The remnants of the British automotive industry offer a wealth of important lessons for America’s declining industry, having made the hero-to-zero leap a few decades ago. And though British Leyland would certainly constitute the major lesson from the fall of the British Automotive Empire, the overemphasis on “heritage” among survivors of the BL experiment offers teachable moments of its own. During and after the sunset on Britain’s auto heyday, investments and advantages in technology, performance and reliability were ceded to the Japanese and German firms, as the backwards-looking British industry got lost in its own history. “Charm” and “Britishness” became the raisons d’brand for Jaguar, Rover, Landie and Rolls/Bentley in the 70s, 80s and 90s, leading to a creative funk only recently be shaken off by the brands’ new guides. Case in point: Jag’s XJ.
Having languished without major updates for decades, the model never sought to distinguish itself from its fading glory, even after entering the aluminum spaceframe era in 2003 (at great expense to then-owners Ford). Only MINI, under BMW’s guidance, has successfully reinterpreted British heritage in a successful modern iteration. Otherwise, aging technology and staid kitsch characterize public perceptions of automotive “Britishness.” Until now. Jaguar’s modern XF has inspired a long-overdue XJ replacement that, based on recently-released teaser images, appears to have made a clean break from Jaguar’s backwards-looking styling hangover.
Even the Chinese masters of the Rover heritage (now known by the Chinglish-friendly Roewe name) have managed to look past Ye Olde Pastiche, showing a brand new sedan in Shanghai (via Autoblog Simplified Chinese) that owes nothing to the brand’s wood-paneled past. The lesson for America’s struggling muscle car-hawking OEMs is clear: nostalgia is a dangerous drug. In a competitive global market, consumers can not be relied upon to purchase a car based solely on a decades-old reflected grandeur. Cars must compete on their own terms, which means modernization and relevance are a must.
I didn’t want to click on that “Live and work in the USA” ad.
That brand new Roewe sedan may not owe anything to the brand’s wood-paneled past, but neither is it easily distinguishable from other new small cars the world over. Yes, one does have to leave the past behind, but not at the cost of modern, formless mediocrity.
A lot of heritage is BS imo. Good for Jag to change a bit, but I never thought it was the looks that sank the brand. It was image ie. ignorance from the public and the company. I like the new direction. I hope Jaguars go to depreciation hell, ie. used car heaven. Works for me. It be a great bonus if they made a profit.
Edward,
One man’s branding is another man’s heritage.
Jaguar’s mistake with the ’03 XJ was that even XJ fans like myself had a hard time recognizing it as the new model. Unlike the current gen Mustang, or the New Beetle, while it was instantly recognizable as a Jaguar, it was not instantly recognizable as a “new” Jaguar.
Mechanically and technologically, the ’03 XJ was competitive with the S Class and 7 Series cars from M-B and BMW but it’s styling was way too conservative. In the late 1980s, Jaguar went from the gorgeous series III XJ to the XJ40, with a more modern shape. It ditched the classic quad headlamp setup for large rectangular units. While I’ve always found them pleasantly styled, the XJ40 did poorly and is not regarded highly by Jaguaristas. Wrong car for the time, but I think something like the XJ40 might work today, slightly retro but with a modern look. They shouldn’t just make a larger XF. A larger XF would be reminiscent of BMW’s same sausage different size philosophy. I hope the new XJ has as many retro XJ cues as it does elements of the XF. At the NAIAS I told Ian Callum how the new XJ really needs to evoke some XJ styling heritage. Make fun of musty old Blighty, but burled walnut and the traditions of pace, space and grace are part of what make Jaguars Jaguars. It’s an integral part of the Jaguar brand.
So the new XJ should look modern, but not completely abandon iconic XJ styling elements. Instead of the XF’s large quasi-Audi gaping maw grille, perhaps a more rectangular XJ style grille, and maybe they can add a fairing for the inside HID headlamps, like they have for the outboard ones. That would give it a quad lamp look.
The styling brief should have been to come up with a “new XJ”, very much an XJ while very much a modern and new car.
I’m not so sure I agree.
-A lot of people did not like modern versions of the GTO and Charger because they didn’t have enough nostalgia infused into them.
-How many times has someone said that the G8 should have been called the “Bonneville” or “Grand Prix”?
-Who around here likes Lincoln’s MK-whatever naming system over using names like “Continental” and “Zephyr”?
-The retro Mustang has worked out good for Ford.
-The Wrangler and 911 have been successful without radical styling changes.
-The biggest knock on XF is its bland styling, so why use it as the inspiration for the XJ?
aija: The XF has bland styling? Are we talking about the same car?
I think the issue with Jag was Not Evolving Fast Enough, if you’re going to do Evolutionary as opposed to Revolutionary design.
You want to feel at least the thinnest thread of the lineage is there without it becoming another copy of a G35 sedan copy of a copy at the extreme of mod uniformity. (esp w/ the c-pillar everyone’s grabbing)
The 90’s vibe of anti-chrome body-colored everything was only interesting for the first few months, and did a lot to really no help design.
The pendulum seems to be swinging the other way toward frugal tasteful use of no more than 4 shiny bits (save the wheels).
My heart is set on an 00-02 XJR.
Though I think the best looking sedan ever made is the Series III XJ, the best looking XJ is the XJC, the two door coupe made from the 2nd gen car.
http://www.americandreamcars.com/jaguarxjcbroadspeed.jpg
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/uploads/new/50840.jpg
http://www.motorbase.com/vd/uploads/2008/05/19/fs_jaguar_xjc_4.2_coupe.jpg
I really do love the look and drive of Jaguars. Much more so than most Benzes, Lexii, Acurae, Infinitii and such.
But what kills the brand stateside is…
1) Incredibly complex and painful maintenance costs.
2) Lack of rear seat room for the bulk of their offerings.
3) A simple compelling characteristic of the Jaguar brand.
A Jaguar is just… British. As the article mentions, this hasn’t been an asset for well over 35 years in the eyes of the mainstream public.
Great write-up and sound analogy Mr. Niedermeyer.
I love the XF, and I think going that direction with the XJ is a good move.
Having seen it, you will be blown away. The XF was a great start, this is something else again. If the world economy ever comes back, Jaguar will be in great shape.
Quote: “ Only MINI, under BMW’s guidance, has successfully reinterpreted British heritage in a successful modern iteration. Otherwise, aging technology and staid kitsch characterize public perceptions of automotive “Britishness.”
You don’t like the new line of Rolls-Royces? I think they do a grand job of exuding Rolls character yet remind me of the road-going equivalent of a ultra-chic mega-yacht one might find in the Monte Carlo harbor. You don’t like the Bentley Continental either? While not as ‘mod’ as the Rolls line, the current Bentley line is certainly more contemporary and modern than their offerings have been in 50+ years.
As for Jaguar, I think Ian Callum is a great designer and I think the new XF is gorgeously striking; I only wish they made a coupe’ version. As such, I’d venture a guess that the new XJ will be similarly beautiful.
I think a lot of people tend to forget that the Jaguars we think of as iconic were, in their day, very modern, sleek, sexy, avante-garde designs. Once those avante-garde designs became icons, I would venture a guess that Jaguar corporate might have leaned on the Design Studios to try and refresh those designs through the decades instead of allowing the designers to try and create new icons…which is very hard to do-thus you see a lot of Minis, Beetles, Thunderbirds and 80’s, 90’s, and 2000-2008 Jaguars as retro-mobiles instead of new designs. I hope Jaguar survives and thrives and design-wise I hope they set the world on fire-they have the potential, heritage and talent.
I’m not a fan of the XF. It doesn’t look bad, but it’s utterly anonymous except for the vague “cat’s paw” theme of the nose. It could easily be a Lexus, or, for that matter, a Buick.
I speculated to a friend the other day that part of its problem may be that it still shares much of the platform of the S-Type, which, if I recall correctly, was based on the DEW98 platform under the late and not particularly lamented Lincoln LS. As much as it tried to ape the look of the 60s S-Type, the hardpoints were too upright. Part of what always marked the Jag sedans was that they were rakish and low slung, even at the expense of headroom. The S-Type looked like a chastened schoolboy, ordered to sit up straight.
I agree that the recent XJ was far too cautious. I understand that caution, after the mistakes of the XJ40, but it really does look dated.
I think what Jaguar has to offer in that market is a genuine raciness. It’s become so conservative since the late seventies that we (particularly Americans) tend to forget that in an earlier era, Jaguar sedans were a little too racy and voluptuous to be respectable — there was a definite ‘gangsta lean’ to them. As a consequence, when the neo-stodgy Rover P5 (3.5 Litre) went out of production in 1973, the British government actually bought up a bunch of them as ministerial transport, because the thought of senior British officials having to turn to Jaguar sedans (or even the more upscale Daimler brand) was just too uncouth.
I’m not a big supporter of retro styling, but a real “heritage” Jaguar — not one that looks like a 60s Mk2 or S-Type, but one that has the same kind of swagger — might be a good thing. I’d be tempted to sit the designers down, show them the original Get Carter, and say, “Come back with something that a young Michael Caine might drive today.”
IMO, the current XJ is hands down the best looking luxury sedan on the market. Yes, it looks to the past, and yes, it is an evolution of previous designs, but if the previous designs were damn good, why do they need to change?
I don’t think the current XF and XK are bad looking cars, and I hold out hope that Jag manages to hold onto the essence of the XJ in the new model, but when your heritage is having the sexiest looking sedan on the market, I don’t see a need to change that.
Jags problem, was it was always stuck with retro designs,that unfortunately the late Geoff Lawson kept championing (you can’t look over your shoulder forever). Callum brought in a design revolution and turned it back into what a modern day jag should have always been, british contemporary, with a twist of heritage. Just like paul smith. Not retro, something that was lost after the xjs when swoopy cliches in styling took over. If they can continue to evolve the XF and use its characteristics through the new models the future will definately be rosy.
I own a ’67 Series 1 1/2 E-type (4.2L, full synchro, wire knock-offs).
And a ’68 MGB.
Although I’m a sucker for British cars, I can’t imagine buying a new Jag. Too expensive, too unreliable, too little re-sale.
For a true classic Jag, you are willing to put up with the headache. ‘Cause you only take it out occasionally. Kinda like a moody, gorgeous mistress. Only the Jag didn’t cost me half my stuff…
It’s funny that great concepts, executed in an era that was cool before a genuinely sh#&!y one (the 70s) becomes classic in retrospect.
-Because, the original Jag guys like Malcolm Sayer (I think) were more Futurists than anything else. They wanted to do what was new & cutting-edge & ‘born from jets’ (SORRY ;P ) & cool.
Then the 70s come along, in stead of free love, we got violence, riots, stagflation, carter, naugahyde, brown cars, huge new york slice of pizza bushes, sideburns & afros everywhere & it all sucks.
-Basically a giant ‘Rage Against The Machine’ video.
(or Quentin Tarantino movie; take your pick)
So, if you took the mind-map of the original Jag guys & did it today: they might be putting fuel-cell supercapacitor electric scramjets into cnc-milled graphene f-22 cars that share at least a little milkshake with Lucy Pinder; to keep you looking.
I guess the public felt the same way as the people running it & wanted all British cars to look like H.H. Hughson’s bowler.
From what I have seen, Jaguar is hurt by the stereotype of Lucas Electronics and the high cost and trouble of maintenance. Jag of coourse is helped by the stereotype of “The Jag”.
Nostalgia is great for a niche vehicle like the Mustang or PT Cruiser but it is not something to establish your brand on. Even the iconic 911 has evolved over the years. The name is the same, the shadow is similar, but the car is very different.
Actually, I think the 911 is the model all car companies should use. You have a car model. Improve it…every year…continously. Can you imagine the outcry if Porsche said “we will no longer make 911’s!
Back on topic, Jag has a long way to go to overcome it’s past and is a good reminder for FIAT when they come back to America with Chrysler.
I’m not a fan of jaguar’s new styling direction. the rear end could have come from any new aston martin, and the front end is pretty bland. while the old s-type and xj were long in the tooth, they were still instantly recognizable as jags. let’s hope this new xj doesn’t resemble the xf too much….
The aluminum redesign of the XJ was a horrific waste of money.