Jaguar MX-5
#1
11-04-2014, 05:22 AM
Jaguar MX-5
JAGUAR MX-5
The new Mazda MX-5, was not conceived as a competitor for anything (currently) offered by Jaguar . . . which is to the good!!
It is not known why Mazda would persevere with the co-operative agreement with Alfa (FIAT), who no longer seem to know what to do with that arrangement.
As a replacement (or substitute) for the FIAT model, a Jaguar version of the MX-5, would provide a much needed “price leader” into the Jaguar model range, marque, franchise.
Just try to imagine the new MX5 with the new Jaguar “nose” (grill) on the front.
Should Jaguar want - or need - to be represented in the market segment within which the new MX-5 competes? Unequivocally, YES!
It will be at least another 2-3 generations before Jaguar has the (re-)established reputation, resources, to compete against the German opposition in the “quality” front-wheel-drive (FWD) “super-mini” segment, as price-leader to the rest of the range.
For the immediate future, an open sports car, is definitely more appropriate to the Jaguar company “profile” than a front-wheel-drive (FWD) “super-mini” segment, as price-leader to the rest of the range.
Does it matter that a Jaguar MX-5 may not contribute significantly to Jaguar’s profits? NO!
A Jaguar MX-5 will importantly increase the “foot-fall” and financial turnover of Jaguar’s dealers. A Jaguar MX-5 will deprive other marques of sales. A Jaguar MX-5 will provide an appropriate, successful, entry to the Jaguar range of more expensive (profitable) models.
FIAT, who - it does seem - do not (now) know what to do with the Alfa-Mazda deal, do already have amicable commercial relations with TATA, who own JLR (Jaguar Land Rover).
FIAT and TATA have co-operative commercial and manufacturing agreements in India. FIAT and TATA have connections in the UK through shared vehicle (purchase) financing schemes.
Until recently, Mazda did have Ford as a major shareholder. As once part of the Premier Automotive Group (PAG), Jaguar - with Volvo, Lincoln and Aston Martin - were also “owned” by Ford.
There are (of course) other historic direct links between Jaguar and Mazda. The Mazda RX-8 was used as a basis for the 2003 Jaguar R-D6 compact four-seat coupé prototype. It is understood the (penultimate, steel) XK and earlier X-Type, utilised rear light clusters from Mazda.
It can only be hoped that there is still sufficient goodwill, and “camaraderie”, in existence for all those who could, should, now be involved - to negotiate the “buy-out” of FIAT (Alfa) from the Mazda deal . . . to be replaced by Jaguar (TATA)!!
It is to be hoped that the ‘phone lines between Mazda and Jaguar, have been busy!!
The new Mazda MX-5, was not conceived as a competitor for anything (currently) offered by Jaguar . . . which is to the good!!
It is not known why Mazda would persevere with the co-operative agreement with Alfa (FIAT), who no longer seem to know what to do with that arrangement.
As a replacement (or substitute) for the FIAT model, a Jaguar version of the MX-5, would provide a much needed “price leader” into the Jaguar model range, marque, franchise.
Just try to imagine the new MX5 with the new Jaguar “nose” (grill) on the front.
Should Jaguar want - or need - to be represented in the market segment within which the new MX-5 competes? Unequivocally, YES!
It will be at least another 2-3 generations before Jaguar has the (re-)established reputation, resources, to compete against the German opposition in the “quality” front-wheel-drive (FWD) “super-mini” segment, as price-leader to the rest of the range.
For the immediate future, an open sports car, is definitely more appropriate to the Jaguar company “profile” than a front-wheel-drive (FWD) “super-mini” segment, as price-leader to the rest of the range.
Does it matter that a Jaguar MX-5 may not contribute significantly to Jaguar’s profits? NO!
A Jaguar MX-5 will importantly increase the “foot-fall” and financial turnover of Jaguar’s dealers. A Jaguar MX-5 will deprive other marques of sales. A Jaguar MX-5 will provide an appropriate, successful, entry to the Jaguar range of more expensive (profitable) models.
FIAT, who - it does seem - do not (now) know what to do with the Alfa-Mazda deal, do already have amicable commercial relations with TATA, who own JLR (Jaguar Land Rover).
FIAT and TATA have co-operative commercial and manufacturing agreements in India. FIAT and TATA have connections in the UK through shared vehicle (purchase) financing schemes.
Until recently, Mazda did have Ford as a major shareholder. As once part of the Premier Automotive Group (PAG), Jaguar - with Volvo, Lincoln and Aston Martin - were also “owned” by Ford.
There are (of course) other historic direct links between Jaguar and Mazda. The Mazda RX-8 was used as a basis for the 2003 Jaguar R-D6 compact four-seat coupé prototype. It is understood the (penultimate, steel) XK and earlier X-Type, utilised rear light clusters from Mazda.
It can only be hoped that there is still sufficient goodwill, and “camaraderie”, in existence for all those who could, should, now be involved - to negotiate the “buy-out” of FIAT (Alfa) from the Mazda deal . . . to be replaced by Jaguar (TATA)!!
It is to be hoped that the ‘phone lines between Mazda and Jaguar, have been busy!!
#2
11-06-2014, 08:32 AM
Veteran Member
Now there's an interesting thought. A sub-F-Type roadster, with the Ingenium engine...better get onto @IanCallum on Twitter to put a bug in his ear. I'm sure he could work with that chassis to our satifaction. Though I'm not sure a non-aluminum car fits Jaguar's plans at the moment, would they allow Mazda to build the Jaguarette for them?
#3
11-07-2014, 06:42 AM
Jaguar “M-Type"
Jaguar “M-Type”
Jaguar - and, Land Rover - are prepared to have their products manufactured in India; they have just said Brazil; and, are planning on a huge investment in the Middle East (alongside an aluminium manufacturing plant).
It is suggested that allowing Mazda to produce a Jaguar MX-5, would NOT be a problem!
The primary objective of aluminium construction is weight saving, with resulting benefits in fuel economy and handling.
However, Jaguar have already themselves compromised this, by using STEEL for the doors, boot (trunk) lid, and part of the floor, on the brand new XE saloon (*). It is reported that the “aluminium-bodied” XE saloon in its lightest guise weighs 1474kg, only 21kg less than the equivalent steel-bodied BMW 3-Series (*).
(*) UK “AUTOCAR” magazine, 8 October 2104.
It is reported (**) that “Soft-top MX-5 models are expected to weight less than 1,050kg, but Mazda is yet to announce an official figure”. Whatever that official figure may be, we can be confident that Mazda do know what they are doing, in building a suitable vehicle to compete in this segment.
A non-aluminium Jaguar MX-5 should not be a problem.
It is also reported (**) that the new MX-5 has “ . . perfect 50:50 front-to-rear weight distribution (with) new lightweight but rigid suspension . . with a double-wishbone set-up at the front and a multi-link arrangement at the rear”. Such sophisticated technical characteristics could have been demanded by Jaguar themselves!
(**) UK “auto express” magazine, 10 September 2104.
Fortunately, what little changes would need to be made to the exterior of the MX-5 by Ian Callum, could all be achieved with only (relatively) inexpensive changes to the “plastic” nose/front bumper and the “plastic” rear bumper (up to and including the rear lights). It is suggested that there would not be any necessity to indulge in expensive changes to metal body parts!
Jaguar - and, Land Rover - are prepared to have their products manufactured in India; they have just said Brazil; and, are planning on a huge investment in the Middle East (alongside an aluminium manufacturing plant).
It is suggested that allowing Mazda to produce a Jaguar MX-5, would NOT be a problem!
The primary objective of aluminium construction is weight saving, with resulting benefits in fuel economy and handling.
However, Jaguar have already themselves compromised this, by using STEEL for the doors, boot (trunk) lid, and part of the floor, on the brand new XE saloon (*). It is reported that the “aluminium-bodied” XE saloon in its lightest guise weighs 1474kg, only 21kg less than the equivalent steel-bodied BMW 3-Series (*).
(*) UK “AUTOCAR” magazine, 8 October 2104.
It is reported (**) that “Soft-top MX-5 models are expected to weight less than 1,050kg, but Mazda is yet to announce an official figure”. Whatever that official figure may be, we can be confident that Mazda do know what they are doing, in building a suitable vehicle to compete in this segment.
A non-aluminium Jaguar MX-5 should not be a problem.
It is also reported (**) that the new MX-5 has “ . . perfect 50:50 front-to-rear weight distribution (with) new lightweight but rigid suspension . . with a double-wishbone set-up at the front and a multi-link arrangement at the rear”. Such sophisticated technical characteristics could have been demanded by Jaguar themselves!
(**) UK “auto express” magazine, 10 September 2104.
Fortunately, what little changes would need to be made to the exterior of the MX-5 by Ian Callum, could all be achieved with only (relatively) inexpensive changes to the “plastic” nose/front bumper and the “plastic” rear bumper (up to and including the rear lights). It is suggested that there would not be any necessity to indulge in expensive changes to metal body parts!
#4
11-07-2014, 06:53 AM
Veteran Member
It would never work.
The MX-5 is far too reliable and sensibly designed to be accepted as a Jaguar. Far fewer
WTF? moments when contemplating some chore.
At least the rear wheel bearing of the later MX-5 is the same as the front wheel bearing
of the X308 and earlier XK's. The only reason they are sold at a semi-reasonable price,
even though Mazda chooses to use a conventional nut on the front side of the hub
instead of a special one off fastener on the rear of the hub requiring a special tool. A
definite WTF? moment.
The MX-5 is far too reliable and sensibly designed to be accepted as a Jaguar. Far fewer
WTF? moments when contemplating some chore.
At least the rear wheel bearing of the later MX-5 is the same as the front wheel bearing
of the X308 and earlier XK's. The only reason they are sold at a semi-reasonable price,
even though Mazda chooses to use a conventional nut on the front side of the hub
instead of a special one off fastener on the rear of the hub requiring a special tool. A
definite WTF? moment.
#5
12-12-2014, 11:24 PM
Veteran Member
This is interesting, owning both a MX5 and a XK8 I find a well executed In between car would be ideal and I think appeal to a large segment of Roadster Byers.
The largest complaint I have with Mazda is the butt ugly styling, the chipmunk face on the MX 5 is just plain horrible. A little more power and restyled body parts in line with Jaguar would be very appealing to me.
The largest complaint I have with Mazda is the butt ugly styling, the chipmunk face on the MX 5 is just plain horrible. A little more power and restyled body parts in line with Jaguar would be very appealing to me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
