Jaguar: I-Pace Electric CUV Will Be ‘Worth Any Price’

3 months ago by Sebastian Blanco 84

2018 Jaguar i-pace spyshot via Carpix 1

Already, “thousands” have said they want one.

It’s far too early for Jaguar to talk about exactly how much the production version of the I-Pace will cost. Thankfully, we can at least get a vague handle on where Jaguar Land Rover might be headed when it comes time to put a price tag on Jaguar’s first all-electric vehicle.

Jaguar has already said that the response from prospective buyers has been “fantastic,” and at a special event before the Formula E race starts in Brooklyn this weekend, Jaguar’s executive director of product engineering, Nick Rogers, told InsideEVs that the number of people who have let JLR know they’re interested in buying an I-Pace is “in the thousands.”

No one would get more specific than that, but Rogers said, We are really excited about the way it’s been received, we really are.

Jaguar I-PACE Concept (“95%_ true to production EV reportedly)- shown in “Photon Red” from Geneva

The reason people are responding to the vehicle – according to Rogers – is that Jaguar has designed an EV that people will truly desire.

We wanted it to be the optimal electric car,” he said, adding that this goal is going to be key in helping to set the price. “We’re making sure that there’s an authenticity to the vehicle, that it’s absolutely worth any price that we put to it,” he said.

“We’re really comfortable with the position that we’ve put this vehicle at, the appointments that are in the vehicle, the level of refinement, the level of practicality and also the capabilities as a true battery electric vehicle.”

In other words, this one won’t be all that cheap.

Inside the Jaguar I-PACE Concept

According to the latest spy shots, the I-Pace will look a lot like the concept that was revealed at the Los Angeles Auto Show last year, something that Rogers emphasized again this weekend.

The big, bold wheels remain, as do the retractable door handles. Jaguar has already given out some general specs of the car, and they’re pretty impressive: At least 220 miles of range on the EPA scale from a 90 kWh li-ion pack, 0-60 in “around” four seconds, and the ability to fill up 80 percent of the battery in 90 min with 50-kW DC fast charging. Early versions of the I-Pace have already started production by Magna Steyr, which helped JLR develop the concept.

Gallery (below): Jaguar I-Pace Concept

Tags: , , , , , ,

86 responses to "Jaguar: I-Pace Electric CUV Will Be ‘Worth Any Price’"

  1. Joe says:

    If the production version ends up getting only 220 miles and it takes 90 minutes to fill up to 80% this thing is DOA vs. the Model X.

    1. Leeper says:

      First thing I noticed too. You would think that they would really benefit from joining the supercharger network. There must be a reason the bigger companies aren’t doing this.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        The reason is they don’t want the usability of their cars to be at the mercy of a competitor. That’s just being sensible.

        Tesla inviting other auto makers to join the Supercharger network gives them bragging rights, but realistically nobody but a small auto maker would be willing to put itself at the mercy of Tesla’s whims this way.

        Tesla can change the terms of use of its Superchargers at will — as it has recently demonstrated, not just once but (as I recall) at least 3 times. No auto maker is going to want to put itself in the position of having to sending out letters to all its customers saying “Well, we didn’t want to change this yet again, but Tesla decided to…”

        1. Alltesla says:

          Instead, they put the usability of their cars in the hand of other people charging network, with whom they have no contract with.
          Don’t these legacy car makers by ice engines from each other?

          1. Priusmaniac says:

            Those are two good points, you are right on that. I think their refusal has more to do with proud, they simply don’t want to admit Tesla got in front of them. Beside, if it was for the question of protection from unexpected changes from Tesla, they could simply make an agreement on contract with a clearly stipulated duration and if there is a change, specific terms and conditions and eventual penalties if it would affect already sold models.
            In reverse Tesla would likely want a clear contract as well if they need to commit to larger stations to account for extra models charging at their superchargers.

            1. Jason says:

              If I was the other car company I’d look at Super Charger and market that “yes, you can use all those Super Chargers”, because your can also use CHAdeMO, J1772 and if you are smart, probably CCS as well. The first manufacturer to offer all these will be golden.

          2. Simon M says:

            I’m not sure Ford have to buy BP in order for people to buy there cars.

            Right now the issue is simply one of economic viability. Even for Tesla Supercharger provision is a loss leader, to allow them to sell cars.

            When more EV’s come on line the sums start working out to make third party paid for DC fast charging networks far more viable.

            1. Vexar says:

              They claim they roll that into the price of the vehicle with the option. Drives accountants bonkers, but oh well. I think at some point they will be cost-neutral.

              1. Simon M says:

                Yes but for owners like me who do not use the Supercharger network and only home charge I am in effect subsidising those that use them for Uber duties exclusively using FOC Supercharging 🙁

                Personally I’d be happier if the car was cheaper (or more specifically better equipped for the same money) and I only paid for the en route charging I actually used.

                1. John Ray says:

                  Exactly.

                2. ffbj says:

                  Maybe they should credit your account for any amount under the yearly 1k miles.

            2. Al says:

              You’re absolutely right. The Supercharger network is going to be a big overhead headache for Tesla, that’s why they are offering it to other car makers, who are smartly not taking the bait. If the Supercharger network was a competitive advantage for Tesla there’s no way they would offer accesss to it.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            @Alltesla:

            Thank you for your thoughtful response! You certainly make a good argument. However, I will continue the debate:

            “Instead, they put the usability of their cars in the hand of other people charging network, with whom they have no contract with.”

            In the same way that gasmobile makers put the usability of their cars in the hands of gas station owners and franchises, with whom they have no contract. The Ford Motor Co. did not need to fund a nationwide network of gas stations to make the Model T a best-seller, and I think it’s quite right for legacy auto makers to think they don’t have to build a network to rival Tesla’s Superchargers. When there is sufficient demand for commercial EV charging stations, they will appear. Currently, demand is much too low.

            “Don’t these legacy car makers by ice engines from each other?”

            Occasionally, but isn’t that more the exceptions that prove the rule? Correct me if I’m wrong, but no auto maker puts gas/diesel engines made by a rival into its best-selling cars, or its core models, or its “halo” cars. So far as I know, such engines are found only in sidelines or low-selling models.

        2. John Ray says:

          This and they probably don’t see it as a big deal. Charging infrastructure is in it’s infancy – even Tesla’s.

    2. Mo says:

      “Worth any Cost” I’ve never heard that ever as a pricing slogan for any upcoming car. What is that translated $150k?

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        If they think they can literally put any price on it, then they should price it at $500 million. Then they only need to sell one per year; imagine the savings in production costs! 😉

        1. Simon M says:

          They can’t price it at 500 million a go.

          Call me cynical, but JLR have tripped over into what the EU calls “Large Manufacturer”, and with that comes strict rules on what the average CO2/km their fleet produces come 2019, or face huge penalties.

          Unlike the other large manufacturers they have no small city cars to offset their primarily large SUV’s (Range Rover products).

          What this means is they likely have to sell a fair number of EV’s to have any meaningful effect on offsetting their poor fleet average.

    3. GeorgeS says:

      Joe,
      I wouldn’t read too much into those numbers. They are all preliminary.

    4. Viktor says:

      Jaguar first talked about 50 kW but have later said that it will support 120 kW wish would but it up with Model X on that aspect.

      1. Stimpacker says:

        “fill up 80 percent of the battery in 90 min with 50-kW DC fast charging”

        Like Joe said, DOA.

        Even if they could do 120kW, where are these magical stations? The 2 CCS stations in my town are 50kW. There are TWO 8-bay Tesla SuperCharger sites near me.

        1. Dan says:

          I wish Tesla is as successful as possible. I just wish the Tesla-bros would stop spreading FUD on other well designed alternatives.

          I’ve never had issues with finding CCS here in the northeast or mid atlantic. EVGo chargers are also spaced far closer together than Tesla chargers. In parts of Europe like Norway, I found CCS chargers in practically every remote village.

        2. Gary says:

          Why do you need them near you?
          The Supercharger network is intended to facilitate long distance travel, and not your daily charging needs.

          The lack of CCS infrastructure to enable long distance travel is an issue, but not having them near you is NOT the issue.

          1. Dan says:

            I don’t know about you, but I fly if I have to drive more than about 8 hours. From where I live in Boston, that means that Maine to Virginia is about all I ever care to drive to. I’m never going to drive to California even if I could. There are CCS chargers practically every 20 miles in this part of the world everywhere I care to go to.

            Sure, if you live in Nebraska, CCS may not be an option for you. For a huge chunk of the US, it is a NON issue.

            1. RoadTripMythBuster says:

              +1

            2. Simon M says:

              +2 (The same applies here in the UK)

          2. Martin Winlow says:

            The only problem with that is when you live in a house, in the UK, for example, which has no off-street parking – about 50% of households, here. So, if you want to own a Tesla, you would be advised to Su-charge at your nearest SuC location once a week or whatever – if you have one near-by, of course. Failing that, it’d be a DC rapid charger but there are woefully few of those even. But it’s OK because HM the Queen has said in her 2017 speech that ‘there will be more’. Like at least one at every existing large petrol station (about 7k nationally). I wonder if anyone in the government was listening?

            1. jean louis says:

              hello Martin ,
              exactly ! in cities people don t have always a parking spot and don t expect charging spots on every streets soon !
              I made a site for explaining my idea ( in french sorry)
              and make a proof of concept : group citizen in the neighborhood facing the same situation and ask for a EV charging place on the street to your local authority. the charging will be made with electricity from the house in front of the place and electricity bill spread through a platform to all users . 95% of the time an EV is charged at home or at the office, not in fast charge network ! my site is citizen-charged.com

        3. menorman says:

          Pretty sure VW has mentioned several times that they plan to install some 150kW chargers as part of their dieselgate network and Porsche already installed chargers that they say can support 350kW when the time comes. I’d imagine that by time the I-Pace actually hits the streets, there will be a couple chargers able to do at least 100kW around major markets and continuing to spread.

  2. Foberen says:

    This will be the best looking electric car on the market

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It is nice to see someone finally give Tesla some challenge in the style department!

    2. J says:

      It looks like a Nissan Leaf on high heels. That’s it, it’s not sexy,just practical.

      1. Priusmaniac says:

        I can’t help but see the Subaru Impresa in it.
        There is also that huge front black radiator, what’s that for? Better Cx?

  3. sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says:

    It looks like Jaguar is trying to copy Tesla, right down to the huge panel gap at the frunk. 😀

    1. Jay Cole says:

      …tired of this. Literally over 100 posts on this, just randomly all over the place.

      Perhaps unintended, but unseen consequence of this repeated action, is that now we have to moderate/delete a good 6-10 comments around each “panel gap” comment that are verbally abusive and in violation of our ToS … against you. There just isn’t enough hours in the day, and at the same time, it just sucks on our end to write a story and have it randomly and repeatedly hijacked, then spend the entire day watching the discussion trying to keep people off your back for doing it.

      So, that’s it. If someone else has issues about “panel gaps” they of course are free to comment, but we’ve already spend way too much manpower on this one. Future comments on this subject from yourself will be removed without notice. It isn’t personal, but we didn’t sign up to be full-time discussion nannies.

      1. sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says:

        Perhaps you could also have warned those who were verbally abusive and violated the TOS not to be verbally abusive in the future, and if they are verbally abusive in the future there will be repercussions for their violation of the TOS. Otherwise, you embolden verbally abusive commenters and give them carte blanche to be verbally abusive and violate the TOS.

        The personal attacks in the comments on this forum are getting out of hand. It seems like InsideEVs implicitly condones these personal attacks by turning a blind eye to them. It’s the same small group of people constantly launching personal attacks without bothering to comment on the issue at hand. Yet they never get reprimanded or issued a warning for violating the TOS.

        1. Jay Cole says:

          With all due respect, you have no idea the volume of comments you illicit with your comments that we have to moderate. And the wider issue is that you yourself post in such a way to provoke and encourage those comments, so to “moderate” for “who has gone too far”…outside of over the top swearing, is a job that would literally take hours each day, and we aren’t going to do that. We have to deal with the source, not the after effects.

          InsideEVs publishes over a 1,000 comments a day now across all the stories (not including spam and moderated comments)…even if we spend just a handful of seconds on each post, that is hours of work. We aren’t going to try and enforce a high morale high ground, and spend several minutes on dozens of comments to issuing individual/public reprimands to defend your excessive and intentionally antagonistic comments as you willfully “poke the bear” that is the EV community.

          The fact is we do issue warnings and defend abusers of the system who are taking advantage of unassuming/innocent commenters and writers…but that isn’t you. You are a big boy, and you know full well what you are getting into/signing up for when you post the content and tone that you do. The fact is, we’ve read over/moderated more than a million net comments here the past 5 years, and we know every “angle-shoot” and cop out there is.

          Nobody wants to hear the same “2p” from one poster on 100+ different posts, especially when its delivered in an inflammatory or snide way. End of the day, we hold the moderating stick and this is an argument you can’t win if you want to post here.

          You show little concern for the environment here when you post – so why are we working so hard to moderate/delete hundreds of posts inside the sub-threads you create each day? Quite frankly I’d rather be working on the next story, I’ve personally probably spend 100+ hours over the years cleaning up behind you. It’s crazy, and probably a little stupid to have let it go one this long.

          Makes no sense, so I now politely asking you to A) stop with the random pilfering of random stories with “panel gaps” and other oft-repeated/off-topis diversions, and B) post in such a way that everyone doesn’t make everyone go bat-crazy afterwards.

          Am I asking you to guarantee how others react to you? No, not at all…people will obviously still not like your posts that go against the flow, but if you keep it on the level, and contained inside the appropriate thread, then it is no worries – that isn’t on you.

          1. Get Real says:

            Thanks Jay for some much needed moderating of incessant FUD!

            1. James says:

              Thank you Jay. I appreciate you now even more than before. And that already was a lot!

          2. Chris O says:

            “the wider issue is that you yourself post in such a way to provoke and encourage those comments”

            The definition of a troll. I appreciate that just like every castle has a few ghosts every forum has a few trolls but I never realised moderators would spend countless hours cleaning up after them rather than simply banning them.

            You’re a patient guy Mr. Cole;)

            1. sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says:

              F*ck Y*u A$$hole.

              1. Jay Cole says:

                I’m going to leave this one up as an example of something we would normally pull.

                -over-the-top
                -clear violation of IEV discussion rules
                -flagrant attempt to get around filters

                All kind of a futile attempt as, again, we live moderate, so one can’t ‘play tricks’ to beat the ‘system’…because the system is real-life hard work at our end (although posting at 4am on a weekend does expose a nice hole we have in live moderating from 2am to 6am ET). Again, we don’t want to have to moderate anything, we just want to keep the discussion community a friendly place – and its a big job.

                Today however, it got just a bit easier.

                We asked you to take into consideration what we were asking for, even stated, “End of the day, we hold the moderating stick and this is an argument you can’t win if you want to post here.”

                But, you couldn’t even keep it in check on the same thread for ~7 hours. And as you are always online, you know when we come out and publicly (and politely) state an issue, take the time to explain the reasoning, and ask for a certain respond…if it gets thrown back at us (especially in the same thread), we act.

                While you often have some decent and insightful things to say, and you have taken the time to email more than a few story suggests on fuel cell (and some plug-in) stories to myself personally – which I have appreciated, the staff and myself simply can’t spend everyday dealing with this…it is too time consuming at this point, and we can better utilize our time researching and writing more content.

                So, unfortunately you are now on leave from the discussion group until further notice. We wish you the best.

                1. DJ says:

                  OOC where are these discussion rules? I don’t see anything specifically in the T&Cs that prohibit panel gap discussions or even telling people to go F off.

                  1. James M says:

                    The only rules needed are common decency, and thank you for applying them here. Sven stands out here far more from his constantly aggressive tone than his clever moniker. Great to have diverse opinions expressed, but constant personal attacks and negative energy just gets tiring. Thanks for ending it.

            2. ffbj says:

              It is somewhat of conundrum, on the one hand it’s annoying, but as you point out Trolls do have some panche’, and Sven had that in spades. Oh well.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3CWRPLrBnM

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Let’s translate that from trollish into English:

      This just goes to show that visible panel gaps are seen in pre-production cars from various auto makers… not just any particular one.

      1. William says:

        As we, Nissan Leaf Lovers, welcome the advent of generous panel gaps, as it helps with the cooling of the sealed nature of our thermal management system. If only production Leafs would have sloppiness, in their panel assembly, during the manufacturing Fit and Finish stage.

      2. sven ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says:

        If anyone knows how to speak trollish, it’s you Pu-Pu. It must be your native tongue.

  4. GeorgeS says:

    It’s a nice looking car. GM should take a lesson from this. They should have packaged the BoltEV power train in an attractive body like this. They would have a hit on their hands…..of course then they might have had to sell more than a handful and Lord knows management wouldn’t want that to happen.

    1. theflew says:

      And how much would that vehicle have cost? I still wonder what the “actual” cost of the Model 3 will be.

      1. Dan says:

        Chevy doesn’t compete with Jaguar. The Bolt looks great and more importantly, it looks like a Chevy. Not like a Tesla or Jaguar or Maserati or whatever. Its customers appreciate that. GM hit the ball square down the field with the Bolt. I drive an i3 but everybody I’ve talked to who does drive a Bolt loves it.

        1. John Ray says:

          I know looks are subjective, but imho, the Bolt does not look that good. Heck, I actually prefer the current Leaf to it. It is also smaller inside compared to the Leaf. I really think Chevy went all in on the range and cheapened everything else. I’ve driven it and it’s not a bad car. It just isn’t that compelling. Now if they would introduce an RS or SS version, I might change my tune.

      2. Get Real says:

        As far as what A Model 3 costs we already know preliminary that the stripper base will be 35K and Musk said he expects the average price to be 42k.

        We will soon find out alot more but none of this really matters because you probably have NO Intention of buying a Tesla based on your incessant whining and negativity regarding them.

  5. pjwood1 says:

    Just saying “We want our customers to enjoy driving” would be a good start.

    The “interested” people in this car include myself, per how their online questionnaire works. That said, I’m more serious about being sent updates about what is going on, than I am actually buying it. These numbers aren’t deposits.

    1. Simon M says:

      Actually some are 😉

      I know quite a few people (myself included) that have early deposits down.

      Of course it’s nowhere near the Model 3 numbers, but it is a much more expensive car.

      1. John Ray says:

        So if you have a deposit on it, do you know how much it will cost – at least base? I am serious as I too am interested.

        1. GibsonRS says:

          I was told “from” £55k (pounds) in the UK when I placed my deposit – that’s with 20% sales tax

  6. William says:

    A Nissan EV Rouge, with at least a 75 kWh battery, and some type of GM Bolt / BMW i3 thermal management system, would pull the rug out from underneath this JAG, in meaningful volume sales. EVen the Murano would beat the JAG into the “also ran” status.

    “Any price” doesn’t inspire, or scale up any promises of, significant volume production.

    1. DJ says:

      I just don’t buy this. If they could do it for a reasonable price sure but that doesn’t seem possible right now. The X is too expensive for what it is and while this is likely to be more affordable it will still be fairly expensive.

      Everyone seems to think they can put out a 200+ mile SUV for cheap when in reality we just aren’t there yet. The aerodynamics just kill the efficiency which means more battery and more cost and weight which makes the efficiency even worse. Hopefully one days batteries can become light, dense, and cheap enough for it to be realistic and I bet it will, it just boils down to when.

      1. James M says:

        Well stated. Analysts keep bashing Tesla for starting with a volume sedan (M3) instead of SUV (MY), they clearly don’t seem to get the aerodynamics trade off. I was really impressed that Tesla managed to get nearly the range in the Model X compared to the S, but by my eye they had to compromise the looks of the X to achieve it. Jaguar won’t compromise looks, so the iPace will loose on range.

        1. Simon Mac says:

          James M

          Bear in mind the Jaguar is significantly lower and narrower than the X. While I’m sure it’s Cd will be worse, the jury is out on the more important CdA.

          Interestingly the Tesla Roadster has the worst Cd of any of their cars to date, but from a battery energy to range perspective is their best to date too.

          Saying that for me it’s moot. The Model S 60 I purchased back in 2014 has had more than enough range for my needs, so any inefficiencies in the pursuit of aesthetics will be offset by the larger battery.

    2. John Ray says:

      Totally agree. I had a loaner Rogue for 24 hrs while my battery was being replaced. I was impressed. I just found out last night that there is actually a 7 seat version of the Rogue (SV trim only). I think it would be a winner.

  7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    So they put camouflage on a car which apparently looks exactly like the already revealed concept?

    Gee, they outta put a bumper sticker on the car that reads “MADE YOU LOOK!”

    Just another indication, at least to me, that this whole “spy photo” game is just a way auto makers do pre-production promotions. Car magazines and websites get photos of “brand new cars” that attract the interest of car buyers; auto makers get promotions for their cars. It’s a win-win situation for both.

    So why the pretense that auto makers are actually hiding their new cars? Because, of course, if it’s presented as “revealing a secret” then people will pay more attention.

    All just my opinion, of course. Perhaps others are not so cynical.

    1. John Ray says:

      Let’s say you are right. What’s the difference between this and a huge glamorous party with smoke machines and music to reveal a car that won’t be available for over a year.

      Another point of view. Back in the mid-90’s I had a mechanical engineer friend who got a temporary job after graduation working for Ford. Basically, he and a team of others drove pre-production Ford Explorers all over the Southwest for three months looking for quality control issues. The same thing is probably going on here.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “What’s the difference between this and a huge glamorous party with smoke machines and music to reveal a car that won’t be available for over a year.”

        The difference is in the lack of hypocrisy with the media event. There, the auto maker isn’t pretending to hide the car.

  8. Joe says:

    Other than the superfluous grill I like the styling. Looks pretty good for a CUV.

  9. John Ford says:

    This is a nice looking car, and a Jaguar. If they price it around 75K they will sell lots. If they think they can get north of 100K they will sell hardly any. At that price Model X is a better car as others have pointed out.
    A nicely equiped F-Pace runs 65K or so. How they price the I-Pace will show how serious Jaguar are about BEVs. 75K is a 10K premium over the F-Pace but I think lots of people would pay that. Not 45K more.

    1. Simon M says:

      @John JLR have said 10-15% more to quite a few people now.

      That would put it at what is in effect Model S 75 money. If they do follow through on this, I think it will sell out it’s 13k first year l target.

      Putting that into perspective that’s not too far off where the Model S sold in it’s first year (also against the backdrop of charging infrastructure uncertainty).

      1. RoadTripMythBuster says:

        F-pace starts at $43k, at 15% more for the I-Pace, that puts the base MSRP just under $50k. Which is where I think the Model Y will end up. Bloomberg was guessing closer to $60k-$70k for the I-Pace.

        1. Simon M says:

          I think you’d be comparing a top spec V6 F-Pace as the basis of the 10-15%, rather than the base model.

      2. John Ray says:

        Thanks Simon. At $50-$60K, I might go there. But if it is Model X money, that might be a stretch. I agree they will probably meet their sales targets.

    2. Ambulator says:

      Funny, I don’t like the looks of this at all. Better than an i3, but not by much.

  10. CLIVE says:

    It will be a tank

    It will be to slow

    It will be overpriced

  11. Rich says:

    The iPace is the same length and width as the Model 3, I don’t see how anyone is comparing this to the Model X. The Model X is substantially larger. It’s like comparing a Kia Soul to a Dodge Durango. If anything, this is a higher riding Model 3 with a nice hatchback and plush interior. I would love to see Jag price this $10K USD higher than an average priced Model 3 and push for volume manufacturing. It’s possible, Jag could take a portion of the higher end Model 3 sales.

    1. RoadTripMythBuster says:

      Was thinking along a similar line. If Model 3 had been more styled as a hatchback, then I would have a reservation. The i-Pace seems more targeted against the Model Y/Model 3.

      I hope Jaguar keeps the spaceship like interior in the production version.

    2. Tech01x says:

      Given the first year volumes, the iPace will likely be comparable to the Model X on pricing. They are outsourcing to Magna for manufacturing and have limited access to cell supply. They can’t scale. As a result, the price has to be high, even in combination with ZEV credits and EU CO2 mandates, they can’t sell it at too much of a loss.

      Hopefully the specs will get better in the real production version. The DCFC capability is lacking, as is the DCFC networks. The battery size is huge relative to the claimed range. And hopefully the battery degradation is not too bad.

  12. EV worker says:

    cool seats !

    1. CVVH says:

      Definitely has a spaceship like interior that seems to be missing in another EV.

  13. Al says:

    I like it! I hope the back seats fold flat!

  14. Al says:

    … and has a roof rack!

  15. RobJK says:

    It is certainly not “far to early for Jaguar to discuss the price.” But if $80,000 is the entry level price, the Jaguar is dead on arrival. If Jaguar wants to keep interest up, they better announce the price soon, or lose sales to Tesla. And that price better be much lower–in line with the car’s specifications. With only 220+ mile EPA range, this Jag can barely compete with the Chevy Bolt. 90 minute recharge time? Oh so five years ago.

  16. Terawatt says:

    Sigh. The hype is just… relentless.

    The i-Peace seems to be great. But any price..? Really?

    I suggest they sell them at a hundred billion dollars apiece. Surely makes a lot of business sense, since it is worth any price. Anything under a billion and they’re clearly fools!

    1. Terawatt says:

      LOL! i-Pace or eyepiece? Autocorrect me if I’m wrong…

Leave a Reply