Its a loan though...not free money like our government likes to throw at people/businesses looking to go green.

I still think it will be a good move, long term for the manufacturer.

 

I don't know if hybrid cars will be prominent as petrol powered cars . Still,I think that would bring some grist to the mill in long term

 

I recall companies such as Cadillac trying to make gas mileage and environmentally friendly cars in the late 70s and early 80s. It cost Cadillac dominance in the luxury car market as the produced some of the most horrible cars of that era and that are now considered total crap even for cars of that era. Even if clean, nobody wants one.

I see this decision by Jaguar as a mistake and stemming from ownership that wants to glad-hand with the politically correct crowd, rather than sell cars.

I cannot think of any company that decided they could cash-in by producing costly high gas mileage and environmentally friendly cars that found profit in that route.

Is there one person here, anyone, who seriously considered either gas mileage or emissions output before they bought it?

If it was free money, why not? But it's not. It's a loan.

It's a loan that could doom Jaguar when the loan becomes due and they have to seek refinancing. How many of the economizer-cars will Jaguar and Land Rover have to sell to recoup HALF A BILLION DOLLARS?

Worse, if the sales flop or the design has any significant flaw - mechanical or appearance - the value of the Jaguar badge could seriously suffer.

American car makers have come to understand that while super high mileage cars sound nice and in politically correct talk that's what people want - but that's not what's making them money. It has always been top-end cars, trucks and SUVs. The logic is fairly obvious on two fronts. First, a person who is picking a car based upon which gets 3 mpg more is likely a person who can't afford either. Second, the margin of profit on top end cars is much higher and the net profit per unit is many, many times higher.

Can Jaguar become the "car of the masses" (the apparent goal) while still selling super costly cars? I don't think so. It doesn't work for GM. Compare the LOW price of a Corvette to Euro-cars of similar performance capabilities? There is a ceiling to what people will spend on a Chevy that is much, much lower than on a Mercedes or any "exotic." Same for Cadillac versus Mercedes, BMW, Audi, or even Jaguar.

It's a high stakes gamble for Jaguar in which they put both their economic picture and the value of their badge - which is what they most can market - on the line.

Ferrari and Porsche both tried selling lower dollar cars for the masses. Didn't work for them and both dropped such efforts long ago.

In my opinion, Jaguar needs to instead build it's next super car. A car that makes the cover of magazines showing Jaguar as a very high performance, state-of-the-art luxury rocketship taking on Mercedes, Ferrari, Lambo, Audi - and leaving the ZR1s in the dust. That is what makes people say "wow, a Jaguar!' Then they go buy a Jaguar high dollar sedan, the lower price version of it, and there overpriced "performance" models (such as the XKR).

There is no "wow" factor in Prius and Volts with a Jaguar emblem on it.

That it was a loan, not a gift, is why Volt is a good idea for GM and a bad idea for Jaguar. This is the liberals in UK government playing political correctness with Jaguar's future and, ultimately, making the gamble on Jaguar's money.


By contrast, watch the ads on television for car makers. They are marketing performance and their high end models. People with money can pick what they want. People feeling or fearing the economy aren't buying anything. Jaguar should market to the people with money who are willing to spend it - not to the politicians declaring what people should buy to be environmentally correct.

 

I think one of the things Jaguar has got right is their introduction of diesel-engined cars. I know at one time this would have been thought sacrilegious by both Jag. and many petrol-heads, but that IS the way the market's going in UK and Europe. In UK, every other car seems to be a diesel, meaning the practical CO2 output is reduced to near half in big city and motorway driving. The same kind of reduction is achieved by running a petrol engined car on propane, LPG.
Nowadays, a diesel engined car is likely to perform better than its petrol counterpart, and I can say with absolute certainty (because I own one) that the 2.7litre diesel engine in my S-type is the best by any yardstick I've ever owned. It started life as a Peugeot-Ford, (HDi or Duratorque), but much modified by Jaguar engineers for efficiency and silence. Prob. the use of piezo-electric injectors was the main improvement. Mine gets about 33mpg(UK), first-class for a car weighing nearly two tons, and in city traffic. A little spoiled by gearbox issues, but you can't have everything.
I'd love to have a go in a 3litre job though...
Leedsman.

 

This "we must all drive diesels to save the planet" is complete nonsense, because in each barrel of oil there is only so much petrol and only so much diesel. Petroleum oil goes through a fractionating tower at the refinery to separate out the various components making up the barrel of oil.

Below diesel are heavier oils and these can be cracked in a catalytic cracker to make, yes , you guessed it, more petrol and more diesel. The trouble is you cannot go the other way and convert petrol to diesel in any "green" way. You would produce more CO2 than when the stuff got used in vehicles.

So what happens if nobody buys the petrol in the future because they are all piously green ? At the moment there is a surplus of petrol in Europe because so many people are buying diesels. The petrol is being exported and burnt elsewhere, mainly the USA !!!!!!