I am so sorry guys I do not know how to start a new thread. Being a new member. However I have just purchased an F-Type 2017 3000 miles on the clock. So I read this:

Update to prior review: My F-Type was involved in, what I consider, a minor rear-ending. It took a less-than 30 MPH bunt to the dead center of the rear bumper. The bumper wound up with a visible crease down the middle, and the trunk lid, being made mainly of fiberglass, essentially crumbled. Original estimate for repair was around $6K USD. However, the dealer-authorized repair facility was concerned the price for repair could go higher, because "...it's a convertible..." They wanted to have their special team remove most of the rear hardware and "bench" the car on a device that, apparently rare in the U.S., will indicate if the car had suffered a structural loss. According to the F-Type experts (and, I'm not being facetious or critical of them), the car, because it was a convertible, "bucked" on impact, essentially destroying the car. Price tag to repair "if possible" was not pushing $40K USD. My insurance adjuster's discussion with me included parts of the conversation with the repair facility, including, but not limited to, "...parts are not possible to get...," and, "...structurally, it's a total loss." Apparently, the convertible is something of a weakling on impact. So, when I rec'v the settlement check, I'm going to research available F-Type coupes from model year 2017, then acquire one. My previous opinions of the car haven't changed. It's gorgeous, a blast to drive and better than therapy. Just not getting another dangerous convertible. FYI - It had just crossed 6,000 miles on the odometer. Makes you want to cry...

Do any of you F-Tyype guys know about this. I know Jag does not do safety tests on their vehicles. Thoughts please.

 

Sounds a bit extreme to me especially as the vert was designed as a vert from the get go and is well known as having one of the best torsional rigidity measurements of any vert ever made. Sounds to me more like the insurance adjuster couldn't find a repairer willing and able to take on the job.
There is zero fibreglass in the F-Type including the vert and the trunk lid is almost certainly aluminium. At least it is on my coupe and I'm guessing it's the same in the vert although it just might be ABS plastic like the front and rear bumpers.

 

I agree with Oz. Physics determines a coupe is structurally safer than a vert, not Jaguar. My vert is safer to get rear ended in than my motorcycle, and safer than if I were walking.

 

If your concern "If F-type convertible a death trap" - then no, it is not. It was designed as a convertible and passed all the safety tests. If your concern "Is it more likely to get totaled in a serious accident" - yes, it is.

More so, my rule is to never buy any convertible that was in an accident. Too easy for a minor damage to result in vibrations, top issues and water leaks.

 

If the accident damaged the convertible top mechanicals, then it's a big problem.
But if not, then the structural chassis should be the same as the coupe's integrity...

 

My thought is that the car did exactly what it was supposed to do... sacrifice itself to keep you safe. That's why cars are designed to crumple; the priority is not resale value or ease of repair, it's to dissipate force so you don't get hurt.

Whether you believe it should do that in a "minor" accident or that the coupe version has more resilience before being structurally compromised is a matter of your own risk calculation.

 

30 MPH is pretty fast for a rear end accident. I can imagine it could total it. I hope you got the true value.

 

I believe Jaguar haven't subjected the F TYPE in either convertible or coupe's form to Euro NCAP crash safety tests.

I have no reason to believe convertible is any less 'crash resistant ' than coupe and certainly modern cars are designed with crumple zones to aid absorption of crash energy to protect occupants.

That said I am aware that Jaguar claim that the F Type coupe has 80% more torsional rigidity (resistance to twisting moments) than convertible, this doesn't imply less crash resistant.

 

And before the coupe was released reviewers comment on how surprisingly rigid the convertible was.

 

The F type DHC is noticeably more rigid than my prior XK8 DHC, where "cowl shake" was observed. The absence of that shake was one of my purchase decision deciders. The discussion about crumple zone protections is worthy.
Good luck, please keep us posted on the outcomes.

 

My wife got rear ended in her F Pace S at a stoplight. Couldn't have been more than 5 mph and she had a hitch mounted bike rack on at the time. Still caused $6K in damage. 30 mph is a lot.

 

Thanks. To be clear I cut and pasted this piece from reviews of 2017 F-Types and my car is still in perfect condition. Thank you for all your thoughts about this. Having owned MG roadsters I know that they are vulnerable from being hit in the derrière. I am still happy I bought the DHC and not the coupe. Thank again everyone really appreciate your input. Stay safe.

 

Congratulations and enjoy!

 

I agree with your theory that they didn't want to risk sinking a bunch into TRYING the repair - then finding out the damage is more extensive than they expected and/or the repair had issues. I once had a Lincoln that was side-swiped at under 20 MPH. Lots of superficial damage, but no air bags or (apparent) structural damage. The insurance company totaled the car because they were worried the air suspension could be a problem and they wouldn't know until they were well into the process.

Side note: There IS fiberglass in the lip at the rear, but the trunk lid is aluminum, as you expected.

 

Thanks!!!!