Since World War II, seeking national glory on the battlefield has become socially unacceptable. Countries now pour their national psyche into that great champion of industry: the car firm. As representatives of their homelands, automobile manufacturers live up to a national ‘meta-brand’, an image that is shared by its compatriots. National karma can now be read in meta-brands as if they were a pack of tarot cards.
Italian brands (Ferrari, FIAT, Alfa, etc.): hot, racy, and a little hydrophobic. French brands (Renault, Peugeot,Citroen, etc.): stylish, flamboyant and quirky. German brands (BMW, Mercedes, VW, etc.): technically proficient and austere, combining technical proficiency with a hint of condescension. America (Ford, GM): large, brash a bit dim-witted and powerful. Japan (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc.): reliable.
Building cars which do not conform to an established national stereotype is risky business. Honda, co-owner of the quality automobile mind space, tried to rebel against the Japanese meta-brand for anodyne family cars with the European-style NSX supercar. In spite of its impressive technical specification, the aluminium bodied mid-engined marvel never caught the market’s imagination. In 2005, the company sold 207 NSX in North American, while Ferrari found homes for 1,420 of their fragile steeds.
The Germans "get it." VW knows its national meta-brand embodies an image of solid quality at a premium price (a fancy way of saying they overcharge us for a car made the way it should be in the first place). Facing an onslaught from Far Eastern value brands, VeeDub needed to offer products further down the price range that wouldn't sully its reputation for quality.
So, in 1986, they became majority stockholders of Spain’s SEAT. In 1991, they bought [what was then] Czechoslovakia’s Skoda. In both cases, the Germans were successful. They tidied things up a bit, slipped German platforms under foreign bodies and called it sehr gut.
The commercial logic of assembling brands to surmount meta-brand limitations suggests that there could be a great deal more cross-border portfolio building. By now, one would expect the Far Eastern brands to be sniffing round BMW and Porsche.
That that they are not doing so is partly because the newcomers are still far from reaching their potential. They do not yet have the means to be taking on the world’s automotive aristocracy. In any case, the feeding frenzy is going on elsewhere.
British brands deserve their place amongst the grandees of the industry. Yet the British meta-brand is deceptively multi-faceted. While the overall reputation is for conservative styling and country house interiors, the cars themselves seem to fit every niche imaginable.
Germany may make the best luxury cars in the world, yet Rolls-Royce is the most famous. Italy may have Ferrari and Maserati, yet both are eclipsed by the divine Jaguar E-Type. Jeep may be home on the range, but Land Rover rules an empire. Britain has a marque for every purpose. But the extraordinary thing is that the Brits are the very last to understand what they are about.
Take the [small cap] Mini. It’s one of the great British icons, whose launch supposedly heralded a small car revolution. Leaving aside some of the original model’s dead-end technology– such as the gearbox in the sump and the rubber-cone suspension– the only thing really wrong with the car was precisely what the British motorist considered its greatest asset: its diminutive dimensions.
BMW, however, saw the Mini as a kind of cute (if poorly built) sports car. When it designed a successor, the result preserved the sparkling ride and cheeky styling, but presented it in a much larger package. Unlike the original, the [all cap] MINI is now a major export success.
How about Rolls-Royce, perhaps the most imperious marque on Earth? The British believe quality comes with hand-crafting: building the cars like they were stately homes, complete with squeaky leather chairs and a gargoyle on the hood. Then there was Bentley, famed as the fastest trucks in the world. Both these brands are now in German hands– and all the better for some salutary lessons in quality standards.
This is not a story of British industrial decline; foreigners do not pick up British brands out of charity. But there is a caveat: the soggy little island can be a quagmire for the unwary.
Witness poor old Jaguar. What did Jaguar ever do to deserve lectures from Ford? As an underdog– or should I say undercat– Jaguar had the bravado to snarl at the opposition with inspiring designs. All that was lacking was quality, an area in which Ford were hardly qualified to provide advice.
And so the Yanks stuffed Jaguar so full with cash it grew corpulent and complacent. Ford is now on a crash diet. Perhaps that will be the lesson it can teach its British pet.
In short, the deck may be reshuffled, but the wise automotive players know that the cards remain the same.
I'm not sure if I agree with you. The only market the "British car" don't seem to have access to is the proverbial econobox one. And the NSX was unsuccessful not because of Japan's reputation for economic cars, but for the perceived ill value of it; $90,000 for a car with a V6 and 286bhp? After all, the 240ZX and its progeny were the best selling sports cars ever, in addition to which, the highly regarded Toyota Supra refuses to slip below $30,000 for an unmolested example, compared to the $12,000 asking price for a fast unmolested Porsche 944 Turbo S.
imoody: the british econobox was the Austin MiniMETRO, launched in 1980 by British Leyland, later under the rOver marque. Rover really filled the lower-mid range of vehicular needs from a UK manufacturer untill it’s Viking Ship sprung leaks, and sank in 2005.
However your pointstands true today: there are no new mid range British Badged cars to be had.
Ford did vastly improve Jaguar’s quality.
The other problem Jaguar had was manufacturing costs, which were way out of line at the time of the acquisition.
Ford brought these down as well, but probably not far enough.
Or low range cars, ninchjs. I don’t consider Vauxhall British, since all their cars are rebadged Opels.
The problem with Jaguar is that none of their cars are really “desirable”, with the possible exception of the (old) XJS. The X-type is a FWD POS, while the S-Type is a RWD dinosaur. The XK fails to evoke the traditional sensual phallic styling of the E-type, instead looking, according to many observers, like a Ford Taurus. Admittedly, the only similar feature is the grille and the bulbous styling, but the fact that many observers equate the two is no boon to Jaguar. Even more irritating is that the XKR looks worse than the XK, because of its body-coloured brake cooling grilles.
Perhaps the most damning comment I can make to Jaguar as a whole is that in my previous high school, one of the girls drove an XK8 to school every day since her family couldn’t, apparently, conceive any other use for it.
Nota Bene: During my tenure at that high school, other student cars included: Lexus IS350, two Hummer H1s (both driven by tiny Asian girls, oddly enough), an MB SL55 AMG, an Audi A3 3.2, an Impala SS, a BMW X3, two Infiniti G35 sedans and an Acura TL type-S.
The only kid that deserved his car (other than me, of course), was the one driving the TL. He scored a 2400 on the new SAT.
My great grandfather had a collection of Jags throughout the 50s and 60s (around 6-10 at any given time, which everyone said was simply because he needed to be sure at least ONE was in running order). He was a glutton for punishment and very wealthy, following his mechanic from shop to shop throughout Philadelphia to ensure the same level of quality work. He saw that as the only way…and in turn, he helped shape the common image of Jag ownership as only for the elite with more cash than sense. Of course, to the enthusiast, sense doesn’t carry much weight. But I digress.
I’d like to mention the cars that come to mind for me when discussing British motors today: Lotus. TVR. Ariel. I might add MINI or Rolls or Bentley to this list, but I still see them as a German experiments, despite being built in England.
All esoteric, all full of character, but all have very small markets. The Brits aren’t lacking in great, identifiable, nationalistic cars, they’re lacking in long-lived mass-market ones to “get the word out.”
Countries now pour their national psyche into that great champion of industry: the car firm. As representatives of their homelands, automobile manufacturers live up to a national ‘meta-brand’, an image that is shared by its compatriots.
Only in an automotive journalist’s wet dream. The notion is defeated by a cursory understanding of different cultures and different car manufacturers. Sure, American cars are big, and European cars are “fun.” That’s about it.
Where does the awesome power of the Bugatti Veyron fit into the modern French image of effete socialism?
In other words, economy cars, ash78.
I don’t really think anyone considers the Bugatti Veyron British, in any sense of the word, other than exclusivity. That car is so Germanic in its form and function, it doesn’t even bare a passing resemblance to anything British as I know it. After all, the average plebe doesn’t know from what country “Bugatti” originally hailed.
shivak:
Where does the awesome power of the Bugatti Veyron fit into the modern French image of effete socialism?
Good luck finding a better example. We’re talking about a car for decamillionaires made by a company called “The People’s Car.”
Beside, the Veyron fits Wyn-Williams description (rather than yours) quite well: “stylish, flamboyant and quirky.”
Or French, be it as it may.
Farago, I would say the Veyron fits only two of your descriptors: flamboyant and quirky; I don’t know anyone who would qualify the Veyron a beautiful car.
However, it is indeed flamboyant and quirky, with an arguably ugly exterior, an stylish yet unfunctional dashboard (the shiny aluminum is a constant irritant when reflected by the sum), and a “flamboyant” 250mph+ top speed.
I would guess that its main problem is that it’s TOO functional; so it can travel upwards of 250mph. It is the most anodyne mode of travel imaginable. The accelerative G-forces are incredible, but it’s not exciting, as a 250mph+ supercar should be. From what I’ve read, even a Pagani Zonda S is more exciting. Which it shouldn’t be, with half as much bhp.
Baloney.
Cars are not some “meta-brand” that carries the flag of their nation into battle on the fields of international commerce. They are simply the most visible (and costly) representation of a country’s approach to manufacturing and provision of consumer products–and what best strokes the desires of people in their home market. That they carry that same flavor to other markets simply gives car buyers in each country more choices.
I happen to like European cars, Saabs and Audis in particular. My neighbor adores Jeeps. Several friends are enamored of Toyotas. It’s much more about the characteristics of a specific brand than the country of origin.
Mr. Wynn-Williams writes “Italy may have Ferrari and Maserati, yet both are eclipsed by the divine Jaguar E-Type.”
The price differential between a ’62 Ferrari 250 GTO, or an F40, F50 or Enzo and an XKE, any XKE, would seem to contradict that statement.
imoody:
I don’t know anyone who would qualify the Veyron a beautiful car.
You need only attend Paris Fashion Week to know that “stylish” and “beautiful” are not necessarily synonymous.
Farago, I would say that the Veyron is neither. It is merely functional.
imoody: Chacun à son goût.
It seems to me that Jaguar's problem is that the marque was once known for performance with outstanding industrial design. (To me, a “brand” is for toothpaste, soda pop and clothing.) That was applied primarily to sports cars, and to a degree, its luxury cars. Then, in the 1970s, it quit making sports cars, and tried to fool people into thinking that if their cars have a top that went down, said cars were still sports cars. That worked with people who were not automotive enthusiasts; but from what I gather, even those folks began to get wise, after a time. So Jaguar, like Porsche, tried to become a maker of "sports/luxury" cars or "luxury/sports" cars. They became less sang-froid and more pretentious, pompous. They became like the man who pretends he wants to fight, but is shown to be a coward, if called out. How sad for a marque that won Le Mans so many times; but that was long ago and things do indeed, as a great movie title once said, change ("Things Change" starring the late Don Ameche in his last filmed role). Porsche could pull off this automotive sleight-of-hand, because they also kept fielding racecars, both as factory entrants, and also in the hands of privateers. Jaguars mostly run in the vintage races, when they run at all. True enough, Ford mucked up the works, by diluting the marque; but it started before they took it over. Maybe the very fact that Ford keeps calling it a "brand" instead of a marque, tells you something. But then again, I could be wrong.
“Italy may have Ferrari and Maserati, yet both are eclipsed by the divine Jaguar E-Type.”
I’m gonna have to go ahead and, um, disagree with you.
I’ll tell you what I do if I had a million dollars, man: Two Jags at the same time.
(thanks for the inspiration, NICKNICK)
This is an interesting article. I am thinking a few things. I have a friend who has a Jag sedan, and to tell you the truth, I couldn’t tell you which one, it was so nondescript. They kept referrring to “the Jag”, but it could have been any number of cars. It was nice, don’ get me wrong, but not recognizable as Jaguar. Or anything.
I am not sure that in this age of multi national companies, platform sharing, rebadging, and outsourcing, that “national” car images apply much any more. Back in the day, a Fiat, Alfas or MGs were so unusual here that they really stood out, especially with the HUGE Detroit iron then. The engines all made differnet sounds, i could tell what little “foriegn” car was coming from just the engine sound. I got my Fiat X1/9 in 1976, I think. I immediately had more dates then anyone.
Today there is so much blurring of those lines, you cannot really expect anything from anyone. This is fun for me, each ride is its own adventure, less fun for those who expect a certain character when they hear a certain name.
I STILL like the perfect ripping canvas sound of a small frenetic Italian engine in full flower, the basso profundo of a proper V8 Mustang, the pizzacato of a Honda at song, the thunder of a Lambo, ah… what delights.
Now there are Italian-Asian combos ( the Suzuki SX4), there are French-Asian cars (the Nissan Versa), German-English, American-English, its difficult to keep up. In my dreams I am still at a LeMans in the 50’s and ’60’s, where you could tell the nationality of the cars by their color, what romance! But I think that its over now. The King is dead, long live the King.
Noley —
I agree with you. This editorial rings “false”. Or rather, it describes a mind-set that is no longer valid.
Nations used to have airline flag carriers, but they are blending their identities away, in order to fit to the tastes and likes of passengers from many nations. (And most of the flag carriers are hemorrhaging money).
Likewise, up to some 15 years ago, there was validity to the claim the editorial makes about national characteristica reflected in cars. But this is fast disappearing in an age of cross-platform “diversity” and transnational ownership.
Just figuring out “who-owns-what?” among the major carmakers is a topic unto itself. How long, exactly, did GM own Subaru? Is Mitsubishi still with Volvo/Ford? Or how about Renault/Nissan? DCX?
What flags does one plant on these? Or on the origin-denying Lexus brand that’s surged to the top of the U.S. premium sales statistics?
Etc – etc – etc.
Likewise I’m not on board with the Brit cars über alles mantra. And that in spite of having owned a “divine E-type” and toodled about in other UK product.
The Brits are great, idiosyncratic craftsman engineers, and lousy on quality and salesmanship – they can hit self-propelled niches with cars – Rovers for rovers; Minis for Mods; etc – but they are probably the worst in forward looking automotive in the world.
So – yes – it took the Germans to rescue a few iconic brands by applying quality to the equation; and it took Americans to ruin a couple by applying spreadsheats to the task. (Ford on Jag; GM on Vauxhall).
But national identity carrying car brands? Not that decisive a factor any longer. And for ample proof, check out James Bond renting a Ford and wrecking an Aston Martin.
imagine you muster up a car that cost you say 10k. could you sell it for 30k? probably not. because the sniffy client could snoop out, that this car is not worth it, looking at dashboard plastic boredom, lack of power drives etc. For economy class every buck is on stake and you have to be agile to know where to slide that dollar into. so the smartness of building a car that sells is to please to a bigger auditorium. but auditorium wants bang for the buck. Creating cars that later are sold for say 200k, don`t have precise price factor. ferrari that is sold for 200k could be easily sold for 230k. expensive cars are sold of their image of value, not the exact value what you get for the money, while cheap cars have to run asses off for each buck. that is why brits have only expensive brands, because only there you could overcharge appealing to marque image. that`s why brits put hand job,, and wood veneer, because that appeals to marque image, not the real value. would you buy a 120k noble knowing it has ford mondeo backlights and interior parts? sometimes being english is the only bastion brits have- and it is far from now- faded engineering supremacy. all private companies that build sports cars have so much saved buck in their cars, but still won money because of stand-out image. can a worker assemble parts better than matsushita industrial robots? nooot. and those cars mostly like noble, ferrari as well, pagani etc. have round lamp blocks on front and end. why? this is how you save , because to go to visteon and ask them to create lamp sets costs bucks. going to tractor shop and take some round lamps – costs much less. so does interior. leather interior nicely hides uneven, low quality plastic un unprecise finish.can`t make fast cars with lot of digital screens, hi-quality soft plastic and individual headlight sets? go hand job. go leather. go round lamp sets. go wood. go marque. ANd for God`s sake brush off that ford logo from engine top. A REAL CAR COMPANY SELLS CARS APPEALING TO CUSTOMERS COMMON SENSE, A MEEDIOCRE- TO INSTINCTS. lunatics@inbox.lv Latvia
I think this article would more accurately portray automobiles from the 50’s when cars did exibit more quirks of their parent nations rather than todays autos
“that`s why brits put hand job,, and wood veneer, because that appeals to marque image, not the real value”
well, i don’t need wood veneer, and i don’t need marque image, but i’m starting to think maybe i *could* use a british car…
This is from the For What It’s Worth department, but this article harkens back to the Fifities and Sixties when Formula 1 and sports cars in Europe raced under their “national colors.” German cars were silver, Italian cars were red, American cars were white (occasionally dark blue), French cars a bright blue, and British cars were, of course, British Racing Green.
Long ago and far away.
Indeed, when I saw the head, I myself thought about F1 racing and sports car racing, as it was. There was a time, in the aftermath of World War II, when people in France hoped the Mercedes team would break. And then, when a Mercedes was responsible for the awful crash and surrounding carnage at Le Mans in 1955, that seemed to bring back just too many bad memories; what choice did the team managers have really, but to withdraw their remaining cars, even though they were winning? The last time an American, driving for an American team, won a Formula 1 race, was Dan Gurney in 1967, at the (now defunct) Spa track in Belgium. It was almost 40 years ago, and America, mired down in another war that seemingly couldn’t be won, needed a boost so badly, that Dan Gurney was flown to visit troops in Germany. (No, the war wasn’t there; although there had been a war there in the Forties. The was in Vietnam, its many American deaths now recalled by a somber wall in Washington D.C., not far from the Lincoln Memorial and the Korean War Memorial.) Dan the Man’s win was a very big deal, since his Eagle racecar was the first American F1 winning machine since Dusenberg, in the Twenties. Given the cost of Formula 1, it is unlikely we will ever see another American team win – too bad. There’s more at stake then just commerce in racing, whether motorized or not. The passing of the great race horse, Barbaro, shows that Americans will embue winners with their own dreams, and follow those aspirations, wherever they go.
I disagree with those who disagree with Mr. Wyn-Williams’ thesis that modern car brands have a national identity.
If you blindfolded me and sat me next to an automobile and slammed the door, I bet I could identify the brand by the sound alone.
If I couldn’t, put me in the cabin. The smell and feel of the controls and their placement would provide all the information I needed to “guess” the make and model.
Let me drive the car (on a closed course) and I’ll know what’s what in seconds.
There is no question that German cars share a look, feel, smell and set of driving dynamics. Same for American, French and British automobiles.
And it’s not just about design. I can tell the difference between an American-made and German-made Golf.
I think that any car maker that ignores the national differences– which is, increasingly, all of them– is destroying the kind of brand differentiation that makes the brands unique.
You CAN design and build a Saab in Germany or Ohio, but you shouldn’t. A “proper Jag” should be British designed and British built.
I think one of the main problems of the British car industry is quite similar to what the US car industry has been (and still is) experiencing: For decades, they had a vast home market (Britain and the colonies) with no strong competitive threats which normally keep industries on their toes. So they, like the US car industry, became lazy and non-innovative. When true competition finally arrived (and the UK became member of the EU) and people fed up with Morris Marinas began to buy Peugeots and VWs, it was too late for the industry to adapt. The death took 30 years, but it eventually happened. So good luck to you, Ford and GM…
@jurisb: Mentioning Noble kond of destroys your argument: People are well aware that the backlights and the engine and switchgear of a Noble has humble Ford roots. But that’s not the point. People buy Nobles because they represent the last field of true British engineering excellence: Small production, handbuilt sports cars that show world class handling and performance from humble origins.
The only reason small series manufacturers have to cut some corners is because they don’t have economies of scale needed to have everything custom made. It’s not overcharging, it’s an economic necessity.
BTW, I think Ferrari builds its own light clusters, thank you very much.
Robert:
Sorry, but that does not follow. Elements of nationally idiosyncratic build characteristics are not indicative of the battle standards the editorial speaks of.
Blindfolded I would probably find the door opener in a Citroën faster than with my eyes open, but what does that tell me? :-)
The editorial argues that nations are jousting with their car brands — when reality “argues” that there are very few truly national and successful (profitable and high-quality) brands left.
The Germans have done a better job of it – with Porsche and BMW (in spite of being Bangleized for American appeal) being standout examples.
Editorial:As representatives of their homelands, automobile manufacturers live up to a national ‘meta-brand’, an image that is shared by its compatriots. National karma can now be read in meta-brands as if they were a pack of tarot cards.
You write that: You CAN design and build a Saab in Germany or Ohio, but you shouldn’t. A “proper Jag” should be British designed and British built. But that’s not what’s happening, is it?
So – if the editorial had argued for increased national “purification” of brand characteristics, then I would be more on board. Instead it seems to argue both ways – that the cars already have these characteristics, and that they are lacking in same.
It’s Brand Dynamics versus Sales Dynamics. The demands of mass production and the high cost of manufacturing cars is eroding the Brands, in favor of Sales. And customers aren’t going along with it any longer – they are looking elsewhere.
Just as a Rolex plastered with diamonds turns diehard Rolex fans off the brand and over to IWC; so does mock-up brand differences turn people off certain car brands (no matter which nation they are pretending to come from).
In Europe Saab is bleeding loyal fans to Alfa, for instance, for the same reason.
Brands were created by idiosyncratic visionaries (and there are quite a few of them in England).
Let’s see who they’ll be in the next generation of cars to come around the bend.
Cadillac got its brand start (literally) by figuring out how to put a starter engine inside a large car – back then it was magic. And that put the brand on a track of steady automotive innovations that created its strong position, until the beancounters lost track of what it was all about. Sure – it was a big car, but many other nations built big cars, it was also an excellent car, for as long as it lasted.
Tesla is hiring in Detroit, but staying away from ground zero and drawing workers to their own brand environment. There’s idiosyncracy at work to create a brand, independent of national values. The cars presently being made by GM, Ford and DCX will be considered dinosaurs in a few years, due to such idiosyncracy. What then about “national characteristics?”
I would argue that Great Britain’s cars do have distinct national characteristics, even though the meta-brand is manifest through multiple genera of vehicles (e.g. luxury, economy, sporty, off-road).
British vehicles: traditional and class conscious (be it high, middle, sporting or low-class).
Two comments:
1) SEAT is by no means a success. Skoda is doing fine for Volkswagen, but SEAT is on the edge of being shut down. I don’t know if they ever made any money but they sure are losing a lot recently.
2) There is no way in hell that Porsche will ever be taken over by Asian competitors since its common shares are still owned by the Porsche/Piech family. Similar case with BMW (maybe a little bit more likely than Porsche, but still…) which is in the hands of the Quandt family that has no interest to ever sell them.
SEAT is not “sehr gut”; more like “sehr schlecht”(bleeding red ink). VW is seriously considering all options, including pulling the plug.
Comparing the old and new Mini’s is irrelevant; the old Mini had a lovely bigger brother in the 1100/MG 1100; size was not the issue. The original Mini was developed on the heels of the Suez crisis that created serious gas shortages for the UK. Forty-five years later, the new MINI is a self-conscious fashion statement.
The real problem with the Brit marques (prior to take-overs)? Undercapitalisation. They were all run-down, being made in obsolete factories. None of them could afford what it takes to compete in the modern marketplace: Capital and technology.
Thats what the Germans/Ford brought: Money and technology. Jaguar (and the rest) knew they had no future without it. Ford didn’t “stuff Jaguar full of cash”; they did a good job of completely upgrading their factories at huge expense. The problem of Jaguar is its positioning: trying to cover too large of a spread in the premium segment, and development/styling mistakes.
The real problem with the Brit marques (prior to take-overs)? Undercapitalisation. They were all run-down, being made in obsolete factories. None of them could afford what it takes to compete in the modern marketplace: Capital and technology.
Thats what the Germans/Ford brought: Money and technology. Jaguar (and the rest) knew they had no future without it. Ford didn’t “stuff Jaguar full of cash”; they did a good job of completely upgrading their factories at huge expense. The problem of Jaguar is its positioning: trying to cover too large of a spread in the premium segment, and development/styling mistakes.
That new money is not only a blessing. Because in order to justify those investments Jaguar and all the other brands need to make mor money and sell more vehicles. This leads to an inevitable overproduction and thereby decreasing prices and profit margins which again leads to the need of selling more vehicles and so on…
tom: And the other option? Jaguar could (should?) have died a slow death, like so many other long-gone British marques. They were at the end of their rope; that’s why they were looking to sell themselves. It was hardly an unfriendly take-over.
Stein X Leikanger: So – if the editorial had argued for increased national “purification” of brand characteristics, then I would be more on board. Instead it seems to argue both ways – that the cars already have these characteristics, and that they are lacking in same. Point taken. I see now now Mr. WW was trying to play it both ways. Personally, I'm all about brand "purification"– despite the sinister tone of that word. What's more, I'm fascinated by the process. How do national characteristics enter into the brand-o-sphere? Weather, roads, education, belief systems, national traits– it's amazing how such a complex inanimate object comes to embody the culture from whence it sprang. As it blood well should, mate. Paul Niedermeyer: There are plenty of examples of perfectly viable automakers who have been ruined by a sudden and dramatic influx of cash. Add Jag to the list.
I’m not saying it was an unfriendly takeover. Technology is good, no doubt about it. The problem was that Ford planned to mass produce luxury cars before there was demand. It should be the other way round. First put money down to improve the vehicles, but not to increase production at the same time. Keep supply slightly below demand all the time (the Porsche way).
If demand increases you can slowly increase production as well.
Robert: You think Jaguar was “perfectly viable” in 1989?
Me thinks not. We can argue about the marketing and stylistic choices Ford made, but Jaguar was at the end of their fraying British colonial hemp rope.
I would agree more with your statement if it read: There are plenty of examples of perfectly viable automakers who have been ruined by a sudden and dramatic ouflow of cash (by buying other car-makers).
Hmm, two straight articles about Jaguar for all intents and purposes. Having tried an X, I do not see it as a realistic competitor to the G35/328/IS, the Ford underpinnings are just too obvious even though a Mondeo as a competitor to an Accord/Camry/Etc. makes a tremendous amount of sense. Did anyone at Ford ever contemplate this? The whole PAG thing strikes me as a situation in which too much money and vanity was being thrown around as if the first was infinite and shareholders weren’t supposed to be a check on the second.
It is interesting that Ford could resurrect Aston Martin, but AM was always viewed as a niche player, thinking that warmed over Lincolns and Mondeos could return Jag to the glory day of the ’50s displays nothing less than total hubris.
Jag had been reduced to a niche player and Ford’s attempt to make it something else has proved a catastrophe. Barbaro was in better shape two days ago than Jag is today. Might I suggest the same final treatment?
Paul Niedermeyer: Jeez. You guys don't let me get away with anything. You're right, obviously: Jag was going down when Ford snapped them up. I was trying to say Ford's money saved the body but killed the spirit. Although I'm trying to back peddle furiously, I would say Jaguar had an excellent chance of survival when Ford bought them. If FoMoCo'd understood the brand, they could have brought it around. Then again, as my father likes to say, if my grandmother had wheels, I'd be a trolley car. [BTW: You only have to sample Jag's ridiculously over-assisted power steering to literally feel the American influence.]
Robert: Sorry to be so hard on you, but..
I still somewhat disagree with you assessment of the Jag situation. Ford paid $4 billion (inflation adjusted). They had no choice but to try to expand the marque; to try to turn it into a BMW. They could never have begun to make their investment back keeping Jag a two model company.
The problem is, it didn’t work. We can say it was Ford’s execution, and I can’t disagree per se, but the bigger reason may have been inevitability. The Jaguar we all knew and loved was a small quirky, and very inconsistent company (remember the Mark X).
Who could have bought it (it HAD to be bought) and made it right? BMW? They couldn’t fix Rover, despite the really quite nice 75, etc.
My point is, Jaguar was essentially unfixable, because of the price tag (need fro return on investment) and the changing market (many new premium brands).
Replicating a BMW can’t just be created by will and money only; it takes decades of persistance.
Ford bought into a black hole, and they weren’t the first to do so.
The Germans “get it.” VW knows its national meta-brand embodies an image of solid quality at a premium price (a fancy way of saying they overcharge us for a car made the way it should be in the first place).
Surprising. VW, Mercedes Benz and BMW are at or near the bottom of most quality and reliability rankings.
I still somewhat disagree with you assessment of the Jag situation. Ford paid $4 billion (inflation adjusted). They had no choice but to try to expand the marque; to try to turn it into a BMW. They could never have begun to make their investment back keeping Jag a two model company.
I disagree. Again I have to bring up Porsche as a good example.
Porsche was almost gone in the mid 90s. They lost huge amounts of money and were basically dead in the water. All they had was a name filled with tradition.
In 1994 Porsche sold 18.000 cars.
So what did Porsche do? First they improved the 911 (993), then they killed off the entry level 968 and the front engined 928. So they concentrated on their core value while reducing supply.
Of course this was cost intensive and didn’t immediately pay off, but in the long term it gave Porsche high profit margins (#1 in the industry).
Then they slowly increased supply and introduced the Boxter as their second model.
Today Porsche is close to 100.000 sold vehicles a year, making more money than Jaguar can burn.
tom: “this was cost intensive” Yes, but peanuts compared to the $2.5 (4 today) billion Ford spent. Porsche dug their way out of their hole, and they were small enough and had enough capitalisation (Porsche/Piech family) to do so.
Imagine if the they had sold Porsche for billions back then; what would the situation look like, after the new owner had to make (try to) a return on that huge investment? Who knows. Also, Porsche had a narrow (911) core product. What did Jag have then in 1989? A tired, ugly XJ and an even uglier, more tired XJS (flying buttress model). It was a broken company; Ford paid billions for a name.
It’s quite analagous to BMW buying Rover; a moribound former English legacy marque. And what were they able to do with it?
When you buy an automoble to make a statement about yourself – which is what any Jaguar or Porsche owner is doing – then perception is indeed reality. So where the auto is made becomes important on a psychological, as well as financial level. Indeed Porsche makes some Boxsters in Finland – or did last I heard – to meet demand; however, you won’t see that mentioned in Porsche’s advertising. Consider that a marque which is more quintessentially British than even Jaguar, MG (Morris Garages, back in its beginnings) now belongs to the Nanjing Automobile Group; and while they intend to build the MG coupe in the state of Oklahoma – the factory in Ardmore and the company’s offices about 90 miles north of Oklamhoma City – the latest MG-TF will still be built over in the mother country, specifically in Longbridge (England). That right there tells me that even the Chinese understand the importance of keeping certain models of an automobile unique to a certain locale, for the reasons of marketing. It’s akin to radio waves: not everything that is real can be seen.
Paul:
That was exactly the point of my previous post. Money isn’t always a blessing. Ford didn’t need to pour that much money into Jaguar. This whole expansion thing before demand was even there is the problem.
The money should have gone into vehicle design, not into more production capacity.
Of course Jaguar had already abandoned anything close to a core at that point, but a new E-Type could have been it.
tom: the 2.5 billion is what it cost Ford to buy Jag. That was the price of admission, they had to pour that much into it just to get the keys to the decrepit factories.
Ah, ok. I didn’t get that…
It still was the wrong concept from the beginning (Porsche makes that kind of money within three years) but it certainly explains the actions Ford took (at least to some degree).
But I still think that “the Porsche way” would have been a good and a doable alternative.
One parting thought on Jaguar: I agree that they should have built the F-type, but seeing Jaguar in hindsight with only (or primarily) the E-type in our rose colored glasses is not a clear picture. Sir William could only afford to make the E and other sporting types because the bread and butter of the company were the saloons (sedans). Jaguar was not a “sports car company”, and comparing them to Porsche is difficult at best.
The E-type may well have never been profitable for Jag; it was pretty but a challenging diversion from their sedans.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that it would have (at the time) been insane for Ford to buy the whole Jag company with their tired sedans and factories in order to build a new E-type and be a Porsche. They HAD to build sedans, and more of them. That’s where the money went, and we can rightfully question their execution.
Given what they started out with (ugly, tired cars, junk factories) I still think it was an inevitable disaster waiting to happen, for whoever took the bait.
Porsche is essentially a private company. Private companies can afford the luxury of the get smaller to grow eventually model. Publicly traded companies are often forced into a growth at all cost model by the desire to keep stock prices high.
Porsche is essentially a private company. Private companies can afford the luxury of the get smaller to grow eventually model. Publicly traded companies are often forced into a growth at all cost model by the desire to keep stock prices high.
THis is definately the case, but if companys weren’t as focused on quarterly numbers, they could achieve way more, because what should count for any company and its stock holders is the long term development (nowadays everybody is in for quick cash it seems).
I know you’re probably tired of me bringing up Porsche all the time, but they are just such a good example. Porsche refuses to give quarterly numbers and they were kicked out of the MDAX index of the German stock exchange because of that. Porsche claimed that car sales depend on lots of factors and that quarterly numbers might give a wrong impression.
So the only numbers that Porsche publishes are in their annual report.
And now look at the long term development of Porsche stocks. They came from a low in 2003 (251€) to a high this january (1038€). I didn’t find any older numbers but I’ve heard that it’s up more than 1000% since the mid 1990’s.
When will the industry finally learn? It’s doesn’t matter at all if your third quarter is great if you don’t have the substance to have a good next year(s).
I don’t think Jaguar lost money on the E-Type, Paul. The capital costs were very low when amortized over the model’s long life span.
However, Jaguar was always a passenger car company with a sportscar product to carry the flag. But those sports cars generally made money.
One thing to keep in mind was that Jaguar was always a niche player. They sold 277,000 sedans of all stripes from 1945 to 1968, and about 80,000 sports cars in that same period–arguably their heyday. That’s under 16,000 cars per year, on average. Their most successful model before the XJ6 was the Mk. II, which they sold 82,000 of over ten years. They sold 2/3rds of those in their home market, too.
It could be that the day of the low volume niche market luxury car has passed. A factory to turn out 20,000 cars a year probably costs the same as one that turns out that many in a week.
I agree somewhat about the national cars having an identity, but it’s largely rooted in the past. Really, if you lined up every maker’s low-end hatchback, would you really readily group them by nationality these days?
Take a look at these charts and tell me where the “national heritage” is coming from.
http://www.autoblog.com/2005/12/02/japanese-automakers-who-does-what-to-whom/
This editorial is an exercise in associating shaky brand concepts with shaky understandings of history and business.
Toyota has changed the game. Lexus is a better, if more anodyne, car than Mercedes, BMW, and Jaguar. You can buy personality (and poor build quality from the Germans) or lost glory (a reliable Ford/Jaguar) or a Lexus with the best engines in the world and the best build quality.
Years ago I saw a 90 second commercial Porsche made, with the man himself doing the voice-over. The opening sentence:
Committees are, by their nature, timid.
A little later: I looked everywhere for the kind of sports car I wanted. Light, fast, fun to drive. I couldn’t find it. Which is why I decided to build it myself.
What if some of that spirit was allowed to “happen” over at the car behemoths?
==
UCBert:
In reference to the editorial, one could argue that Lexus in the U.S. has sought to deny its roots by refraining from mentioning them.
In focus groups, when people are asked where Lexus is from, people answer American, German, just as much as they say Japanese.
Interestingly, the Japanese themselves don’t want it because they are too aware of the Toyota connection. If they’re spending that kind of money, they want a real luxury car is what they’re saying. Sales there have underperformed since it was launched there just over a year ago.
Maybe Lexus is a “world car”? :-)
jerseydevil: I STILL like the perfect ripping canvas sound of a small frenetic Italian engine in full flower, the basso profundo of a proper V8 Mustang, the pizzacato of a Honda at song, the thunder of a Lambo, ah… what delights.
I wish I had written the above. Damn! I will floor my Honda with particular delight tonight now that I have that image of what it sounds like.
Never forget that those quirky French built the first car. I am refering, of course, to the 1769 Cugnot Fardier a Vapeur.
David Holzman:
My dad had a miscule ’75 CVCC, It was yellow. It was more fun than a barrel of mustangs!
UCBert: This is off topic, but it depends on how you define better. If by better you mean cheaper, then definately. If by better you mean 0.2 less problems in the first year then maybe. If by better you actually mean better, than there is no way that the LS is better than the S-Class or the IS better than the 3-Series or any other German-Japanese matchup you can imagine.
UCBert: If you equate ‘better’ with reliability, then I would agree with you. The problem is defining ‘better’ or perhaps ‘quality’. If you asked 10 people on this forum the definition of a quality car, the answers would likely be quite different than if you asked 10 “civilians”.
I define a quality car by it’s steering/road feel, handling, braking, acceleration and reliability. In that order. Lexus products don’t make my top 5.
RF–
You’ve attended Paris Fashion Week?
With all this talk of Jaguar and the foreign investment proping up the corpse, who in the not-so-distant future will have the responsibility of propping up the remains of Ford and Chevrolet (Chrysler already has their foreign puppeteer).
Will a Chinese multinational someday be investing Billions of dollars into the memory and faded glory of Monte Carlo’s and Mustangs ?
Vega:
And the U.S. auto industry will more than likely follow in the footsteps of the British auto industry, with the Japanese and Koreans serving up the bread and butter offerings. The Germans and Italians will round out the luxury offerings, while the only American automakers that’ll be in existence will be the niche companies — smallish car companies like Superperformance (Cobras) and Calloway (Corvettes) offering American “glory iron”, much like Noble and AC Cars does for homegrown British offerings.
Unless, of course, the Chinese buy up the remains of GM/Ford and use the equipment and infrastructure to sell their own products.
The people who used to work the plum UAW jobs will be bagging your grocery at the local Wal-Mart.
I like the Wal-Mart comment. I worked union for two whole years and I never have seen such arrogance and self praise.
jkross22 and SteinXLeikhanger:
Agreed that our realities are subjective.
Americans see a premium car where Europeans see a taxi (Mercedes).
Buick is the top seller in China.
And everyone (including my beloved LJK Setright) adores Citroen for invention and idiosyncracy. Don’t ever try to live with one, especially an old one.
Remember, Jaguar made its brand on powerful brakes before they learned how to bend metal and make beautiful cars.
Worldwide brand management has to do with lifestyle. Cars are a commodity and most everyone aspires to lifestyle not commodity. Preference for an iPod over an MP3.
Some companies get it (BMW), some are aspirational (Audi, Hyundai, Lexus, Renault, even PAG), others are lost (Ford, GM, even Mercedes).
webebob said:
The price differential between a ‘62 Ferrari 250 GTO, or an F40, F50 or Enzo and an XKE, any XKE, would seem to contradict that statement.
That is not a fair comparison. How many of any of those Ferraris were made? Less than a thousand all, and less than 40 some.
The E-type was made from ’61 through ’74 and close to 75,000 were built in that time. If you want to compare CURRENT MARKET VALUE of surviving examples, look at the prices that C-types, D-types, and XK-SS’ trade for. They meet or exceed all your examples of prancing horses.
The original point however was not market value, but the overall look, beauty, and appeal of the machine. Enzo Ferrari himself LOVED the E-type’s styling.
It is a visual icon that stands above anything from Modena.
–chuck
Remember, Jaguar made its brand on powerful brakes before they learned how to bend metal and make beautiful cars.
This is absolutely inaccurate.Styling was always the Jaguar’s strength–in the very early years, indeed, there was some derision on the fact that the SS cars looked fast but didn’t actually go fast.
Disk brakes didn’t arrive until the C-Type of 1953/54 and on production cars the XK150 and Mk. I/Mk.IX. You’re saying the XK120, etc. are poorly styled? Weird.
Gardiner, you are confusing quality and reliability. Audi/VW is not at the bottom of quality rankings, rather, they are the benchmark of automotive quality. However, they are near the bottom in reliability.
Maxwelton: The XK 120 is definately a gorgeous design, but Jaguar pretty much copied the BMW 328.
@UCBERT: Just let me get this “Mercedes is just a Taxi” thing out of the way: It is true that Mercedes are the #1 Taxi supplier in Germany. This started as early as the late 1920s when Mercedes built the first Diesel passenger car (called 260D). Over many decades Merceds cars were used as Taxis not because they were cheap or basic cars (quite the opposite), but because a) They were the only ones offering Diesel engines that were almost indestructible and (b) in spite of the very steep purchase price they were cheaper in the end because superior quality meant high residual prices. While they screwed up the quality thing in the mid-nineties, the infrastructure is still there (Taxi workshops, dealer relations) so they are still the #1 Taxi supplier in Germany.
I think it is fair to say that Mercedes is also a premium supplier in Germany, because they offer premium technology (and prices) in all segments (not just the luxury segment).
Btw, I think they have strongly improved on the quality and reliability front in recent years, I am not aware of any major issues with Mercedes cars built after 2004-2005. I drive a new A-class (2006) which is miles ahead of its predecessor and now finally has an interior worth the badge.
“Italy may have Ferrari and Maserati, yet both are eclipsed by the divine Jaguar E-Type.”
Taking nothing from the argument in general, nor from the Jaguar E-type, which is indeed devine, I would take issue with “eclipsed”. It seems to me that Ferrari in particular have the branding title in the “exotic sportscar” category, with Maserati and indeed Lamborghini also well ahead of Jaguar. The case of Jaguar is sad really, but there it is.
Terry Parkhurst:
January 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
The last time an American, driving for an American team, won a Formula 1 race, was Dan Gurney in 1967, at the (now defunct) Spa track in Belgium.
Huh? Spa is defunct? Last I heard, I was racing there in 2006 and will be doing so again in 2007…