Posted on 05/09/2025 9:50:29 PM PDT by Red Badger
A friend has a 12 year old Jaguar that is dark purple. Very sharp ride for a lawyer to arrive in.
I had a friend of a friend in engineering school who was working his way through as a Jag mechanic. He ultimately dropped out because he would have had to take too much of a pay cut as an entry level engineer.
They were "cool", yes. Cool looking. They were also junk. I had a Triumph Spitfire. Like the rest, Triumph was made by British Leyland. They made junk. Totally unreliable. Electrics by Lucas.
You know why the brits drinks warm beer? Their refrigerators are made by Lucas.
Fire the ad agency and the exec who green lighted that nonsense.
.......after the incomprehensible, abysmally bad ad launched, Jaguar’s Rawdon Glover said........
<><>the ad’s “intended message” had been lost in “a blaze of intolerance”
<><>backlash erupted on social media platforms,
<><>Glover rejected the notion that the ad was “woke.”
The ads were ridiculous, but fit the product offered...... an auto designed
for a market demographic: people who hate autos and will never buy one.
lol.......
“They were “cool”, yes. Cool looking. They were also junk. I had a Triumph Spitfire. Like the rest, Triumph was made by British Leyland. They made junk “
I made the mistake of trading in my 1976 Toyota Celica GT liftback for a new 1977 Triumph TR7 . What a lemon ! An even bigger lemon than my 1973 Z28 Camaro !
I had an older Spitfire myself years ago. Biggest piece of s##t I ever owned. Impossible to keep the multiple carbs in sync. It was a 6 volt system with the infamous Lucas electr ics. A winning combination to be sure. You can guess the rest. Got rid of it quickly. Fun to drive though when I could get it started.
That’s right.
Blame the ad agency.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What we learned from the Bud Lite situation was that it was not just one executive that was rotten—it was the entire Board of Directors and executive team.
When a company tells you they are your enemy—don’t blame the ad agency—believe them.
In the 1976 movie “The Gumball Rally” Team Jaguar never made it to the starting line because their car wouldn’t start.
I actually owned three Triumph Spitfires in the ‘60s, one after the other as they fell apart beyond repair. A 12v positive ground system, Lucas electrics, steel not strong enough for American highways, a weak independent rear suspension which had a tendency to tuck under in a sharp turn, and a spring-loaded gas filler cap directly behind you neck, were only some of the joys of ownership. Another was its unbelievable agility on twisty country roads.
I owned a mid-70s Spitfire during mid-80s. It did have issues, but still was fun to drive around LA, especially to the beaches.
Next up for Jaguar: a bunch of gyrating yiffing furries. Surely that market segment will fall all over themselves to purchase one of these monstrosities.
Better hide the keys from Ferris.
“Electrics by Lucas”
Old saying: Lucas, Prince of darkness.
I was going to mention that running gag. The story is that Jaguar wouldn't give them a car to use for filming, so they got back at them. Here is a quote from the trivia page on IMDB for the movie: The producers approached Jaguar and asked them to provide a car for the film. The company refused, so the producers obtained the Jaguar seen in the early scenes of the film from elsewhere. Then, in what was an apparent act of 'F-U' retaliation, they filmed the in-the-garage scene of the rally send-off ... with the Jaguar being unable to participate because it refused to start. The car is a 1974 XK-E V12 Series III. The unreliability of this car is well known. This car made Time magazine's 2019 list of "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.