Jaguar has shelved plans to build cars from a unified aluminum architecture because of financial constraints imposed by Ford, said Lewis Booth, head of Ford’s London-based stable of luxury brands. The Financial Times said Ford has delayed the plan, but it was unclear if further consideration would be given to the issue. Jaguar had aimed to use a single aluminum platform for the new S-Type and XJ. The architecture is already used for the new XK. Ultimately, the plan would actually reduce engineering costs. Pictured right in an Automobile rendering of the proposed 2009 all-new Jaguar XK (see original story). The XJ already uses an aluminum platform, so the next-generation model will likely be unaffected by the decision. Jaguar’s original S-Type was hit badly when it was launched because it shared a basic structure with the Lincoln LS. The X-Type also suffered from its association with the Ford Mondeo.
Zero obligation price quote from a trusted local dealer.
03/13, 8:48 AM
posted by:
BAC
Just meke em’ better than BMW and Lexus and it will matter very little what platform you use.
Ford has unlimited ability and limited vision.
03/13, 12:31 PM
posted by:
LKK
wow thats one ugly mother
03/13, 1:03 PM
posted by:
Joel A
Sad news.
03/13, 3:04 PM
posted by:
BCM
My memory is really failing. I don’t remember any serious criticism of the S-Type for sharing a platform with the LS. Unlike the X-Type (which was somewhat unjustly criticized), it was clear that Jaguar had done the development, and the two cars had totally different look and feel. The Camry and ES are still more similar than the S-Type and LS.
03/13, 8:22 PM
posted by:
Garris
Ford never misses a chance to shoot itself in the foot… Keeping models way to long without upgrades, eliminating SVT, and now eliminating the one engineering advantage they may have in the entire company. Amazing…
03/14, 1:31 AM
posted by:
BCM
“They need to dedicate and specilize platforms for different ****.”
Economically nuts. Even Rolls Royce and Bentley need to share platforms with less expensive makes. That’s why they went tits-up and were purchased by firms with the production volume sufficient to subsidize their niches. If the platform is a good one and the vehicles are not obviously similar, why should it be a problem? Honda just slaps an “A” badge on certain of its Japanese models and North Americans pay a big premium to park an “Acura” in their driveway– why then are manufacturers that make an effort to distinguish their brands by styling, performance, and equipment denigrated for platform-sharing?
03/14, 3:34 AM
posted by:
digitalzombie
nissan did it. they’re doing pretty well. GM cross platform and nasty stuff happens. If they made the platform with function in mind then they can build cars that are intended for that platform. Plus they have to actually build a good platform to begin with lol. Mustang chasis was how old before they change to a new platform and retro it? I heard it was 40 years or something which still sound unbelievable to me.
nissan spent a billion dollar on a truck platform and their trucks are pretty good on the new platform. The Z, M, G are on the same specialized platform. I think the new skyline is a new onetoo. gotta invest the money to make money i guess.
If the platform is a good one and the vehicles are not obviously similar, why should it be a problem?
Cuz you can still tell between a fusion and a zephry. hehe. they don’t try much compare to other car companies.
03/14, 9:20 PM
posted by:
Angelo
Nissan built an amazing platform around the VQ engine though. Ford’s platforms did much to be desired. Also, Nissan doesn’t try to compete in a Jaguar league with a low level Ford platform. Having the G35, the FX and the Z car in the same platform is one thing. Having a Ford Mondeo and an X-Type is another. The Mondeo is many things, it’s not sporting.
Also, the X-Type was one expensive lemon.