When do Ford step back from providing technical support to JLR? I seem to remember it being in 2017, but I may be mistaken.

It could be that JLR must increase sales of the volume vehicles, such as Discovery, XE and F-Pace, to obtain conquest sales thus providing a larger customer base moving forward.

If that is the case, then improved sales and profitability may lead to further technical development no longer dependent on engineering support by Ford.

 

Allow me to be helpful. Lets be reasonable and Honest. Ford has never made a luxury sports car that was globally recognized.

There is a reason that countless technically advanced nations, such as Russia, can build fighter jets and intercontinental missiles, even create a space station, cant make a luxury car, or a sports car. The reason is simple..its the same reason Germans have had to buy many things British, such as the design for the Panzer tank. The reason is not everyone 'gets it' or the environment doesnt exists. Only Italians can make a Ferrari and only Britain can make a Jaguar.

Its the same reason Germans are buying underfunded British car companies and giving away companies they owned like Chrysler- for free. Its an irrefutable fact- British formulas have stood the test of time. A Rolls Royce is made with the same formula it was from day one. Same of Mini- Same of Lotus, Bentley and Jaguar. And indeed, they are all a pleasure and pride to own today. You could not own with pleasure nor pride no damn Ford from the 80s. Moreover; none of the Ford formulas have survived the test of time. They have adopted European values.

 

There is something afoot. Jaguar is making too big a deal about their new diesel engines (at a time when diesel is at its lowest popularity, and they havent exactly released it) In interview after interview Ian drops some reference to ingenium diesel and electric.

Who developed the diesel for them?

 

Your joking right?
If any of the manufacturers made cars the same way they had been before being sold off
Range Rover using a 1960's era Buick engine?
RR and Bentley and Jaguar using GM 3 speed transmissions?
Rover basing their cars on Hondas?
Lotus attempting to build high performance sports cars based on Toyota Corolla innards and power?
, they would not longer exist. Successful companies build what the markets demandsuch (ie. the 70's Luxo boats), if those British marks had a successful bussiness strategies, well I'm thinking they'd still be British owened. NOT!
The British invented,
The jet engine, radar and Jag but it took AMERICAN dollars and research to get them RIGHT.
Get off the island and see the rest of the world man, it's not FLAT...lol

 

I am quite certain I do not understand the point of this thread any longer. The OP commented on Ford and their input with Jaguar, which was very well explained in several other subsequent posts.

Praising one country's ability to design and build 'widgets' of any sort is not a reflection on the engineering prowess, nor intelligence, of the population. If one country develops a widget that other people want, they purchase the widget and move on. I believe the economic term is comparative advantage.

Endlessly debating the strengths and weaknesses, real or imagined, of the American, British, French, German, Italian or Japanese automotive cultures, or that of any of the other automotive manufacturing countries is, in my very humble opinion, quite pointless.

Discussing the events of the Second World War have no bearing on the current state of the global automotive industry. That was a time before most people posting on this forum were born, or even thought of by their parents for that matter.

I sincerely hope the entire global automotive industry can move forward into an era of success, driven by the dawning of new technologies, forged by new cooperative efforts.

That is my '2d' for the British and '2¢' for the Americans.

 

Will.
I not suprised that you don't know what a Lotus or Rolls or Range Rover is. Its not what parts they use, it's about the formula. So a Range Rover is a do it all luxury SUV. While Chevy and Toyota have now changed their suburban and land cruiser from farm trucks to leather clad luxury vehicles. The Pioneer Range Rover is still the same. Lotus has always made lightweight supreme handling cars, Ford who did not know what the word handling was has started focusing on it. Rolls Royce has not changed one bit, whereas my caddy, the most expensive luxury vehicle at its time came with painted plastic resembling wood, now they use real wood in caddy and real leather. So yes they are learning lot from little ole England.

 

There is a misconception here that was being addressed, that only JLR benefited from the Ford venture. Worse that only British car companies have been in trouble. Even worse British contribution to automobiles is insignificant. If you take all that background ignorance away than whether Ford supplies engines or Ford using German transmissions becomes moot.

 

I believe most on this forum are not so mislead as you believe. I also believe no one wants to be bullied into seeing things another way.

Hopefully, all members of this forum are members because they admire and love the Jaguar marque, not because it may or may not be British, but because it represents elegance in a world full of vulgarities.

Jaguar represents to most people something they do not quite understand: something they yearn for, but are afraid of. Something they admire, but are not able to embrace. To most, they see beauty with muscle and a delicateness that is difficult to define. They care not that it is British, they like it for what it is: something unusual and something different.

 

I hope Jaguar have a newly-found success that can continue this great marque for decades to come.

 

Precisely, It is this love of Jaguar that I was unabashedly underscoring, because I have gotten far more out of them than they have me. Thus pleading for some much deserved compassion. It would be wrong to go off on all the tangents this thread did from page one, of British rule of India for 99 years, revenge, and Indian labor. Its irrelevant and a bit unfair to Jaguar, who have only been themselves through thick and thin.

You have really nailed it in so eloquently describing Jaguar. That should be their ad campaign not the 'British Villain' slant they are on right now. Its what this thread was missing.

 

Even through the dark years of British Leyland, I have loved what Jaguar stood for and tried so desperately to deliver: the glory years of the 1950s with three outright victories at le 24 heures du Mans and saloons that outperformed most sports cars of the time.

I remember being a teenager sitting in a Series 1 E-Type and thinking what a work of art; such poetry in motion! The Mk2 3.8 litre whose delicious sound was matched only by spinning tyres in third gear from a standing start!

The company I was so fortunate to work for has la leggenda e passione as a description, which I always felt could be applied equally to Jaguar: the Legend and Passion.

Jaguar have retained the legend from the 1950s, now they can finally, and deservedly, pursue the passion to be what they always wanted to be: elegance with a touch of grace, pavement-scorching pace and just enough space to make things comfortable and entertaining.

 

Hand on heart, one could learn everything they ever wanted to know about Jaguar in just those 3 paragraphs, from the toils to the triumphs.

Although you have already said it, I was most fascinated by how hard they have worked, to give people more than just a car. And most sympathetic how little govt support they have received compared to similar manufacturers.

I cannot believe they dont have you in their marketing dept. Perhaps they do, right here. In a moment of sobriety, I will confess that I could have simply stated what you did, they can have whatever parts, the DNA will always be a Jaguar.

 

Q & C; what are you doing over here?
Have you abandoned the XKR section?


As for American quality of the past, enjoy the link.




I think you guys all miss one very important point. Back then the manufacturers built cars which they felt would sell well in the market they were trying to sell into. American cars did not do well in Europe then for the same reasons European cars were not desired here in the U. S.


Let me illustrate. In 1966, at age 20, I purchased a 1959 XK 150 DHC. I wanted a car that was sporty to drive, especially with the top down. Also one that would attract young ladies. The car met those requirements well, WHEN it ran. As a bonus, young ladies had great problems keeping their pants on after a short run in the car. So the car was appropriate for that market.


The next year my folks needed a new station wagon and sent me to the dealer to order it, as dad knew that I was better equipped to make the correct choices. The car needed to haul a family with 5 kids around town and on long vacations. It also had to pull a horse trailer to shows and back; carrying kids tack etc. etc. The answer was a Colony Park wagon with a 428 cu. in. 4v engine with towing package, bigger wheels and tires, hd radiator and 3.25 rear behind the 3 speed auto trans.


This was the ideal car for the intended use, and with regular maintenance it ran very well until totaled in an accident with 140,000 miles on it. As a side note, it also provided the space to take advantage of young ladies with no pants on, which the 150 struggled to provide.


My point is that trying to compare American and European cars of the 50' and 60's is an apples and oranges comparison. They were each designed to meet their perceived markets. By the 70's the governments had screwed up cars everywhere.


BTW, the jet engine was around in theory for hundreds of years before Englishman Frank Whittle patented the first functional version; but the Germans were the first to make one fly an airplane. My point is that very little in manufacturing is unique to any one group of people.

 

So it seems to be a tie between an XK 150 and a Colony Park wagon when it comes to young ladies losing their pants.

Who knew?

BTW- the Corvette in your sig. is a 'Sting Ray', not a 'Stingray'. 'Stingray' was not used until 1968 or 1969 depending on who you listen to.

 

Sloppy typing on the Sting Ray. According to Ludvigsen "America's Star Spangled Sports Car" the '68 model was simply a Corvette. The Sting Ray was gone and Stingray did not appear until the '69 model year.


As for the ladies, the Jag peeled the pants, the wagon gave me the room to enjoy the results.

 

GM's own advertising for the '68 called it a 'Stingray' from the outset. The fender badge was added for the '69 model year.

This is one of the oldest arguments in the hobby.

 

You are correct. I dug out some old ads from car mags of the period, and they do contain Sting Ray in the ad, even though it was not on the car.


Will we be chastised here for thread hijacking?

 

That's my goal.

I think our friends above have sung at least one chorus of kumbaya and had a group hug which generally is a sign that it's safe to hijack.

If not-

 

That video is the worst of hijacking. lol

 

Sorry, never heard of 'kumbaya'.

BUT....