Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering that modern Jags share nothing with the old ones but the emblem, any evidence showing that older jags posed a significant fire risk has zero bearing on the modern ones.
Jaguar recalls their cars NOW, because they already know what bad PR it is to have their cars go up in smoke. They never recalled any of the 80's/90's cars AFAIK, and if you don't fix a problem, it only gets worse, as Jag owners found out.
Considering that modern Jags share nothing with the old ones but the emblem, any evidence showing that older jags posed a significant fire risk has zero bearing on the modern ones.
Is 2010-2012 modern enough for you? The difference is that they are voluntarily recalling their cars these days before they catch fire, as they should.
Is 2010-2012 modern enough for you? The difference is that they are voluntarily recalling their cars these days before they catch fire, as they should.
They aren't the first or the last two recall a vehicle for such an issue. Unless you can cite a significant number of instances of current generation products burning to the ground then you can't prove that this is a significant issue. At this point I've seen a total of 2 modern Jags (an F type and an XJ) that went up in flames.
They aren't the first or the last two recall a vehicle for such an issue. Unless you can cite a significant number of instances of current generation products burning to the ground then you can't prove that this is a significant issue. At this point I've seen a total of 2 modern Jags (an F type and an XJ) that went up in flames.
That is not the argument here, at all. Jags have a reputation built on PAST models for catching on fire, as the OP alluded to. Personally, I doubt it's a significant issue in the newer cars, because consumers are a helluva lot smarter these days, and have access to a lot more information about cars. For what people pay for a Jaguar, they'd better be getting a good car that doesn't blow up! If Jag can't do that, they'd go belly up pretty quickly as people would buy a different brand of luxury car.
Considering that modern Jags share nothing with the old ones but the emblem, any evidence showing that older jags posed a significant fire risk has zero bearing on the modern ones.
Yes, but noting models from 30, 40 years ago (XJS, V12, etc...) makes for much more drama...
And, apart from 'everybody says', where are the statistics for an exceptional number of fires in the ones from 30 years ago?
In the mid-nineties, I searched out actual death rates per passenger mile for vehicles in the US and Europe. I managed to extract data from two sites. (Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to find such data today.)
I was surprised, the safest car in both the US and Europe was the Jaguar XJ40. (Incidentally, in the US, I think the Chevy Caprice came second.) Volvos and BMWs, though perceived as safe, weren't near the top of the list.
The point is that a few high profile headlines are close to meaningless.
In the 70s and 80s a number of cars burned after the govt mandated reformulated fuel which was not compatible with the hoses that connected to the fuel injectors. Gas under pressure when ignited creates a mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
