Larry Printz (2026) recently declared that Jaguar was on the right track when it stopped trying to update the design DNA that 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 XK-150’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 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 is the production version of the Type 00 concept car (go here for further discussion).
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
- 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.
Be the first to comment