TStag

Whoops that wasn't meant to happen: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/03/by-the-numbers-october-2010-trick-or-treat-edition/ How old is the Range Rover? 9 years old now? An ageing lineup of Land Rovers still didn't stop them posting in excess of 40% growth. Still selling dodgy Volvo was a good move. Shame on Ford for prioritising the sale of JLR over loss making Volvo..... If they had done it the other way around and perhaps kept JLR they would have one of the fastest growing car companies in the world. They are the Tigers of the auto world right now, or do I mean Jaguars? Oh well can't wait to see what effect the new Evoque has on sales. That will be a good laugh...... Great move by ford gearing up the India car giant of tomorrow. Fantastic, well done Ford!

Oh dear where to start on this one. JLR are making money. Quite a bit considering the economic situation in the world car industry today. And they also boast some of the best growth figures in the industry at the moment. Land Rover sales are shooting up right now, and they have a rapidly ageing range of cars.... So for a company growing fast with some old models in it's line up it's natural for shareholders to want to invest more to make more. TATA recognise that by growing JLR they will own a company that can give the Big German 3 a pasting. They know that big juicy profits exist in premium cars. If you are making more cars you need capacity. So cutting a UK plant makes no sense. JLR will be doing so well that they need the capacity. JLR plan to add roughly 10 new models over the next few years. 7.84 billion dollars is cheap for what will be a significant return. Remember TATA planned to cut 1 plant because of dropping sales only a year ago. What changed? Soaring sales figures post Ford!

If Obama's economic stimulus (which as I understand it is primarily aimed at job creation/ retention in the private sector) is at fault. Then why did private sector jobs rise and public sector jobs fall: http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020752.shtml Surely it's the cutting of public spending at Federal level that's at fault (e.g. California). One might argue that Obama should have injected even more into the private sector. The problem with this is that it will increase national debt, but then if there was no economic stimulus at all and if the likes of GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go to the wall, then the private sector may well have done as badly as the public sector. Either way I think the US economy is in a mess. Whether you spend more or less is an interesting debate but I think you would be in a much bigger mess with no stimulus. And frankly the people who created the problem (the Republicans) should be taken outside and shot.

Show us your numbers for the then, I may be looking at a different region but I think you will find that JLR sells more cars in the UK than Lexus manages in the whole of the EU. In 2006 I know Lexus only sold about 36,000 cars in 15 EU member states. Land Rover sold more than that in the UK alone.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11483543 Mind you that's better than Cadillac with last month's 0 sales in Europe.

But in Europe at least they are perceived by the public as making excellent cars. VW advertise their cars as 'if only everything in life was as reliable as a VW'. In Europe I think the public perception of VW is of quality cars with an excellent finish. VW have improved Skoda, Seat, Lamborgini and Bentley, so you can't say they don't want to be good. I think they want to be big by convincing the world they are good. That's a trick that they still have to pull off in the US. But realistically Europe is eating it up and that is where VW does most of it's business. VW also has the midas touch, let's not forget Skoda and Seat were both turned round by VW. And Bugatti and Bentley rebuilt. That's why I say I don't really see the connection between VW and GM. But that's not to say that they won't end up going that way.

Seat is the one I see no place for. VW are quite clever at managing all the other brands and providing they stick to the following formula then I don't really think they will go the way of GM or BL: - Skoda - Well built car, at a reasonable place. - Suzuki (minority interest) - Asian Skoda - VW - Well built car (in the eyes of Europeans) that's a bit pricier than say a Ford - Audi - BMW/ Merc rival - Porsche - Premium Sports brand, with that Porsche look - Lamborgini - Flamboyant Supercar maker - Bentley - Fast, luxury Brit barge. - Bugatti - Supercar extravagance for the mega rich GM's problems is that all their cars seemed the same across the brands. They became badge engineered.

Other than thousands of people turning up to welcome him to Germany? We love the dude here. He's probably the most popular American president since Kennedy in Europe. His views on Middle East peace seem much more realistic to us. Than Bush's (cringe) 'you either with us or against us'. And most countries were against us on Iraq.....btw

I actually read somewhere that US sales tax is really really bureaucratic, is that true? VAT is actually really simple and relatively cheap to administer which is why most of the world use it.

The Ford Focus is a good car and is popular in Europe. In a way I think it's become a victim of it's own success in that many people won't buy one because everyone else has one. And I suppose although the original Focus styling was considered cutting edge, the current one now seems generic as other companies have done the same thing. Personally speaking I don't think the Focus's biggest threat comes from the likes of Skoda. I actually think it's biggest threat comes from the likes of Kia and from the vast range of competition that there is now. In Europe pretty much all the European brands have now got their act's together, people in my office now quite happily consider buying Citroen's and Fiat's when once they would only have considered Ford, Vauxhall or Japanese brands (or in the 90's domestic brands such as Rover). But increasingly we are seeing new brands enter into the market. And I don't think it's unreasonable to see at least 3 or 4 Chinese companies try to make some headway in Europe. Take the new MG 6, which arrives soon (MG is owned by China's biggest and most successful car company): http://www.chinacartimes.com/wp-content/mg-first-pic.jpg Not a car that I would want to buy because I don't like this type of car but MG is Chinese owned, British designed and aiming squarely at the Focus. It's generic (too much so for my taste) but that's probably how most now also see the Focus in Europe. They won't take big sales out of Ford's Focus but over a decade then I think the Chinese will succeed with models like this. Here's an interior shot (in Chinese spec): http://www.chinacartimes.com/wp-content/mg6-hatch2.jpg This is where the future competition comes from together with brands like Skoda.

Of course you need to look at the wider picture. Firstly Jag only sells 3 models and only 1 of them is something you could consider volume premium (e.g the XF). The XJ and XK are low volume cars. Lincoln sells how many volume premium models? 7 or so? And don't forget these a effectively Lincoln's global numbers. Where as Jaguar is what is known as a Global brand. But if you want to get all the numbers out check out the growth figures: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/september-sales-rise-29-percent-%E2%80%93-but-where%E2%80%99s-the-party/#comment-1666684 The 9 month run is more interesting than Septembers numbers because last September the US car scrappage scheme ended. This was really bad last September for Volume car makers although it made a lot less of a difference to Premium car brands who didn't really benefit from the state hand out otherwise known as the cash for clunkers scheme. So for Premium brands the growth is perhaps more reflective. Either way JLR is now growing faster than BMW or Mercedes. And Volvo is showing 0 growth despite having new models. So as I've said before Ford was right to sell Volvo (should have sold even earlier for more money). And as I've also said before JLR is now one of the fastest growing premium car makers in the world, which Ford sold to try and fix Lincoln and go global with it...... That wasn't a business decision that was a dumb ass emotional one. Oh and whilst I'm at it I'd also like to mention one of my other prophecies is coming true, TATA in a bit to lift it's look and finish is now asking Jaguar Land Rover to take charge of the finish of their cars: http://emexe.com/tata-aria-to-be-finished-by-jaguar-land-rover.html Yep Ford having taught JLR how to make better cars has also helped to upskill future competition from India....

duplicated entry

According to www.autocar.co.uk VW also want to buy Alfa Romeo. If they did that they would be on about 13 or 14 brands if you include Suzuki. I get the impression that VW almost doesn't care if it competes with itself. I think it sees itself at heart as a company that supplies components to each of it's own sister brands and then they just assemble them into a car. So the money is makes is on the parts rather than on the brands. With the exception of Seat I think VW has managed it's brands quite well. Skoda is a bit too much like VW but they are cheaper. They need to make them a bit more distinctive. And Seat almost seems like its trying to be too distinctive because no one gets it. But all the other brands like Bentley, Lamborgini, Audi and Porsche seem to be largely distinctive (apart from cars like the Cayanne). VW could go like GM if it's not careful but at the moment the cars are distinctive enough.

Yes these are micro turbines, about the Width of a pencil and the length of a couple of flasks. So vey compact.

As a Brit I can tell you Blair was doing OK until he took us into Iraq and backed George W Bush. At that point we thought he was an idiot for following an idiot and he became most hated. To say we all hated Bush is fair although his dad seemed quite a nice chap. In the UK at least your tea party is getting a lot of headlines, but mainly because we are curious about this witch and her anti hand job views..... also we just find all these right wing nutters a good laugh. Would be quite funny if you guys actually elected one of them President, considering the rest of the world loves Obama and now respects the USA much more than it did when W was in charge.

Wow didn't mean to start such a huge argument. For the record I'm not some lefty socialist. In the UK we clearly need to cut taxes and spending, in essence we need to move a bit more in the direction of the USA. So I guess in Britain this view would be seen as Conservative or in your language Republican. But what I find interesting about the USA (in a philosophical sense) is that you already seem to have low taxes but higher unemployment than us. Despite your low taxes and attempts to bridge the gap between rich and poor by creating an economy that rewards entrepreneurs and hard work the gap between rich and poor is much greater than anywhere in western Europe. I also find it interesting that in the USA you seem to want to compete with India and China in the old dying industries by using protectionism to try and save jobs. Why not let them go to the wall and build new industries? That's what we do in what some American's think of as mildly 'socialist' Britain. Effectively we gave up mass producing cars when we found we could make more money in Financial services... OK banking didn't go so well but plenty of our audit and accountancy firms are booming. So what % tax cut will get the US moving? What's the magic bullet? And what should you cut to do it? If I were Obama I'd probably give tax cut's but I'd do it by cutting the worlds biggest defence budget by 20%. It would enrage Republican's but in all honesty it would also give Republicans a new problem. How do you justify future tax cut's and not cut the defence budget in a world where the Cold war is over. Oh and in case your wondering, I wouldn't cut defence spending in the UK, our armed services are far too stretched as it is. But then we don't spend huge amounts of money on things like son of Star Wars.

Yeah but Jet powered sound's cool. And to be fair I bet it would sound wicked! I actually agree with you on that. But then I suppose it's a concept and they could tighten up the front end a bit which would make a big difference IMHO.

Do lower taxes always translate into more jobs? What I don't understand about this argument in the US is that you seem to think that cutting taxes will automatically mean more jobs. But the problem is that in Europe we have higher taxes and yet in some countries we have more jobs (as a % of the total workforce available for work). This kind of makes me question whether the US has already taken taxes a low as needed. Would cutting tax and spending actually make a big enough difference to change anything? Where's the evidence? If you do cut taxes then it seem to me that you need a big cut to stimulate the economy. The US welfare and social security spending is already low. The only way I could see the US making a big enough cut in tax to get things moving again is maybe by cutting defence spending by at least 20%. But then surely you just make a lot of soldiers and factory workers involved in making weapons unemployed. That's why I question whether in the US cutting taxes is going to help much. Your all ready cutting away in California and that's not helping is it? It's well known that in the 30's Germany and America spent their way to economic salvation by investing in infrastructure. That rescued both economies at the time. In the UK we actually suffered more because we didn't do that. By 1939 Germany had lots of shiny air planes to bomb Europe with and we were desperately racing to build an airforce. Back in the 30's the British Economy was much like the US. E.g. Low tax and Spend. It didn't work then it won't work now.

I read the other day that 1 in 8 Americans live in abject poverty. How has decades of right wing politics in the US actually helped these people? Americans tell the world that to have a good standard of living we should be more like them. But we don't have 'trailer trash' in Europe and we have a comfortable standard of living with a nice safety net. Yes I concede that many nations in Europe need to be less left wing to raise our standard of living, but hell we have nice holidays, and a good standard of living. More Brits for example buy BMW's then regular cars why would we want to lower our standard of living? So has Obamanomics failed or it this years of Republican laissez faire in the banking system that Americans are paying the price for? Who deregulated the banking system. George W..... Also who wants to vote for a Witch who is anti hand jobs? Is she really presidential material. Is any of the tea party? Cutting taxes is sensible when you can afford it. But to do that what spending will the US cut welfare? It's already down to the bone it seems. How about a 20% cut in defence spending.... If Obama want to deliver a big tax cut and balance the budget then maybe he'd fancy that one?

what a dumb comment! TATA are already splashing the cash at JLR. Jag and Land Rover are planning massive expansion to their ranges. Jag will get at least 4 additional models. A new XF Tourer, A XF Coupe, a new boxter sized sportscar (yes TATA understand Jag's roots), and a proper 3 series rivaling car which won't be designed at all in Detroit, like the last one (See JLR's Geoff Lawson's comments on the X type) Land Rover will be getting a new Defender (project ICON) and a mid size Range Rover to fit between the Evoque and the Sport. TATA are also splashing the cash on Series Hybrid tech. Get ready for Gas turbine series hybrids as well as the GM Volt type hybrid. Finally JLR have just recruited another 1000 R&D staff to help with all this. No doubt some staff will be used by TATA to try and move them from developing world car maker. To the next Hyundai/ Ford beater..... Oh and did I mention JLR are making profits now. I'm sure TATA are very grateful to Ford for all that investment and all those fine R&D people. Hey ho, could be worse Ford could still be stuck with Volvo.... now that was a waste of money!

TATA are already drawing up plans to move JLR away from Ford components. Engines are already being planned with Jaguar, Land Rover and TATA combining engineering resources to start the shift away from Ford. This should move profits from engines back in house.

Which is why JLR and TATA engineers are now busy designing engines for both JLR and TATA products: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/auto/automobiles/Tata-Motors-to-develop-new-JLR-engines-in-house/articleshow/6300848.cms Ford did blow billions on JLR but the biggest crime was to sell JLR after they fixed the problems to a company who now plans to use JLR engineers to help develop Ford rivalling components..... JLR was not a Volvo where all the engineering capability had been sucked out. Ford have basically armed potentially the next Hyundai/ Kia.

Tut, tut, tut: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/report-engine-shortages-holding-back-jaguar-land-rover-sales/#comments Come on Ford lay on the overtime and get those production lie's whiring. Ford needs all the engine sales it can get from the very profitable JLR. Nice to see JLR sales growth is now industry leading under TATA, and all that profit...... what a shame Ford is missing out....

Volvo tanked another 33% this month in the USA so good on Ford for selling. Shame Ford spent over 6 billion buying the company in the first place mind..... I'm not surprised that ford is having to provide engineering support to Geely either. Whilst JLR could afford to support 3 R&D sites in the UK, Volvo's R&D dept was wound down to such a low base that now Geely need's Ford's support to go forward. The point here is that whilst Ford in now free of PAG, there was only ever 2 power brands in PAG that could ever make it in the premium sector, namely Jag and Land Rover. Ford should have made a decision to focus on these 2 earlier and just dumped Volvo much earlier whilst the brand had value. Right now JLR is enjoying fast rising sales all over the world. In fact Jag has actually had to send workers home to give component suppliers a chance to catch up! Volvo should have been despatched much quicker.

Well these numbers look pretty good: http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/automotive-business/2010/07/07/success-of-new-xj-behind-sales-boost-for-jaguar-land-rover-65233-26799451/ TATA are investing billions in new additional models. The fact they are talking about a large scale expansion of JLR's product range suggests that they know JLR is capable of raking money in. To be honest as a JLR fan I'm happy that TATA own the company. The fact that TATA are planning a new F type, a proper X type, a new Mid range 4x4 and many many more additional new models makes me very happy. The way I see it JLR will go from profitable to extremely profitable making lots more models. I don't think Ford could have matched that sheer level of ambition with cash.