No lock on fuel filler cap
#61
No, but might discourage them if they don't have a screw driver handy. At the very least you would know that they did gain access to the gas tank before you drive off and ruin your fuel system or worse, the engine. With a torn up access door you'd have insurance coverage. Otherwise, proving vandalism as the cause of mechanical failure would be a huge challenge. The best of all worlds would be a fuel door integrated into the alarm system. I doubt that's the case with the F-Type.
#62
Different Perspective
I'll offer a slightly different perspective. As an owner of a 2010 XF, I spent a lot of time lurking on the XF forum as well as this forum both before and now after my acquisition of an F-type. It doesn't take a lot of searching on that forum to find threads complaining about the locked fuel filler lid. On all implementations that Jaguar has of the locking fuel flap (and I suspect other makers as well), the solenoid is in its locked position in the un-energized state. Therefor, any electrical fault along the way can easily lead to a situation in which the flap is locked and cannot be unlocked. This is the state that leads to the many complaint threads on the XF forum.
I suspect that Jaguar took this into consideration when deciding not to add it to the F-type. They were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, opening themselves up to lawsuits in either direction. I'd hazard a guess that they've already found themselves the defendants in some lawsuits where people have been unable to re-fuel their cars and missed "critical" business meetings.
As to why they offer it to the ROW, I suspect it has to do with a combination of higher fuel costs elsewhere and a less litigious culture as well. We do love to sue people for our problems in the U.S.
I suspect that Jaguar took this into consideration when deciding not to add it to the F-type. They were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, opening themselves up to lawsuits in either direction. I'd hazard a guess that they've already found themselves the defendants in some lawsuits where people have been unable to re-fuel their cars and missed "critical" business meetings.
As to why they offer it to the ROW, I suspect it has to do with a combination of higher fuel costs elsewhere and a less litigious culture as well. We do love to sue people for our problems in the U.S.
#64
#65
Why make it easy? Much of this stuff is opportunistic, and the lack of a lock removes at least one deterrent. If you follow that logic, Foosh, you may as well as just leave the front door to your house and your windows permanently open as if someone wants to break in they're going to do it....
I do think we are "beating a dead issue" though. It is the way it is. But you never know Tilting at windmills!!
#66
#67
#68
While I understand the sentiments of folks (including myself) who really want the locking fuel cap, I don't get why anyone would actually try to argue against this.
Nobody on this thread does NOT want the cap. Folks are either indifferent or want it. Therefore, having the feature is either neutral or positive. It cannot be a meaningful additional cost, weight, or complexity since the vast majority of cars have it. It doesn't detract from the beauty or performance of the car or the driver's experience.
So it's a bit like arguing that there should be no high beams on cars because you never use them, or no nutrition labels on food packaging because you don't read them.
The existence of either doesn't really hurt you at all because you can always choose not to use it, and it has a de minimis effect on the cost or performance on the product while really satisfying the needs of a meaningful proportion of customers who do care.
It sure feels like arguing just for argument's sake. It's a classic red herring issue for designers. Whether or not you personally value a locking fuel cap, I think it's hard to argue that a locking fuel cap doesn't make for a better car, because some people care, some don't care, but almost nobody actively dislikes it.
Nobody on this thread does NOT want the cap. Folks are either indifferent or want it. Therefore, having the feature is either neutral or positive. It cannot be a meaningful additional cost, weight, or complexity since the vast majority of cars have it. It doesn't detract from the beauty or performance of the car or the driver's experience.
So it's a bit like arguing that there should be no high beams on cars because you never use them, or no nutrition labels on food packaging because you don't read them.
The existence of either doesn't really hurt you at all because you can always choose not to use it, and it has a de minimis effect on the cost or performance on the product while really satisfying the needs of a meaningful proportion of customers who do care.
It sure feels like arguing just for argument's sake. It's a classic red herring issue for designers. Whether or not you personally value a locking fuel cap, I think it's hard to argue that a locking fuel cap doesn't make for a better car, because some people care, some don't care, but almost nobody actively dislikes it.
The following users liked this post:
schraderade (01-07-2015)
#70
#71
While I understand the sentiments of folks (including myself) who really want the locking fuel cap, I don't get why anyone would actually try to argue against this. ... Whether or not you personally value a locking fuel cap, I think it's hard to argue that a locking fuel cap doesn't make for a better car, because some people care, some don't care, but almost nobody actively dislikes it.
It would have been nice if JLR at least gave us the option, even though I would not have chosen it.
#72
i.e. the argument is akin to "airbags should be optional because Jaguar often has defective airbags".
In this case, the issue is not whether the lock should be optional. It's that Jaguar should fix their damn faulty implementation....and it's not that hard because the overwhelming majority of cars in the US have perfectly working locking fuel caps: they could just OEM the entire assembly for very little cost. Ford makes millions of 'em and there is already a healthy supply agreement between the two companies (btw...).
The following users liked this post:
DuhCar (01-07-2015)
#73
Sorry: Off Topic!
Last edited by Unhingd; 01-07-2015 at 03:37 PM.
#74
Respectfully, I don't understand this either because your counterfactual is a flawed implementation.
i.e. the argument is akin to "airbags should be optional because Jaguar often has defective airbags".
In this case, the issue is not whether the lock should be optional. It's that Jaguar should fix their damn faulty implementation....and it's not that hard because the overwhelming majority of cars in the US have perfectly working locking fuel caps: they could just OEM the entire assembly for very little cost. Ford makes millions of 'em and there is already a healthy supply agreement between the two companies (btw...).
i.e. the argument is akin to "airbags should be optional because Jaguar often has defective airbags".
In this case, the issue is not whether the lock should be optional. It's that Jaguar should fix their damn faulty implementation....and it's not that hard because the overwhelming majority of cars in the US have perfectly working locking fuel caps: they could just OEM the entire assembly for very little cost. Ford makes millions of 'em and there is already a healthy supply agreement between the two companies (btw...).
Your counter is equally flawed - apples and oranges. There is good statistical correlation between properly implemented airbags systems, and fewer automotive deaths. I would be shocked to discover similar correlation between fuel door locks and automotive deaths.
Don't get me wrong. I'd happily accept a properly implemented locking fuel door on my F-type. However, if at the time of feature lock on the F-type development, the choice was between the existing flawed implementation and nothing, I'd argue that Jaguar made the correct choice. I don't know this was the case, and regardless I agree they should probably fix this in future model year releases, especially given the passion you and others have for it.
#75
The point is, though, that Jaguar has made the decision to offer the feature for seemingly all markets other than the US. This isn't Jaguar being cautious due to flawed implementations elsewhere, this is something that's generally been fully implemented on the F Type and has only been excluded on US cars. That's what we're talking about here.
#76
Don't get me wrong. I'd happily accept a properly implemented locking fuel door on my F-type. However, if at the time of feature lock on the F-type development, the choice was between the existing flawed implementation and nothing, I'd argue that Jaguar made the correct choice.
I'm sure there was some reason for them to omit in the US -- and I think you may have found the right reason...they hadn't fixed the solenoid issue yet and didn't want it to hold up market timing.
Jaguar does read these boards and I just hope they are able to follow the logic that a feature which some users feel passionately about, some users are neutral, and no users dislike should be something that gets implemented because there is almost no downside. Providing they get the damn design right, which is really easy to do.
#77
Most cars which do have a locking fuel door also have a manual release mechanism as well. My wife's Audi has a locking door and it has failed. For about 3 months, I had to open the trunk and manually release the door each trip to the gas station. Not fun, but technically that was only 2 months over the almost 6 years of ownership so it wasn't that bad.
#78
We purchased one of the first modern-incarnation Mini Coopers back in 2001. About a year later, she was on a 3-lane interstate in the middle lane when the airbag deployed with full force right in her face. There was no collision or impact with anything--she was just motoring along at 70 mph. Both inner and outer lanes were occupied in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic, but an alert driver in the right lane noticed what had happened and slowed down to give her a space to get over. She very cooly moved the airbag out of the way and managed to get over on the shoulder, and exited the vehicle, shaking like a leaf After collecting herself, she inexplicably got in the car and drove it home with the airbag hanging out of the steering wheel.
The Mini dealer came and collected the car that evening, and the boys from BMWNA were at the dealer the next day. By the end of that next day, we had an offer of a new Mini of our choice, or full purchase price. We chose the latter as my wife had no interest in Mini's for quite some time after that.
I never did get an explanation of what happened, but suspect that car ended up in pieces on in a test lab somewhere.
#80
Jaguar does read these boards and I just hope they are able to follow the logic that a feature which some users feel passionately about, some users are neutral, and no users dislike should be something that gets implemented because there is almost no downside. Providing they get the damn design right, which is really easy to do.
At any rate, I think we can both agree that these are, at the end of the day, niggling issues. Jaguar spent the bulk their development budget on creating a great looking, great sounding car with very good driving dynamics, and they overwhelmingly succeeded in my book.