on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Tata Motors posts quarterly loss and warns of inflationary costs

BENGALURU — Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) owner Tata Motors reported a quarterly loss on Monday that was bigger than expected and warned of rising inflationary costs. Automakers worldwide have been roiled by chip shortages, supply chain disruptions, COVID-19 restrictions and rising raw material prices after a short-lived recovery towards the end of 2020. "Demand remains strong despite near term concerns ... the semiconductor supply situation is improving gradually whilst inflation worries persist," Tata Motors said in an exchange filing. The company expects chip shortages at JLR to continue through 2022 as suppliers gradually ramp up production, and is also engaging directly with chip manufacturers to secure supply longer-term supplies for the Range Rover maker, it said. Tata Motors' consolidated net loss came in at 15.16 billion rupees ($203.23 million) for the quarter ended Dec. 31, compared to a profit of 29.06 billion rupees a year earlier, when an easing of pandemic-related restrictions led to a pick-up in sales. However, the recovery was short-lived as acute semiconductor shortages and supply chain disruptions delayed production, and Tata Motors slipped back to losses. For the reported quarter, analysts had expected the Mumbai-based company to report a loss of 3.30 billion rupees, according to Refinitiv IBES data. Tata Motors' earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) margin, a key measure of profitability, was 10.2% for the quarter, above estimates of 9.3%. Total revenue from operations for the quarter fell 4.5% to 722.29 billion rupees, below estimates of 775.93 billion rupees. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Earnings/Financials Jaguar Land Rover

2019 Jaguar I-Pace First Drive Review | The future is now

Jaguar's new all-electric I-Pace may be one of the brand's most significant breakthroughs. This is not just because the handsomely muscular all-wheel-drive crossover can travel 240 miles on a single charge to its 90 kWh battery. Or because it will cost a competitive $69,500 before federal and state incentives. Or that it can accelerate from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds — about as quickly as Jaguar's V8 F-Type sports car. It is not even because it may be the first vehicle to feature a small "froot" — "front boot" — which is a hideous British English term for the area known by the equally unappealing American neologism "frunk." The I-Pace ranks high in the Jag insurrective pantheon because it is the first truly competitive all-electric vehicle from a major luxury manufacturer to hit the entirety of the American market since Tesla jump-started (ugh!) the contemporary, fancy, battery-powered vehicle campaign back in 2008. Sure, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, BMW, and others have promised these vehicles, but as far as we know, they don't exist, and we haven't driven them. The best news about the Big Electric Cat is that it's actually enjoyable on the road. Some of this is because of its intrinsic design benefits. The heavy battery pack, housed in the floor, contributes to a low center of gravity as well as ideal 50/50 front/rear mass balance. Both of these aid not only in the vehicle's road-holding capabilities, but in its style of holding the road. Jaguar has always been adept at splitting the suspension difference between German plank and American couch, and the I-Pace follows this general trend, providing a ride that is connected without feeling overly harsh, even on the optional 22-inch wheels and Pirelli P-Zero tires. (Note to self: Reserve the Instagram handle Donk-E.) But the I-Pace does something interesting. Due to its high seating position, and the low placement of its drivetrain components, it provides the sensation that the mechanical action of forward momentum is within the driver's direct and immediate control, but taking place elsewhere. There is no delay, or vagueness — the inputs are precise and it goes where you want and expect. But it induces the odd feeling that you are riding atop a maglev hovercraft. It's futuristic, uncanny, and fun.

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.