Jump to content

Ford may sell Land Rover, Jaguar


Recommended Posts

Don't bother with the Reuters summary. Read the original article here:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...2300297,00.html

 

Other Times pieces on Jag (for those of you unawares, the Times is not generally regarded as the best of the London newspapers)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2297044,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2297042,00.html (this article is full of inaccuracies, read at your own risk)

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sixcav

Ford should sell Jag and Land Rover, they are both high dollar niche vehicles and that would be fine except both of them are very unreliable. If you're going to make a niche vehicle it should at least be reliable so that your already limited customer base comes back to buy another one. These two brands should be sold off as soon as possible. They do nothing for Ford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sixcav

Richard, this is an "Initial Quality" survey. Has nothing to do with how your Jag is going to hold up 2 or 3 years down the road when you still owe an arm and a leg on it. I know you're in the "Ford can do no wrong" crowd but I have the latest consumer reports reliability ratings right here with me. Every single Jaguar except for the 2007 XK is in the black on reliability. Black is the "poor" end of the scale for those that don't know. The only reason the XK is not is because it's a brand new model and there's not enough data available yet. You can bet it will end up in the black as well. Similarly evey single Land Rover has reliability ratings in the black. In fact their exact words in describing the Range Rover are "Reliability has been much below average" and with respect to the LR3 "Reliability has been far below average". So spare me the glowing reports that are put out by Ford about Ford products. The fact that the Jag improved 35% in a single year in the IQ stat is only proof that once you hit rock bottom you have no where to go but up. These are unreliable vehicles and they are precieved as such far and wide. They already have a limitied customer base because of their high price tags and even someone with the money to keep one of these pieces of shit on the road won't go for it twice becuase it's just throwing money away. Ford should dump them. I agree with keeping Volvo and Mazda because they are good cars and reasonably affordable. I don't know enough about the Aston Martin brand to say one way or the other I'd have to research it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought for some time that Ford should sell off Land Rover, because I don't really see the brand fitting in with the scheme of things and the brand doesn't bring anything beneficial to the table in terms of shared engineering or development. Ford has had alliances between Jaguar, Volvo and Mazda, but Land Rover to my knowledge has not contributed to the corporation other than what profits it might have generated. I'm not sure about Aston Martin.

 

In a corporation acquisition, it would seem to me that you would utilize various attributes that a company has to benefit both parties on the globlal scale for long-term success. Certainly you can't have Aston Martin building $30,000 Fords but you can integrate certain aspects of superior technology to be incorporated into your other products to make them better. I'm not sure that Land Rover can contribute to Ford's truck or sport utility production and if so, Ford has not set out to appear to do so.

 

Furthermore, I'm not sure that Ford's acquisition of Land Rover has done anything for Land Rover or Ford. Under Ford's control, Aston Martin, Jaguar and Volvo looks to have been improved upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought for some time that Ford should sell off Land Rover, because I don't really see the brand fitting in with the scheme of things and the brand doesn't bring anything beneficial to the table in terms of shared engineering or development. Ford has had alliances between Jaguar, Volvo and Mazda, but Land Rover to my knowledge has not contributed to the corporation other than what profits it might have generated. I'm not sure about Aston Martin.

 

In a corporation acquisition, it would seem to me that you would utilize various attributes that a company has to benefit both parties on the globlal scale for long-term success. Certainly you can't have Aston Martin building $30,000 Fords but you can integrate certain aspects of superior technology to be incorporated into your other products to make them better. I'm not sure that Land Rover can contribute to Ford's truck or sport utility production and if so, Ford has not set out to appear to do so.

 

Furthermore, I'm not sure that Ford's acquisition of Land Rover has done anything for Land Rover or Ford. Under Ford's control, Aston Martin, Jaguar and Volvo looks to have been improved upon.

 

The prototype Aston V-12 was two Duratec 3.0's welded together. Sometimes the tech transfer goes the other way.

 

The "S" type V-6 is a 3.0 Duratec with a polished intake manifold.

 

One rumor I read was the Explorer getting some Land Rover off road capability. This would aim the Explorer into a different market. Then you wouldn't need Land Rover.

 

 

Edited by Blue II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford should keep Volvo, it has 'import snob appeal' and lots do not know Ford owns them, and should keep it that way.

 

I know somene who got a new Volvo after saying the Fusion was 'too late to market'. Has no idea he still gave Ford $$$.

 

Unload the British junk, and sell half of Ford Credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, this is an "Initial Quality" survey. Has nothing to do with how your Jag is going to hold up 2 or 3 years down the road when you still owe an arm and a leg on it. I know you're in the "Ford can do no wrong" crowd but I have the latest consumer reports reliability ratings right here with me. Every single Jaguar except for the 2007 XK is in the black on reliability. Black is the "poor" end of the scale for those that don't know. The only reason the XK is not is because it's a brand new model and there's not enough data available yet. You can bet it will end up in the black as well. Similarly evey single Land Rover has reliability ratings in the black. In fact their exact words in describing the Range Rover are "Reliability has been much below average" and with respect to the LR3 "Reliability has been far below average". So spare me the glowing reports that are put out by Ford about Ford products. The fact that the Jag improved 35% in a single year in the IQ stat is only proof that once you hit rock bottom you have no where to go but up. These are unreliable vehicles and they are precieved as such far and wide. They already have a limitied customer base because of their high price tags and even someone with the money to keep one of these pieces of shit on the road won't go for it twice becuase it's just throwing money away. Ford should dump them. I agree with keeping Volvo and Mazda because they are good cars and reasonably affordable. I don't know enough about the Aston Martin brand to say one way or the other I'd have to research it first.

Well, then, let's look at where Jaguar sits on vehicle dependability

 

For the most recent year JD Power has released results (2005), Jaguar finishes ahead of Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Saab, and Land Rover. European luxury brands with higher dependability than Jaguar? Porsche, BMW and Volvo (by a shocking margin of 2 problems per 100 vehicles).

 

And because I linked to a Ford Media site, they made up the JD Power results?

 

Jaguar has excellent initial quality and middle of the pack dependability. If you want to look for excuses why Jag isn't selling, I suggest you look otherwise than dependability, as Audi and MB sell better and have worse dependability.

 

---

And why should we look at JD Power in comparing makes? Because they survey the entire car buying public, not just the cross-section that subscribes to Consumer Reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe how many people actually think this is news, or even really noteworthy.

 

Jag's value is essentially spit until they crawl out of the hole they're in. The alternative is to bring the freshened S-Type (due next year) and XJ (a year later) that are reported to be GORGEOUS and let the brand either make itself worth keeping, or at least make itself worthwhile to sell.

 

The brand is done with its obsolete factory now, and it supplying technology to other PAG brands. Why so many just ignore all that time and time again I can't fathom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sixcav
For the most recent year JD Power has released results (2005), Jaguar finishes ahead of Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Saab, and Land Rover.

 

Just another attempt to tell half the story Richard. You forgot to add the part about how Jaguar is fully 9 places below the industry average. So just pointing out how this crappy car is ahead of other crappy cars doesn't make the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me Volvo and Mazda have been the best when it comes to platform and technology sharing. Even my Explorer has Volvo safety technology in it...Advance Trac with Roll Stability came right from Volvo.

 

It seems like Ford-Mazda-Volvo have became very integrated in product development and sharing. It seems like they all work together on products...the other brands like Jaguar, AM and Land Rover seem more on their own and don't contribute a lot to the mass market products.

 

I know everyone knows this, but I think it brings up a point on what brands Ford would be least likely to sell off. Besides when you have a history for not being good at making small cars it is nice to have an excellent small car builder (Mazda) working with you and when you have had safety problems here and there over the years Volvo is a good asset to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more than an ephiphany... Ford may sell Volvo, Ford may Sell Mazda, Ford may go backrupt, Ford MAY MAY MAY... There's nothing to verify or justify rather, it's just "May". In the lines of "What If".

 

Funny how one story, is now going to get the medias panties up in a roar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Volvo is profitable! Possibly the ONLY PAG brand that is! Volvo sells almost 500,000 units worldwide! Second, the consumer knows Ford owns Volvo because Bill is blabbing it in TV ads about their collaboration! But why should they care? Third, I said before: Sell Jags for $80,000 minimum a piece and don't care if you sell less units! Your PROFIT willl be greater! Mercedes buyers don't buy Mercedes based on price! It's the exclusivity! Fourth, isn't Land Rover on a roll? It and Escalade are Hollywood faves!

Edited by Joe771476
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford needs to get all Volvo's technology and then sell Volvo.

 

Exactly. The problem with the high end car market is that it is cyclical meaning there are times they will make money and times when the vehicle lines become less attractive and won't. Keeping these brands is taking huge amounts of money and engineering resources at the expense of north American operations. Ford would be much better off keeping an engineering and research arm from either Volvo or Land Rover and selling off the manufacturing operations for Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover brands to another company.

 

Focus needs to be on quality, high production vehicles. Period.

Edited by fllcobra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volvo was an expensive acquisition, but, it makes money, I believe. It is also the source of Haldex-based chassis design that even the Mazda-based CD-3 uses.

 

So, why sell something that makes money and is integrated into your European production, especially regarding engines, but increasingly, shared chassis designs?

 

As has been pointed out before, the only problem in PAG is Jag. The new S and XJ can't arrive soon enough. These are most important launches for the future of the Ford empire. If they are a success, then the X-type problem can be replaced by some kind of sub S-type priced vehicle.

 

If they tank . . .

 

Has Jag announced market dates for the S and XJ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing none of the cowbows here seem to be thinking about.

 

Everyone is bashing a turnaround that hasn't even started. Starting with the new XK it's a new story for Jag, and I don't think this will be the next chapter in a "same old, same old" story.

 

Ford already made the bulk of the investment for the next S-Type, XK, etc. so the most prudent thing --IMO-- would be to AT LEAST wait to see how Jag does after that, before rushing into selling it and then going "DAMN, if only we had known...".

 

Someone made a brilliant point the other day. Detroit is and will be in a tight and uncomfortable place no matter what they do. They'll soon be in some sort of awkward sandwich between the Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese competitors in the value segment, so in the future --thanks mainly to the UAW and to a lesser degree, the competition-- profits from the bread and butter vehicles will be very slim.

 

It'll be like in Europe, where marketshare will be very thin for each brand, and a significant sector of the population will aim for a higher brand, even if it's an entry level vehicle like the A4, C-Class, or 3 series, etc. PAG's very important on a mid-to-long-term basis.

 

And no, bringing up Lincoln as the solution is laughable. Maybe Ford should sell Lincoln and replace it with Jag-branded rebadges of Fords - because that's why Lincoln is profitable, not because of this non-existant "luster" or "respect" as a real luxury brand I hear about so often. L/M are a fucking joke to pretty much everyone outside the US.

Edited by pcsario
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another attempt to tell half the story Richard. You forgot to add the part about how Jaguar is fully 9 places below the industry average. So just pointing out how this crappy car is ahead of other crappy cars doesn't make the case.

 

All y'all can debate number all you want. When it comes to "numbers" I'm a firm believer in "Lies, damn lies and statistics". Gimme real world experience.

 

I have a long time friend (since high school, 1976) that has worked his way through just about every high line auto company dealership service department, from mechanic to service department manager. He ranks 'em, from personal experience of seeing them come in the door....

 

1) Mercedes

2) BMW

3) Jaguar

4) Audi

 

He works right now for a Lexus dealer that also owns a Jaguar franchise. He says the last generation (X308) and the current aluminum cat are one of the best built luxury cars out there. Very few problems, very few warranty claims and when there is a problem, its easy and quick to fix. Yes, he has anecdotal stories of problematic cars, but he says those are "1 in a thousand". If he could afford one, he's own one of the new XJs.

 

I'll take the mechanic's word over Mr. Power and others with a drum to beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Land Rovers - despite their problems - are huge with the "it" crowd, and are highly profitable. Jag represents a huge investment which could pay off. Luxury brands do well... why would you sell them? Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and even Mercedes - prove you can make "everyday" cars and premium cars and make money - many times on the same platforms.

 

But you don't see any of those brands selling rebadged versions of their main cars and trying to fool the public into thinking they are different cars... like Mercury... why not get rid of Mercury and put that money into making a more premium trim level on the Ford versions? Like Toyota, Honda and Nissan do...

 

My family has owned lots of Jags, and ever since Ford bought them, they run fine... before Ford bought them, they were a nightmare. A very good friend had to be given a whole new 7 series a month after he bought it, and it just stopped dead.. the dealer wouldn't even say why they didn't try to fix it. They just gave him a new car. My Mercedes friends have lots of horror stories... not sure any highly technical car, other than Lexus, is rock solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Maybe Ford should sell Lincoln and replace it with Jag-branded rebadges of Fords - because that's why Lincoln is profitable, not because of this non-existant "luster" or "respect" as a real luxury brand I hear about so often."

 

Well, like Jaguar, Lincoln is re-building. Back in 1961, there was only one vehicle, with rag-top variant.

 

45 years later, the brand is TC, Nav, MK Z, MK X, MK LT.

 

The reality of economics forces shared components, Cynics call it "badge engineering". Yet, if somebody buys an "S"-class Mercedes with the smallest engine available, that engine is shared with the E and C-class cars. So the extra-special S has an engine that came of the line where the next one, identical to it, winds up in a junior Mercedes.

 

Considering the dreadful product development of the 80's and 90's with the Lincoln brand, like the ghastly FWD Continental with the roller-cam Vulcan. Sad, Ford finally gets the Continental right with the 32-v Intech, but the consumer doesn't want to know anymore. Add the opera-windowed MK 6, etc., with the absurd front over-hang, and it's amazing the brand exists at all.

 

Compared to the FWD Continental farkling, the launch and re-fresh of the Zephyr/MK Z is about as fast as a NASCAR tire-change.

 

Re-building a brand can be somewhat like pruning a rosebush — when you cut away all the dead crap, there doesn't seem to be much left. Killing the TC is tough love, but livery service does no credit to the brand. Rising fuel costs may help the MK S, when it arrives.

 

Anyway, compared to years past, the 2K7 Lincoln showroom floor is getting a lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Maybe Ford should sell Lincoln and replace it with Jag-branded rebadges of Fords - because that's why Lincoln is profitable, not because of this non-existant "luster" or "respect" as a real luxury brand I hear about so often."

 

Well, like Jaguar, Lincoln is re-building. Back in 1961, there was only one vehicle, with rag-top variant.

 

45 years later, the brand is TC, Nav, MK Z, MK X, MK LT.

 

The reality of economics forces shared components, Cynics call it "badge engineering". Yet, if somebody buys an "S"-class Mercedes with the smallest engine available, that engine is shared with the E and C-class cars. So the extra-special S has an engine that came of the line where the next one, identical to it, winds up in a junior Mercedes.

 

Considering the dreadful product development of the 80's and 90's with the Lincoln brand, like the ghastly FWD Continental with the roller-cam Vulcan. Sad, Ford finally gets the Continental right with the 32-v Intech, but the consumer doesn't want to know anymore. Add the opera-windowed MK 6, etc., with the absurd front over-hang, and it's amazing the brand exists at all.

 

Compared to the FWD Continental farkling, the launch and re-fresh of the Zephyr/MK Z is about as fast as a NASCAR tire-change.

 

Re-building a brand can be somewhat like pruning a rosebush — when you cut away all the dead crap, there doesn't seem to be much left. Killing the TC is tough love, but livery service does no credit to the brand. Rising fuel costs may help the MK S, when it arrives.

 

Anyway, compared to years past, the 2K7 Lincoln showroom floor is getting a lot better.

 

 

I do agree with much of what you're saying, my only complaint that continues to linger is sheetmetal sharing between Ford and Lincoln. If Ford is truly going to call Lincoln a luxury brand then the sharing of sheetmetal (i.e. the visible exterior components) has to stop. A Lincoln should look totally different from a Ford. You should never confuse a Lincoln for a Ford from any angle. A grill and taillights do not go anywhere far enough to differentiate the two brands. I love that they now have completely different interiors, but it's the exterior that will sell the car in the first place. No more badge-engineering, and by that I mean essentially just slapping different badges on the same car. The MKX should have been as different from the Edge as the CX-7 is to both of them (and yes I know the CX-7 is a completely different vehicle designed without Ford, just using it to prove a point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...