Jaguar does not "need" an SUV to survive. They managed to survive when they had cars that would leak oil when parked on inclines and cars literally on fire out of the dealer (both true stories, happened to my grandfather when he picked up his first brand new XJS in the 80's and every time he parked his XK150 in a slope, I think it still does it now)

And to briefly address why some manufacturers that have no business building SUV crossovers like Porsche or Lamborghini are building them or considering them like Bentley?, the answer is really very simple::all three of those are owned by..."the Empire"=VOLKSWAGEN. Why is Rolls Royce even drawing a SUV crossover? They are owned by BMW. It has nothing to do with what owners and buyers of all those respective historical brands want, need or what any of those brands stand for historically, aesthetically or culturally, it's simply because the bean counters at Volkswagen and BMW think they can get an extra Euro/Yen out of one of those idiotic cars, so out the window goes all common sense and respect for the brand. SUV CROSSOVERS are an example of everything that is wrong with the auto industry today. BMW and particularly Volkswagen are following the failed GM playbook to the letter by destroying once proud brands by spreading themselves too thin. I hope Jaguar does not follow this example. Things are gradual. They don't happen overnight. Build an SUV today and have rebadged Tata trucks with leapers tomorrow.

 

I'm not trying to prove that I'm right and say they need one, but I believe it was Hallmark himself who said that if the XE wasn't successful enough it may very well be the end for Jaguar--now I cannot say if this is spot on but when you have him saying that obviously things aren't so rosy, yes the F-Type is a pretty car but it alone can't save the brand.

I can't stand all of the niches that they're trying to fill(X6 makes me vomit), but I think you're being a bit extreme in thinking that Jaguar is going to start churning out SUVs like wildfire. Whether you like it or not, change is inevitable-Tata and LR are already in bed to make some SUVs, I believe.

 

I like the idea of a Jag SUV if it is tuned for road not off-road and is a real competitor to the Cayenne.

It should ride lower than a Range Rover, be sleeker and more sexy. I think the current concept achieves that.

 

So what's the point of having an SUV if it's not 100% suited for off-roading. The concept is wrong on so many different levels. Just because Porsche and BMW took a wrong turn doesn't mean Jag has to denigrate it's marque. Why not produce it under the LR marque instead? Probably because it would detract from it's heritage as an off-roader even more so.


Never mind me. I'm clearly not an SUV fan. I never see them off road, never see them with more than 2 onboard and can't see the road ahead because almost everyone in the DC area drives them.

 

In today's American society, SUV's are a status symbol with little functional purpose. The Europeans can pack their family of 4 or 5 into a little econobox, but the Americans must have a SUV or a 'station wagon on stilts' for their family of 3.

The only SUV's I have ever seen off-road are the ones in TV ads and marketing brochures.

BTW- Jaguar C-X17 is a 'Sports Crossover' not an SUV.

 

Speth said they would not build a SUV as that is what LR is for, but don't kid yourself into thinking the majority of the people with their Range Rovers are driving through jungles, they're more at home in the mall parking lot.

 

Even worse

 

Here's my idea of what the perfect SUV or Sports Crossover (or whatever else you might want to call it) should emulate

 

I'm gonna use my powers of deduction, and conclude that the those of you in this thread who are against the CX-17 are; males who are probably closer to 50 than 30, if not older.

I've got news for you, this car was not created to suit your needs or wants.

Women with kids. This car is meant to appeal to women with kids. Just like most other mid-sized SUV/crossover/whatevers. Sure some men buy these things, but they are usually husbands in families with little kids.

If you are an older gent with an empty nest, then the XJ & XF are yours, if you are of a sporty set then hello F-Type. Don't worry about an SUV devaluing the brand image of your dearly beloved Jag, because it won't. Jag's image as an old-geezers car has been established for decades, it will take more than one little SUV to damage that...

 

Wrong. 32 here.

And it's a discussion. As far as I know no one here is requesting an emergency audience with Elizabeth II or going to the U.S Supreme Court to prevent Jaguar from building the car. And I bet a lot of people where saying "nothing to see, move on" when BMW Started on their first SUV a decade ago.

 

Are you a woman with young kids?

 

No. Are Jaguars now about women with young kids?

 

The CX-17 is, just like most other SUV's...

 

Sorry to keep harping on about it, but I'd like something with Jaguar styling that's a bit practical and the C-X17 would be just that. It's pretty small, and *if* they make it it should be fairly nimble. I don't need it to be able to take me through the Amazon, just get me through Ohio winters.

 

Or a little bit 'o' this....

 

That'll do, too!

 

If we are talking proximity, this vehicle is closer to a truck than a car. Jaguar builds cars, LR builds trucks. Why not keep it that way?

What next...an Aston Martin or Ferrari SUV? Just kill me.

 

It is a truck regardless of whatever name game they are playing. A Land Rover already *is* what a Jaguar SUV or truck would be. This car is as pointless as a BMW X6. What will this car have that any offering from Land Rover or Range Rover does not already give you ?.... Absolutely nothing. They just want to see if they can do what the other manufacturers are doing and get some suburbanites to see it and say "oh my gosh, it's soo different!!!"

Why are they not busy bringing Daimlers back instead?

And Aston Martin was actually thinking of making this disgrace:



Fortunately for them it looks like some common sense about what the brand is about prevailed and they dropped the concept, and also dropped another ill-conceived idea that actually did make it into production, the Cygnet :



Since stopping production of the Cygnet and forgetting about the "SUV", Aston has actually decided to do what it does best and bring back the Lagonda sedans:

 

Come on now, the X6 and X4 are nowhere near what the C-X17 is. You say why have it when you can get a Range Rover....personal preference I'd say. While it's a concept let's be honest it is 95% production ready(exterior) and I'd have it over the Evoque or Discovery Sport in a heartbeat.

 

Good lord. Probably worse than the X6... It's a disproportioned truck with a XJ face. It's a land-whale like the happily dropped Aston Martin SUV I referenced above. The only redeeming quality about this blimp is that they went to the now "bespoke only" Connolly leather to make the interior for it. Absolutely horrid and un-Jaguar like. Plenty of pace and space but no grace anywhere to be found.

It's no wonder that with tastes (or lack of) for cars like this CX-17 that the great Italian Auto Design Houses of Pininfarina and Bertone has both gone out of business in the past two years. What is worse is That now because of cars like this, even modern day "sedans" are being made with ridiculous high hoods and massive sized bodies. I hope that the Lagonda Taraf is very successful and inspires other manufacturers to produce leaner and graceful cars instead of continuing on the tired, flooded, repetitive world of SUV crossovers.