The plant, which opened in October 2014, has so far received £1bn worth of investment and produced over 50,000 low-emission Ingenium engines used in the Jaguar XE and Discovery Sport.
This latest investment in the EMC will see the site increase its operational footprint to 200,000 square metres, supporting an increase in capacity in line with JLR’s ‘product offensive’.
Dr Ralf Speth, Jaguar Land Rover CEO said: “The Engine Manufacturing Centre is a strategically significant facility for Jaguar LandRover. The decision to expand our operations at the site provides a clear signal of ourcommitment to meeting customer demand for cleaner and more efficient engines, whilst developing the skills and capability that Britain needs if it is to remain globally competitive.”
According to Jaguar Land Rover, today’s announcement will lead to the creation of several hundred new jobs at the Centre in a move that will see Jaguar Land Rover’s global workforce reach 40,000 by 2016. In the twelve months since it opened the EMC has seen its workforce reach 700 with further recruitment on-going.
Welcoming today’s announcement, Rachel Eade, automotive lead for the Business Growth Service, said: “There has been a lot of talk about Jaguar Land Rover’s global expansion plans and the possibility of creating new plants overseas.
“This £450m investment reinforces the car maker’s commitment to the UK and underlines how the i54 engine plant is already playing a crucial role in the company’s ambitious plans to double its production output and achieve lower emission engines.
“As well as the hundreds of jobs set to be created at the plant, there will no doubt be additional spin-offs in the supply chain and we expect our SMEs to be in an ideal position to take advantage of increased volumes and new opportunities.
“Our role is to make sure we work with the component manufacturers to ensure they have the capacity and the skills required to meet the demands of JLR, other car makers and tier 1s. According to industry sources we could well be on course to match the 1970s peak of two million cars by the end of the decade.”
According Jaguar Land Rover, today’s announcement sees the EMC cementing its position at the heart of the company’s manufacturing operations by supplying all three of its vehicle plants with engines that also power the Range Rover Evoque, Jaguar XF and Jaguar F-PACE.
A dinosaur company, directed by yesterday’s management, manufacturing poor technology that belongs in the last century. Quite sad really.
Missed opportunities galore here. Those who can afford to spend £50,000 on a car have a moral obligation to be ‘first-movers’ in the adoption of technologies that do no harm to others or the environment – or themselves for that matter! It’s time they put consumer pressure on JLR to get their act together and step into the future.
In the case of JLR it is well worthwhile to recognise the effectiveness of TATA as the owners. The company was going to the dogs previously but what a fantastic recovery we have has over the last few years.
Pity that TATA could not do the same for the steel industry, but different problems.
Those who can afford 50,000 GBP have no moral obligation to be first movers. David Hume proved there is no such thing as an Is Ought relationship back in 1776, outside of theistic discourse. And still naturalists cling on to religious language from 250 years ago because their own worldview is devoid of such categories.
If we want to talk about ecological morality we need to invoke God or gods, then develop a theology of sustainable economic development or abandon any sense of objectivity and enforce a global philosophy of supposed eco-ethical behaviour. This is exactly what the climate change movement has become and it only gains purchase by marginalisation of opposing views, deligitimising nonconformist opinions and making illegal certain behaviours (otherwise known as force).
And it is in this latter context we erroneously refer to moral obligations and seek to impose our wills on others, rather like mediaeval relious authorities. Hopefully we won’t resort to burning people at the stake for blasphemy against the noble philosophy of anthropological climate change.
There’s time yet, let’s see.
Nath.
No one has a “moral obligation” to adopt technology! It is personal choice and freedom. What a draconian mindset dressed up as progressive
Dave Smart shows that he is misnamed and out of touch when he talks of “a dinosaur company, directed by yesterday’s management”. Anyone who has looked at JLR recently will know that yesterday’s management got the boot years ago, when those real losers Ford and BMW fumbled with the ball.
As Jack Broughton says, Tata is a very different beast. And Ralf Speth is an odd cove who fits into none of the usual moulds. Well, he may drive like a maniac, but he does make Jaguars after all.
As to “poor technology that belongs in the last century”, that’s another sign of less than smart analysis. It takes time to turn around a large enterprise, but, as The Engineer has pointed out, JLR hasn’t done too badly with its new engine plant and the switch to aluminium.
By the way, you won’t get much Jaguar, or even a Land Rover, for £50,000.
I guess that – Anonymous 25 Nov 2015 6:15 pm – considers the restriction of personal freedoms and rights to prevent one section of society from harming another to be “draconian”? Regulations and the rule of law are indispensable to the function of civilised society.
On the contrary Michael, investing in the future of British manufacturing is a very Smart idea, and overpowered, overpriced cars designed with technology overkill are really very stupid. The ICE is yesterday’s tech’ and Speth has made a misguided commitment to stay with it to the bitter end.
Tata’s success is commendable and past managements failed miserably, but JLR are heading up a blind creek without a paddle.
It was very unfortunate that the Phoenix Four were ruining MGRover, when I met their engineers at Longbridge fourteen years ago. They were keen to develop my radical designs, but staffing and spending on R&D had been slashed to one third of what BMW had had.
The rights we should have – an individual’s right to own their intellectual property – are manifestly not given any protection under current international patent law. Hence Britain’s historical failure to commercialise its inventions.
All sections of the car industry suffer from inertia to change, that’s perfectly understandable, but the hubris of blinkered management knows no bounds, especially in motorsport and prestige cars.
I know £50,000 won’t buy you much in this market, but in my neck of the woods that buys you the freehold to a small detached property. I could spend ten times that on futile attempts to own my IPR and still lose them. . . .