RE: Jaguar Land Rover recalls 44,000 cars
Discussion
indapendentlee said:
Absolutely incredible that they have managed to spin an emissions scandal into a mere recall! Bravo JLR PR team, I guess PH and the UK auto media don't want to twist the knife given current difficulties JLR find themselves in...
As posted above, a recall isn't a scandal- they happen all the time. A scandal would be if they knew about it but did nothing. A bigger scandal would be if they knew about it because they designed it that way, and further designed a system to decieve official tests. And kept quiet about it.If you find this incredible, you'll love the following sites:
https://car-recalls.eu/
https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-recall
indapendentlee said:
Absolutely incredible that they have managed to spin an emissions scandal into a mere recall! Bravo JLR PR team, I guess PH and the UK auto media don't want to twist the knife given current difficulties JLR find themselves in...
Post claiming spin heavily spun is ironic if nothing else.Cold said:
44k vehicles isn't really a lot. They sold 800,000 Evoques alone, so this number that may or may not be exceeding an arbitrary limit of stinkiness is only just above negligible.
But it's JLR so I expect some will claim the sky is falling in.
Great perspective. The recall will be done at service intervals so won't effect the customer But it's JLR so I expect some will claim the sky is falling in.
Is the subtle difference here that JLR, under their own free will admitted to this issue - came clean (excuse the pun) Whereas other manufacturers got found out cheating? If that is the case, then well done JLR for fessing up. I assume the 2.0l range is very competitive from an emissions perspective..
G
G
Gio G said:
Is the subtle difference here that JLR, under their own free will admitted to this issue - came clean (excuse the pun) Whereas other manufacturers got found out cheating?
G
Is that the case or where they found out, I wonder what tax implications this could have on Fleet users?G
Gio G said:
Is the subtle difference here that JLR, under their own free will admitted to this issue - came clean (excuse the pun) Whereas other manufacturers got found out cheating? If that is the case, then well done JLR for fessing up. I assume the 2.0l range is very competitive from an emissions perspective..
G
VW deliberately built the car to detect when an emissions test was being performed in order to pass the test. In the real world, emissions were much much higher.G
There's nothing to say that JLR have done the same here.
I guess most owners will be concerned about any impacted that the recall will have on the driveability of their cars.
M4CK 1 said:
Cold said:
44k vehicles isn't really a lot. They sold 800,000 Evoques alone, so this number that may or may not be exceeding an arbitrary limit of stinkiness is only just above negligible.
But it's JLR so I expect some will claim the sky is falling in.
Great perspective. The recall will be done at service intervals so won't effect the customer But it's JLR so I expect some will claim the sky is falling in.
A big loss for the financial year to December was announced. January and February sales have continued to fall. Fixing 44,000 cars will incur a cost of at least a few million pounds. The sky is closer to falling in than being clear and blue.
ian_cab28 said:
Yet another self-induced own goal for JLR , software and calibration not a strong suit for JLR ( see issues with the zf 8 speed box praised so highly elsewhere and all the issues with in car tech) . People should walk for this , too much pressure on meeting virtual milestones and not enough on underlying engineering quality .
Hear hear. I have an F-Pace 2.0D. Gearbox calibration is absolutely atrocious, the thing is always in the wrong gear and shifts at the wrong time and vehicle systems from the infotainment to instrument cluster to parking aids are beyond a joke, they simply do not work properly. I'll never buy Jaguar again.DevonPaul said:
So what we're suddenly finding out is that a Jag XE at 1.7 tonnes doesn't actually emit less CO2 per km than a 1.2L Clio and that it shouldn't be zero rated VED?
I'm shocked
Be ready to be shocked:-I'm shocked
1. I have the zero rated VED XE and it's a diesel (not known for CO2 emissions, more likely NOX) and after 57,000 miles it averages 55mpg
2. Renault Clio will it do 55mpg probably not in petrol form, but will emit more C02
3. Renault produce the dirtest range of diesels in Europe, Fact from the European car industry results 2018. The Dacia Sandero (Renault) due it's low price doesn't have anything apart from a pipe for an exhaust, it fell off the scale when measuring, both the Renault and Nissan which share the same diesel technology, in fact the Renault euro 6 diesels aren't much cleaner than most of the competition's Euro 5 engines!
Not sure how this will knock their profits.
When our then less than 7,000 mile Disco Sport went in for an oil service, because of what turned out to be a well-known oil dilution issue with these engines, it was all my fault anyway. Free if I'd bought it from them, £220 because I hadn't.
Fortunately they'd got customer service bods on the Disco Sport forum stating it was free for everyone. Which was incorrect apparently in the case of my car but, as I'd seen it, they were happy to honour it. Got to feel for the poor sods who don't kick up a fuss or use the net like we do.
So it will be interesting to see if I get a letter or if they'll just rely on me getting an error on the dashboard so I have to take it in and let them have a go at blaming me and conjuring up some absurd figure to fix it.
Can you tell I'm right off the brand already only a year in?!
When our then less than 7,000 mile Disco Sport went in for an oil service, because of what turned out to be a well-known oil dilution issue with these engines, it was all my fault anyway. Free if I'd bought it from them, £220 because I hadn't.
Fortunately they'd got customer service bods on the Disco Sport forum stating it was free for everyone. Which was incorrect apparently in the case of my car but, as I'd seen it, they were happy to honour it. Got to feel for the poor sods who don't kick up a fuss or use the net like we do.
So it will be interesting to see if I get a letter or if they'll just rely on me getting an error on the dashboard so I have to take it in and let them have a go at blaming me and conjuring up some absurd figure to fix it.
Can you tell I'm right off the brand already only a year in?!
PistonBroker said:
Not sure how this will knock their profits.
When our then less than 7,000 mile Disco Sport went in for an oil service, because of what turned out to be a well-known oil dilution issue with these engines, it was all my fault anyway. Free if I'd bought it from them, £220 because I hadn't.
Fortunately they'd got customer service bods on the Disco Sport forum stating it was free for everyone. Which was incorrect apparently in the case of my car but, as I'd seen it, they were happy to honour it. Got to feel for the poor sods who don't kick up a fuss or use the net like we do.
So it will be interesting to see if I get a letter or if they'll just rely on me getting an error on the dashboard so I have to take it in and let them have a go at blaming me and conjuring up some absurd figure to fix it.
Can you tell I'm right off the brand already only a year in?!
A conversation with someone who works in the finance area at JLR was telling me how they were replacing parts on cars that were faulty when they went in for service. In this instance it was the boot opening switch that you wave you foot around at. They were known to be faulty but instead of making a fuss, were just swapping the parts over when the cars were serviced for the replacement parts without saying anything. Seemed a bit dishonest but at least the part was being replaced. When our then less than 7,000 mile Disco Sport went in for an oil service, because of what turned out to be a well-known oil dilution issue with these engines, it was all my fault anyway. Free if I'd bought it from them, £220 because I hadn't.
Fortunately they'd got customer service bods on the Disco Sport forum stating it was free for everyone. Which was incorrect apparently in the case of my car but, as I'd seen it, they were happy to honour it. Got to feel for the poor sods who don't kick up a fuss or use the net like we do.
So it will be interesting to see if I get a letter or if they'll just rely on me getting an error on the dashboard so I have to take it in and let them have a go at blaming me and conjuring up some absurd figure to fix it.
Can you tell I'm right off the brand already only a year in?!
Sford said:
A conversation with someone who works in the finance area at JLR was telling me how they were replacing parts on cars that were faulty when they went in for service. In this instance it was the boot opening switch that you wave you foot around at. They were known to be faulty but instead of making a fuss, were just swapping the parts over when the cars were serviced for the replacement parts without saying anything. Seemed a bit dishonest but at least the part was being replaced.
That is complete BS.There is no fault with those part and no campaign to change them to the best of my knowledge.
44000 units is less that 1 months global production.
This whole thing is a storm in a teacup but, hey it's JLR so give them a kicking.
Worth noting that "CO2" is not a "pollutant" as such (see note below) And the amount of CO2 your car puts out the tailpipe is directly related to the amount of fuel it burns, and hence to how you drive it. Yes, the Certification tests generate a Tailpipe CO2 figure to use as a comparitor and for Taxation purposes, but an individual drivers Tailpipe CO2 is going to be highly variable depending on how they drive it.
(and as drivers are not on average very skilled, or taught how to drive for max economy, or even required to drive for economy (other than by the cost of the fuel) then there will be enormous differences between users, massive out weighing the small effects of differences over the Certification test that this re-call is considering....)
NOTE: CO2 is not classed as a pollutant because it is not directly injurious to life itself (in non asphyxiating quantities). Yes, it IS a greenhouse gas, but it is treated very differently to say NOx, that is toxic in small quantities and has a direct negative effect on local air pollution and human health
(and as drivers are not on average very skilled, or taught how to drive for max economy, or even required to drive for economy (other than by the cost of the fuel) then there will be enormous differences between users, massive out weighing the small effects of differences over the Certification test that this re-call is considering....)
NOTE: CO2 is not classed as a pollutant because it is not directly injurious to life itself (in non asphyxiating quantities). Yes, it IS a greenhouse gas, but it is treated very differently to say NOx, that is toxic in small quantities and has a direct negative effect on local air pollution and human health
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff