Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/03/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Seriously OT: Jaguar XF?
From: kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:54:08 -0600
References: <FBEE989E-CE48-4F67-BAEA-E92C0ACC9C35@ameritech.net> <AANLkTikbWQfTiXy8=XPBK4BiBnhB7biKwxZAnJ1FWk+u@mail.gmail.com> <4D7AAC54.5060502@cox.net> <56BFE1B1-C449-423E-B908-59EB7A4EA873@shaw.ca>

I think I might have put a bow on it and the reaction was oh, how 
sweet.  A few months later it turned to something like, now I know why 
you have so much life insurance on me.

Ken

On 3/11/2011 6:02 PM, John Collier wrote:
> Absolutely dramatic improvement in quality shortly after Ford took them 
> over. More than night and day, more like black hole to interior of the 
> sun. Still expensive to maintain, though.
>
> John
>
> On 2011-03-11, at 4:12 PM, Ken Carney wrote:
>
>> I bought my wife an XJ-6 one year.  Everyone told me not to do it.  They 
>> were right.  I would say "suspect quality issues" is a masterful 
>> understatement.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On 3/11/2011 9:16 AM, Roger Hart wrote:
>>> As far as looks go, the XF is terrific, inside and out. But take it
>>> from someone who drives cars for a living (I'm executive editor of
>>> AutoWeek and I occasionally shoot photos of them as well), Jags of the
>>> vintage you are talking about had some suspect quality issues. Be
>>> warned.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



In reply to: Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] Seriously OT: Jaguar XF?)
Message from rhart76 at gmail.com (Roger Hart) ([Leica] Seriously OT: Jaguar XF?)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] Seriously OT: Jaguar XF?)
Message from jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier) ([Leica] Seriously OT: Jaguar XF?)