An All-electric Jaguar Range? Might As Well…

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Jaguar Land Rover has a problem, and it’s not Land Rover. The Indian-owned (but still quintessentially British) automaker has seen sales of is fairly vast Land Rover family flourish, at the expense of its Jag models. Sedan sales are grim, and the two SUVs launched to prop up the brand haven’t kept its head above water, volume-wise.

Reportedly, JLR has proposed a radical solution: turn the brand into an all-electric family, thus boosting the corporate MPG of the automaker as a whole while keeping Jaguar viable in a rapidly changing regulatory landscape. Putting aside heritage and associated romance, it’s hard to come up with an argument against it.

According to Autocar, company product planners have laid out a yet-unapproved strategy that would see the marque shed all gas-powered vehicles within the next decade. The inspiration for this plan is rooted in anger — specifically, that of Tata, JLR’s Indian owner. Tata doesn’t like how sales are trending, especially in light of its recent investments.

Reportedly, planning is at a fairly advanced stage. The outline of the strategy would see the flagship XJ convert to a full EV in the next couple of years (a plan already well advertised), with the XE and XF sedans bowing out in 2023. Their replacement would be an electric crossover slightly larger than Audi’s E-Tron, which would show up around 2025 — the same time as the phase-out of the F-Pace and E-Pace crossovers. There’ll also be a new I-Pace EV crossover (due in the U.S. this fall) appearing at this time. A new range-topping utility vehicle, the J-Pace, will launch for 2021 and enter retirement around 2027.

As for the F-Type sports coupe and convertible, it won’t make it halfway through the coming decade. No direct replacement is planned. Just to reiterate, this plan has not received a go signal from JLR.

Were JLR to pull the trigger, execs imagine a near future where Jaguar, with four or five models available, captures a large slice of Europe’s burgeoning premium EV segment. Other markets, China being at the top, could prove receptive as well.

European cities are increasingly pushing for all-out bans on internal combustion vehicles, with German cities already allowed to restrict use (and movement) of older diesel models within their boundaries. Going EV would give the brand free reign. The developments costs would be cushioned by the galloping Land Rover family, which continues to see its sales rise, and partially absorbed by higher MSRPs. A sharp rise in corporate fuel economy would also allow the Land Rover range to forgo expensive investments in electrification. Buyers seem to like their Land Rover and Range Rover vehicles just the way they are, and there’s the upcoming Defender to consider, too.

In the U.S., the steep sales increase seen from 2015 to 2017 reversed in 2018. Year to date, Jaguar sales are down 30 percent over the same period last year. September saw a 38 percent year-over-year decrease for the marque, while the Land Rover family rose 9 percent to a new record for the month.

Early reviews of the I-Pace crossover show Jaguar already has the capability of building an engaging EV with significant sporting and utility appeal. Owners of old E-Types can even have their rides converted to electric power without altering the car’s weight balance. In short: electrification is already attaching itself to Jaguar’s identity.

Those worried about heritage and tradition bemoaned the introduction of the F-Pace — a vehicle that’s done more to keep Jaguar alive in the past two years than anything else — and the continued shift of consumer preferences towards SUVs means survival as a company depends on following the changing winds and anticipating new ones. No one’s forecasting the return of the car, nor a decline in EV growth.

[Images: Jaguar Land Rover]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 40 comments
  • HotPotato HotPotato on Oct 17, 2018

    How many brands of midsize luxury electric SUVs can we have? How big is that market really? Literally the only reasons I can imagine anyone would consider a Johnny-come-lately brand to this space instead of a Tesla are that a) the Model X's space-egg styling isn't for everyone, b) they want to pay a bit less than the Model X's base price (as if price really matters when you can afford something on the wrong side of the $50k mark), or c) they only want an extravagant second car, since that's what it's going to be limited to in the absence of Tesla's dedicated true high-speed charging network. If the manufacturers' concern is just enabling their Euro customers to continue to drive in the city center, they can do that with the same half-baked, bad-faith, short-range PHEVs that BMW, Volvo, and Audi currently specialize in: tacking a joke of a battery and plug onto a standard gasoline hybrid car and saying "look, ma, you can go for 10 miles on electricity!" (if you never turn on the heat or push the throttle more than halfway). They're garbage, but they drive right through the loophole. If -- and this is a big if -- automakers are serious about EVs, they need to build machines with serious range and strong performance down in the mid-price class. So far, only Chevy has done that, although Hyundai isn't too far behind if they can ever get around to ramping up production. Jaguar promises an $85k midsize electric SUV, Audi promises an $85k midsize electric SUV, Volvo promises their $85k midsize SUV will eventually be legitimately electric -- who cares. We don't need more $85k luxury electric SUVs. We need the Fat Camry of EVs: something that blows people away with how good it is for its midrange price.

  • GenesisCoupe380GT GenesisCoupe380GT on Apr 07, 2020

    Hell no! I'd just as soon pull the plug on Jaguar than to see it be ruined just to placate a bunch of hippie treehuggers. That's like outlawing chicken farming just so the waste-a-day brigade known as PETA can feel better about being on the brink of starvation

  • Cprescott The problem with this fable by the FTC is:(1) shipping of all kinds was hindered at ports because of COVID related issues;(2) The President shafted the Saudis by insulting them with a fist bump that torqued them off to no end;(3) Saudis announced unilateral production cuts repeatedly during this President's tenure even as he begged to get them to produce more;(4) We were told that we had record domestic production so that would have lowered prices due to increased supply(5) The President emptied the strategic petroleum reserve to the lowest point since the 1980's due to number 3 and then sold much of that to China.We have repeatedly been told that documents and emails are Russian disinformation so why now are we to believe this?
  • Ollicat Another Biden attempt to say, "Look over there!"
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh Who cares. Price of gas is not the issue. spending an extra 100$ a month over 4 tanks of gas is not the issue.this a political scam to distract really dumb people from the real issue. if rent and house payments were not up by 50% to as high as 150% higher in a ton of locations, then paying an extra 100$ in gas would be annoying but not really an issue. But the real-estate market with hedge fund investors, power-relator groups bought a ton of houses and flipped them into rentals and jacked up the rates uplifting the costs on everything else. and ironically no-one seems to be in any hurry to build more houses to bring those costs down because supply and demand means keeping less houses available to charge as much as you want. It is also not the issue as a secondary issue is child care costs and medical... again 100$ extra per month in gas is *nothing* compared to 800$ a month in ''child care'' and 300$ per visit to the doctor office, 300$ for a procedure less dentist trip..
  • Ajla Is there something proprietary or installed on the moon with these that I'm not aware of?
  • Tane94 Awaiting the EV3 unveil this month. Kia continues to lead, though I will miss the Soul
Next