Ford shelves plan to sell off Jaguar and Land-Rover

Yes: they allow "inversed locks". The locking device is placed on the chassis and not in the moveable part(the rear hatch, doors). By doing so the lock is less subject to vibrations and it's more reliable. It has far less moving mechanical parts too.

The doorhandle becomes in fact nothing more than a switch (that's where the soft touch plastic come in). They are nothing else than microswithes, reed relays etc incapsuled in plastic: you touch the plastic and electroncis see a contact closing. Inside the cockpit then will also replace rapidly all "mechnical" switch and in theory increase reliability, decrease cost etc. Down side is that -in the vent that they don't work- you won't be able to work on them.

It is a multiple-win-case: more comfy, less cost, higher reliability, less weight and far easier to install. The step further, which we allready use in doors which need to open and close a lot- is a lock without any mechanical or moving part, the electro-magnet.

Surveys indicated however that the general public is not yet ready for a complete fixed handle, containing only the contact but I guess the next generation of cars will only have completely fixed handles, no moving parts and that even the mechanical lock and keys will make way to electronics (remotes etc)

Tom De Moor

Reply to
Tom De Moor
Loading thread data ...

'Tis one of the worlds ugliest, most 'bling' (?) cars ever,

Reply to
Ken (the sane one)

The micro switch release on the hatch of my passat is buggered and, I understand, that they 'always break'

Reply to
Ken (the sane one)

They're uglier than Redcar mingers...

Reply to
Abo

In news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, DanTXD wittered on forthwith;

It's just that they've covered every bloody thing in this rubbery stuff that is meant to make it feel more expensive. That's my understanding of it.

Reply to
Pete M

That stuff seems to flake off on every VAG car I've seen over a year or

2 old. I used to put it down to people wearing rings and mistreatment or a sign that the car had done interstellar miles and been clocked but I think it's just shit.

The dash board on my 306 is relatively soft to the touch, it's got some sort of foam stuff over it which you can see when you do things like take the radio out. The dash in my 205 was hard. My knee will testify.

Reply to
Douglas Payne

Yea that;'s what the 405 was like.

Reply to
DanTXD

That may be the case but it is not.

I just replaced a company car - a little Berlingo van- with a new one. My price now is only 325 Eur (200 UKP) higher than the identical same car 5 years ago. That is a price rise of 1% in 5 years...

The exterior has other front lights, inside everything seems the same but there are some extra dials and comfort (LCDclock, RPM-meter and electronic odometer) and indeed a lot of those little electronic switches.

Overall a better car, cheaper to make than the former one. But it remains only

1% more expensif after 5 years. So Citroën -like all the others - must improve their cars continously, make them cheaper and the competition doesn't allow to sell them at higher price.

Tom De Moor

Reply to
Tom De Moor

Yes, it is. Astons should *never* be lumbered with some kind of blinged-up truck engine.

Wrong. Rolls Royce now make cars that appeal to rap-stars. They've completely lost their class.

Reply to
SteveH

Here we've got a real genuine snob: the badge is more important than the contence. You must really be the name on your underware.

I guess that you would prefer to come second (or third) at Le Mans rather than win. That competing is more important than winning. Suits you but my game is performance and in performance coming second is being the first loser.

It seems that "lost the class" to you is more important than survival.

Read and weep: there is no "classy" British car making industry any more. Hell: there isn't even British car making industry at all. They either went bust or the remains were bought letting only the name survive.

Bentley, RR, Rover, TVR, MG, Marcos, Lotus, Jaguar, McLaren and of course Aston Martin: all classy and all went bust (most of them several times) or were taken over. We will leave the less classy like (British) Leyland pro memore.

It is hard not to laugh if you read that Br. Leyland never made a penny of profit on the Mini, where as the Krauts are reaking in the cash with theirs. Haven driven them both : the reason why is not that difficult to understand.

FYI: Rolls-Royce always appealed to rap-stars and musicians. RR even went so far as to refuse to sell a car to Elvis Presley.

To me refusing to sell a car which generates profit for the company, is no a sign of class but a sign that the company is over the top. History has its way of dealing with such businesses.

You should write to the Chinese: that they make the MGF as classy as it was. Me thinks that our yellowish friends are smarter than the Russians who tried to make TVR the class act but forgot that a classy car doesn't break down.

Tom De Moor

Reply to
Tom De Moor

To be fair, that's probably what they were trying to do. Very profitable market these rap-stars y'know.

Reply to
Tom Robinson

Eh? The similarity of the X Type is what caused its failure - plus of course it is so damn ugly.

Bentley is more like Bentley used to be than Rolls is like Rolls...

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

That's the X-Type. The XJ8 and XKs have very little Ford input.

Even Ford now know they've ballsed up big time with the X-Type.

This is true, but the new models are starting to look like variations on the Phaeton theme.

Reply to
SteveH

You just struggle to understand the concept of brand DNA, because you come from a place with little or no automotive history.

Reply to
SteveH

Ohhh: one must live on a graveyard of a car making industry in order to understand its "brand DNA". Quite lucky you are it didn't involve sitting or - even worse- driving such a car.

Tom De Moor

Reply to
Tom De Moor

Surley you mean flying spur, oh I see what you mean. Might as well get a Superb.

Reply to
Elder

All true, but the environment in which such businesses were forced to survive has more to answer for than the running of said businesses themselves in their demise IMO.

Reply to
Tom Robinson

Jesus, what a shit comparison to make.

The original Mini was a basic car, built to be just about the cheapest car on the market.

The new mini was some poncey fasion statement designed to appeal to hairdressers and estate agents - it's over priced, over-sized and over-rated.

And yes, I have driven both - the original may have been a bit shit in a lot of ways, but it's one hell of a lot more fun to drive that the pretentious new one.

Reply to
SteveH

A comparison of 2 cars, made in Britain, with very similar names, in the same or similar market (let's face it small cars have all gotten bigger) and at roughly the same price (a basic MINI was about £10k up, old Minis could be had for £8k-£10k). I don't think that's a shit comparison to make at all. It just doesn't favour the original Mini.

By the end of the original Mini's life, eight or nine grand was a lot of money to pay for a car which hadn't changed all that much since the

1950s. Mr De Moor is saying that it wasn't profitable selling a 1950s car which had had next to no development money spent on it at 1990s prices. That's just nuts. Fun to drive was all it had going for it.

It's modern, reasonably comfortable, not a bad machine to drive and I suspect you have a much higher chance of surviving any kind of impact whatsoever in a BMW. The only thing I don't like about it is the cynical behemoth marketing machine behind it.

Reply to
Douglas Payne

That's just not true - the new Mini is arguabley the best handling FWD ever. And available with decent power. The old ones were just s**te at everything but rallying.

Reply to
DanTXD

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.