2010 Land Rover Lr4 Hse on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar Land Rover rescues British off-road tuner Bowler

Jaguar Land Rover's Special Vehicles Operation (SVO) rescued British off-road tuner Bowler from an uncertain fate. The firm has worked with Land Rover in the past, but it has always been independent. While JLR isn't in an ideal position to make acquisitions, and its recent financial troubles are well documented, Bowler was on the brink of shutting down. The small, 34-year old company had entered administration, and the 26 people it employed risked losing their jobs. Monetary details haven't been released, meaning we don't know how much Bowler was worth, but the firm pointed out it's now fully owned by SVO. It joins SV, Vehicle Personalization, and Classic as the division's fourth pillar. It's too early to tell precisely where Bowler will fit in the JLR latticework, because the initial focus will be on stabilizing the company. It will remain based in Belper, England, and every member of its full-time staff has been offered a position as a JLR employee. Bowler made a name for itself by turning the original Defender into a rally car, and Land Rover said the expertise it acquired during decades of racing is highly sought after, so that's a hint we'll see more hardcore models developed jointly by the two companies sooner or later. The new Defender would lend itself well to the Bowler treatment. The Bowler name could replace the SVX nameplate used on the stillborn, V8-powered Discovery, for example. The tuner's focus on off-pavement performance means we're unlikely to see a Bowler-badged Jaguar, but anything is possible as global demand for SUVs (especially quick ones) continues to rise. What's certain is that, once Bowler is stable, it will grow bigger.

Jaguar Land Rover might buy another luxury brand that it doesn't need

It seems that Jaguar Land Rover may be getting bigger in the near future. According to Bloomberg, the company is looking at acquiring some tech companies, and possibly yet another luxury car brand, provided that it fits with the current lineup of cars. On the surface, this makes some sense since Bloomberg reports that a whopping 78 percent of Tata Motors' revenue comes from luxury brands. And of course, any kind of tech acquisition could be useful considering the rapid development of electric and autonomous vehicles. But dig a little deeper, and a possible luxury brand acquisition just doesn't make sense for Jaguar Land Rover. The main reason for this is that the Jaguar and Land Rover brands have the luxury market thoroughly covered. Both brands offer full luxury lines from entry-level to high-end ( Discovery Sport to Range Rover on the Land Rover side, and XE to XJ on the Jaguar side). They also cater to every kind of luxury, from sporty vehicles such as the F-Type and SVR Land Rovers, to cushy luxury machines such as the XJ and Range Rover. So whether the company is competing with BMW or Mercedes, Jaguar and Land Rover have the bases covered. There aren't any other typical luxury brands that would actually add anything to the current lineup. In fact, adding another conventional luxury brand could actually result in the new brand poaching existing Jaguar and Land Rover buyers, rather than picking up new ones. What would make more sense for Jaguar Land Rover would be to pick up either a more mainstream brand, or an ultra-luxury marque. Neither Jaguar nor Land Rover has something that competes directly with the likes of Ford or Toyota in the mainstream game, or Rolls-Royce or Bentley at the top of the luxury heap. Picking up a brand in one of these segments would allow JLR and Tata Motors to actually expand offerings and pick up more sales, rather than having an internal competitor. What path would be ideal? Probably going even farther upmarket. Supercar makers and ultra-luxury brands continue to sell well, and there's the potential for significant profit by layering on features and content to existing platforms. Perhaps the best possibility for a high-end complement to Jaguar Land Rover would be Aston Martin. Not only does it have a strong reputation and line-up, it also could handle both supercars and luxury sedans, thanks to its Lagonda sub brand. Of course it would require Aston Martin to be receptive to a purchase.

Jaguar may join the FWD, small-car parade

Was it right for Chevrolet to detune the 1975 Corvette's base engine to 165 horsepower? Was Aston Martin wrong to make the Toyota iQ-based Cygnet? Is BMW crazy to be testing the new 1 Series with three-cylinder engines and front-wheel drive? It seems now, just as in the 1970s and 1980s, that emissions regulations and social considerations are driving some automakers to adopt unbefitting practices to maintain acceptance in the eyes of governments and consumers. Jaguar has jumped on the bandwagon, and is considering development of small, frugal, front-wheel-drive cars to help lower Jaguar Land Rover's average vehicle CO2 levels in light of tightening European emissions regulations, Autocar reports.
By 2020, the European Union expects the model range of every manufacturer to average 95 grams per kilometer, which is a new law passed by the European Parliament in April. Manufacturers who make more than 300,000 vehicles per year must meet these targets, and JLR is expected to be producing up to 700,000 vehicles per year by then. CO2 regulations after 2020 will only get stricter, as EU politicians already are talking about lowering CO2 levels to between 68 g/km and 78 g/km. (To put that in perspective, Autocar posits that driving a fully charged electric vehicle in Europe produces about 75 g/km when factoring in the power-generation infrastructure.)
Jaguar has some choices here, but so far they all have drawbacks. It could develop a new, compact chassis architecture for a line of compact vehicles, but the investment required for such a project could be prohibitively expensive. Jaguar has been looking into using the Land Rover Evoque platform for a small SUV, Autocar reports, but Land Rover brand manager John Edwards raises issue with such a plan, saying it may not be financially feasible.