Larry Printz (2026) recently declared that the new Jaguar Type 01 was on the right track because it stopped trying to update the design DNA that had made the brand so iconic. In a way he has a point. The retro styling movement has been littered with unsatisfying efforts — both aesthetically as well as in terms of sales. However, in my book there is a big difference between a full-fledged retro design and basic brand continuity.
For example, would Printz argue that Mercedes-Benz should get rid of its trademark trapezoid grille? Does he agree with BMW’s shift away from its classic kidney center grilles on sedans in favor of a split grille that looks more like a Pontiac (Boeriu, 2026)?
Or consider Range Rover, which arguably has the best design continuity in the entire auto industry. Should it get a fresh approach because Printz (2026) believes that “yesterday’s triumph makes a terrible blueprint for tomorrow”?
I think this is a particularly important question in an era when automobiles are becoming increasingly homogenized in other aspects, such as engineering, manufacturing, marketing and distribution.
Jaguar’s greatest achievements were not retro designs
Printz (2026) argues that “Jaguar’s greatest design moments have historically arrived when the company was willing to abandon what came before. Company co-founder Sir William Lyons understood this better than nearly every modern car executive. In 1961, he replaced the XK150 with the E-Type. He didn’t update the old car’s grille, stick on some new lamps and announce that Jaguar was honoring its heritage. He moved on.”
This is true, but in the early-60s sports car design was changing quickly enough that I can’t picture any executive merely updating the XK150’s basic look. In addition, Printz (2026) goes on to defend the XJS. The car “wasn’t an E-Type with a new haircut. It was radically different, and for years people complained about it. Sound familiar? Eventually, the XJS became a Jaguar icon in its own right.”
Really? Jaguar may have needed to shift its sporty coupe to the XJ platform for cost reasons, but it still could have maintained more design continuity. For example, it was a serious mistake to eliminate the raised rear-quarter haunches in favor of generic swept-back fenders. That was an evolutionary wrong turn — and contributed to the XJS not achieving the stature of its predecessor.
More broadly, I would agree with Printz’s (2026) argument that Jaguar should emphasize innovation but question his call for the wholesale abandonment of its design DNA. He paints in stark, all-or-nothing colors when I suspect that what is needed is nuance. Jaguar clearly must reinvent itself if it is to regain traction. That said, throwing away the brand’s entire design legacy strikes me as a recipe for failure. If you’re going to do that then why not kill Jaguar and come up with a completely different name?
Printz is still critical of the Jaguar Type 01’s styling
The catalyst for Printz’s discussion of Jaguar’s design direction is a discussion of the recently unveiled Type 01. This high-performance electric vehicle is the production version of the Type 00 concept car (go here for further discussion). Because Jaguar sales have slowed to a trickle in recent years, the Type 01 essentially represents a relaunch of the brand in the U.S. (Autoline, 2026).
Like the concept car, the Type 01 throws away Jaguar’s design legacy. This Printz (2026) applauds, but he nevertheless argues that the car has “one serious problem” — it is not beautiful. “And that matters because Jaguar is not some anonymous technology company that wandered into the car business yesterday. Beauty is Jaguar’s inheritance and the Type 01’s lack of it is Jaguar’s great gamble.”
Okay, we can agree on that. The Type 01 looks like it was drawn by an 11-year-old boy. Jaguar appears to be at least partially following in the footsteps of Rolls-Royce, whose recent models strike me as overamped caricatures of their more dignified predecessors (Car and Driver, 2026). Apparently ultra-expensive luxury cars are now supposed to be little more than crass spectacle.
If that’s the case, who cares if a high-end car looks beautiful — it’s apparently all about being noticed. I am afraid to think too much about how far this trend could go, except to assume that it will most likely reflect tasteless excess that makes a 1959 Cadillac look tame in comparison.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Autoline After Hours; 2026. AAH #811. Posted Oct. 8.
- Boeriu, Horatiu; 2026. “BMW’s New Design Language Is Its Biggest Reset in 20 Years — Here’s What It Actually Means.” BMW Blog. Posted March 11.
- Car and Driver; 2026. “View Exterior Photos of the 2026 Rolls-Royce Phantom.” Posted Oct. 22.
- Printz, Larry; 2026. “How The Jaguar Type 01 Breaks Jaguar’s Most Dangerous Habit.” The Car Collective’s Substack. Posted Oct. 8.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII — photo by Vauxford via Wikipedia Creative Commons 4.0.
I like the side view of the Type 01. I might get used to the rear view although the car should have a rear window. Cameras are nice but won’t work twenty years later and may be unfixable. The front of the car is hideous. Printz is correct that above all, Jaguar’s heritage is beauty. They aren’t the fastest, the biggest and certainly not the most reliable.
I’m fine with not continuing retro designs. The E-Type was an exceptional design and nothing can improve upon it. The 50s/60s sedan were also striking. I’m not attracted to anything after 1974 so I have no problems with a new definition. But judging from the reviews and first looks, this thing is going to have serious problems in the marketplace. It may sell to those who are starved for attention and want others to look at them, but it won’t sell in the tony suburbs.
It’s dead on arrival in the U.S. I’m guessing they’re counting on China for volume. Jaguar should stand for grace, space, pace. Presumably it’s fast. The rest? I like the shape, not the details. From what I understand it’s very small inside relative to it’s bulk.
The Rolls Royce is crass but It’s still a Rolls with it’s Spirit of Estacy intact right up there on the grill. Somebody shot the leaping cat.
To my eyes, Jaguar abandoned its design heritage with XF sedan in the 2000s. Every Jaguar sedan and SUV since then has been designed by Ian Callum and has had a straight belt line without the curvy hips that made XJ and XKE so desirable.
Regarding Jaguar 01, Buyers for large luxury hatchbacks are few and far between, as proven by lacklustre sales of Mercedes EQS, Porsche Panamera, Lucid Air, Tesla Model S and Cadillac Celestiq.
I’m amazed that Jaguar didn’t target the market for chauffeur driven sedans in China, the Middle East and the EU. Luxury Zedans are purchased by corporations for executive use and by governments for fleet use (including armoured versions).
If 01 falls flat on its face, then Jaguar could easily give it a bootlid plus a rear window and call it a sedan, like Audi did to its A7 for the Chinese market. Jaguar could keep the quarter panels as flying buttresses in homage to XJ-S coupe.
Meanwhile, I expect most private purchasers will wait until Jaguar 02 SUV is launched. Then they will judge how it stacks up against Bentley Torcal and the upcoming 3-row Cayenne BEV – not to mention future Range Rover BEVs.
Jaguar 02 SUV will need to get the better of them all to justify its development costs.
The exterior gets quite the comments as it is polarizing to say the least, but what about the interior? What’s with the marshmallow look? Obviously they are moving away as much as possible from the gentleman’s club Connolly hide leather interior with wood trim and plush wool carpets. I don’t get the white interiors in Teslas and this one is just uninviting. Not that the rest of the car is inviting either. I miss the leader & growler. I can appreciate the engineering it took to fabricate the body. It’s a conversation piece, but so is a banana duct taped to an art gallery wall.
Well put. Jaguar’s interiors were a key part of the brand’s charm. They might as well have retired the Jaguar name in favor of 01.
LeaPer!!!
For me, Jaguars bring to mind the words, svelte, graceful, understated, and quick.
The new 01 doesn’t call those words to mind, but then most Jaguars of the last 20 years don’t either.
The Jaguar doesn’t need to literally call to mind the iconic designs of the 1950’s and ‘60’s, but rather the spirit which drove those designs into being should be the point of departure for the designers of today.
If one were in the market for the new Jaguar, which cars would one cross-shop? It seems to be in a category of one.
I don’t hate the exterior – but I don’t really like it either. I really dislike the interior though, as in what were they thinking? I also agree 100% that while a (likely awful) retro re-do would’ve been a poor choice, totally throwing away Jaguar’s design heritage is a huge mistake. As was said, why even keep the name if completely wiping the slate clean of past efforts?
The outside at least has the appearance of solidity and quality; the inside looks like planned obsolescence.
The Mercedes BMW and Range Rover comparisons were not good. You can easily keep a grille form while changing everything else. Same with Range Rover. A SUV is expected to look like a box. I don’t know how much input they got from North American dealers. This is going to be a hard sell with legacy Jag customers. My first impression was Tesla pickup. The Drone’s Club interior is gone replaced by bland. Maybe they are aiming for the Asian Market.
Mercedes and BMW were mentioned in response to Printz’s argument against maintaining a traditional Jaguar grille while changing the rest of the car. Did you click over and read his essay?
I don’t think it is at all true that SUVs are generic boxes — there’s now quite a bit of variation, particularly among crossovers. In addition, I would argue that Rover styling has been exceptional in maintaining brand DNA that reaches back to the 1970s. They have also tended to offer exceptionally clean and uncluttered lines in an era where gingerbread overkill has become dominant, particularly by Asian brands.
The XJ-S was great proportions covered in bad decisions.
Hello to Lori H., Scampman, Cheetahkins, DRN, Honda Driver, Don, Kim in Lanark and our esteemed LeaDer Steve:
I’m an auto industry consultant and former Jaguar owner who spends about half of each year living in China.
I’ve been able to look at China’s premium luxury vehicles close up. There are at least half a dozen brands that buyers might cross-shop against Jaguar (in alphabetical order):
Aito and Luxeed from hi-tech Huawei
Hongqi is the president’s choice
Nio has automated battery swapping
Voyah belongs to Dongfeng, which is Stellantis’ JV partner
Xiaomi holds the Nurburgring lap record for BEVs
Yangwang is BYD’s most expensive brand and builds the world’s fastest electric sports car (490km/h)
Zeekr and Lotus, which each belong to Geely
Chinese brands can respond quickly to local customer preferences thanks to their tightly integrated supply chains, which are able to develop home-grown technology for autonomous driving and onboard entertainment.
The “marshmallow look” is very popular for interiors here, but Jaguar’s interior divider might be interpreted as being a bit too cosy, especially for rear seat passengers who expect greater space than front seat passengers, not less.
Jaguar is offering a huge car with a cozy passenger space and fewer screens, whereas Chinese customers have shown a preference for expansive interiors and more screens.
The thing I’ve most noticed most, after more than a decade here, is that Chinese people are choosing Chinese vehicles because they are more advanced. Foreign products are no longer perceived as more desirable, simply because they are no longer better.
I owned a couple of XJ6s when they still were fresh enough to get attention and powerful enough to deal with German upstarts! About 10 years ago I considered a new Jag but…they were so lackluster. Dull, dodgy reliability and only so so in other qualities. They didn’t work. The iPace seemed a move in the right direction but was never developed and didn’t sell. So what to do? Range Rover is already selling to customers at this market price so why not offer something completely in your face? Nobody will miss you driving an 02. Suddenly Jaguar are a talking point not a postscript. Sadly it is beyond my means and I couldn’t park it in any case near my home. But they will have no difficulty shifting 10k a year.
Jaguar has been a loser for 30 years. I love the brand. Like a random name like LeSabre where almost no one remembers the fantastic 75 year old show car, I don’t think the C Type and the D Type draw any water today. If I said E Type, someone under 60 would ask, “Was that the submarine car? That was cool.”
It’s not about retro or modern, as Lyons was right about beautiful design being the essence of Jaguar. Type 01 looks like a blunt instrument not a gorgeous sculpture. As former owner of a ’62 Mark II and a ’69 E-type fhc (fixed head coupe – the short one) the attraction was both in their classic (’62) and futuristic (’69 nee ’61) looks, and Jaguar did both. So regardless of the direction, looking back or forward, a Jag must be timeless art as were so many going back to the SS of 1930s. The Type 01 is not worthy because it flys in the face of Lyons profound dictum. He must be rolling in his grave as we speak.
When I was young, a friend of mine received an XJ6 from his wife as a birthday present. Burnt into my memory was the wonderful leather smell as well as it’s gorgeous interior. Right then & there I said one day I’m getting one of these Jaguars. Many years later I bought a beautiful 1969 Series Ii E-Type along with a new XK8 as my daily driver. Every time I drove these cars, I was transformed into a high level of excitement and enthusiasm.
My XK8 was bought during the Ford era and it was truly a great looking and running car. So when Tata took them over I was under the impression the old and historical mystique of the Jag would carry on. When the next generation of cars came out, if was clear they lost their English characteristics and became a me to looking style except for perhaps the sports car. That was disappointing! However, when I learned they’d shut down the company to retool for an electric vehicle and got a look at them, I concluded it was outright STUPID! Unless there’s a miracle with people accepting their new radical design or some Chinese Co buys up their name, it’s a DEAD brand. What a shame.
The 01 is only slightly bigger than a Jag Mark X and shorter than the Dailmer limousine based on it. It’s far better design than the XJS and it’s going to bring roads to a halt when it passes. Exactly what a Jag should do. Watch the impact of an E type gliding pass.
I suppose a Jaguar must be svelt alluring almost human like – or nothing. What can they be without that ? OK its not my problem to create exceptional cars but of course I hate to see one-time beauties just fade away – as had Lincoln Mercury and Oldsmobiles.
The new models are decidedly not what they once were – in the eyes of many.
If the makers of Jaguar cant hack the job – then why not then reorganize AMC ? At least there the cars dont have to be museum quality.