[Closed] Bad news at Jag/LandRover

But don't worry, the unions are fighting it....

The press love a bit of doom and gloom.

I guess solihull will go, with disco/rrsport going up to halewood. Range rover might go to castle brom with the jags.

Hopefully they'll put a bit of thought into a boxster rival.

'Mon the Unions, don't let modernisation and investing in the future get in the way of a good strike!

Seems the Government are seeing the positive in it, which is sure to put a shity stain on any company attempts to put across the good story 😉

Revive Daimler for luxury versions of the current XJ so more margin per unit.
XK is doing okay at the moment
XF might do okay but not convinced it is good enough.
Spin a smaller XK from the XF platform perhaps? A boxster with a bit of luxury.
LR - the new RR Sport sorted out the real weak link even though ther old one sold well.
Baby LR should help too.

Just need to drop costs and invest in new equipment. A bit like they said in their new announcement.

The press don't have the full story, changes to pension arrangements, lose roughly 20% final pension, new contracts for everyone next year so single contract for all employees, manufacture of vehicles outside the UK (chinese built XJ anyone?) outsourcing of product development, only mention of redundancy is no compulsories, 20% lower salaries for any new hires including contractors, 4 pages of changes put over in a JFDI manner.

Think the writing is on the wall for CB, too expensive to modernise paint shop to accomodate trucks, land locked so unable to expand, 2000 at CB, 5000 at Solihull therefore easier transfer of labour, Product development based in Cov to move to Gaydon, JLR to become LR PLC as all Jag facilities will be closed (Halewood is a LR plant now), veneer plant to be closed/sold etc etc so not the rosey picture that you may have heard

votchy - I agree. I did say in my original post that the company would try and hide some bad news but on balance, right at the moment I would have talked this up rather than down.

So it will be "TATA" to Landrover then.

Reminds me of a very old story in the ever excellent Daily Mash...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/jaguar-to-keep-making-cars-no%11one-can-afford-200812181468/

In what way is slimming down a company good news ?

The company has already axed 2500 jobs, freezed pay, and cancelled bonuses this year. They are now saying that next year they might close Castle Bromwich (2000 jobs) or Solihull (5000 jobs)

[i][b]But[/i][/b] it's "great news" because they are creating 800 new jobs at Halewood ? WTF ?

.

Yeah, right ................[i]
"Can I have your attention lads, I got good news and bad news.
First the bad news. There's nothing to eat apart from shit.
Now the good news. There's plenty of it."[/i]

I think it is good news that the people who run the company have got the balls to take some serious measures to make the company profitable in the future. JLR make some fantastic products, both in production and in the pipeline, and it truly deserves to be successful (after many years of mismanagement by previous owners). The media will always try to make a sensational headline out of not much news - the closure of a plant is to take place over the next 10 years, so it is not as though there will be a flood of people losing their jobs. Their jobs will either be transferred to where production moves (which could only be 10 miles away), or be lost as people leave/retire etc. I am particularly passionate about the place, having worked their for 26 years. Do I think the company will survive? Yes, I will stake my pension on it!!

I so hope you are right large418, and the optimism and faith in the future are well founded. Sadly recent history of British car manufacturing appears to be one of broken promises and false optimism. Maybe Tata will indeed be the company which reverses this trend, but I don't find it very easy to recognise how a company which has, in the 18 short months of ownership of JLR, shed thousands of jobs and threaten to ditch development unless it received massive government loans, and now is promising further job losses, represents an unqualified bright future for JLR. Still, if the workforce accepts managements plans, then lets hope they are indeed successful.

And btw, in reference to this "funny ha-ha" comment : [i]"But don't worry, the unions are fighting it"[/i] how the **** does the author think that JLR management has managed to shed 2500 jobs, freeze pay, and cancel bonuses in the last year ? Yes, with the agreement of the unions :

[i]Unite national secretary for the automotive sector, said: "Earlier this year, this company and our union agreed a framework agreement intended to support JLR through this tough economic period.

In April our members agreed to changes to terms and conditions of their employment in order to give the company financial security,

We recognise the difficult trading environment for JLR, which is why Unite and its members have done more to help JLR during this recession than we have with any other company.

Some of the problems the company faces today exist as a result of past management failures. These failures were at the hands of the same team who today want our members to lose their pensions."[/i]

http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/unite_rejects_jaguar_attempts.aspx

What Tata have really done is to force JLR to face up to the seriousness of their past mistakes (and previous owners mistakes). And they have made, and continue to make sure that the company honours its commitments (meeting budgets, sales targets, etc). Unfortunately when sales decline, budgets are reduced, and to protect the long term future, jobs are cut. So, for the 85% of people who remain at JLR, the future is more secure. I would rather 15% of people lose their jobs now, than 100% in a year or two. The unions have worked well with the company's management over the past year or so to make necessary cuts. I am firmly of the opinion that an engineering company has to be very efficient in the modern world in order to be able to withstand all the forces from round the world. There will always be cheaper labour than in the UK, there will always be cheaper land, cheaper materials, etc etc. We have to be streamlined. efficient etc etc to be able to withstand these forces. If a company does not have the income to fund their plants/employees/assets/whatevers, guess what. So, either increase income (difficult) or reduce costs. Unfortunately, people are an easy way of cutting costs (but in the good times, they are an easy way of increasing output/profits as well). Some of the Unions postulating upsets me, but I understand their motivations, although I do believe that there are times when Union actions are for short term gain at the expense of long term survival. I guess we'll see when discussions are over where peoples interests really lie.

Yes indeed large418, as you say. "there will always be cheaper labour than in the UK, there will always be cheaper land, cheaper materials, etc etc.". And yes, British workers can compensate, to a degree, by providing greater efficiency to "withstand these forces", as you put it. But how long will this last for ? .......a couple of days ago India launched her first succession mission to the Moon. The technology is catching up, and catching up fast, Britain will not be able to maintain that advantage forever.

But there is no need to be defeatist about the future. If the will is there, then what is left of British manufacturing can still be saved. It just requires commitment, commitment to put British jobs first. Just as a very small example, there is no reason why British police forces shouldn't be expected to buy British - putting the interests of a British family before that of a family on the other side of the world. Apply that to public transport too, and local authorities etc etc. There is no way that British jobs should be lost to unfair competition. And plenty apart from 'procurement' requirements and contract compliance clauses, can be used to help British workers.
But all that requires a different way of thinking .......

Jaguar has never made a profit. Ever.

LR is one of the most profitable car companies in the world. The Disco 1 was THE most profitable car ever.

One gets passed on to act as incentive to buy the other.

Shame as they both make great vehicles.

As far as Eco credentails, the Defender has very sensible 'cradle to grave' emissions. Especially when you factor in the fact that the design life span for a modern car is 7 years (limited by emission controlling ECU availability ironically) and 70% of all defenders are still on the road.

As far as the EU emission data: it's a total joke and in no way represents emission outputs in daily use. That's why fuel tax is so much fairer.

But never mind, so long as it rakes tax in for our Socialist government.

mikertroid - Jaguar HAS made a profit - FACT, it was making money before Ford bought it and it made money during Ford ownership, please check your facts before you gob off

Votchy.

Jag has never made a profit. FACT. I have that from an exceedingly good source. I will double check my gen, but I feel you may have to swallow your words.

And I'm not gobbing off-chill out before you make accusations.

Votchy,

This took a couple of minutes to source without much effort:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3645036.ece

As said, I'll double check from my source; he's away for a fortnight, however.

It's LR that pull up the figures. That's what happened at the Rover Group too-they lived off the profit of LR for years before they sold it and eventually went under. TATA wouldn't have touched Jag without LR!

However the Jaguar 'brand' is what keeps it going; it's a superb image.

I'm not critisising Jags, lovely cars (my old man had a 6.25litre TWR XJS years back) and the new ones are goregeous; but it doesn't make them profitable.

Look at most of the car manufacturers worldwide-most are losing money and most are volume manufacturers.

I'll revisit this when I've had my gen confirmed.

TATA for now!!!!!

mikertroid - sorry to be harsh, working for Jag makes me a bit touchy, however, the figures that are published internally and now externally within the business has shown Jag making a profit at times, do agree that LR have been making more though - am a bit passionate about the company I work for 😀

Of course Jaguar cars have made a profit. Does anyone really think they could have been around for over 80 years without ever making a profit ? And when Jaguar was part of BLMC/BL, it was one of the group's most profitable marques.

Votchy,

I totally understand! As said, It's a premium marque and carries alot of weight too. AND makes fine cars.

Ernie_l: Sorry to burst your bubble!!

As said before, I'll get the exact data, but a recent conversation on the topic of Jag indicated that it's always been a loss making org-more of a loss-leader really even from its outset. As far as when it was in BL's hands-I'm not sure what planet you were on there-but even without looking at the economics of it, when you consider the complexity of the units they were selling compared to the volume it's no wonder they lost money!

Talking losses, the vast majority of Rovers (25/45/800) were sold at a loss (for reasons not discussable on a public forum). The 75 was underpriced, and wasn't taken as seriously as it should. Had it been correctly priced it would have sold more due to the strange psychology of the consumer!! The Metro, ironically was a cost-neutral project which made the MGF profitable until they closed down the line at Longbridge making the MGF a loss maker too.

Very sad story.

Why is previous profitability relevant? Yes, Jaguar has made big losses in the past, and has also made profits (not for many years I admit, but it has made profits). Even under Ford there were good years. Land Rover is an iconic brand, and has traded (and profited) on this for many years. Even Land Rover has made losses in the past.
Neither company would have been bought by Ford or Tata if they did not have a future. Both Ford and Tata have looked at the projected performance of the companies they have bought before they part with any cash, and who wouldn't? Past performance is not always a good indicator of the future (just looks at some of the banks).
The fact is that both Jaguar and Land Rover are now producing cars that are better quality, more fuel efficient, more desirable, cleaner emitting than ever before, and this is what Tata are looking at. Remember that Tata have a long term vision (20 years).
Plus there are other benefits to Tata of having a fantastic research centre producing technology far beyond what they are capable of - this could be part of their long term vision (but who knows?).
This isn't blind optimism. You only have to look at what is being done within JLR to see that there is a future. Shutting plants is one way of guaranteeing that (after all, no other car manfacturer would even dream of having 3 manufactuing sites and 2 engineering sites for a total volume of 250,000 vehicles - it cannot be sustained.)

even from its outset

Sorry mate, you've completely lost me - I can't believe you expect anyone to believe, that Jaguar has been making losses since 1922.

And I wouldn't get too hung up on the 'profit fetish' anyhow. I'm sure that Jaguar could have shown a profit if JLR were determined to show one - Jag and LR share much in common for a start. Playing around with profit within a group is fairly easy. Indeed iirc, in the early 1970's Ford UK imported components including engines, from Ford Spain for assembly in the UK. The price Ford UK paid for these components was well above their true value, as a consequence, Ford UK made little or no profit, whilst Ford Spain made huge profits. Now at the time the unions in the UK had some clout, and of course everyone knows that "the company isn't making any profit" is always management's trump card. And needless to say, that trump card wasn't need by management in Spain. The trump card for the management in Spain in the early 1970's was : "you live in a fascist dictatorship, you have no independent trade unions, and you cannot go on strike". The strategy worked fairly well.

As I say, "profitability" is often a meaningless term, it really depends on how you define it. And I really don't want to go down the road of discussing 'surplus value', but remember, there is only one way that a manufacturer can make a profit - by overcharging it's customers, ie charging over and above, the costs involved in producing the product. To get back to Jag, a quote from the Telegraph at the time when Tata were about to buy them : [i]"Land Rover made profits of about $1.2bn (£600m) last year - or about £2,200 per car - and while Jaguar made a small loss due to launch costs of the well-received XF model, it [u]is now basically back in the black[/u]."[/i]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/2787062/Tata-must-keep-up-to-the-marque.html

And as for jag not making a profit when it was part of BL "[i]Despite containing profitable marques such as Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover, as well as the best-selling Mini, British Leyland had a troubled history[/i]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland_Motor_Corporation

Ernie,

You've answered you own doubts. You can make any outfit produce 'profit' dependant on what timescale/criteria you use. 'Basically back in black'? What does that actually mean?!

I'm not obsessed by profit, but posters here didn't seem to be aware of the history behind things. If you don't believe me, then I'm not going to lose sleep over it!
I've had this confirmed previously by an [u]extremely[/u] reliable and authoritive industry figure, but I will for fairness get it confirmed when we speak next. I was as surprised to hear it as you, to be honest. The politic/economics behind it were quite interesting.

Think your wiki quote is quite amusing!! BL was a shambles from top to bottom. As said, I'll get it confirmed by a much more reliable source than the t'internet!! Wiki has its uses, however, I grant you that.

Large:

TATA HAD to buy them both as a job lot. They weren't goint to get LR without an offset. Ford were struggling and had to get rid. They didn't want to let go of LR but there you go.

Jag last made a profit when it was plc,in the mid 80's

Jag last made a profit when it was plc,in the mid 80's

How long for? I'd be interested to know. Making the XJS and XJ6??!!

Again it's probably a good use of stats to make a headline. Most of the UK automotive industry was well into decline a decade before that.

. You can make any outfit produce 'profit' dependant on what timescale/criteria you use. 'Basically back in black'? What does that actually mean?!

Exactly ............. that's my point ! ............ oh isn't nice when you agree on something 😀

And I would have thought most people were aware that Jaguar didn't make huge profits whilst under the ownership of Ford ...... but that isn't the only consideration, is it ?

As far as the wiki quote is concerned, I did of course, realise that you would dismiss it out of hand ie, "if it's in Wikipedia then it [i]can't[/i] be true - in fact the opposite must be true" but if you want to do that, then it's fine by me - I simply can't be bothered 8)

& jags were selling like hot cakes to the US of A at the time.The series 3 XJ6 actually made them a lot of money once they stopped it's roof from leaking.....

Oh look, after saying "I simply can't be bothered" I've decided to come back. And look what a quick search has turned up :

"[i]BL's financial year runs from 1 January to 31 December. In the 12 months ending 31 December 1983 the Jaguar group made a profit before taxation of £50 million.[/i] "

That's a quote from "Hansard" which was quoting Norman Tebbit the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1984.

Is that any good ? Is "Hansard" OK ?

😉

EDIT : Sorry I forgot to include the link :

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1984/aug/01/jaguar-cars

Well done,you finally managed to shut up Mr"I've had this confirmed previously by an extremely reliable and authoritive industry figure"
🙄

Hansard ok?! Give over!!

I know it's not!! The trite that gets put up in parliament ain't worth the paper....

I look forward to discussing that with 'the horses mouth' so to speak! I'm expecting that I'll get a good insight on how they derived that figure too.

I'd still maintain that despite (arguably) making monies over certain periods, It has been a loss leader throughout.

I'd put my man as more reliable and insightful than some government figure, not hard to believe given the current state of things!!

Emac65,

if you don't like it then don't read it!!

I was a surprised as you too. But I didn't get irate about it!

Grow up.

They made a profit as a plc & then a loss as part of the Ford group etc...

Is that good enough for you ?

As for getting irate,I just like reeling them in....sploosh there's another...

Whatever, ermac. I'll get my info checked. It appears that it HAS at times made a profit, particularly in the early '80s after a bad period.

I'll be keen to see what comes up.

Now who's irate....
I was working for them at the time so kinda know what was going on 8)

Well if you were at director level then I'll listen....

Hmm not quite but they had this thing going on with profit & shares,lets just say I did rather well out of it 8)

Okay. So when was that?

Mikertroid,
have a look at the Jaguar share price when they were a standalone company (1986 to 1992 or so). There was a significant increase in share price while the company was on the stock market. That doesn't usually happen with loss making companies. From your posts so far, there seems to be little substance other than "I have a reliable source who told me". I also have a reliable source who told me, the only question is whether my source is more reliable than yours. Come back with some facts.

Amyway, I can't see why you are getting hung up on whether Jaguar made a profit. It's the future that counts, not the past.

Tata did not have to buy Jaguar or Land Rover. They were free to walk away at any time if they did not like the deal. They did, however, recognise that the Product Development side of Jaguar and Land Rover was so intertwined that it would be difficult to split. Thay also recognised that both brands had fantastic products and a real future. We could do with far sighted companies like that in the UK.

Large. The actual facts/figures are with my contact who was fully involved at the management/director level at LR throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s.

He's in regular contact with many of the main characters in the uk motor industry at the time.

I may have been misled by his description of Jaguar as a 'loss making company since it's origin' since he's considering overall terms.

I'm not obsessed by this-just interested. I'm sure it has a future but you can't be so naive to consider that Tata weren't going to get LR on it's own! Why would Ford ditch them?

Facts? Look at the thread. It's full of facts!!

Anyway I'll wait out and consider what I'm going to do to my new bike when it finally arrives!!

Mike you're right what was I thinking ?
It was just a dream & now I've woken up.
Your not Mike as in Beasley are you ?

eMac, you've lost me there!! I'm Not mike Beasley for sure but I guess I shouldn't take that as a compliment!!

For what it's worth, "Ford ditched them" because it was probably the one area of their business that could make them any decent money at a time when they were having to pay out huge redundancy money in the states........

Beasley was the MD when I worked there,we thought a lot of him 🙄

Well I agree with you with the Ford statement.

Im on my 3rd Landrover Discovery now. I have loved owning them. Part of the reason for weak sales in my view has been caused by the anti 4x4 lobby hysterically tagging these cars as anti-enviroment. There often seems to be a political need to "tag" sections of our society and blame them for our ills. The media is quick to oblige our politicians with this.

It keeps our focus on the "enemy" of society and off any shortcomings of our leaders....sorry im rambling!

What they miss out on is that they are not so bad on fuel if driven sensibly(people who by them dont buy this type of car for "motorsport"). Subaru Imprezas and Golf GTIs can use more fuel if driven in a "normal" way for that class of car. We get 25.6mpg from our disco. We use it for longer journeys especially with bikes! We don't use it for short town journeys, and have a small car for that and rail season tickets! I'm totally in agreement on the fuel tax issue. Road tax penalisation as is the current vogue does not encourage sensible car usage.

There is no other 4x4 with as much space & i can get 3 "big bikes" in the back without lowering the rear seat. The engine is a beautiful purring Jag v6 gem. I relly like it. I'll be very sad if LR goes down. Their product is excellent..

I can't believe you're still willing to argue the toss mikertroid .....

I'd put my man as more reliable and insightful than some government figure

So you're not prepared to believe Lord Tebbit then ? Norman Tebbit the great Conservative parliamentarian and darling of the Tory far right ? ! I have to say that comes something of a surprise given your political prejudice which you have amply betrayed with this comment : [i]"never mind, so long as it rakes tax in for our Socialist government."[/i]

So it wasn't just Wikipedia which you weren't prepared to believe then, what you meant to say, was that you weren't prepared to believe [i]any[/i] source which didn't fit in with your own preconceived opinions.

But wait ............here you say : [i]"It appears that it HAS at times made a profit, particularly in the early '80s"[/i] ! You really are all over the place mate, so let me see if I can help you. Perhaps your mysterious and unidentified source meant :

[i]"Jaguar has never made a profit. Ever........... Since it was privatised and sold to the Yanks. Although it had been making £1 million a week profit when it was still nationalised"[/i]

BTW, if you still think that the Tory government was blatantly falsifying the figures before privatisation (and we're talking pretty large sums here), it's probably fair to point out that Ford could have undoubtedly sued.

ernie, you clearly can't/don't read; I'm going to get my info checked. I think I may have taken the statement 'Jaguar have never been a profit making manufacturer ever' too literally. They may have, but for less than the majority of times,

Your comments about Lord Tebbit confuse me. The government that we're currently suffering is socialist, Self interested and deceitful. The Conservatives are the latter two! My political views are independent of who I'd trust as a source. My friend is apolitical to this matter. BUT:

In my experience ANYTHING issued from HMG is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Ford bought Jag AND LR. LR making a profit as a sweetener.

I think you agree with me on all points here. Apart from the fact that I don't trust any govt figure, I work for them for christ's sake!

Your comments about Lord Tebbit confuse me. The government that we're currently suffering is socialist

Here then lies the problem.........................you are indeed confused.

.

............ and I still don't understand how you ever came to believe that Jaguar had never made a profit - they've been going since 1922 ! How do you think they managed to afford to buy Daimler ? !

ernie I think you're more confused actually!!

You appear surprised that I don't trust Tebbit, [u]or[/u] the socialist Brown Govt. They're both as bad as each other. Tebbit maybe less so!!!

Okay: from my brief websearch (applying usual mistrust factors) Jag have made profit from 1945-1956 (brilliant) and in early 80's (again fantastic). I think that given their current lineup they will do will in the '10s too.

I'm guessing my statement as 'never profit making' has been coloured by an industry view of 'Jaguar has never been profitable since it's outset'. Obviously at times it MUST have made a profit to have justified certain purchases.

BUT in the overall scheme of things, Jag hasn't been a profit making car company.

That fair?

hey are not so bad on fuel if driven sensibly...

We get 25.6mpg from our disco.

Even if the competition is just as bad, that's pretty shit though, isn't it?

Hysterical pro environment point made.

Dr Dolittle,

But you don't have to scrap them so soon.

CO2 goes form cradle to grave. That's why the CO2 figures given are so misleading plus they test on MAX weight for a given vehicle, not what it does in the real world. But it makes money for greedy Gordon.

Anyway, enough for now: safe passage/happy landings wherever you are! Adios!!

ernie I think you're more confused actually!!

Strangely enough, I don't think I am.

Am I surprised that you don't trust Tebbit ? Well I'm certainly surprised that you are being so stubborn. I'm sure that if we had found a quote from Tebbit saying that Jaguar [u]had not[/u] made any profit, you would have been very happy to believe it/trust him.

You now think that Jaguar did not make a profit between 1922 and 1945 ? Are you under the impression that companies are some sort of philanthropic ventures ? And you are suggesting that [i]I'm[/i] confused, right ?

ernie, I find your references to Tebbit amusing. You seem to think I'm a Tory who believes Tory hype. If that's because I despise what Nu Labour have done, it probably makes the entire nation tory!

You seem to think I'm a Tory who believes Tory hype.

What I do think, is that you are very gullible. Evident by the fact you were quite prepared to believe this statement, quote :

[i]"Jaguar has never made a profit. Ever."[/i]

Jaguar have been making cars for 87 years. The suggestion that they have never made a profit, is clearly quite absurd.

In my experience, people who reject self-evident truths, do so, because they do not fit neatly into their believe systems - a bit like creationists.

These people also tend to move the goalposts in whichever way suits them, as you clearly have. You initially ridicule my reference to a wiki article with the clear suggestion that you are prepared to accept a 'more reliable' source.

So I provide you with a parliamentary written answer by Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, this you of course, reject out of hand. Obviously it's a bit like arguing with a creationist, a futile and pointless exercise, because whatever I throw at you, you will find a reason for not accepting it.

Do I think you are a Tory ? Well I don't know whether you are or not..........although I suspect that you probably are.

Certainly the evidence that you are gullible and rather confused, is somewhat stronger though.

ernie, you've misquoted his statement!! That was my INTERPRETATION of a different quote.

I'm neither gullible nor confused, but thanks for your concern.

ernie, you've misquoted his statement!!

.

No, I haven't "misquoted" anything. I quoted [u]you[/u] :

mikertroid - Member

Jaguar has never made a profit. Ever.

Posted 1 day ago # Report-Post

Clearly you believed that statement, otherwise you would never have posted it. What your mysterious source [i]actually[/i] said, is completely irrelevant.

.

And btw, I'm not unduly concerned about your apparent gullibility and confusion. If I went around worrying about other people being gullible and confused, I would be indeed be an unhappy bunny.

hey are not so bad on fuel if driven sensibly...

We get 25.6mpg from our disco.

Even if the competition is just as bad, that's pretty shit though, isn't it?

Hysterical pro environment point made.

JLR also do a fair bit of carbon footprint off setting too...

😆

JLR also do a fair bit of carbon footprint off setting too...

Jags appeal/customers will never be ones who drive small petrol or diesel cars or electrical or engines that are needed in the future. In the distant distant future when electric engines are viable yes a typical Jag customer will want a fast/large saloon powered by a powerful electric engine. In the meantime they'll lose shedloads of money.

IMO (from a customer perspective)- make Jaguar a very small/niche brand and keep LR as a going concern its existing size. The diesels in the current jags along with a rationalised petrol range make alot more sense.

Just chatted to my man. Reckons that the management at Jag are to blame for the profitability; engineering spot on. Particularly the x type which inherited the superb engineering of the Mondeo. Apparently the whole thing was very badly managed by Jag pr.

Ernie, he knows Mike Beasley; a 'bit of trouble' but was more Nick Schaale's era.