Advertisement

Tata To Double Spending On Jaguar Land Rover: Report

 

2012 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque  -  Off-Road First Drive

2012 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque - Off-Road First Drive

Enlarge Photo
Indian auto giant Tata has committed to doubling its annual investment in Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), increasing it to 1.5 billion pounds ($2.4 billion) beginning with the current fiscal year (ending next month).

Thanks to both increasing sales in emerging market and increasing margins, JLR has driven growth at Tata in recent quarters, contributing as much as 95 percent of the company’s profit.

As Automotive News Europe (subscription required) reports, JLR returned a profit margin of 20 percent through December of 2011, three times the profit that Tata realized from domestic sales of Tata-branded product.

In the fiscal third quarter, much of Tata’s revenue growth was due to strong sales of the new Range Rover Evoque, as well as increasing demand for product from Chinese and Russian consumers.

JLR has realistic expectations sustaining high margins, and expects to see sales growth in emerging market begin to taper off.

To aid with sales and profitability in China, JLR is expected to appoint a Chinese manufacturing partner in the near future. Bloomberg had previously reported that Chery Automobile was Tata’s partner of choice, but the Indian company would neither confirm nor deny the report.

Despite initial claims that JLR production would not take place in India, Tata has moved production of Freelanders for the Asian market to Pune, India. Reports say the next Land Rover Defender may be built in India as well, although it isn’t clear if this production will be used for Asian market customers only.

Advertisement
 
 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (9)
  1. am sure Ford is shaking it heads now. they should have kept Land Rover, Jaguar and Aston Martin. it really is a shame they sold them.every one of them is gaining profit but whats done is done.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  2. Woah hang on. I dont agree one single iota with this: THE TRUTH IS THAT FORD DID NOT WANT TO INVEST ONE MORE SINGLE PENNY INTO EITHER OF THOSE MANUFACTURERS.
    That has been the problem FAR TOO LONG with myopic profit driven inept managers at the help of big firms. A bunch of rigid and intellectually confined old men with no aspirations. Tata comes from a country EAGER to move forward in the future, acquire knowledge and invest. If any anything TATA IS THE BEST THING THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED to either of those company. I look forward to an Asian manufacturer taking over Saab soon and carrying on with some of their project because Saab had some sublime designs in the past.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  3. but now u can see Ford going in the right direction it is investing billions in Lincoln and finally bringing good design and tech to its cars. if it kept Land Rover am pretty sure the company would have flourish. Ford has more engineering knowledge than Tata and u know what that means to customers.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. @Enzo, on the other hand, selling Volvo was probably a good thing...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  5. @Kurt, i think selling Volvo was a also a bad thing, Ford lost that edge with small powerful engines and the impecable saftey record. Also leveraging of the award winning platforms for the XC range (90 and 60).

    on a side note, a black on black RR Evoque 4 door went past me yesterday. The misus and i have clearly stated we are stopping at 2 kids and we now want an evoque hahahaha
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  6. Not it's a good thing Ford let go of all those companies. It had neither the will nor the money to kee them going forward and was way too concerned with the balance sheet and investors to see through important projects. With Tata, you have one single massively well oiled investor who can plough in massive resources in the company. That's what those automakers need, not one more accountant breathing down the engineer and designers neck.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. @WizardsLore, while I'll admit the Evoque is pleasantly styled, you're paying a lot of money for what you're getting.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  8. isnt that the sole purpose of its existence though? its a posuers car, and for those that want that little bit more. it is also quite small really, just a bulked up version of a freelander 3
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. i have to agree with that Volvo was fighting a losing battle.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Follow Us

Advertisement

Take Us With You!

 
Advertisement
Advertisement

Research New Cars

Go!


 
© 2014 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.