Help: Alternative to dealer programming smart prox remote?
#1
01-15-2013, 08:30 PM
Help: Alternative to dealer programming smart prox remote?
#4
01-16-2013, 05:05 AM
Veteran Member
Welcome to the Forum
Please take a moment to visit
New Member Area - Intro a MUST - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum
and introduce yourself.
I understand these remotes need programming by a dealer or locksmith.
Apparently locksmiths are a lot cheaper.
AutoLocksmithFinder -Find an Automotive Locksmith in your area now!
Please take a moment to visit
New Member Area - Intro a MUST - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum
and introduce yourself.
I understand these remotes need programming by a dealer or locksmith.
Apparently locksmiths are a lot cheaper.
AutoLocksmithFinder -Find an Automotive Locksmith in your area now!
#5
01-16-2013, 05:30 AM
Welcome to the forum XKGuy,
That'll be the Smart Key?
As Vince says, it's a dealer or automotive locksmith job. The earlier 1997-2006 XK8/XKR remotes can be owner programmed but from the 2007 XK/XKR the Smart Key has to be programmed using the dealer diagnostic system.
When you get a minute, please follow this link New Member Area - Intro a MUST - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum to the New Member Area - Intro a MUST section and post some info about yourself and your vehicle for all members to see. In return you'll get a proper welcome and some useful information on posting to the forum.
Graham
That'll be the Smart Key?
As Vince says, it's a dealer or automotive locksmith job. The earlier 1997-2006 XK8/XKR remotes can be owner programmed but from the 2007 XK/XKR the Smart Key has to be programmed using the dealer diagnostic system.
When you get a minute, please follow this link New Member Area - Intro a MUST - Jaguar Forums - Jaguar Enthusiasts Forum to the New Member Area - Intro a MUST section and post some info about yourself and your vehicle for all members to see. In return you'll get a proper welcome and some useful information on posting to the forum.
Graham
#7
01-16-2013, 09:20 AM
I was surprised at the number of new Smart remotes available at this cost from eBay and other web sources. Significantly less than the earlier model where good used remotes go for about that and new ones can be double or more. New from dealer is, of course more again.
Programming cost is a little higher than I'd heard XK owners in the UK are paying but not excessively so. - despite your offended sensibilities!
Graham
Trending Topics
#8
01-16-2013, 07:16 PM
Scott,
I was surprised at the number of new Smart remotes available at this cost from eBay and other web sources. Significantly less than the earlier model where good used remotes go for about that and new ones can be double or more. New from dealer is, of course more again.
Programming cost is a little higher than I'd heard XK owners in the UK are paying but not excessively so. - despite your offended sensibilities!
Graham
I was surprised at the number of new Smart remotes available at this cost from eBay and other web sources. Significantly less than the earlier model where good used remotes go for about that and new ones can be double or more. New from dealer is, of course more again.
Programming cost is a little higher than I'd heard XK owners in the UK are paying but not excessively so. - despite your offended sensibilities!
Graham
IMHO I still protest the over $200 dealer programming fee. It's excessive.
#10
01-16-2013, 10:01 PM
Veteran Member
I was going to suggest a Chinese clone as I have one and have seen the option in the menu. I haven't tried programming remotes with it though but everything else I have tried seems to work.
I used it recently to reset the gearbox adaptation because the gear changes on my recently purchased XKR were a bit rough. They are now as silky smooth as those on my XJ8 used to be.
The clones can be a bit fiddly to get going and you ideally need a spare laptop to use it with.
I used it recently to reset the gearbox adaptation because the gear changes on my recently purchased XKR were a bit rough. They are now as silky smooth as those on my XJ8 used to be.
The clones can be a bit fiddly to get going and you ideally need a spare laptop to use it with.
#11
01-17-2013, 03:12 PM
Veteran Member
Have You Ever Felt Like Suing Your Remote?
While 
ing around trying to find a solution, I stumbled across this most highly entertaining piece from the June 2012 issue of Car and Driver magazine involving a Jaguar proximity remote, among others. The author is John Phillips, whose "lawsuit" is really an editorial. His purported attorney, Hugh Jim Bissell, is actually a political satirist. I hope you get as big a laugh as I did:
Quote:
Plaintiff Phillips, by his attorney, Hugh Jim Bissell, for his Complaint, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action seeking redress for damages from the unceasing deleterious effects of Proximity Key Fobs and their associated push-button ignitions, which, when allied in co-conspiratorial portent, have transformed Plaintiff’s life into a “festival of daily misery and spleen-piercing embarrassment.”
1. Plaintiff alleges that on November 7, 2011, he did drive to his customary domicile in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and did meet his wife at their shared mailbox, at which time aforesaid spouse articulated an immediate need for milk and bread and a desire to obtain such comestibles from a nearby 7-Eleven, whereupon Plaintiff vacated the driver’s seat, relaying primary control to his wife, who operated said vehicle successfully and safely until she attempted to restart its engine at the stipulated retail establishment. At that time, Plaintiff’s wife had no choice but to telephone Plaintiff, who had unknowingly stored the vehicle’s Proximity Key Fob in the pocket of his best trousers and who did, subsequently, suffer the torment and humiliation of mounting a family-owned bicycle to deliver a key fob to a vehicle otherwise “deader than John Wilkes Booth’s pet cat.” Plaintiff’s wife then did proceed to wage attacks on Plaintiff’s mental capacity and did materially question the status of both his manhood and their civil union, the two being impugned and upbraided in undignified and hurtful ways, inflicting lasting emotional censure for misconduct, for which Proximity Key Fobs, et al., are deemed liable.
2. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2010, he did place a Proximity Key Fob on the roof of a Jaguar sedan, selecting that placement for the purpose of security and utmost visibility to colleagues who would otherwise fail to find it hidden, as it was, in the center console, and that unknown person or persons then did start the aforesaid vehicle, driving it in an aggressive fashion, causing said Proximity Key Fob to hurtle through the atmosphere at a velocity capable of “putting a man’s eye right damned out,” after which brief flight it came to rest on the berm of Ohio State Route 374, where it intermingled with colorful organic debris and remained stubbornly camouflaged despite a subsequent on-foot manhunt sufficient in size, scope, and diligence to have safely secured the Lindbergh baby. Whereupon Plaintiff did notice himself involuntarily repeating a foul and obscene verb, deploying it also as a noun, adjective, and direct object, and Plaintiff did further witness his blood pressure “pull a full Mount St. Helens” that left him dizzy, abusive, and dangerously vulnerable to the darker effects of alcohol.
3. Plaintiff does further note an identical “Flying Fob” event during a comparison test involving a Nissan Juke, in which subsequent search parties led Plaintiff “eerily close to a murder scene.” Plaintiff, at this time, does herewith widen accusation of suffering to include a 2012 Toyota Camry that did, “somehow through evil magic combined with black-juju astronomy,” lock all four of its own doors even though its Proximity Key Fob was satisfactorily and correctly deposited in the vehicle’s center console, where it had been touched or molested by not even anyone’s imagination. Plaintiff alleges additionally that the embarrassment attached to the admission of this theoretically impossible event left him feeling “hollow and dirty,” for which Proximity Key Fobs, et al., shall bear charge for recompense.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Phillips does herewith respectfully request this Court to enter judgment on claims specified and, moreover, to stipulate relief appropriate to harm. To wit, Plaintiff requests:
a.) that manufacturers of Proximity Key Fobs do freely and openly confess to Plaintiff’s aggrieved wife and to Plaintiff’s suspicious employer that said devices are designed only for persons with a “major crapload of free time on their hands”; that said devices are further intended to muddle the already confused minds of middle-aged men with male-pattern baldness; and that this particular scheme for starting an automobile is widely understood to demand two to five wasted motions and thus does fail all known motion studies for humans, for lesser pandas, and for edentate mammals.
b.) that manufacturers of Proximity Key Fobs shall locate a private place away from minors and from potential heart-attack candidates and shall then perform upon themselves a vigorous sexual act that is largely judged by the mainstream citizenry to be anatomically impossible or at least extremely difficult, and that said act further be witnessed by six high-school librarians who are free to comment openly on the levels of grossness they are observing.
c.) that manufacturers of Proximity Key Fobs shall supply Plaintiff with a lifetime’s worth of “actual frigging real steel keys that slide into actual frigging real steel ignition tumblers” and that such supplied keys can further be “rotated in real steel locks that cause the actual frigging real steel doors to frigging open.”
PLAINTIFF PHILLIPS, by his attorney, does earnestly now petition this Court in expectation of relief and redress, not to mention the chance to let fly a big fat “I told you so.”
End Quote.
....
....
Here's the link:John Phillips: In The Matter of Phillips v. Proximity Key Fobs, et al - Column - Car and Driver
Stuart
ing around trying to find a solution, I stumbled across this most highly entertaining piece from the June 2012 issue of Car and Driver magazine involving a Jaguar proximity remote, among others. The author is John Phillips, whose "lawsuit" is really an editorial. His purported attorney, Hugh Jim Bissell, is actually a political satirist. I hope you get as big a laugh as I did: Quote:
Plaintiff Phillips, by his attorney, Hugh Jim Bissell, for his Complaint, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action seeking redress for damages from the unceasing deleterious effects of Proximity Key Fobs and their associated push-button ignitions, which, when allied in co-conspiratorial portent, have transformed Plaintiff’s life into a “festival of daily misery and spleen-piercing embarrassment.”
1. Plaintiff alleges that on November 7, 2011, he did drive to his customary domicile in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and did meet his wife at their shared mailbox, at which time aforesaid spouse articulated an immediate need for milk and bread and a desire to obtain such comestibles from a nearby 7-Eleven, whereupon Plaintiff vacated the driver’s seat, relaying primary control to his wife, who operated said vehicle successfully and safely until she attempted to restart its engine at the stipulated retail establishment. At that time, Plaintiff’s wife had no choice but to telephone Plaintiff, who had unknowingly stored the vehicle’s Proximity Key Fob in the pocket of his best trousers and who did, subsequently, suffer the torment and humiliation of mounting a family-owned bicycle to deliver a key fob to a vehicle otherwise “deader than John Wilkes Booth’s pet cat.” Plaintiff’s wife then did proceed to wage attacks on Plaintiff’s mental capacity and did materially question the status of both his manhood and their civil union, the two being impugned and upbraided in undignified and hurtful ways, inflicting lasting emotional censure for misconduct, for which Proximity Key Fobs, et al., are deemed liable.
2. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2010, he did place a Proximity Key Fob on the roof of a Jaguar sedan, selecting that placement for the purpose of security and utmost visibility to colleagues who would otherwise fail to find it hidden, as it was, in the center console, and that unknown person or persons then did start the aforesaid vehicle, driving it in an aggressive fashion, causing said Proximity Key Fob to hurtle through the atmosphere at a velocity capable of “putting a man’s eye right damned out,” after which brief flight it came to rest on the berm of Ohio State Route 374, where it intermingled with colorful organic debris and remained stubbornly camouflaged despite a subsequent on-foot manhunt sufficient in size, scope, and diligence to have safely secured the Lindbergh baby. Whereupon Plaintiff did notice himself involuntarily repeating a foul and obscene verb, deploying it also as a noun, adjective, and direct object, and Plaintiff did further witness his blood pressure “pull a full Mount St. Helens” that left him dizzy, abusive, and dangerously vulnerable to the darker effects of alcohol.
3. Plaintiff does further note an identical “Flying Fob” event during a comparison test involving a Nissan Juke, in which subsequent search parties led Plaintiff “eerily close to a murder scene.” Plaintiff, at this time, does herewith widen accusation of suffering to include a 2012 Toyota Camry that did, “somehow through evil magic combined with black-juju astronomy,” lock all four of its own doors even though its Proximity Key Fob was satisfactorily and correctly deposited in the vehicle’s center console, where it had been touched or molested by not even anyone’s imagination. Plaintiff alleges additionally that the embarrassment attached to the admission of this theoretically impossible event left him feeling “hollow and dirty,” for which Proximity Key Fobs, et al., shall bear charge for recompense.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Phillips does herewith respectfully request this Court to enter judgment on claims specified and, moreover, to stipulate relief appropriate to harm. To wit, Plaintiff requests:
a.) that manufacturers of Proximity Key Fobs do freely and openly confess to Plaintiff’s aggrieved wife and to Plaintiff’s suspicious employer that said devices are designed only for persons with a “major crapload of free time on their hands”; that said devices are further intended to muddle the already confused minds of middle-aged men with male-pattern baldness; and that this particular scheme for starting an automobile is widely understood to demand two to five wasted motions and thus does fail all known motion studies for humans, for lesser pandas, and for edentate mammals.
b.) that manufacturers of Proximity Key Fobs shall locate a private place away from minors and from potential heart-attack candidates and shall then perform upon themselves a vigorous sexual act that is largely judged by the mainstream citizenry to be anatomically impossible or at least extremely difficult, and that said act further be witnessed by six high-school librarians who are free to comment openly on the levels of grossness they are observing.
c.) that manufacturers of Proximity Key Fobs shall supply Plaintiff with a lifetime’s worth of “actual frigging real steel keys that slide into actual frigging real steel ignition tumblers” and that such supplied keys can further be “rotated in real steel locks that cause the actual frigging real steel doors to frigging open.”
PLAINTIFF PHILLIPS, by his attorney, does earnestly now petition this Court in expectation of relief and redress, not to mention the chance to let fly a big fat “I told you so.”
End Quote.
....
....
Here's the link:John Phillips: In The Matter of Phillips v. Proximity Key Fobs, et al - Column - Car and Driver
Stuart
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kabs3012
S-Type / S type R Supercharged V8 ( X200 )
3
09-12-2015 10:40 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)