Guys this is really looking cheap!
When they mentioned a X over chassis between Landrover and Jaguar I thought YES!
We have an older Jeep Grand Cherokee and I think it looks real, looks better and doesn't resemble a space-ship er with no disrespect to space-ships that is,,, UGLY! The SUV looks so cheap like modern Landrovers/Rangerovers and Beemers!
BMW, Landrover, and all the other car makers need to realise that they don't have to look like over inflated Ford Fiestas. I won't be driving them at all, NONE! The bling amazes me som much I can only relate it to tin foil. Real Chrome or something similar would probably be nice if they wanted that Colgate sparkle, but it just looks so tinny and fragile,,, not my thing at all. Sorry folks.
The stupid thing is that they are supposed to be ALL TERRAIN and the view I percieve is it's gonna get scratched with all that bling! Give me the old ****** MB Jeep from WWII. That is the real thing! Oh and please gimme the gun as well....Stu

 

Those ****** are/were cool and very capable.

But, the engineering that goes into the new Ranger Rovers is quite superb. Still one of the best off roaders around - yes better than Jeep. Just look up a few comparison tests

And, they are absolutely all terrain, especially the Range Rover. You can beat up sports cars with it's under 5 second 0-60. Climb mountains with it and hop out in yours suit to the most expensive restaurant in the Platinum Triangle - all in one day.

Unless you are going rock climbing and worry about possibility of damaging the vehicle, any Land Rover product is superior in many ways.

 

Well, all terrain may be possible, it is not their intent. Very few buyers go for such cars for real off-roading vs. cars that are more traditionally capable. Most buyers consider all terrain to mean it will be confident driving on paved roads in near-extreme weather.

 

If you want to see an article on the Jag SUV concept go to autoweek.com. They have a photo layout and article about it in today's web issue. It was formally intorduce at the Frankfurt show opening.

 

I agree that landrovers are better engines, the techy all terrain systems are superior but there are very major issues, for 1, You get more for your money with Jeep, 2, Landrover are the no1 but for how long, they are too much in fashion rather than being fit for purpose and the modern Landys are plastic and brittle, I had one as a courtesy car and it looked so cheap and I used the glove compartment once and it never closed properly after that, they are just not hard-wearing and durable as they were 25 years ago. They are just too trendy and I have never been in fashion, that's why I have the X'. For the record the basic Landys are exactly basic and there are no extras, you have to pay for that and why do Landrover Sports have plain cloth trim? If I were to go for a Landrover it would be the old 94' Rangerover 4.2 as it's rugged or an 1980 defender. To me they are Landrover at their best not something on the catwalk in the latest colour/fad. Iknow I am hopelessly outvoted here but it's just what I think and if Jaguar were going to do the 4x4, then I think it should not be shared or designed to fit in and should be completely unique, either way, it won't judging by the images I've seen. However it's your choice, regards and respect to you all, Stu

 

Looks like JLR is busy at work..... Range Rover RS at the 'Ring. http://www.autoevolution.com/news/sp...ing-66899.html

 

And if they want to beef it up, why don't they call it J. UXB!
Unexploded Bomb?

 

When will JLR be aluminum construction top to bottom of their range? I don't feel they do a good enough job promoting the construction technique as it just a small bullet point about the car. For me, that was a major reason for first buying an XJ. There's really something to it versus the traditional spot welded steel manufacture.