Did Jaguar Landrover Manage To Avoid A VW Type Scandal?
Thursday, 8. August 2019
A report released earlier this year resulted in the recall of a number of Jaguar and Landrover models after it was found that they emitted more CO2 than was recorded in the official certification.
At a time when the group is struggling financially the recall, whilst expensive, was nothing like the costs and fines that were imposed on the VW Group. Did someone play down the findings to give Jaguar a chance to instigate the recall?
Here’s the report from the BBC:
Jaguar Land Rover is recalling 44,000 cars in the UK over carbon dioxide emissions, the car maker has said.
Regulators found 10 models were emitting more of the greenhouse gas than they had been certified to emit.
The car maker will contact owners to arrange repairs, a JLR spokeswoman said.
JLR is facing a number of challenges at the moment, including a slump in demand for diesel cars and a sales slowdown in China.
The firm said it was a voluntary recall of certain 2016-2019 MY Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles fitted with two litre diesel or petrol engines.
The affected models are:
Some two-litre 2016 to 2018 Land Rover Discovery and Discovery Sport cars
Certain two litre Range Rover Evoque, Sport, and Velar cars
Jaguar E-Pace, F-Pace, F-Type, XE and XF cars.
Most models are petrol, while some are diesel.
Some of the models will need physical repairs in a dealership, while some will need software updates, the spokeswoman said.
“The modifications made to affected vehicles will be made free of charge and every effort will be made to minimise inconvenience to the customer during the short time required for the work to be carried out,” the firm added.
In January the firm confirmed it is cutting 4,500 jobs, with the substantial majority coming from its 40,000 strong UK workforce.
The firm has complained about uncertainty caused by Brexit.
Emissions have come under more scrutiny since Volkswagen’s diesel scandal.
Investors are pursuing the German car giant for about €9.2bn (£8.2bn) in damages, claiming the company should have come clean sooner about falsifying emissions data. By Graham Hill
