When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Since there was the possibility that it had changed in 2016, I just checked. Unfortunately, I can confirm no locking fuel filler cover on the US 2016 models either.
That is unfortunate. I think this is the first car I've had in the last decade without a locking fuel cover.
Luckily I live in a fairly low-crime area and keep my car garaged as well, but I suppose auto supply stores still sell locking gas caps for those who do not. Though I am not 100% sure a generic fuel cap will work on these cars, since I thought they had some kind of sensor to detect if the cap is locked. Perhaps its vapor or pressure based.
you can search for the old posts...there are a couple of places that sell ones that fit the F-Type. I bought one from a locking gas cap manufacturer in the UK. But I think there's one that sells it in Atlanta now. Been using it for 1 year, no issues.
you can search for the old posts...there are a couple of places that sell ones that fit the F-Type. I bought one from a locking gas cap manufacturer in the UK. But I think there's one that sells it in Atlanta now. Been using it for 1 year, no issues.
Nod... not an issue for me since I don't think I need it right now, but for others it could be. I just don't understand the logic behind why they would remove something like that from the North American cars.
Though I am not 100% sure a generic fuel cap will work on these cars, since I thought they had some kind of sensor to detect if the cap is locked. Perhaps its vapor or pressure based.
The sensor on the fuel filler is part of the OBD II system, which has been required on all cars sold in the U.S. since 1996 (CA cars even earlier). If a fuel cap clicks when tightened, it's OBD II compatible. Failure to seal with the click is the most common cause of OBD II-generated "check engine lights."
I would be shocked if there are still auto fuel caps still sold that are not OBDII compatible.
There is no logic associated with the absence of the locking door in the US. No one has ever received any type of explanation from JLR. The only thing that makes sense was an attempt to save money wherever they could given the fact that car prices in the US are lower than anywhere else in the world.
I think the UK version doesn't have this orange reflector
Correct, orange front signals and reflectors are a US requirement.
Orange (amber) signals are required front and back in the UK on vehicles registered after Sep 1 1965.
I wish the US used orange in the rear also IMHO it's much easier to see.
Unfortunately, I can confirm no locking fuel filler cover on the US 2016 models either.
+1. The solenoid pin mounting hole and the mating receiver are on the car alread. It is highly probable that the wiring harness is already locking gas cover compatible and the connector is tied off behind the trim panel. If someone can get at it, the connector could be tested to see if it switches off and on when the car is unlocked versus locked. (Programming might be required to activate it). If all that is in place, we just need to get the solenoid pin from a UK parts dealer. More research ahead.
+1. The solenoid pin mounting hole and the mating receiver are on the car alread. It is highly probable that the wiring harness is already locking gas cover compatible and the connector is tied off behind the trim panel. If someone can get at it, the connector could be tested to see if it switches off and on when the car is unlocked versus locked. (Programming might be required to activate it). If all that is in place, we just need to get the solenoid pin from a UK parts dealer. More research ahead.
+1.
I'd gamble a decent sum that the harness connector is there, because it would be beyond stupid and more costly to have a US-only wiring harness. As I look-over my base, largely option-less car, I find connectors all over the place that have nothing plugged into them.
The next question is for UK or other people to tell us how it locks. If it locks with the doors, then you're quite right that all that would be needed is the part that plugs into the harness connector, as well as some reasonably simple way to access that connector, of course.
Given the way things are done these days, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the entire rear clip would need to be removed to gain the necessary access.
How does allowing me to raise the windows via the door button change the liability vs doing it over the key fob? I don't think the liability argument works here. It would be the same -- yet the feature is enabled. I am less stupid when I stand next my car?
How does allowing me to raise the windows via the door button change the liability vs doing it over the key fob? I don't think the liability argument works here. It would be the same -- yet the feature is enabled. I am less stupid when I stand next my car?
Sounds like bunk to me...
I can't say for sure, but there are two theories in play along with the fact that no body parts can be injured with windows going down:
1) As reported in this thread, one dealer has said that there is a "anti-crush" safety mechanism that only works when operating the windows up position of the switches in the car, but not on the fob. Moreover, you'll obviously know if someone else (particularly a little kid) is in the car and be more careful.
2) When operating remotely with the fob, it's possible that you can't see if anyone (most likely a little kid) is in the car with their arms or fingers hanging out.
I'm not advocating either theory, but coupled with the fact that a manufacturer can (and does) get sued over almost anything in this country, there is some logic associated with #2. #1 sounds less plausible.
How does allowing me to raise the windows via the door button change the liability vs doing it over the key fob? I don't think the liability argument works here. It would be the same -- yet the feature is enabled. I am less stupid when I stand next my car?
Sounds like bunk to me...
I completely agree with your logic. Edit - or just enable the sensor that detects obstacles when using the switch on the remote
We are experiencing the effects of an overly-litigious society here in the States.
I think I'll eventually get the SmartTop for my car so I don't have to worry about it.
Of course, that begs the question as to why is something so trivial is worth worrying about? I mean it's hardly some kind of massive inconvenience having to walk to the actual car to put the windows up. Just sayin' . . .
Of course, that begs the question as to why is something so trivial is worth worrying about? I mean it's hardly some kind of massive inconvenience having to walk to the actual car to put the windows up. Just sayin' . . .
It doesn't really bother me either way. It just seems nice to have the option to use the fob to control the top and/or windows.
I can't say for sure, but there are two theories in play along with the fact that no body parts can be injured with windows going down:
1) As reported in this thread, one dealer has said that there is a "anti-crush" safety mechanism that only works when operating the windows up position of the switches in the car, but not on the fob. Moreover, you'll obviously know if someone else (particularly a little kid) is in the car and be more careful.
2) When operating remotely with the fob, it's possible that you can't see if anyone (most likely a little kid) is in the car with their arms or fingers hanging out.
I'm not advocating either theory, but coupled with the fact that a manufacturer can (and does) get sued over almost anything in this country, there is some logic associated with #2. #1 sounds less plausible.
#2 makes sense and sounds plausible why they decided to disable it.
Of course, that begs the question as to why is something so trivial is worth worrying about? I mean it's hardly some kind of massive inconvenience having to walk to the actual car to put the windows up. Just sayin' . . .
In the grand scheme of things, everything is pretty trivial. Just annoying that such an easy/convenient feature has been disabled. Things I used to think were no big deal but absolutely love now that I've had them in my last few cars:
I can't say for sure, but there are two theories in play along with the fact that no body parts can be injured with windows going down:
1) As reported in this thread, one dealer has said that there is a "anti-crush" safety mechanism that only works when operating the windows up position of the switches in the car, but not on the fob. Moreover, you'll obviously know if someone else (particularly a little kid) is in the car and be
more careful.
I find it hard to believe that the safety mechanism is disabled when using the fob. As I said earlier it would be interesting to hear what another dealer says, they are not all made equal.
Originally Posted by shift
In the grand scheme of things, everything is pretty trivial. Just annoying that such an easy/convenient feature has been disabled. Things I used to think were no big deal but absolutely love now that I've had them in my last few cars:
I mean, car forums survive on car guys talking about trivial things LOL
Absolutely!
And part of what makes that conversation interesting requires having people like me parody those trivial things. I mean I certainly enjoy many of today's modern conveniences. However, I have a hard time relating to why so many people get so bent out of shape when they don't have them. I picture those people almost ready to "stick a gun to their head" (metaphorically speaking) if there's an electricity outage in their area for a few hours, heaven forbid for a few days.
Annoyance over not having the remote windows up feature is one of those things that is particularly hard for me to understand. I can't imagine ever needing or wanting to use it. I'd never leave my car unattended with the windows down.
On the other hand, now that I've learned I can put the windows down remotely, I might use that a few times a year in the summer to ventilate the car a few extra seconds early when I'm returning to the vehicle.
I can't say for sure, but there are two theories in play along with the fact that no body parts can be injured with windows going down:
1) As reported in this thread, one dealer has said that there is a "anti-crush" safety mechanism that only works when operating the windows up position of the switches in the car, but not on the fob. Moreover, you'll obviously know if someone else (particularly a little kid) is in the car and be more careful.
2) When operating remotely with the fob, it's possible that you can't see if anyone (most likely a little kid) is in the car with their arms or fingers hanging out.
I'm not advocating either theory, but coupled with the fact that a manufacturer can (and does) get sued over almost anything in this country, there is some logic associated with #2. #1 sounds less plausible.
Originally Posted by Norri
I find it hard to believe that the safety mechanism is disabled when using the fob. As I said earlier it would be interesting to hear what another dealer says, they are not all made equal.
Norri,
I agree, and you deleted the part of my quote that said just that.
I was just emphasising your point!
