[epirali]

Alas, I got the traction battery fault. Out of the blue. So I guess at this point, it’s no longer a matter of whether but at what price.

Sadly if the battery if faulty in manufacture it is probably a matter of when. Sorry to hear.

 

[epirali]

I don't even know what to say about this, but yesterday I got another call from JLR rep for a buyback. I was very confused and asked "are you calling me because of the letter from attorney." He was also confused and after around 5 min we figured out although my case was marked "closed" because I refused their offer he had been given the case to me to call about the buyback. Again. Once I explained and he read the content he apologized and said he would close it again and note that I had sent them a letter via attorney.

This would be funny if it wasn't actually kind of sad.

 

[sciencegeek]

arg

 

[dernotte]

My experience in Canada/Québec is that I threatened the dealer where I bought the car and JLR Canada at the same time to go to court if they don't replace my battery as requested. A single letter that I wrote myself. JLR Canada was useless, it took them a few weeks to answer, but the dealer was very helpful. A few days after I sent the formal letter they contacted the local JLR director, they pushed to "unblock" (that's what they told me) the battery, told me that the battery is in the warehouse and will be shipped in a couple of days (not weeks because it needs to be shipped from Europe). Once they received it, I got an appointment and got the battery replaced in 2 days. In the meantime, JLR Canada contacted me to tell me that they are "evaluating" my request... but the battery was already replaced. They are doing a good followup on this...

 

[epirali]

Well it's getting interesting. JLR sent their last offer letter to my lawyer, who promptly pointed out his request letter and stated we are getting ready to litigate. I also was informed that state of Maryland has assigned an arbitrator who will contact me shortly. The lawyer has instructed me to put him in contact with arbitrator when I am contacted.

So I guess I'll know soon what will happen. Either way this process has been kind of sad, the poor car deserved better!

 

[epirali]

Well as expected JLR refused to engage with lawyer and essentially restated their unreasonable position. After discussion with lawyer it is clear they are counting on people essentially not being able to counter their tactic, as US Federal and most state laws will not directly engage with their tactics and its up to individuals and class action lawsuits to compel them to do better. This probably explains why the approach in US is working for them while in other markets they are addressing the issues as to not have to deal with regulatory agencies.

My next step is to continue the process with Maryland Attorney General/consumer protection. The mediator was willing to engage after the lawyers letter, and although our guess is JLR will refuse to engage it may help to get some attention to this with the state of Maryland.

At the end of the day it doesn't really make much of a difference to me personally, but I am sure many other owners have all been somewhat screwed as a strategy by JLR in the US. I do plan to sell my 24 F Type R (have in in UK) as a result of this experience. Not willing to be a customer of JLR again.

 

[KevinDell]

[Forgive me if I don't remember things you may have posted in other threads ...]

Your car is fine, right? Is there such a thing as a forced buyback in your state? In general I just cannot imagine that a company can say "the type of gizmo you own is defective thanks to us, and we're giving you $1 to buy it back." It just seems like one can just say "no thank you" and be done with it.

If the car is actually defective I can see that it would be different. Warranty or lemon law kicks in. JLR buys it back not for a buck but for a serious amount of money. But a car that's fine? I just don't understand the buyback rules in that case. What is your understanding?

There are several things that puzzle me about this H514 buyback.

• If the risk was deemed sufficient to trigger buybacks, why is it taking so long?
• It seems arbitrarily limited to 2019 US models when almost all I-Paces bar the last produced using post-February 2024 manufactured batteries could be at risk.
• How can it be mandated at all? Even if JLR cancel the battery warranty (should that indeed be legally possible) this would never rid the manufacturer of product liability* anyway, and particularly for the above reasons.

To me this whole episode has been an attempt by JLR to be seen to be reacting positively, in the face of NHTSA recognising that the H441 recall doesn’t wholly resolve the technical problem. This may be a strategy to put pressure on to LGES to come up with a full permanent solution quickly.

(* I’m certainly no expert on product liability law, and particularly in the US. However in my past I was involved in the aircraft sector; after taking back a fleet of 30 very old aircraft that my company no longer wished to support, the only way of ensuring that no one ever put the aircraft back into airworthy condition and product liability being completely unavoidable (waivers and indemnities are not sound protection) we ordered the main wings to be severed from the fuselages!)

 

[rcomeau]

There are several things that puzzle me about this H514 buyback.

• If the risk was deemed sufficient to trigger buybacks, why is it taking so long?
• It seems arbitrarily limited to 2019 US models when almost all I-Paces bar the last produced using post-February 2024 manufactured batteries could be at risk.
• How can it be mandated at all? Even if JLR cancel the battery warranty (should that indeed be legally possible) this would never rid the manufacturer of product liability* anyway, and particularly for the above reasons.

To me this whole episode has been an attempt by JLR to be seen to be reacting positively, in the face of NHTSA recognising that the H441 recall doesn’t wholly resolve the technical problem. This may be a strategy to put pressure on to LGES to come up with a full permanent solution quickly.

(* I’m certainly no expert on product liability law, and particularly in the US. However in my past I was involved in the aircraft sector; after taking back a fleet of 30 very old aircraft that my company no longer wished to support, the only way of ensuring that no one ever put the aircraft back into airworthy condition and product liability being completely unavoidable (waivers and indemnities are not sound protection) we ordered the main wings to be severed from the fuselages!)

1: The buyback was/is not done in a vacuum. Initial risk was mitigated by limiting total charge with a software update and then completed with a buyback.

2: I imagine the lawyer to car company ratio in the US pushed them. Note that there is no charge limitation or buyback anywhere else in the world, so the risk is more monetary than physical. Had it been a real risk, the software update would have been worldwide. Imagine a fire in the UK for instance that would have caused injury and property damage and then it is revealed that JLR has been addressing this risk in the US but not un the UK. They have to be pretty confident that this would not happen. Of course the rest of us have essentially zero resale value now.

3: Not sure if it is mandated (no one is showing up with a sheriff to confiscate the car). I imagine they can offer the buyback and then threaten to not support the car for repairs going forward (so soft coercion). If they are treating this as a legal liability than a true safety issue, then this is the more efficient effort/reward (cost vs. reduction of liability).

 

[jmg]

3: Not sure if it is mandated (no one is showing up with a sheriff to confiscate the car). I imagine they can offer the buyback and then threaten to not support the car for repairs going forward (so soft coercion). If they are treating this as a legal liability than a true safety issue, then this is the more efficient effort/reward (cost vs. reduction of liability).

that is exactly what they are doing. Participating in the buyback is “voluntary” but JLR cannot/will not fix a battery problem that comes up, even under warranty (since the battery warranty is 8 years).

 

[KevinDell]

that is exactly what they are doing. Participating in the buyback is “voluntary” but JLR cannot/will not fix a battery problem that comes up, even under warranty (since the battery warranty is 8 years).

…meaning that they (and LGES) are still firmly on the hook for product liability; it makes no sense.

 

[rcomeau]

…meaning that they (and LGES) are still firmly on the hook for product liability; it makes no sense.

Not sure if offering a buyback (which one can refuse) moves the liability needle. They can say you were warned of a safety issue, you were offered a “reasonable” remedy and you chose to not take the remedy. It might be harder to then (after an event where damages/injury occurred) argue that despite refusing their solution they are still on the hook.
Again, thats extremely unlikely since they are leaving the rest of us drive with zero risk mitigation (so I assume they believe there is really little danger).

 

[KevinDell]

Not sure if offering a buyback (which one can refuse) moves the liability needle. They can say you were warned of a safety issue, you were offered a “reasonable” remedy and you chose to not take the remedy. It might be harder to then (after an event where damages/injury occurred) argue that despite refusing their solution they are still on the hook.
Again, thats extremely unlikely since they are leaving the rest of us drive with zero risk mitigation (so I assume they believe there is really little danger).

At least under European legal systems, product liability cannot be avoided as long as the product remains in use. JLR could argue that it had offered a buyback, and this might mitigate slightly the final payout in the event of a claim, but if they had refused to support the product after the consumer has exercised the right to reject the buyback, they would most likely be back to square one and facing a maximum payout! Where’s the sense in that particularly when battery repairs are covered by LGES?

I still suspect that the buyback is a merely means of showing the NHTSA that it is taking action whilst also (as GM did) making a gesture to pressure LGES to do more. JLR need do no more for now, hence no buybacks of later model years nor elsewhere.

 

[epirali]

I think I am at the end of my journey with my I-Pace and JLR as a whole. So after Maryland Attorney General's office sent a request for mediation JLR simply restated the original offer and refused to engage. So this only leaves suing as a legal recourse. It is clear that there are no strong federal or state level protection mechanisms in the US (unlike other places in the world) that allows JLR to essentially take advantage of the customer, counting on the fact that most people can not/will not spend time and money on a legal fight for around $10k.

I test drove an Hyundai Ioniq 5 N today. I have to say the sport handling dynamics and the power/emulation of gear box is pretty amazing. It is the only other cross over I have driven where the dynamics of the car excited me and I was grinning. The interior and detailing is nowhere near the I-Pace but I have to admit the suspension/powertrain/handling and technology is superior. So I am going to let go of my I-Pace and pick up the Ioniq 5 N (I call it me rebound CUV EV!).

It has been fun being here, we were a great community and most of us were real admirers and loved our cars. It is sad this is all JLR could manage to get out of the good will. And honestly it never did the I-Pace justice, I still have people who see my I-Pace and ask me what it is, and are impressed by how nice it is almost 7 years after its release.

I'll sell my Jaguar F-Type R next as I really have no interest in engaging with JLR any further. I am replacing it with a final production year of the Alpine A110. I hope the few thousands they screw their customers is worth whatever gain they think they get from losing a base.

 

[sciencegeek]

That's sad to hear. Will you sue or just move on?

Thank you for all your contributions and the fun and informative discussions.

How does the EV6 compare to the Ioniq5?

 

[epirali]

I will not sue because it simply is not worth it and I am not an "angry old man" waving my fist.

The Ioniq 5 is the more gentle version of the EV6, the EV6 is a bit sportier, lower and "younger" in drive. The Ioniq 5N is a statement by Hyundai, they made a "track" version of the Ioniq 5 (it is significantly different, it is like an Audio RS or a Porsche Turbo S), and has an AMAZING gearbox/rev emulator that is not a gimmick, you honestly believe you are changing gears and it adds fun to the experience (its optional).

In an alternate universe Jaguar would have made an R version of the I-Pace that would have been like this.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/hyundai/ioniq-5-n-electric-hatchback-2023/478kw-84-kwh-5dr-auto/first-drive

 

[Snowflake]

I'm kind of sad that you like the fake ICE behavior.

 

[epirali]

I'm kind of sad that you like the fake ICE behavior.

Have you tried it or is this theoretical sadness? Because I have multiple high performance EVs and high performance track ICE cars, so my appreciation comes from a place of experience with both. It is an engineering marvel to emulate the mechanical kick and dynamics of gear shifting and rev limiting and rev matching so well.

And as one driver reviewer noted it gives you a reference around a track for gear/speed combination in a way that just sound does not.

 

[Time2Roll]

I prefer function over form. Not sure how dynamic kicks and rev limiting increase function.

 

[epirali]

I prefer function over form. Not sure how dynamic kicks and rev limiting increase function.

Fair point and I agree. Those tricks create driving engagement and if that gets someone over their bias against EVs I am all for it.

The dynamics of the car in any mode is very very good. It handles and accelerates around 90% of a Taycan Turbo S at a much lower price. Don't use the gearbox emulation, it still doesn't negate how capable it is. It really makes the I-Pace feel like a boat. And that is saying something.

 

[Qtown charger]

Fair point and I agree. Those tricks create driving engagement and if that gets someone over their bias against EVs I am all for it.

First and foremost: it is shame than another early adopter is leaving the fold, and good luck with Hyundai. I hope it evolves into more than just a toy. The I-Pace was, and still is in my mind, an excellent blend of engineering and style.

However, back to the issue of artificial noise makers. I'm not sure that "driving engagement" plays much of a part in the so called EV bias. The bigger issues are "head in sand" refusal to accept change, and price. There will always be a few folks at the top and the bottom of the economic pyramid that favor esoteric factors such as "driving engagement" and noise, but the vast majority of "drivers" just need a cheap reliable means of getting from A to B.

"Tricks" add complexity and price and pamper to the few rather than addressing the real issues of the majority. Put a $30k EV on the market with real 300mile range and address charging infrastructure issues and adoption will become less of a problem for the masses. Meanwhile the gearheads of this world can keep their manual transmission V8 muscle cars for the "experience" since the number of owners, miles driven (and pollution) would be minimal.