Was it too early for the I-Pace ? - Page 163
Welcome to the Jaguar XF Forum.
Page 163 of 163 FirstFirst ... 63113153161162163
Results 1,621 to 1,623 of 1623
  1. #1621
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,921
    It's not good for one's blood pressure watching JLR crash tests. Just noticed:

    1. in both frontal impact tests, the side airbags of the I-Pace didn't operate/inflate, yet the e-tron's did, for both tests. Why this glaring difference?

    Surely they should have operated at least for the offset crash, as this produces a yaw, sideways impulse on the car, meaning the occupants will be accelerated sideways as well as forwards. Surely this is a test fail? How in the hell does one set of rules apply to one maker -JLR - and another, far more onerous set, to everyone else?

    How in the hell is the shyster operation Thatcham 'Research' not exposed, still in business?

    2. Look at the I-Pace vid at 1:16-1.17, for the side impact test. Does that not show, clearly, just the driver's side airbag inflated, and no rear inflated, or beginning to even be inflated - a clear pane of glass? Am I going blind? Compare it to the e-tron's same test, where both bags, front and rear, clearly are visibly inflated - 1:07-1:08

    And yet, supposedly all from the same, single test, it shows, at 1:27-1:29, the rear airbag inflated.

    Don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to realise that Thatcham have done skullduggery. In one shot the rear bag is nowhere to be seen, and then it is. If, as it 99.99% looks, the rear airbag failed, or the cars sensors didn't even sense it, or JLR's cars are just sh!t/zero developed, this is a test fail, never mind 5*s or 4*s.

    3. something's off with the side pole test for the I-Pace, too. At its simplest, it's just, why are the wipers operating from this crash - seen plainly at 1:35-1:36? But the damage, post impact, also looks very severe.

    In the slow motion, other shots of this side pole impact, we see perhaps the wipers not operating, going up, but the coming down. Is this another 2-times. several times 'single test', or manipulated in its editing etc?

    Overall, the damage to the e-tron from the side pole impact looks less severe - 1:46-1:47 (e-tron video) being the money shot.

    4. Why did Thatcham's I-Pace test vid not have a whiplash part - as in the e-tron's at 1:48:1:54?

    Was it because that would have shown graphically how awful the I-Pace's seat backrests are, stability wise?

    And stil with all this, publicly available, and everyting else known about the I-Pace - (non)-braking recalls etc - there are still idiots who think it's a game changer and worthy car of the year, and JLR's future and saviour. We're F'ed.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Jaguar XF Forum
    Advertisements
     

  3. #1622
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,921
    The French guys, 'Caradisiac', who drove an I-Pace around the Peripherique, have done the same with the e-tron, at lower ambient temp, and found pretty much same range, even though the I-Pace claims around 15% more WLTP:

    Okay, 558.3 ​​km is exactly 15.6 km shorter than the Jaguar I-Pace but the latter had weather conditions a little more lenient, whether in terms of the weather, with optimal temperatures between 20 and 29 ° against between 16 and 23 ° for the Audi, or traffic (39 km / h average against 36), so we can honestly talk more about equality. One thing is certain, however, the e-tron is much more comfortable in terms of driving position, soundproofing, damping - the German is more fitted with 19-inch wheels instead of 20 inches from the British - but especially at the driving level, the I-Pace does not offer freewheeling mode.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...que-176534.htm

    https://www.caradisiac.com/l-audi-e-...que-176534.htm


  4. #1623
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3,921
    JLR shills desperately trying to guide the sheep back into the pen:

    Poor Dealer Service and an unreliable car

    Post by jason.birchall » Thu May 23, 2019 9:53 pm


    After further software faults after jaguar Stockport attempted to fix the car we're still working with finance company to reject a fine drivers car with hopeless software and support. The jaguar assist guy has spent almost as much time in the car as me, what a joke. Jaguar Stockport were useless, over wrote infotainment with same version, still on telematics 14.2, they said that's all they can do. Pse I just want my BMW back

    by FENorway » Fri May 24, 2019 9:54 am
    Chewy wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 10:46 pm

    My dealer in Cheltenham has been on a steep learning curve.

    I have S19A and 15.2 software now. Still issues with it, but at least it is more stable and the faults are easily repeatable. Jaguar will be aware of them and hopefully will have a big update sometime this year to resolve them. Better that than trickle of small updates that cause even more issues, which is what has been happening.

    Feature improvements are for the future, they need to sort out the faults that are there first.

    If there is a future?

    The bad experiences from so many I-Pace owner will scare away new customers,and the risk is that it will brake Jaguars neck.

    They've come up with an expensive car(both to buy and develop), but noone buys it. That's not a good business model.
    by Chewy » Fri May 24, 2019 11:10 am
    FENorway wrote: Fri May 24, 2019 9:54 am


    but noone buys it. That's not a good business model.
    I think they have sold around 15,000 and they are currently selling around 1,500 a month. Production is limited to around 20,000 a year. Jaguar is a small volume car manufacturer.

    That’s a lot of people buying a very expensive car.
    https://www.ipaceforums.co.uk/viewto...=1613&start=10

    - nearly 150 I-Paces for sale on Autotrader.co.uk, over 1,000 on Autotrader.com = 'selling 1,500 a month'.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top