Those of you who predicted that taxpayer bailouts for the auto industry would lead to a Pelosi-mobile (a.k.a. direct government interference in the types of product built) now have a poster child: the Land Rover LRX. Land Rover has just announced that Her Majesty’s Government will bestow upon the automaker a £27M grant to build “the smallest, lightest and most efficient vehicle it has ever produced.” That is, of course, ignoring the fact that Land Rover is owned by Tata Motors, a company that builds millions of vehicles that are smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient than anything Land Rover builds. And for those of you who thought the grant replaces bailout bucks . . . “The grant offer will be made available under the Government’s Grant for Business Investment scheme and is an important contribution towards the overall £400 million cost of the project. This is separate from the broader automotive support package currently being unveiled by the Government.” Still, you know, Halewood, which, the press release reminds us, employs 2000 people. By that measure, the grant represents a “downpayment” of £13,500 per worker. In the UK, these are the good old days!
I have wondered for a long time if Land Rover could be sustainable as a SUV only manufacturer. I have wondered if they could diversify their products without diluting the brand. I suspect not, but time will tell.
The Land Rover brand name still has enough cachet to be a stand-alone brand, IMHO.
Personally, I think that TATA could score big with a small “Back to Basics” Land Rover that’s just a real strong ladder frame, aluminum body, and an engine that you can fix with a screwdriver and a rock. The only electronics should be the points in the distributor cap.
In that sense, the Brit Govt money could be well spent, as TATA are the exactly the right people to do that job.
If it gets us the next Suzuki Samurai, I’m all for it, but it’ll probably get us the next Jeep Compass.
Nod toward Lokki and ctoan,
Just last night I was thinking the same thing – except for the Jeep brand. I was hoping someone would buy Jeep and build the 1945 Willy’s Jeep with the choice of a modern, clean 4 cyl diesel or gas. Standard roll up windows, power steering and modern disc brakes. No air, no radio, no cup holders. Options would include a winch, KC Daylighers, bikini top. Under $10k.
The line would start behind me.
I agree also. What the market wants is a basic Land Rover at a near jeep price, or even lower.
I don’t believe that it’s undoable due to present crash and safety regs. Even if it were, most of the expanding markets have lower regs.
gamper :
March 11th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I have wondered for a long time if Land Rover could be sustainable as a SUV only manufacturer. I have wondered if they could diversify their products without diluting the brand. I suspect not, but time will tell.
Porsche really should have bought LR back then, so Porsche didn’t have to become a truck company and LR would have a successful new SUV named “Cayenne”.
Then again, you can look at it as the Brits giving back to India what it took when it colonized them. But I agree with LandCrusher – develop a ‘back to basics’ Defender style vehicle for the 21st Century – torquey 4 cylinder (diesel for sure), simple yet stylish and functional interior/exterior, unstoppable off road capability, and can be worked on just about anywhere.
And I’ve got your back Kurt.
I would love this. Love it, love it, love it! Especially if they can get it Samurai sized.
I hate to be a pedant, but surely they will have to go some way to top their own product:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7355589@N02/463527556/
As well as being a cool thing, it is also ironic they chose one of Dr Moulton’s products since Rover actually invented the diamond frame bicycle in the 19th century.