XE reveal - huge disappointment
#61
09-11-2014, 12:54 AM
Veteran Member
Frankly I don't think they built the XJ for 40 years because it was such a well-loved design; it was because there was nobody brave enough to break out of that rut Jaguar was in. They were extremely cash strapped and couldn't afford to take a risk on something fresh and new. How many times did Jaguar nearly go bankrupt in those 40 years?
As far as the XE goes, I acknowledge that there is probably no way to tell what is timeless or not. I mean, who are any of us to say that those banal glass buildings you hate aren't going to be timeless in the future? I have to wonder if the Empire State Building's looks were an instant success in the 1930s.
Who is tearing down a masterpiece anyway? Is Ian Callum torching old Jaguars? OK he did sort of butcher up an old Mark II...
As far as the XE goes, I acknowledge that there is probably no way to tell what is timeless or not. I mean, who are any of us to say that those banal glass buildings you hate aren't going to be timeless in the future? I have to wonder if the Empire State Building's looks were an instant success in the 1930s.
Who is tearing down a masterpiece anyway? Is Ian Callum torching old Jaguars? OK he did sort of butcher up an old Mark II...
.......Ah, but I forget we live in the age of the dictatorship of relativism, where all that tradition "stuff" is obsolete and where a Beaux-Arts, Neo-Classical, Gothic and Art Deco art and architecture is all on par with post modern tin-can concrete and glass trash. Versailles Palace, Local Post Office tomato, tomato
#62
09-11-2014, 03:04 AM
Senior Member
It's the same story with MB, they ditched the quad headlamps on the E-Class, and now the new C-Class shares a lot of design cues with the S-Class. As far as design goes Audi is the worst for having the one shoe design in ten different sizes, from the side and rear no one is going to mistake the XF for XJ, the XE may be confused for the XF by some I agree. Callum himself said it's about building up the brand, most people pass cars and see the face, and I think it's an attractive mug to share.
I think the X350 XJ is a beautiful car and it'll look beautiful 50 years from now, sadly I think it was the interior that most likely turned people off, it looks very outdated. So perhaps if it had an interior like the X351's it would have been a success, but we'll never know.
I think the X350 XJ is a beautiful car and it'll look beautiful 50 years from now, sadly I think it was the interior that most likely turned people off, it looks very outdated. So perhaps if it had an interior like the X351's it would have been a success, but we'll never know.
Last edited by Bellanca_XF; 09-11-2014 at 03:07 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Spikepaga (09-11-2014)
#63
09-11-2014, 03:48 AM
Veteran Member
As has been mentioned already, there was a lot of criticism of both the S-Type and X-Type when they were released because Jaguar had "tried too hard to evoke past designs rather than doing something fresh". So, if you base your design on past icons, you get slammed for being too retro; if you create a new image and stick with it, you get slammed for abandoning the marque's design heritage.
There is only one manufacturer that has stuck with evolving the same iconic design, more or less, from the 60s, and that's Porsche. And people are divided on whether that's a good thing or not. I think they have pulled it off pretty well, possibly because they do enough variations on the theme to keep it interesting. But they aren't a volume manufacturer.
Backward-looking designs can be interesting if done well. I quite like the Fiat 500. But I don't like some others like the S-Type or the Beetle. It's hard to capture all the elements of the original yet modernise the design.
There is only one manufacturer that has stuck with evolving the same iconic design, more or less, from the 60s, and that's Porsche. And people are divided on whether that's a good thing or not. I think they have pulled it off pretty well, possibly because they do enough variations on the theme to keep it interesting. But they aren't a volume manufacturer.
Backward-looking designs can be interesting if done well. I quite like the Fiat 500. But I don't like some others like the S-Type or the Beetle. It's hard to capture all the elements of the original yet modernise the design.
#64
09-11-2014, 04:08 AM
A good point well put Ngarara - the Porsche is very close to its old shape which is instantly recognised, but with new features and tweaks..
I think the issue here is that you have two camps - the die-hard Jaguar owners who love Jaguar for it's classic (generally :-)) looks and heritage, and do not like too much change, and then you have the other camp that is more forward thinking and are happy for Jaguar to start afresh with a new brand 'look' and are more comfortable with changes..
I fall into the first camp I am afraid... but I suspect that if Jaguar, and us, are all around in say 15 years we'll be saying the same about the XE when it is superseded grin..
It took the X-Type and S-Type a good few years for people to accept them (after all they were a whole new bold move at the time too) - it will be the same with the XE which is why I say I personally don't think it has the wow factor they could have gone for in design *but* I am very happy to be proved wrong in the flesh and sales :-)
One final thought - the debate about the X-Type look and heritage was debated for years -
so we have some time to go yet with the XE!
I think the issue here is that you have two camps - the die-hard Jaguar owners who love Jaguar for it's classic (generally :-)) looks and heritage, and do not like too much change, and then you have the other camp that is more forward thinking and are happy for Jaguar to start afresh with a new brand 'look' and are more comfortable with changes..
I fall into the first camp I am afraid... but I suspect that if Jaguar, and us, are all around in say 15 years we'll be saying the same about the XE when it is superseded grin..
It took the X-Type and S-Type a good few years for people to accept them (after all they were a whole new bold move at the time too) - it will be the same with the XE which is why I say I personally don't think it has the wow factor they could have gone for in design *but* I am very happy to be proved wrong in the flesh and sales :-)
One final thought - the debate about the X-Type look and heritage was debated for years -
so we have some time to go yet with the XE!
Last edited by JimC64; 10-01-2014 at 08:00 PM. Reason: please add line breaks
The following users liked this post:
Ngarara (09-11-2014)
#65
09-11-2014, 05:46 AM
Veteran Member
I am afraid your information on the XJ is flawed. The 1987 and 2004 XJ where all new, from the ground up platforms. They where deliberately designed that way and not because Jaguar was broke or because of "scared employees" who would not speak up. It has more to do with conveying a sense of tradition and continuity in what used to be almost a fabled and sort of mythical car marque. Very much like one can immediately link a Rolls Royce build today with one build 50 years ago.........and if anyone is scared it's probably Ian Callum's acolytes trying to convince him that not every car needs to have interchangeable grills!
.......Ah, but I forget we live in the age of the dictatorship of relativism, where all that tradition "stuff" is obsolete and where a Beaux-Arts, Neo-Classical, Gothic and Art Deco art and architecture is all on par with post modern tin-can concrete and glass trash. Versailles Palace, Local Post Office tomato, tomato
.......Ah, but I forget we live in the age of the dictatorship of relativism, where all that tradition "stuff" is obsolete and where a Beaux-Arts, Neo-Classical, Gothic and Art Deco art and architecture is all on par with post modern tin-can concrete and glass trash. Versailles Palace, Local Post Office tomato, tomato
#66
09-11-2014, 10:00 AM
For those saying that the XE doesn't live up to the XJ or XF, it was never meant to be that caliber of car. This car is supposed to do what the X-Type did: get those that don't drive a Jag to look at Jag and have something that is at a price point that most are willing to give something new a try. I liken this to those that have the XJ or XF and looking at say a Ford Fusion Sport or the Chevy Caprice. They are very nice cars, get you where you need to go. But, are they "Jaguar level cars"? I would hardly put them in the same class of car. But, at the same time, the price difference reflects that too. Jaguar is aimed at a specific group of people with the XE. It is not meant to be the "one jag that everyone will have". I am sure BM3 can back me up on this, when we were talking with the marketing guys, they know the XE is not as flashy and fancy as an XJ. They didn't want it to be. They wanted the car to be the stepping stone to get people interested in the higher end cars 5-10 years into the future.
So, to say that the XE is not an XJ, that is a true statement. But, looking at the car in person does give a completely different perspective of the car. Would I love to see an option or a different design that incorporated a "4 headlight" setup (like what the older jags had), oh hell yes. But, as jaguar sees it, the "4 headlight setup" is what lead to descreased sales because people are now associating the 4 headlights to "old technology". The inside could be star trekish, but you have to get them to open the door first and that is only done with having something that makes people think "wow, that is interesting and new". With that, I think jaguar did their job.
So, to say that the XE is not an XJ, that is a true statement. But, looking at the car in person does give a completely different perspective of the car. Would I love to see an option or a different design that incorporated a "4 headlight" setup (like what the older jags had), oh hell yes. But, as jaguar sees it, the "4 headlight setup" is what lead to descreased sales because people are now associating the 4 headlights to "old technology". The inside could be star trekish, but you have to get them to open the door first and that is only done with having something that makes people think "wow, that is interesting and new". With that, I think jaguar did their job.
The XE being of similar style to the XF and XJ is a good thing. If it's too retro, it risks high initial sales and low sales later. The retro Ford Thunderbird is a classic example of that happening. I am surprised that that VW Beetle has survived this long, though it is based on VW Golf mechanicals, at least the first retro version (currently they are making the second retro version).
Marketing people like to look at their car lines as entry level. However, I don't think there's a reliable progression from the Mercedes C class to E class to S class. I took a picture of a bunch of houses in London with parking spaces in front. A XJ is too long for such space. Those people will probably never buy a XJ but a XE could fit in the parking space.
Thermo is correct that the XE is not the "one Jag that everyone will have". However, if they sell enough, they could branch out and have the XE fill many segments such as the:
XE basic - lowest price model
XE-S - faster model, like the BMW 335i versus the BMW 320i (US) or BMW 316i (Europe)
XE wagen
XE coupe
XE long wheelbase - for mainland China and India initially, where it is common to have a driver
XE-R - fastest model
XE (regular) - initial car launched
If the XE is hugely popular, Jaguar could have another car with similar mechanicals but the same platform. BMW has done with the 4 series, which has a sleek 4 door, but very similar to the 3 series. Mercedes has done the same with a 4 door coupe, as they call it.
#67
09-11-2014, 10:10 AM
Saab suffered because for years it was only a two car company, the 900 and 9000, later 9-3 and 9-5. On the other hand, BMW went from a 3 car company (320i, 528i, 735i) to a company with multiple lines, such as the 1 series (now 2), 3 series, 4 series, 5 series, 6 series, 7 series, Z convertibles, several X SUVs.
At some point, too cheap and too small can result in a car not being a Jaguar, but I don't think the XE has reached that point. One car that did reach that point was the Aston Martin Cygnet.
Aston Martin
(source: Wikipedia, open sourced)
Last edited by BM3; 09-11-2014 at 10:21 AM.
#70
09-11-2014, 10:42 AM
Veteran Member
#71
09-11-2014, 12:05 PM
Veteran Member
The car probably drives like archangels are carrying it on their shoulders. But so does the C class and the 3 series. Styling is what will make or break this car.
And hopefully Jaguar will never be like BMW with 100 models. BMW's are quickly becoming the Honda Accords of the middle class. It's like a bag of M&M's. It just dilutes the brand and the exclusivity factor you have with Jaguar. What a nightmare it would be to see 10 Jaguars at every stop light like you do BMW's!!.....If done properly, a company can be a credible and successful low volume producer. ..
And hopefully Jaguar will never be like BMW with 100 models. BMW's are quickly becoming the Honda Accords of the middle class. It's like a bag of M&M's. It just dilutes the brand and the exclusivity factor you have with Jaguar. What a nightmare it would be to see 10 Jaguars at every stop light like you do BMW's!!.....If done properly, a company can be a credible and successful low volume producer. ..
#73
09-11-2014, 12:26 PM
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Damon /Houston, Texas
Posts: 7,254
Received 2,190 Likes
on
1,357 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Andahaion (09-11-2014)
#74
09-11-2014, 12:42 PM
Ngarara - I'm on my 3rd XF only because there wasn't a smaller car in the Jag portfolio. XE / 3-series/c-class size is perfect for me and always seemed to me to hit the sweet spot of size/handling/sportiness potential. But now, that I know what Jag can do ,and from this perspective, my concern is valid.
#75
09-11-2014, 01:01 PM
Veteran Member
I dont think the XE pulled any surprises with styling, but compared to what else is available in the segment, I hardly think it is a stumbling block for any potential buyers. At the very least, the XE fits right in whereas the X-Type did not.
I know I will not be buying one myself, but maybe I can convince my mother in law to get one as she is looking to replace her 08 Infiniti G35 in a couple years!
I know I will not be buying one myself, but maybe I can convince my mother in law to get one as she is looking to replace her 08 Infiniti G35 in a couple years!
#76
09-11-2014, 03:47 PM
Veteran member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Great Mills, MD
Posts: 14,374
Likes: 0
Received 3,886 Likes
on
3,193 Posts
I will volunteer to go to Detroit for the US release of the XE and do the test drive for you all. LMAO. I think I would be a good person as I have seen the car from the beginning to end and that would only be fitting. Do I hear other people voting for me? he he h eh eh ehe. I know, quit being the show hog. But ,I would atleast be close to home if I did the show. I grew up just south of Detroit in Toledo.
#77
09-11-2014, 06:42 PM
Veteran Member
Ngarara - I'm on my 3rd XF only because there wasn't a smaller car in the Jag portfolio. XE / 3-series/c-class size is perfect for me and always seemed to me to hit the sweet spot of size/handling/sportiness potential. But now, that I know what Jag can do ,and from this perspective, my concern is valid.
#78
09-11-2014, 06:56 PM
Someone else noted that it's really hard to tell from a photo - that too.
I wasn't a fan of the XF when it came out - at all - but it has grown on me to the point where maybe I could see buying one. (I still don't like the new XJ and it's "hideous" vertical taillights).
Ever since I first bought an X-type 5 years ago, I wanted an 04-09 XJR. Now that I've had one of those for a while too, I've come to the conclusion that the R is boxier and more masculine, and I have grown to appreciate the curvaceous lines and the personality of the X-Type even more. While it has about half the HP of the R, in some ways its more fun to toss around. I do have room for one more, and it would be nice to have a brand new one to go with these two classics (yup, classics - as someone else said, the X-Type and the old XJR are "what a jaguar is supposed to look like.")
As for the XE... The launch party was silly, and the car looks nice, but I'm going to reserve judgment till they reach this side of the pond and I can see it in the flesh. And if they were going to raid the F-type parts bin, they should have used the F-Type taillights instead of audi A4 look-alike tailights.
Thermo: Thanks for going and getting the scoop, and fpr the unofficial photos. As one of the few who has actually seen it in person, is it better looking in real life than in the photos? Or did the crowd make it hard to tell? And having seen it, are you thinking of - or even considering - trading in your X-Type for an XE?
Last edited by MeatBag; 09-11-2014 at 07:04 PM.
#79
09-11-2014, 06:56 PM
Veteran Member