2005 Jaguar Xjr Base Sedan 4-door 4.2l (supercharged) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar Land Rover parent Tata posts a loss over coronavirus

BENGALURU — India's Tata Motors posted a wider loss for the September quarter on Tuesday as the COVID-19 pandemic sapped demand in several of its key markets. The global health crisis has hammered sales for automakers worldwide and compounded problems for Tata Motors, which was trying to improve Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) sales amid weak demand and uncertainty related to Brexit. Tata Motors reported a consolidated net loss of 3.14 billion rupees ($42.47 million) for the second quarter ended Sept. 30, compared with a loss of 2.17 billion rupees a year earlier. Retail unit sales at luxury car unit JLR, which rakes in most of the company's revenue, was down nearly 12% for the reported quarter. Tata Motors, however, said it expects JLR sales to gradually improve. "Despite concerns around the risk of a second wave of (COVID-19) infections ... we expect a gradual recovery of demand and supply in the coming months," the carmaker said in an exchange filing. Total revenue from operations fell 18.2% to 535.3 billion rupees. Tata Motors said it was committed to achieving near-zero net automotive debt in the coming years. Shares of Tata Motors ended 1.46% higher on Tuesday while the broader Mumbai market settled 1.03% higher.

Say goodbye to Jaguar's vestigial oval grille

Jaguar has been on a campaign to replace any and all retro cues with modern ones. Just look at the current XJ and the one it replaced, or the XF and the S-Type that came before it and you'll know what we mean. The one remnant is the XK and its oval grille, in and of itself a throwback to Jags of old (which started to look more like a certain Star Wars alien in above-pictured XKR-S form). But don't expect it to hang around.
Newer Jaguars have been ditching the oval aperture for a more squared-off one, and the next XK will have to fall in line. But don't expect that to be the only change in store for the next-generation Jaguar coupe and convertible.
With the new F-Type now holding the more enthusiast-oriented ground, the next XK is expected to grow bigger, softer and more luxurious. That will likely mean a more commodious back seat as well, though that shouldn't be hard to do considering the lack of space in the back of the current model...

Jaguar F-Pace Luggage Test: How much fits in the cargo area?

The Jaguar F-Pace has been around for a while now, and perhaps it's just me, but it feels like it's been forgotten. That's a shame. This was the first time I've driven the F-Pace since the first drive event in Montenegro and therefore the first time I've really driven it in anything resembling normal conditions. And man, is it ever good, at least the R-Dynamic S you see here with the P400 engine. This is right up there with the Porsche Macan and Aston Martin DBX in terms of SUVs that are legitimately great to drive. The steering alone ... chef's kiss. But I'm here to talk about cargo capacity, so enough of that driving impressions stuff. The F-Pace is bigger than compact SUVs like the Mercedes GLC and BMW X3, but it's smaller than a GLE or X5. It's fairly similar to the Lexus RX in that way, which I just-so-happened to have luggage tested last week. Perfect timing, then! The specs say that it has 26.6 cubic-feet of space behind the back seat. I have a sneaking suspicion that volume represents a measurement from the floor to top of the seat back, or roughly the cargo cover. That's not just because what I found in the course of doing this test but because the F-Pace was reported to have 33.5 cubic-feet when it was launched back for 2017. That number seems more applicable to what you'll find in other SUVs. Either way, that's kinda why I do these tests to begin with! Here is the cargo area. It is quite deep and wide with an acceptable lift-over height. The F-Pace originally had a sliding rail system running the length of the cargo area along each side, but Jaguar has apparently replaced that with the fixed tie-down points you see here. There is a rigid cargo cover in place, which is probably good for NVH, but rubbish for cargo hauling. As a result, I will be testing with and without this cover in place. As with every Luggage Test, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). All of the bags fit underneath the cargo cover, so that pretty much confirms that whole thing about the current cargo volume representing floor to seat back. Now, the fancy bag is a wee bit squished, but it still totally fit.