For years I have expressed disbelief that Jaguar eschewed the crossover
segment. It was because Land Rover did them. However, Land Rover do SUVs
with off road prowess, not crossovers. There is a difference.
Crossovers are cars with higher ground clearance but little if any off
road capability. They are designed to drive on city roads, helping with
the school run, having plenty of room for retail purchases, all the
while providing better visibility. They can also take corners well and
generally drive as assuredly as a car.
Finally the powers that be decided Jaguar can do a crossover, and it's due in 2016. Better late than never. It will sell well and make good money for the company. Had Jaguar sought my consulting expertise, it would be on the road by now. Hindsight gives us 20/20 vision, so such an oversight in getting the best advice can be forgiven.
What it will look like is too early to say, but apparently the CX-17 concept gives an idea of the likely styling. If there is a question I have over the car it is the name. F-Pace? I would have gone for C-Type as its easy to say and fits with other Jaguar monikers. I guess buyers won't be dissuaded by a peculiar name.
Finally the powers that be decided Jaguar can do a crossover, and it's due in 2016. Better late than never. It will sell well and make good money for the company. Had Jaguar sought my consulting expertise, it would be on the road by now. Hindsight gives us 20/20 vision, so such an oversight in getting the best advice can be forgiven.
What it will look like is too early to say, but apparently the CX-17 concept gives an idea of the likely styling. If there is a question I have over the car it is the name. F-Pace? I would have gone for C-Type as its easy to say and fits with other Jaguar monikers. I guess buyers won't be dissuaded by a peculiar name.
 |
| I like the styling of it. The name will have to grow on me |
No comments