new XF Sportbrake, which strangely I haven’t seen any about…).

    Truth is, SUVs are what are selling. Some manufacturers are replacing their D segment saloons with SUVs – Nissan (Primera-Qashcow), Renault (Laguna-Capture) and possibly Honda and Toyota in the future.
    Makes sense for manufacturers to concentrate on them, as they are what the sheeple are buying.
    The automotive equivalent of the ‘fat slags’ (If you’ve ever sat behind an X5 and regarded the bulbous wall of metal, you’ll know that most of these things have no elegance whatsoever).

    I agree with Stewart, that the US market would see Rovers as a downward expansion of the Land Rover/Range Rover range, rather than conjuring up memories of XX Sterlings and SD1s.
    (The Merkur Scorpio and Sierra didn’t sell well, didn’t stop Ford selling the Mondeo as the Fusion stateside.)
    In China, it would be seen as out-Rovering Roewe.

    JLR need to bring their CO2 average down. A range of premium FWD vehicles with low emissions / hybrid tech, badged as Rover, would perform this act.

    I don’t think the 3-series competitor should be a Rover though.
    These things tend to sell on badging (3-er, A4, C-Klasse). What they need to do is make sure that the fleet hire rates undercut the competitors, even if this means a guaranteed buyback rate.
    This is why such vehicles sell, why have a Mondeo or Insignia, when for the same (or even less!) monthly you can have a ‘premium’ badge on your driveway?

  17. A Jaguar SUV makes massive sense, this is an enormous and profitable sector of the market, especially in new markets.

    What’s interesting, is that this vehicle will be very different mechanically to the Evoque/Freelander, with it’s transverse FWD style layout. The Jag will be a default RWD vehicle, clearly designed for on road handling, with minimal off road capability built in. Styling it to look ‘Jaguarish’ is the key. It will need to drive like an X6 or Cayenne.

    Nope, no need to use the Rover badge, as the Jaguar SUV and 3 series rivals will still be proper Jaguars, RWD or RWD based, so there’s no danger of the brand being tarnished. For too many people, Rover means tatty looking 10 year old 25 and 45 hatchbacks, rather than prestige P5 type vehicles.

  18. @maestrowoff

    I agreed that the SUV and ‘3-er’ need to be Jags.

    My point was that the sub-range ‘low CO2’ vehicles could be Rovers.

    Such that:

    Jag XJ
    Jag XK
    Jag SUV (XQ?)
    Jag F-type
    Jag XF
    Jag ‘3-er’/’A4’
    Jag ‘1-er’/’A3’
    Rover C segment/MPV low CO2/hybrid
    Rover B segment low CO2/hybrid

  19. @10 Phill,
    I drive a Rover SD1 Vitesse twin plenum and my teenage children think it’s the coolest car ever. Certainly not beige cardigan. I like to wear my tartan flares and skinny rib sweater when I drive it.

  20. I just wish people would get a grip and accept that ROVER HAS GONE, it will not be brought back anytime in the near medium or long term future.

    jaguar needs to expand and going down this route will bring in even more profits, as the new SUV will be a very high profit car, why, well, the main cost has already been absorbed into Land Rover, as well as the 4WD systems and electrics, the chassis set up is also a nominal cost to Jaguar, so the only development that will be necessary will be the design of teh exterior and interior.

    There will be styling cues from teh F-Type and XF on teh new SUV, so a minor saving there, and the interiors will will be the corporate look of the new XF and XJ/F-Type, so, again not much to develop there.

    The X-Type that so many slag of for whatever reason, was a Jaguar, and it sold in significant numbers to be to the best ever Jaguar by volume the company has had, The underpinnings were initially designed for the Jaguar, and carried onto the Mondeo, which unfortunately for Jaguar was launched first.

    If you have never owned an X-Type then i fail to see why you can comment on one, I have, in fact we have had a number of Jaguar products, and they have been faultless and brilliant, just what a Jaguar is supposed to be, Comfortable, luxurious, fast, yet carpet like ride, the last XT we had was all that and more, wood, leather and lots of toys, and for a very reasonable cost, and after three years I got far more back on the Jag than I would have done on a Mondeo.

    So can we not carry on with using the Rover name, it ain’t ever going to happen, and only complain about the cars you have actually got knowledge of, as to slag something off you know nowt about is really silly.

  21. I’ve driven many X-Types, and XJ’s, Mk2’s, E-types, proper XKs, the orgingal XK8, D-types, even 1 C-type.. the X-Type is NOT a proper jag (doesn’t leak enough oil for one thing:) actually the IMHO X-Type is a very nice car, it’s just not a Jaguar. It’s not big enough or smooth enough. The 3 sereis market is not where jaguar should be, although what it should be doing is selling the XF at 3 sereis prices, which is what the traditional Jaguar always did.

  22. Lets not lose sight of the fact the JLR are in business to make money, and the business they are in do this is manufacturing and selling automomilbes.

    JLR are not here to indulge so called ‘fans’ of any of their marques, most of whom are unlikely to have the money to buy a new one anyway – that way lies industrial stagnation and commercial suicide. Look at Porsche’s finances before and after expanding their range away from their ‘traditional’ product, the 911.

    So yes, there may be occasional uncertainty in the showroom when a Jag4x4 is being sold next to an LR4x4, but their main objective is to gain conquest sales from the likes of Audi, MB, VW, BMW, Porsche, Lexus, Infiniti.

    Most of the potential Jag4x4 buyers will already have a pretty good idea that they want the Jag and not the LR4x4, or a RR4x4 – or vice-versa. There may be some who aren’t sure until they sit in all of them, but hey, JLR sell them a car either way !

    Comparisons with the old BL ranges aren’t valid either. Those days were a confusion of duplication and dead-end model planning.

    JLR might indeed end up with some overlapping models – but this can be good for marketing as it helps ensure there’s something in the range for everyone. “Overlapping” isn’t the same as “duplication”. Look at the overlap in the BMW saloon ranges – who would buy a high-end 3 series when a low-end 5 series is cheaper – actually quite a lot of people do, and that suits BMW just fine.

    I say to JLR, bring it on. We need more choice, not less.

  23. Ford did once plan a Jaguar 4×4.

    It was to be based off the Ford Explorer (which was sold briefly in the UK in the mid 90s).

    It was expected to be a competitor to the Range Rover.

    It didn’t take off for a number of reasons.
    Firstly that the Explorer was a fairly crude US style SUV, with a ladder frame chassis.
    Secondly, in the UK SUVs then were still seen as fairly utilitarian vehicles, with the exception of the Range Rover. They didn’t have the popularity they have now.
    The market has changed in recent years, SUVs are now mainstream. Luxury SUVs by the likes of Porsche show that marques can expand to this territory without harming their ‘core’ products (and indeed sell more).

    The Jag Explorer would probably have ended up more of a Saab 9-7X than an Evoque.

  24. @25,The Exploder did not sell well here because it was total turd. Lower wishbones yhat took six weeks on back order to obtain and failing timing chains on that useless turkey of a V6, this heap could never compete with the classic Range Rover never mind a P38!

    @23 The X type was only any good if it was a petrol and only if the rear bank spark plugs was changed otherwise you would get cam/crank sensor error codes because no one ever changed them. The diesel engined X was an insult to refinement,a complete dog even in the Mondeo,when the 2.2 arrived with its heavily modified valvetrain things improved one degree.

    The problem with the X type was the 3 series, that had the right interior. The Jag was a hotch potch of snide wood larded onto a not too briliant plastic interior and was never as reliable as some make out,i have experienced many alarm/network faults and ABS faults. Not the worst car but nowhere near the best.

  25. I’d say new Jag SUV is called the XF-4. Anything that keeps Jaguar’s future sustainable has to be welcomed, and if it is light-weight and suitably spacious it should take sales from BMW and Mercedes, without prejudicing the Land Rover range too much.

  26. Oh dear, another subject that has attracted negative comments about the Rover marque based on simply the narrow perceptions that exist within the four walls of Great Britain. I won’t comment on this as I actually recognise the appeal the brand commanded in export markets.

    As for the Jaguar SUV – the real theme of the story? A great idea that will have genuine commercial viability against the likes of Audi and the BMW X3. More importantly, it will enable Jaguar Cars to contribute more to the overall success of Jaguar Land Rover itself. Perhaps calling it the XC or XS (for Cross-country Sports Utility Vehicle) will have a strategic fit within the current XF, XJ and XK naming strategy?

  27. Ridiculous! A maker of posh british saloons making a 4×4? Can you imagine, for instance, if Rover had tried that in the forties? Oh, hang on a minute….

    Perhaps fixed notions of what a marque can or can’t build stem from the 90s, when BMW hit the big time and it became fashionable to emulate the German “Russian Doll” school of one-style-fits-all design?

    This coincided with Jaguar waking from its slumber to find itself having to work out how to progress from a range of two elderly XJ models whilst retaining a distinctive identity, rather like the problem of bridging the gap between original Mini and R59 (and BMWs solution seems to have condemned the Mini to a very short stylistic cul-de-sac!).

    If it’s what sells, then so be it, I’m sure they’ve thought long and hard about complimenting, rather than competing with the Evoque.

    One upon a time, cars were designed to be new and exciting – how did the P6, SD1 or Mini resemble existing family members?

  28. A bit late in the day, Evoques are on every street you drive on, Q3/Q5 ? never see them.

    So the Evoque has the niche nailed shut,there is nothing whatsoever that can compete with it- nothing from VAG or BMW, perhaps the Mercedes Small SUV may come near.

    If there is going to be a Jag SUV it will have to be beyond spectacular.

  29. An SUV will always pull in greater profits than a 3’er equivalent.. so makes sense… Go Jaguar!!

  30. If they get it right and it makes them money, good. But just because it’s good for Jag, doesn’t mean we have to like it. Tuna is good for me, but the smell makes me want to throw up.

    Maybe once these SUVs reach 10 years old or so, they can be taken out of circulation and crushed, to protect future generations?

  31. I always thought SUV’s were for people concerned with their penis size, lucky i drive a Golf……

  32. @25 and @33

    Finally, some people get it! Why are so many “enthusiasts” against car companies expanding their ranges in to new classes and niches where they can gain sales and remain profitable?

    BMC did it with the original Mini
    Rover and Triumph did it with their 2000cc ranges
    Rover developed Land Rover which basically kept the whole company going from 1948 on

  33. @36, How much profit does the BMW X1 and X3 generate or the useless X6?

    You have the Evoque which is a sell out hit that can barely meet demand and you think Jaguar can pull a flanker before it has even produced a credible 3 series rival?

    It all well and good saying Jaguar need to make this car (from the same stable) but its not your money that will be spunked away on this thing.

    The X1 and 3 are worthless trinkets and people whom buy them should know better,they are crap,but are kept afloat by profits off the 3 series and the MINI brand and all the other bits and pieces-in other words they have the output capacity and volume.

  34. I’ve been lingering over Autocar’s artist impression of the Jaguar “SUV” and have decided that this is going to be my next car. I’m a fourty-something and appreciate comfort more that sportiness. My favourite car was my Rover 75 (still in the family and going strong after 14 years and 150,000 miles). I currently own an XF-Sportbrake and XK convertible, and the idea of a Jaguar SUV seems absolutely right. If the niche that Jaguar target is more the sleek crossover rather that butch offroader, the overlap with Land Rover and Range Rover shouldn’t matter. Indeed, as someone who nearly bought a BMW 5-Series GT, I get the idea of a jacked up hatch. The BMW fails though through being so damn ugly, and if Autocar’s image is even half close to reality, Jaguar’s SUV should be seriously good looking. A rumoured start price of £31K is perfectly pitched too.

    I don’t see how Jaguar’s image would be harmed if used on a compact SUV or 3-Series rival. Quite the opposite. Bringing Jaguar to a wider audience has to be a good thing. Particularly if the designs are modern, which was the failing of the X-Type in my opinion.

    The past elegance of BMW and Mercedes designs is no more. I see a compact Jaguar and a Jaguar SUV succeeding in the market just by being good looking, assuming that they are well priced, efficient and solidly engineered.

  35. By the way Keith. I agree with your inference. The F-Type is seriously over priced. I was waiting on its release but the market positioning is misjudged. An entry level of £45K would be about right, but I suppose that if the F-Type is going to kill XK sales, then pricing it closer to the XK is at least understandable in some respects. But for those (many of us) who would naturally migrate to a Boxster, a £60K entry price for an F-Type is unpalatable. I had a Boxster and wanted a change so chose a second hand XK instead of an F -Type. At least an XK has a boot!

  36. Revisiting this story, I would think this SUV project is not only important for Jaguar’s success but also Land Rover’s too, beyond the life of the current Freelander and Evoque. I am only guessing here, but I would imagine the new SUV’s new platform will also be used for the new Compact Executive model (whatever it might be called) and potentially be utilised by Land Rover for replacing their Freelander and Evoque models, with a greater slant towards genuine off-road ability. The use of some of the running gear – particularly four-wheel drive – will also be of benefit as an option on the new Compact Executive saloon in export markets such as Sweden and Canada, to name but a few. This will also further cut the reliance on Ford-supplied components in the ‘entry’ level Land Rover and Range Rover model ranges.

    It is certainly a good move on Jaguar Land Rover’s part and treating the platform as having modular properties will enable it to be considered for other projects beyond those already mentioned.

  37. I forgot to mention – perhaps one of these new ‘other projects beyond those already mentioned’ based on this new platform could be a new, smaller sports car priced nearer to that of the Audi TT and Porsche Boxster (i.e. starting from under £40,000)?

    Wishful thinking?

  38. Regarding comments that Jaguar shoudn’t be doing a 4×4 because ‘they are the same company as LR’ puzzles me. Just look at VW. Just because they build the Touareg, doesn’t stop them also building the Cayenne, or the Q7 or the new Bentley 4×4. Just the same as the Golf sells alongside the Octavia, A3, Leon and all their variants. It’s about market share. I bet there are many people who’d love a luxury 4×4 but don’t fancy a LR/RR. More brands = more market share. I can’t wait for Jaguar to have a full line-up spanning all markets like A1-A8 with all the Q, R and S models in between. VW Group have shown how to do it, now let’s do the same here in the UK.

  39. @42, The wolfsburg plant is the size of manchester,never mind the other plants,its not about market share its about capacity. I for one never said build it or dont,i questioned the logic behind it- after all the biggest segment is the 3 series segment why not cater for that first?

    The Touareg is inconsequential,only the Q7 and the better selling Cayenne have saved its bacon.

    Do you really think JLR can do a VW? maybe over a 50-60 year span?

    How many several million cars does VAG sell yearly?

    We do not have the manufacturing infrastructure here in the UK no more,all the greedy bastards turned factories into Tescos and retail parks,so maybe the JLR plants in China will build the SUV?

    Will it still be a real Jag?

  40. If the forthcoming Freelander is based on the Evoque platform and this Jag is based on Jag’s new smaller car, perhaps use of two separate platforms gives an indication of intended off-road application of each?

    Jag, essentially a jacked-up bad-weather car, whilst Freelander/Evoque must be bit tougher for proper off-loading potential?

  41. Why is it when people drive cars, somebody else that doesn’t like that car comes out with some belittling comment about the size of said driver’s manhood? Used to be about XR3i/Golf GTI drivers back in the 80’s. The politics of envy are alive and well.
    As for “plenty of Evoques/No Q3/Q5” argument, I see plenty of them all on the roads of North Manchester. I know a few people that looked at the Evoque but are still worried about past Land/Range Rover reliability problems.
    As for competing against one of your other brands, as long as someone buys one of your products, who cares? BL’s problem wasn’t so much brand infighting as that they produced some utterly forgettable and unreliable cars, such that buyers moved onto other makes.

  42. So why did they buy a Q5.. VAG really are not doing very well in relaiblity at the moment, filling 6 of the top 10 spaces in the ‘most unrelaible cars’ list at the moment, the Citreon XM is in 10th place on that list, which given the rest of it is mostly late model VAG stuff is not doing badly for a hugely complex (french!) car that has not been built for 14 years!

  43. and BLs badge engeering was not so bad, but this is not badge engeering, this is developing a whole new car, which costs a bit more than putting some nicer jagaurish bits on an Evoque

  44. @ Auntie Ian (comment 44):

    Quote: “If the forthcoming Freelander is based on the Evoque platform and this Jag is based on Jag’s new smaller car, perhaps use of two separate platforms gives an indication of intended off-road application of each?”

    The current Range Rover Evoque is based on the current Land Rover Freelander 2 platform. Therefore, I can’t see why the next generation Freelander would be based on what is essentially the same platform. Land Rover would be going round the houses to end up back where it started from with the current Freelander.

  45. @45, I dont do envy,so you see a few Q5’s for every one of those i can show you 50 Vogues,50 sports and 100 Evoques.

    Funnily enough, with the 3.0 V6 TDi, there are more Q7’s in the VAG workshops for warranty work than there is retail servicing, thats without the Q5 issues.

  46. @48 David 3500

    The Evoque is a much-modified Freelander, so the next Freelander is, purportedly, a modified version of a modified version (of a modified Mondeo/Volvo base?) at which point it probably becomes akin to the proverbial Woodman’s axe?

    I must say, I’m all for this recycling, it’s all very green. Never see the point in manufacturers introducing a model which is 99% new, yet only 5% better than it’s predecessor (and looks virtually identical 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.