Talk:Jaguar Cars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jaguar Cars article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Browns Lane 2 XJ Picture 3 Swallow Sidecar 4 Too many pictures! 5 S-type picture 6 Bad links 7 Jaguar Stype front.JPG 8 Timeline 9 Userbox 10 Templates 11 Aluminium/Steel production 12 Reliability Issues Under Ford Ownership 13 More Jaguar Userboxes 14 Jaguar owners, I need to hear from you! 15 Jaguars in fiction and the media 16 Jaguar logo caption 17 Update June 2007 18 Requested move 19 Mark 1 Saloons - Expansion needed 20 Pronuciation 21 Not Tata yet! 21.1 Introductory paragraph: improvement 22 Indian or British 23 why so many photos of old cars??

[edit] Browns Lane

The article states:
"Jaguar Cars Limited is a luxury car manufacturer, originally based at Browns Lane, Coventry". As SS cars became Jaguar cars in 1945 and the Wiki article on Browns Lane states that it was home to Jaguar from 1951 what's happened to the 6 years? Wasn't Jaguar Cars originally based at Swallow Lane (home of Swallow Cars), Hollbrooks, Coventry?
LewisR 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XJ Picture

I feel that the XJs are the most "typical" and easy to spot Jaguars. It would seem nicer to have one of those in the pictures. --blades 00:39, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Swallow Sidecar

hello carl,

As far as I know, Swallow Sidecar Company was not Jaguar Cars but the forerunner of them. This company used "SS" as a brand. The 1935 2.5 litre model "90" was the first Jaguar model which was officially called "SS Jaguar". Due to unnecessary asociations post war with the German SS or Schutzstaffel, the company name was changed in 1945 to Jaguar. Consequently, I think "SS (cars)" would be a separate entry and only a reference should be left here at this entry. I am ready to make the necessary modifications.

--80.98.146.251 22:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to log in first.

--Millisits 22:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Swallow Sidecar and Jaguar are the same company under different names. Maybe if somebody wrote about the motorcycle and sidecar operations of SS it should go in a different article, but the legacy of SS Jaguar (90 & 100) is vital to Jaguar history. --H. CHENEY 15:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Hcheney, I still think that the problematic statement in the actual entry is: " Founded in 1922 as the Swallow Sidecar Company by William Lyons, it was renamed Jaguar in 1935." There are references (such as The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Automobiles, edited by D. Burgess Wise, Hamlyn 1979 p. 206) where Jaguar's history is dated "1945 to date". It states " The name Jaguar first appeared in 1935. It adorned a magnificent two-seater roadster introduced by the Swallow Sidecar Company at the Lonodon Motor Show. However, it was not until 1945 that (the now) Sir William Lyons founded Jaguar Cars Limited." This is a clear statement that the renaming of Swallow was effected in 1945. I think one should be very careful with naming situations just like this. I feel that although SS Sidecar and post-1945 Jaguar Cars are the same company but in 1935 Jaguar had properly been the name of an SS model. What do you think about this?

Regards, --Millisits 18:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi everybody! While on this discussion everybody seems to know that the change from SS to Jaguar cars was at the end of WWII, the page entry still had the year 1935 in it. I changed that. Regards, --Dr Tux 09:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures!

As it is, the page is jam-packed with images, and it makes the page look crowded and difficult to read. I suggest that either some of the images be removed from this page or that they be placed on the page in a manner that is more visually friendly. --Jagvar Mar 30, 2005

Keep the pictures, even add more, I don't see the issue with it being jam-packed with images or difficult to read ... but as you say, they it could be redesigned to be more visually friendly. Mar 31, 2005

Done (I've made a gallery) - Adrian Pingstone 16:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea that gallery, Adrian, getting there. I've got more pics, wondering whether to add them. --Solander Apr 01 2005

Please do. Thanks for the compliment - Adrian Pingstone 07:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S-type picture

The caption to this picture should be amended (for instance with a year of manufacture) to clarify that it's the current S-type, not the original S-type. rossb 15:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad links

I noticed that the URLs for Jaguar car models goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar which is the link to "Jaguar" the animal. This should be fixed but I don't know where it should go.

[edit] Jaguar Stype front.JPG

One image in this article (Image:Jaguar Stype front.JPG) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 07:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Timeline is missing the midsize 420 Compact 1966-68 if someone wants to do. I notice the very early cars have been removed from the timeline too, eg SS1 and Jaguar SS100. There were links to pictures which are now broken. I know they are pre Jaguar naming but I think they should be present. Solander 20 November 2005, 13:40 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi, I have created a userbox for Jaguar fans. The mark-up is "User Jaguar fan." See the userbox below:

Thanks for contributing, Signature^brendel 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

The bottom of this page is now suffering from serious template overload. JW 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd think an article about a British car compnay could use English(UK) as opposed English(US). For Example, Jaguar produces saloon and estate cars rather than sedans and wagons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.33.246 (talk • contribs) 19:58, September 4, 2006.

Well, it's just one section, in a part of the article which deals with the US market, and was only edited a couple of weeks ago. Otherwise it's all British litres, saloons and so on. Someone will be along to revert it soon, I'm sure. --DeLarge 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminium/Steel production

I've slightly altered the line that said that the aluminium vehicles are made at Castle Bromwich and the steel at Halewood. S-Type is steel and is made at Castle Bromwich, so doesn't fit the rule. I've intead explicity listed the production site of each model.

The only Jaguar, ASAIK, made in Halewood is the X-Type. All others being made in Castle Brom.
LewisR 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is already stated in the article.

[edit] Reliability Issues Under Ford Ownership

At the top of the article, in the introduction, it states that reliability, always Jaguar's nemesis, has got worse under Ford ownership. Which is false, frankly. So, I've changed that to 'improved dramatically', and have added a few supporting figures there.

Good. That is, indeed, correct. Under Ford, Jaguar had access to Ford's quality control processes and had the clout with suppliers to deliver quality components (eg "Supply us with ABS units or Ford will stop buying 400000-odd units a year from you") —Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisR (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Jaguar Userboxes

• For fellow Jaguar lovers, here are two more userboxes you might wish to use. Note: the image is a Creative Commons photo of the Jaguar animal, not the Jaguar automobile trademark. JGHowes ^talk - 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is the proud owner of a Jaguar V-12 XJS   User:JGHowes/Userbox/JaguarXJS	This user drives a Jaguar car User:JGHowes/Userbox/Jaguar

[edit] Jaguar owners, I need to hear from you!

Hello, my mom and I are considering purchasing a Jaguar for our next car. (I have a Hyundai Accent and she has a BMW.) We've never owned one before and we have heard Consumer Reports state that they aren't exactly the most reliable cars around. But I'd like to hear from someone whom actually owns one rather than a biased magazine. So how reliable are they? Do they handle cold weather and ice well? How about hot weather? (We live in Indiana, and it can snow and be 80 degrees three days later.) Do they get good milage? Anything and everything will be helpful! Thank you so much! --Sharpay Evans 08:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please google your question or something, or maybe even a Jaguar dealer could tell you a thing or two about Jaguars (who knows?). This is an encyclopedia. 81.246.93.2 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaguars in fiction and the media

Some of you may have noticed that I have nuked the absurdly large trivia (cough, "Jaguars in fiction and the media") section. What I should have done, according to WP:TRIV is move it here, so someone can sort the wheat from the chaff. So here it is!

• The Jaguar Mark 2 saloon gained a reputation as a getaway car among the British criminal fraternity in the 1960s. As a result, Mark 2s have featured in many British crime films, including Robbery, Get Carter and Mona Lisa, as well as in the popular television series The Sweeney. However, the best known fictional Mark 2 is probably the car driven by Inspector Morse in the British television series of the same name (also seen on PBS).
• Popular 1980s British television series Minder regularly saw character Arthur Daley initially driving a silver Jaguar XJ6 Series 2, then later a pale primrose Daimler Sovereign Series 3.
• Robert McCall (Edward Woodward) in the 1985-89 CBS TV series The Equalizer drove a black '85 Jaguar XJ6 with the licence plate "5809-AUG".
• British Prime-Minister Tony Blair is driven in a bottle-green Jaguar XJ8. His predecessor, John Major, used a modified XJ6. Blair's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott gained the nickname "Two Jags" for his use of two Jaguars, one of his own and one supplied by the Government, when he was supposed to be promoting the use of public transport.
• Jaguar E-types are featured in the films The Italian Job, Robbery, The Odessa File, Brannigan, Silver Streak, 52 Pick-Up, Car Trouble and About Adam. An E-type also replaced Emma Peel's usual Lotus Elan for the 1998 film The Avengers. Harold, of Harold and Maude, had an E-type hearse.
• In the 1968 movie Danger: Diabolik, Diabolik drove a black E-type. His love interest, Eva, drove a white one.
• In the film "The usual suspects", Pete Postlethwaite drives a black Jaguar XJ saloon
• In the 1997 film L.A. Confidential Pierce Morehouse Patchett (David Strathairn) is shown to have a Jaguar XK120.
• In the 1980 film The Blues Brothers blonde model Twiggy is seen in a metallic gold E-type, from which she speaks to Elwood (Dan Aykroyd).
• Austin Powers drove a Union Flag-decorated E-type, calling it a Shaguar in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.
• In Austin Powers in Goldmember, an XK cabrio painted in the same Union flag style as the E-type of the 1st movie. The car was driven by Tom Cruise spoofing Austin Powers.
• Mike Gambit in The New Avengers and Simon Templar in Return of the Saint, both had an XJ-S as their usual transport.
• The made-for-cable 1989 film The Heist (shown on HBO) featured two dark green Jaguar XJS coupes - they were used during a bait and switch scene where contraband was hidden in the trunk panel.
• The 1970s cross-country race comedy The Gumball Rally features a Jaguar E-Type that never leaves the starting line in New York due to electrical problems.
• Sting was ferried in an S-Type in the music video for his song Desert Rose. Because of this, the song has been used in past Jaguar commercials. While Jaguar does not use the song anymore, the song is still associated with the firm.
• The Jet Li movie Danny the Dog (AKA Unleashed) featured a Series 3 XJ, .
• The nickname for a Jaguar - "Jag" - is mentioned in many songs, such as Snoop Dogg's Riders On The Storm, Usher's Yeah and Lil' Flip's Rollin On 20's.
• In the song Jaguar and the Thunderbird, Chuck Berry describes a race between a "sky-blue Jaguar and Thunderbird Ford."
• 1950s Jaguar XK120s were used in the films The Green Man and Too Many Crooks, while XK150s were featured prominently in Play Misty for Me, To the Devil a Daughter and Blue Ice.
• Leonard Shelby, the main character of Memento (2000), drives a Jaguar XK throughout the film.
• The 2002 film Die Another Day of the James Bond series of movies featured a Jaguar XKR. The car was driven by the character Zao in some scenes of the movie, including a chase/battle against Bond's Aston Martin.
• In the movie Love Actually, The British Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) is driven around in a silver XJ.
• Angelina Jolie stole a silver XJ220 nicknamed "Bernadene" in the movie Gone in 60 Seconds. There was also an obscure XJ stolen by another character.
• A maroon XJ6 and a silver XK8 convertible were driven in The 51st State, also known as Formula 51.
• Halle Berry drove a red XK8 convertible in the movie Swordfish.
• In a scene of the film Election, Matthew Broderick fantasizes himself greeting everyone suavely while he is driving along a highway on the Italian coastline in a Jaguar.
• Ryan Phillippe can be seen driving a black XK140 roadster in the film Cruel Intentions. It is also at stake in a wager between his character and Sarah Michelle Gellar's .
• In the film Aldrich Ames; Traitor Within, Timothy Hutton purchases a Jaguar with the espionage profits he receives from the Soviets. The real Aldrich Ames had purchased a Jaguar with the money he made from spying; eventually drawing attention to himself as he could not afford one on his legal CIA salary.
• In the song "Call Me Lightning" by The Who, there is the line "my XKE is shining so brightly" (which mis-identifies the E-type). In their song "Jaguar," there is the line "Every lovely spot near or far,/ You can reach them too in your car,/ Or you might be there now if you own a jag already."
• In the song "Deadman's Curve" by Jan and Dean, the Corvette races an E-type (which is mis-identified as an XKE).
• On the British motoring show Top Gear, in the "Cheap Coupes that aren't Porsches" challenge, James May bought a "1000 year old antique" Jaguar XJS (for £1500 - approx $2500 US) which broke down all the time, probably due to going round the track at 140mph in the first test. Due to very good results in the first two challenges and a fixed engine in the endurance race, May won on points, but conceded the win to Clarkson, who would have won the challenge if he hadn't "ruined" his car. Top Gear also featured a stunt involving a XJS being driven at full speed over the lauch ramp on the Royal Navy carrier Ark Royal and into the sea.
• Most recently, many Jaguar XJs were featured in the James Bond film, Casino Royale. They were driven by the villains, but James Bond was chauffeured in a Mk IV.
• Sacha Baron Cohen was escorted in an X308 Vanden Plas in the film Ali G in da House.
• The eponymous characters of the 1987 British film Withnail and I drive from London to the countryside, and back, in a worn out, S-type, Jaguar.
• Angelina Jolie has an XJ220 in the film Tomb Raider.
• A left-hand drive German-registered XK150 featured in the 1974 film the Odessa File.
• A white Jaguar XJ featured in the promo video for Here I Go Again by rock band Whitesnake. In the video, Tawny Kitaen dressed in white is dancing seductivley on the bonnet of the car. At the time, she was lead singer David Coverdale's girlfriend. This was parodied in the video for '1985' by pop punk band Bowling for Soup. In the video, a mother longing for her youth dances on top of a white Jaguar XJS. The line 'she was going to shake her ass, on top of Whitesnake's car' relates to this parody.
• Rock star Pete Doherty has a fondness for Jaguar XJ's and has bought several. This has been mainly down to the fact that he has either crashed them or had them impounded.
• In the film Drop Dead Fred, Elizabeth's cheating husband works as a salesman at a Jaguar dealership.
• In Romy and Michele's High School Reunion, Romy works at a Jaguar dealership. She 'borrows' a XJS to make a grand impression at her high school reunion.
• Hannibal Lecter drove a Jaguar XJR.
• An XJ features in the promo video for 'Just Looking' by rock group The Stereophonics. In the video, the band drive it into a lake.
• In the film The Big Steal[1]]Ben Mendelsohn plays Danny Clark, a shy 18-year old who only wants two things out of life: to go out with Joanna (Claudia Karvan) and to own a Jaguar. When he is given the familys immaculate 1963 Nissan Cedric for his birthday he trades it for a 1973 Jaguar but crooked car dealer Gordon Farkes (Steve Bisley) switches engines on him. Danny and his friends help him steal back his engine.
• Forest Whitaker's character steals a red XJS in the film Ghost Dog.
• A 4.2 litre Mk.I Series III Jaguar XJ Sovereign is featured in the 2000 film Snatch., driven by Vinnie Jones's character 'Bullet Tooth' Tony. The car has the distinctive 'pepperpot' alloy wheels.

Lewis Collard 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaguar logo caption

There is no need for a caption stating that the image of the logo is a logo. This is according to the WIKI caption policy. Showing the logo of the brand or the company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of "advertising" is false. Showing the logo as part of a Wikipedia article is not advertising according to the definition of advertising --

"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."

Therefore, including a “fair use” image of the logo within a Wikipedia article about the item or organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. -- Thank you CZmarlin 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update June 2007

Jaguar is now up for sale (a "fire sale"?) together with the associated Land Rover business.

84.68.81.11 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"In September 2006 Ford also bought the rights to the Rover name and it is now part of Ford's Premier Automotive Group."

Not sure what this is trying to say, but in current circumstances will the Rover brand be sold on with Land-Rover?

84.67.228.223 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Overtaken by recent events:

" Recent reports speculate Ford might sell Jaguar in order to infuse much needed capital into its own operations. [2]."

84.67.228.223 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from Jaguar (car) to Jaguar Cars as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark 1 Saloons - Expansion needed

Info on "Mark 1 Saloons" needs to be expanded. The designation Mark 1 was retrospectively applied. The contemporary UK names were "Jaguar 2.4 Litre Saloon", and "Jaguar 3.4 Litre Saloon" or something very much like that. Before it was replaced in 1959, the 3.4 was available with disk brakes all round, compression ratio options of 7:1, 8:1 and 9:1, manual gearbox with overdrive or auto, steel or wire wheels.

Performance: With disk brakes, the best available late-60's radials and uprated shockers the 3.4 could cruise all day at 80-90mph, 100mph was unexciting on suitable roads but mine overheated at that speed, top speed was 120 but its aerodynamics made it very twitchy in cross-winds. 0-60 time is quoted as sub 10 sec, fast for its day. GilesW 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronuciation

I know "jag-u-ar" is the proper pronunciation in the UK, but on the American side of the pond you'll almost never hear it that way, especially in dealerships. Same goes for the cat. I think that deserves mention under pronunciation as well, at least that it's usually said differently in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.87.87 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the Indians (people from India) own Jaguar, it is pronounced Jagwar. You can place your order at the Kwik-E-Mart.209.29.94.114 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which no doubt is a step up from placing your order at British trailer park. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Tata yet!

The deal has been announced but not consummated. The infobox has been prematurely changed. 66.92.132.155 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph has been added to the introduction to reflect the size of the sale:

"It is understood that Ford Motor Company Ltd. will not retain any shareholding in either the Jaguar or Land-Rover companies, unlike Aston Martin where on its sale a small shareholding was retained; the total sum to be paid in cash by Tata Motors is approximately US $ 2.3 billion, Ford will then contribute up to US $600 million to the Jaguar Land Rover pension plans."

91.108.50.27 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph: improvement

"with two UK production plants at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham and Halewood, Merseyside" has been added!

As far as the TATA takeover is concerned, it's now a DONE deal - whatever you may think of it!!

IF anyone has any doubts about the deal, just read what Ford themselves had to say about it:

FORD MOTOR COMPANY ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT TO SELL JAGUAR LAND ROVER TO TATA MOTORS

DEARBORN, Mich., March 26, 2008 – Ford Motor Company [NYSE: F] announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its Jaguar Land Rover operations to Tata Motors.

The transaction is the culmination of Ford’s decision last August to explore strategic options for the Jaguar Land Rover business, as the company accelerates its focus on its core Ford brand and “One Ford” global transformation.

The sale is expected to close by the end of the next quarter and is subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of applicable regulatory approvals.

The total amount to be paid in cash by Tata Motors for Jaguar Land Rover upon closing will be approximately US $2.3 billion. At closing, Ford will then contribute up to approximately US $600 million to the Jaguar Land Rover pension plans.

"Jaguar and Land Rover are terrific brands," said Alan Mulally, president and CEO, Ford Motor Company. "We are confident that they are leaving our fold with the products, plan and team to continue to thrive under Tata’s stewardship. Now, it is time for Ford to concentrate on integrating the Ford brand globally, as we implement our plan to create a strong Ford Motor Company that delivers profitable growth for all."

"This is a good agreement. It provides the Jaguar Land Rover management team and employees with the assurances needed to maintain their focus on delivering the best results for the business," said Lewis Booth, executive vice president, Ford Motor Company, who has responsibility for Ford of Europe, Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover. "I am confident that, under its new owner, Jaguar Land Rover will continue to build upon the significant improvements and product successes it has achieved in recent years."

As part of the transaction, Ford will continue to supply Jaguar Land Rover for differing periods with powertrains, stampings and other vehicle components, in addition to a variety of technologies, such as environmental and platform technologies. Ford also has committed to provide engineering support, including research and development, plus information technology, accounting and other services.

In addition, Ford Motor Credit Company will provide financing for Jaguar and Land Rover dealers and customers during a transitional period, which can vary by market, of up to 12 months.

The parties believe these arrangements will support Jaguar Land Rover’s current product plans, while providing Jaguar Land Rover freedom to develop its own stand-alone capabilities in the future that will best serve its premium manufacturer requirements.

The parties do not anticipate any significant changes to Jaguar Land Rover employees’ terms of employment on completion.

Speaking about today’s agreement, Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Chairman of Tata Sons and Tata Motors, commented: "We are very pleased at the prospect of Jaguar and Land Rover being a significant part of our automotive business. We have enormous respect for the two brands and will endeavor to preserve and build on their heritage and competitiveness, keeping their identities intact. We aim to support their growth, while holding true to our principles of allowing the management and employees to bring their experience and expertise to bear on the growth of the business."

Jaguar Land Rover’s employees, trade unions and the UK Government have been kept informed of developments as the sale process progressed and have indicated their support for the agreement.

Speaking on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover, Geoff Polites, chief executive officer, said: "Jaguar Land Rover’s management team is very pleased that Ford and Tata Motors have come to an agreement today. Our team has been consulted extensively on the deal content and feels confident that it provides for the business needs of both our brands going forward.

"We have also had the opportunity to meet senior executives from Tata Motors and the Tata group," Polites continued. "They have expressed confidence in the team that has delivered significant improvements in Jaguar Land Rover’s business performance. We feel confident that we can forge a strong working relationship with our new parent company, and we look forward to a bright and successful future for Jaguar Land Rover."

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27953

91.108.50.27 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The papers have been signed but the money has not been delivered. That means it's not done yet. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think you will find that the Jaguar and Land-Rover companies (assuming there are two) are now no longer showing on Ford's global balance sheet from an accounting perspective; the real mystery is why they were bundled together in the first place instead of being sold seperately? Which one of them might theoretically have remained unsold if they had been seperate sales or was it simply that the joint production at Halewood meant a single sale rather than two sales.

Most people would regard Jaguar as a so-called 'trophy asset', similar to Aston Martin, and therefore attractive to investors with Middle Eastern oil money. Eventually we will get to know exactly what is in the contract between FoMoCo and Tata, eg for exactly how long will JLR benefit from Ford's global purchasing system for example? Eventually based on much reduced volumes, JLR parts could be very expensive, especially when new Jaguar cars are no longer based on common Ford platforms. At some stage Jaguar/Land Rover will be fully exposed to the full reality of competing in the global automotive market and having to negotiate with component suppliers who are used to supplying in multiple millions, and not in <100,000's like JLR want.

The only change is that the tough decisions like Ford moving Jaguar production to the USA or by threatening to close Solihull in favour of putting all Land-Rover production into Halewood will be taken by TATA in India and not by Ford in Detroit - it's crystal ball time for JLR in the UK!

At some stage in the not too distant future TATA could be looking at trying to replace the Ford-produced power train/components in Jaguars and Land-Rovers with less costly non-Ford parts produced in China or India rather than say Bridgend, South Wales (or Dagenham, Essex?) by Ford; the pressure to reduce costs will still be there under TATA's ownership, rather than Ford's.

The actual timing of the deal is a red herring, my friend: goodbye Ford and hello TATA Motors!

91.108.29.99 (talk)

[edit] Indian or British

I contend that the company is certainly British. It is registered in Britain. It manufactures its product in Britain and always has done. It's (now) parent company is Indian but that doesn't and cannot re-write history. My mother is from Venus, my father from Mars but my place of birth, upbringing and residence is Earth, therefore I'm an Earthling.

I contend equally that the marque is and always will be British, for much the same historical reasons. It's a question of where it was created, not to who rights over it were subsequently sold. Did anyone seriously claim that Jaguar was an American marque (or company) under Ford's ownership? -- Timberframe (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Jaguar is a British brand, so, it would appear, do the Hindustan Times and The Times of India. -- de Facto (talk). 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To User:DemolitionMan and others who change the article's category from "British brands" to "Indian brands" on the basis that "The parent company is Tata; can't be British", would you apply the same logic to say that in the days of the British Empire Mumbai was a British city? Sorry if that's a bit close to the bone, but I feel that it's a valid comparison with what you're claiming for a brand which is and always has been intimately associated with Britain. The financial ownership of a brand doesn't re-write history or the reality of geography. Nobody claims that Chelsea changed from a British football club to a Russian football club when it was bought by a Russian, the same applies to Land Rover and Jaguar. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I agree that in the days of the erstwhile Raj, Calcutta and Bombay were British cities. They no longer are since ownership switched hands. They are now Indian cities. Just as the British flag flew over the Red Fort but now the Tricolor flies, the same applies for an acquired brand. Bacardi is known as an American brand of rum even though it originated in Cuba. Even though Smirnoff clearly originated in Russia, in Wikipedia - the article clearly states that it is owned by a British company - Diageo. So while we can state that the Country of origin is the UK - Jaguar is now an Indian brand. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree that it can be classified as a British brand - Reebok still is; although it is now owned by Adidas. However, it clearly states in the infobox that is a subsidiary of Adidas AG - a German brand. Perhaps such an arrangement can be made with this page as well.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. For me, a "brand" is inextricably linked with the product and is primarily used as a marketing tool. Thus, to use your examples, Bacardi "is known as an American brand" because it has a long history of production and marketing in America. Smirnoff still "brands" itself as a Russian product despite being owned elsewhere - check out the Cyrillic writing embossed into the bottle and the reference on the label to the Russian Imperial court. The conclusion I draw is that the "nationality" of the brand is derived from the long-term associations promoted by its marketing rather than from the nationality of its epehemeral owner. If Tata Motor replaced the familiar Land Rover and Jaguar Icons with symbols relevant to Indian culture and marketted the vehicles as Indian products I would agree that the brand had changed nationality, but that has not yet come to pass. In these days of multinational companies and ownership the lines are blurred and perhaps we need a category of "Indian-owned brands" -- Timberframe (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right; the distinction needs to be made between the brand equity that is marketed to consumers and the brand ownership. Regarding Bacardi - it's been made in the US only since the 1960s - before that for a very long time it was Cuban. Anyways, no point beating a dead horse, now that we are in agreement. As it is a multinational brand doesn't really doesn't have a nationality - McDonalds was at pains to point this out in the Middle East - but I guess Coke will always be associated with the US. Thums Up - an Indian cola brand was acquired by Coke in the early 1990s - it is still available and marketed in India and neighboring nations - I guess it is an Indian brand and not an American one. It varies from case to case. DemolitionMan (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel the category is itself a little misleading, and lacks any objective definition. I mean, if we have already mentioned that Jaguar originated in Britain, what does the Category: British Brands add to that? The simple fact is: Jaguar as a car company originated in Britain, and has manufacturing plants there. This is amply stated in the opening pragraphs. Beyond this I see no point of having the categorization based on nationality. I would recommend:

1) We do away with it completely (like with Reebok, I see no Nationality to its brand mentioned in the categories),

2) Or, modify it to Indian Owned Brands

But keeping British Brands is incorrect, as merely originating there doesnt make it British, like Bacardi . And unlike Thums Up, Jaguar isnt a Brand whose products are restricted to Britain. And comparing Indian cities, during the British occupation with a Jaguar is absurd. Jaguar isnt a city, whose geographical coordinates can never change. If it helps, we can make it Brands Originated from Britain. AJ-India (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - too much ambiguity. Thums Up is sold in Sri Lanka as an Indian brand, although owned by Coca-Cola - an American company. The point is of course - Brand Positioning - it is positioned as a British brand. However, to look at the same industry I looked at [3] - there is no category called British brands there - but there is none called German either. Perhaps the best course of action is to remove the categorization altogether like it is done in the case of the Mini but we can have a category called [Motor Vehicle Manufacturers in the UK] DemolitionMan (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt aware of Thums up being sold in Sri lanka. Its true, positioning is the key. But invariably its the ownership that weighs in on the long run. If Coke decides to make Thums up a global brand, (selling it worldwide), I doubt it will position it as an Indian Brand. The whole idea of positioning is just to derive a marketing advantage. It suites to call Jaguar "a symbol of British Luxury". So to that extent, I agree, Jaguar is a "British" Brand.

I agree with the removal of the category as a whole, as it is (to me) redundant, and meaningless. The existing categories suffice.

With reference to the comparison with the Indian cities, a second thought crossed my mind. If we draw another analogy: I happen to have a Canadian friend, who was born in the UK, spent like 25 years or so there, migrated to Canada in the 70s. What would he be called? A Canadian, not British. Yes, he is of British origin, has british traits,(can tell from his accent a bit, and such) and that fact is inseparable from his history.

All the same, I am all for the removal of the category, to make the article better. CheersAJ-India (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've enjoyed reading the discussion here, you've brought out a lot of good and interesting points. Concensus seems to be moving towards scrapping the "national brands" categorisation for this article, and I would support that. Categories exist to allow readers to find articles relevant to a particular interest, so we should ask whether it's likely that a reader would want to find articles relating to "British brands". My guess is no, it's far too vague, subjective and wide ranging to be useful and, as has been pointed out, isn't used in a consistant manner anyway. I suggest that if nobody speaks up to the contrary over the next week or so we remove the national brand category from this article and the Land Rover article -- Timberframe (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that categories are a valuable way of finding information, and therefore, the more (relevant) categories the better. The category names though, do need to be unambiguous and accurately reflect their use. So my suggestion would be, not to remove Jaguar Cars (or Land Rover) from the controversial category, but to create a new category Category:Brands owned by companies of India (or similar) and add it (them) to that, and to rename Category:British brands to Category:Brands originating in the United Kingdom (or similar). -- de Facto (talk). 10:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think either of the two suggestions are fine. I guess it's not a bad idea to create a new category, and rename the existing one. That way we fine tune the category, to remove the ambiguity. AJ-India (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why so many photos of old cars??

Why some many of them? you guys need some photos of the new stuff here also, the jaguars we see in the streets ok? (Sunsetterxxx (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)).