Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: Jaguar Ponders A Entry-Level FWD Model

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    August 19, 2013

    From the 'this isn't really happening, is it?' file, a new report from Autocar says that Jaguar is considering a lineup of small, front-wheel drive models. Why? Economy and emission regulations.

    The European Union wants to have a manufacturer's lineup to produce an average 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer by 2020 and get lower in the coming years. In April, the European Parliament voted in laws that would accomplish this. Manufacturers who make more than 300,000 vehicles per year must meet these targets, a big problem for Jaguar and Land Rover since by 2017, they are expected to be churning out 700,000 vehicles.

    Even with a new compact sedan and possible crossover on the horizon, that might not be enough for Jaguar to meet those standards. Enter the small, front-wheel drive vehicle which could help the company get to those standards.

    Jaguar has a couple options available. The company could develop a new compact architecture for a line of compact vehicles, but it could prohibitively expensive. Jaguar has also been taking a look at using the architecture from the Range Rover Evoque.

    Source: Autocar

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I agree with you Drew, having a FWD appliance to meet emissions will hurt not help their luxury name. Better to come out with a new subcompact line of product so Jag does not drop into that also has FWD appliance area.

    Why not come out with a Cheetah line of CUV's and FWD/RWD low priced appliances.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Like I said, time for them to have an entry level line of auto's under a different name.

    My Choices for a new Economy line of auto's with high gas mileage:

    Cheetah

    Sphynx

    Burmese

    Calico

    I think these would all play well as being entry level to Jag's. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, offering a FWD entry level model would be consistent w/ the approach MB has and BMW is moving towards...the younger buyers at the entry level price point are use to FWD appliances and not discerning enough to demand RWD...so if Jag wants to pander to the indifferent masses, this is how they have to go..

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Or, they can simply ignore the law and pay the fine. It'll amount to about 6000 Euros for their 3.0L V6 diesel cars and 12800 euros for their V8 supercharged models. About a 12~13% price increase.

    That is a lot stiffer the US CAFE penalties which is really negligible -- a manufacturer which misses the 54.5 mpg "target" by a whopping 53.5 mpg by making cars which gets no better than 1 MPG will pay a fine of roughly $2,900 per vehicle. That of course is ridiculous unless the automaker makes 70 ton main battle tanks exclusively. If GM does absolutely nothing to improve fuel economy and is still at it's 32.9 MPG CAFE number from 2012, it'll have to add $1,188 to the price tag of its cars.

    If you have ever wondered why the US automakers don't fight CAFE rules, it's very simply:-

    (1) It doesn't really matter how strict or how lose they are. It doesn't matter how high an MPG rating CAFE demands. If it applies to everybody then it doesn't really put anyone at a disadvantage. In 2025 if 54.5 MPG is not achievable in the kind of cars consumers want to buy then they simply won't meet CAFE, sell mostly whatever the consumers want and pass along the fine.

    (2) Fines from CAFE are relatively mild and tolerable. This makes them basically immaterial in vehicle sales and choice. Eg. A consume may still choose a 40 mpg CRUZE over a 55 MPG hybrid because the $800 fine is cheaper than $6000 Hybrid drivetrain. In fact whatever state or federal tax incentives may be available will most like have a greater bearing than whatever CAFE penalty exists. A Corvette buy may still buy a 23MPG corvette over a 55 MPG hybrid because he will willing pay the $1700 fine to go 0-60 in 3.8 secs.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have a question: is it 300k vehicles worldwide, or just sold in the EU? If the EU means worldwide, dwightlooi has the right idea. If that rule only applies to cars sold in the EU, then abandon Europe as a car market. Neither Jaguar nor Range Rover should deviate from their unique selling point if they are to remain viable. Screw the EU for their excessive rules.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have a question: is it 300k vehicles worldwide, or just sold in the EU? If the EU means worldwide, dwightlooi has the right idea. If that rule only applies to cars sold in the EU, then abandon Europe as a car market. Neither Jaguar nor Range Rover should deviate from their unique selling point if they are to remain viable. Screw the EU for their excessive rules.

    EU = Socialist attempt to standardize the same same for everyone. Just does not work in the real world.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Awful idea, they want an SUV too, which is a bad idea. Jaguars need to sell on being beautiful looking sports cars, they don't have that wide range appeal of BMW or Benz. They do need a small RWD sedan below the XF, that at least gives them 3 sedans and 2 coupe/convertible models, 5 products is good, let Land Rover do the SUVs.

    If they plan to dress up a lesser front wheel drive car as a Jag, they won't be doing a Cavalier turned into a Cimarron, they would be working with the Tata Nano.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have a question: is it 300k vehicles worldwide, or just sold in the EU? If the EU means worldwide, dwightlooi has the right idea. If that rule only applies to cars sold in the EU, then abandon Europe as a car market. Neither Jaguar nor Range Rover should deviate from their unique selling point if they are to remain viable. Screw the EU for their excessive rules.

    It's 300,000 in the EU, how many cars you sell and what kind outside of the EU is not within their jurisdiction. There is no legal basis for the EU to fine a company for products sold or not sold in China or the USA. The EU regulations apply only to the EU. In fact, it is based on new vehicles REGISTERED in the EU not sold or made or whatever.

    Manufacturers making 10,000~300,000 cars are subjected to a less stringent (and fixed) 25% reduction from their 2007 carbon footprint rule. The same fines apply for going over.

    Manufacturers doing under 10,000 cars are not subject to the new emission rules or crash standards. But they are subject to a different tax applicable to custom vehicles and some countries won't let owners register them. Eg. your Koenigseggs and Caterhams are exempt.

    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
    Add a comment...

    ×   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.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • It's amazing how a leather wrapped steering wheel changes the experience at the wheel for the better (it seems to make for an almost different car from the model with a urethane steering wheel).
    • Another thing to think on is the evidence bullet proof? Sadly, the same type of people who have said an eye for an eye, death penalty if you took a life have convicted others with hate in their heart only to have science prove the convicted innocent.  In this regards I wish all guns had palm / finger tip readers to confirm who last fired the gun. While others might say the death penalty is cruel, how is it when the person if proved beyond a reasonable doubt took a life? What about serial killers who are sitting for life, a burden on society in jail because folks feel there should be no death penalty and yet they took multiple lives themselves. Would it not be better for society if that person was no longer around, a burden on the tax payers? Many good questions to be asked. Lets take this a step further, auto makers who due to a focus on profits take shortcuts on safety of an auto, who should be held accountable for the deaths related to their products and how do you hold them accountable? An example of profit before safety, FORD PINTO Details of the Pinto's flawed fuel system: Location and construction: The sheet-metal gas tank was placed behind the rear axle, a design common at the time, but the Pinto's tank was made with exceptionally thin walls. It was held in place by two metal straps. Vulnerable parts: During rear-end impacts, bolts protruding from the differential housing could puncture the thin-walled tank. Additionally, the fuel-filler neck could tear away from the tank itself. Internal cost analysis: Internal Ford documents revealed that engineers were aware of the risks in pre-production crash tests and considered inexpensive fixes, including adding a rubber bladder to the tank. Alternative designs rejected: Engineers considered safer alternative designs, such as placing the tank above the axle (a design used on the Ford Capri), but this was rejected due to cost and styling constraints. Final design choice: Executives opted not to make these changes after a cost-benefit analysis concluded it would be cheaper to pay out potential lawsuits and settlements than to implement the repairs.  So who do you hold accountable for the deaths?
    • Is it truly awful to wish death unto another human being?  No matter how vile the recipient of the death wish is?       This is a question one has to ask oneself.   It is truly perplexing because one has to have deep personal reflections with oneself and how one wishes to go about living one's life and how one views life...    And why do I ask?   https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-tyler-robinson-arraignment-9-16-2025 Alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson charged with murder; prosecutors to seek death penalty   Because life and the reality of living on this beautiful but sometimes deadly planet of ours has all kinds of little ironies in it.  Me personally...I am not really against capital punishment.  It depends.  Death penalties are complicated.  When I was in high school, we had debates on capital punishment. I flip flop on this matter often.    About Tyler, "oh well" would be my response if he is (truly) guilty and is sentenced to die for killing Charlie.  An eye for an eye.  If he is not the killer, then obviously he should be set free...    "But you wished death on another human"  is the battle cry for many. "Yeah well...I didnt pull the phoquing  trigger to kill Charlie" would be my response...  I didnt say racist, sexist, bigoted disgusting shyte toward my fellow man not having empathy for kids dying in school shootings either...  I am not sooooo far right that Charlie was not far right enough for my hatred towards my fellow human beings.  As far as me being leftist woke, I am not that either.   As far as me being a good Christian. I am definitely not that either. I am Christian. But I am also a human being first and foremost. That means I am fallible. I am not perfect. I try to be good. I sometimes fail. And that is OK. And when I die, God will judge me.  Do I judge people? Every damned day!!!!  I also swear a lot lately...  But I do not use God's name in vain...   PS: Remember though, HATE speech is what Charlie Kirk spewed.  Deceitful words is what came out of his mouth.  And THOSE things have consequences attached to them.  And if a society wants to normalize hate speech and deceit, well, hate and violence will be a normal way of life in that society. Be careful what you wish for... ironically speaking.   About Tyler... So...the question is:  Do YOU wish the death penalty upon Tyler if he is guilty?  Be careful on how you answer that.  Dig DEEP DOWN and think about what your TRUE feelings are...  Do not tell me or anybody else your feelings.  This is personal.  But you will probably be surprised that you may also be a hypocrite...  And THAT is THE answer that I was looking for today...    Kinda like Charlie...that 5 minutes of life he had left when he got shot and bled out.   Did he think about all that hatred bullshyte he spewed?    Did he think about his wife and 2 children when he was dying and did he correlate all that with his shytty phoquing far right ideology?   Yeah...something to think about indeed.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search