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.

View full article

Maybe they need a sub-brand instead. It's a shame they couldn't get the Rover name back.

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.

Apparently, the Rover name was not sold to the Chinese as I had thought.... Tata owns it as part of the Range Rover marque/..... hmm

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.

Maybe they need a sub-brand instead. It's a shame they couldn't get the Rover name back.

Maybe they could bring back Sterling.. No wait, bad idea.

Maybe they need a sub-brand instead. It's a shame they couldn't get the Rover name back.

Maybe they could bring back Sterling.. No wait, bad idea.

Shame on you for even thinking that.

Sell less cars

FWD doesn't equal terrible. If they borrow architecture from the gorgeous Evoque, it'll probably be a winner.

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 August 19, 201312 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

FWD ≠ appliance, Ask any owner of a GTI, Fiat 500 or RR Evoque.

Frankly, someone who buys an Evoque isn't indifferent. Someone who buys a dowdy ol' M-Class is.

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.

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.

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.

Ahead of it's time I guess!

I would love to get my hands on one and bring it over......

who gets the last laugh??? 4 speed manual!!!!!!

hilarious how BMW and Merc and now Jag are going to FWD and no one seems to cry foul about it.

So much for BMW driving Machine! FWD Appliance is their new drum beat.

Bring Tata here, problem solved.

Maybe they need a sub-brand instead. It's a shame they couldn't get the Rover name back.

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.

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.

So we could take all the Euro Cars and dump them back in the EU and have those companies pay some big fines.