Will Jaguar's Story End Like Packard's?

Remember Packard? That top-drawer name used to stand among the world’s premier automotive marques, mentioned in the same breath as Cadillac and Pierce-Arrow. Then, in the late 1950s, that Studebaker thing happened, and Packards became less like Packards and more like gussied-up Studebakers. We know how that turned out. Thus, after a breezy week in […]

07jaguarxk_25

07jaguarxk_ext_01

Remember Packard? That top-drawer name used to stand among the world's premier automotive marques, mentioned in the same breath as Cadillac and Pierce-Arrow. Then, in the late 1950s, that Studebaker thing happened, and Packards became less like Packards and more like gussied-up Studebakers. We know how that turned out. Thus, after a breezy week in the Jaguar XK Convertible, I can't help but wonder if Britain's old Growler is headed down the same dead-end road that Packard traveled. Corporate overlord Ford is ready to cut its losses and put out the cat, and it looks like the top bidder for one of the word's most venerable automotive brands (not to mention its equally vaunted corporate cousin, Land Rover) is an Indian automaker notable for nothing more than creating the world's cheapest car. How depressing. So what's the problem at Jaguar? Can it be fixed? (Or, perhaps a better question, could it have been fixed before it arrived at this point?) Surely no one will deny that Britain's beloved marque has seen better days. As of January, sales in the U.S. were down a rather startling 52.2 percent from the year before, and according to an MSNBC report, three of the country's ten worst-selling cars are Jaguars, the S-type, the X-type, and the flagship XJ sedan. That can't be good.

Continued after the break, with photos courtesy of Jaguar.

I like the XK Convertible, at least until I look at that Monroney sticker: $87,910! I won't name names, but I can think of one, two, three arguably better ways to spend that kind of cash. Dynamically, the XK is certainly agreeable. It feels large, but remains reasonably nimble, thanks to some pretty radical weight-saving tricks, like bonded and riveted aluminum construction. The reduced poundage also helps make the most of the 4.2-liter V-8's 300 horsepower. Little things about it drive me nuts, however, although according to hardcore aficionados of the brand, that's part of the charm of Jaguar ownership. I'm not charmed. The back seat is asinine (as it is in many "two-plus-two" models), a worthless concession to insurance companies, and the touch-screen system's interface is just plain appalling: convoluted, stubborn, and maddeningly slow to respond. I generally love these one-screen-does-all systems (Audi's Multi-Media Interface is positively Apple-like in its ease of use), but in this case, call me a Luddite: Give me some knobs and buttons!

These, ultimately, are minor gripes, and the XK makes up for its faults with drop-dead beauty. My metallic black convertible turned heads like few cars I've driven. Wafting around the ritzy areas of beachside Florida, I've been inundated with questions and comments about the XK — all enthusiastic and appreciative, with the odd exception of the woman who asked me with perfect sincerity if the car was a Buick (and then expressed her disappointment when she found out it wasn't).

So we're left to wonder: Why are things going so badly? Is this cat at last on its ninth life? What can Tata's billions bring to Jaguar that Ford's billions couldn't? Despite its woes in the North American market and its murky ownership outlook, the company has no shortage of plans for the future, including the development of a smaller, sportier model to face off against the Porsche 911, a worked-over XJ sedan, and even a four-door version of the XK, as if the world needs that. As we speak, Jag dealers are getting the new XF sedan, which is garnering some really positive reviews despite the general iffy-ness of its new-age exterior design (I've included photos below; judge for yourself). The XF, as dynamically gifted as it may be, is born into a tough situation. Unlike such rivals BMW and Mercedes-Benz, which have made a habit of reinventing the familial look of their cars every few years, Jaguar has gotten its customers used to seeing new models with that Olde English look (witness the XF's predecessor, the stuffy S-type). So now we have a car that defiantly abandons the tried-and-true elements of style. Is the world ready for a Jaguar that doesn't look like a Jaguar? And, even if the world is ready and willing, will that be enough to reverse this grand old brand's Packard-like free-fall before it's too late?

The new Jaguar XF

Xf_12_01
Xf_11_01