Talk Morgan

Suffolk Cars

Posted By: ChrisConvertible

Suffolk Cars - 19/08/20 11:50 PM

I found this on Face book. Seems sad and I don't understand how the large Company I expect it is would benefit from preventing sales of old style cars, Surely anyone interesting in purchasing a S100 is not interested in a more modern style of car, the only manufacturer I see benefiting from this is Morgan,


SUFFOLK SPORTSCARS LTD
I have today received the e-mail below from Roger Williams:

A NEWS RELEASE.

This is to advise your readers of events concerning Suffolk Sportscars Ltd.

///////

Roger Williams joined the Jaguar Drivers Club in 1965. He bought and restored a neglected 1932 SSII. Between 1960 and 1965 he was employed by Botwoods Ltd, the Jaguar main dealers in Ipswich. He was trained as a Jaguar engineer for 5 years.

In the following 50 years he personally owned at least a dozen new Jaguar cars; many more XK models were restored over many years.

Suffolk Sportscars Ltd was created in 1995 to manufacture replica cars , all using XJ/XK Jaguar components. The business grew very well and continued successfully until late 2019.

In late 2019 a large car manufacturer forced the company to cease and to stop making replicas. The manufacturers declared that use of their logos, designs and trademarks were not allowed. All appeals were rejected. Therefore no new replica cars can be made by Suffolk Sportscars Ltd.

Fortunately the company were able to carry out garage service work locally and to do engineering work for customers in Europe .

By mid February, the Covid 19 pandemic was expanding its devastating effects all over the World. In March the company faced total lockdown. The Government offered all employees a furlough scheme but all work had to stop for almost 5 months. We could not process any workshop orders, nor sales, no cash flow and difficulty to respond to customers enquiries.

In June, the directors Roger and Fraser Williams assessed the prospects for the company in the future.
With no new orders, no county shows, no travel and much less confidence from customers life became difficult.
Manufacturing of parts was restricted, created an ongoing problems for supply to customers.

After and seeking much professional and legal advise on trademarks, copyrights and company rescue, the company was obliged to go into liquidation with its creditors on August 11th 2020.

During 25 years of successful trading; Suffolk Sportscrs created almost 400 new replicas. Each car fulfilled the dreams of enthusiastic Suffolk classic owners all over the world. The Suffolk cars will live on for decades; so too will the thousands of memories associated with them.

All owners of Suffolk cars will still need maintenance, service, parts supplies and advise. A small new company is being formed by Philip Glanville; along with members of the Suffolk team. They will provide a full maintenance for all the original Suffolk cars, along with specialist service for all Jaguar cars.

Please contact Philip and Mike Tink at Suffolk Classic Services Ltd.
01728 745055 info@suffolkclassicservices.com

///////

Roger Williams
suffolk@ss100.com
Posted By: Uther

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 03:37 AM

Sad news indeed ☹️
Posted By: TheCustomer

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 04:44 AM

Indeed.

I guess the remanufactured originals market for £500k+ cars is the root cause of this. If you were Jaguar you'd not want someone manufacturing pretty much the same thing for much less money than the factory replicas.

Will
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 07:19 AM

I don't see any correlation between the £500k continuation cars and fibreglass replicas. They're different products for different customers.

There are plenty of other Jaguar replica manufacturers that are still in business. Why haven't Jaguar closed them down too ?

I'm sure there's more to this than is revealed in the press release. Roger did have a stroke some time ago and while he was recovering, the running of the company perhaps wasn't as it should have been.

One issue that's been discussed on the internet, in relation to this, is the use of donor identities on replica cars. There are numerous replicas (not only Suffolk) that are registered as XJ6 saloons, for example. Whether this has any direct bearing on the Suffolk saga remains speculation at the moment.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 07:24 AM

Very sad news indeed. I've long been a huge admirer of the Suffolk Sportscars replicas, and on the occasion that I met him, I found Roger Williams to be a very engaging and enthusiastic fellow.

The business environment is tough enough without a small company having to suffer this sort of corporate bullying. Very heavy handed if true.

A quick trawl of the internet failed to produce anything else on this story. I think Mike is probably right that there's more to this story than meets the eye.
Posted By: ChrisConvertible

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 07:32 AM

Will, OK I had seen an article ages ago on building the six missing lightweight E-types but that that was a one off publicity exercise. Now after googling Re-manufactured Jaguar and looking at Jaguars website Re-manufactured classic page it appears they are mskeking another run of E-types plus going further back to make some D-Types and XKSS. Suffolk made the SS100 copy and now have moved forward to include the C-type plus XK120.

I never realised it but if Jaguar keep going back with limited edition models and Suffolk forward then they will end up making the same style cars. But you would expect a different market, I would not expect someone who can afford a £500,000 car to want a fibreglass copy.
Posted By: John V6

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 07:35 AM

Very sad indeed.
Posted By: howard

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by TheCustomer
Indeed.

I guess the remanufactured originals market for £500k+ cars is the root cause of this. If you were Jaguar you'd not want someone manufacturing pretty much the same thing for much less money than the factory replicas.

Will

You can also add in the problem that JLR have with the thieving Chinese who make copies of JLR cars and whose courts use all sorts of excuses to reject complaints. For example the Chinese copy of the Evoque was allowed by the courts on the basis that pictures of the prototype had been seen before the copyright was lodged.

China has built an economy based on IP theft and commercial espionage. On this issue if no other, Trump is right.

The irony is that if Suffolk could hang on for another year or two, its likely they will outlast Jaguar cars anyway. They are in deep trouble once more.
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 08:15 AM

Very sad, if indeed it's JLR that forced them to stop 'because we can & we've got more legal budget' then they should be ashamed, it not as if Suffolk pinch any customers
Posted By: John V6

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 08:20 AM

You would have though they could have licensed them & got an income stream but also fixed a cap on sales. I guess they made well under 100 cars pa so really no threat.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 08:40 AM

Chaps, some of you will be aware that I have a very personal interest in the tale of Suffolk Sports Cars. I have known the chaps for many a long year and have helped out on their stands at shows, been to lunch with them and, of course bought 3 of their cars. It is a great shame that a partially Chinese funded, Indian owned maker of stupid SUV's should find it of benefit to close down a small British company of the type that this country is founded on.
I am visiting the works today to talk to Roger about the new company, " Suffolk Classic Services" which will hopefully be around for a long time not least to service all the existing SS100's and "C" types out there.

I never thought I would say this but "BOO" to Jaguar !!!
Posted By: Mark666

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 08:47 AM

Sad news indeed.

I went down to see them before buying my Morgan, I couldn't afford the £500k price tag of a genuine SS100 but really fancied building an SS100 from their kit. Pic is of us in the test drive car.

[Linked Image]

Unfortunately the price was substantially more than I expected (I had found a price list online).
Posted By: Hawki

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 09:04 AM

Agreed on the price. Very nice cars but very expensive. Quality and low volume costs money.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by lowebird

I am visiting the works today to talk to Roger about the new company, " Suffolk Classic Services" which will hopefully be around for a long time not least to service all the existing SS100's and "C" types out there.



I'm sure we'll all be very interested to hear whatever you can tell us from the horse's mouth about this whole sorry story.
Posted By: Image

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 09:22 AM

Though I wouldn't have used Howard's turn of phrase, it does sound a bit like Jag's lawyers wanting to eliminate any grey areas in their copyright/IP landscape .... increasing problem now cars are all so much more universally competent mechanically than they were even 30 years ago so are sold on 'style', brand kudos and lifestyle.


K
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 09:57 AM

Sorry to read this but really pleased they will be supporting their loyal customers, Reg in particular.
Posted By: Stephen888

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 10:40 AM

Howard I wholeheartedly agree with your comments.
Posted By: ChrisConvertible

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 11:45 AM

Mark, Fantastic photo. A few years ago I was contemplating either building a Suffolk SS100 as a kit, ordering a Morgan, or a Frontline MGB. The MG won in the end mainly for financial/family/timing and ease of registration and maintenance in my state of Australia. The only SS100 I have seen at a show needed a lot of work to be registered, weird door locks and reinforcement in the doors, retractable seat belts and child seat attachments which is really odd s anew MX5 passes without baby seat bits.

But I would still love a trip to the UK at some stage and visit all of those factories. The whole location looks nice in that photo but not sure Suffolk will have a showroom as such to see if they are mainly a service centre for cars.
Posted By: waikiore

Re: Suffolk Cars - 20/08/20 08:59 PM

A sad state of affairs, I would have thought that Jag should be concentrating on their knitting rather than worrying about others who were no real threat, unfortunately Howard is dead right re the Chinese business model, luckily in the marine industry the public is a little more discerning and stainless that isnt soon shows out in salt water!
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 21/08/20 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by pandy
Originally Posted by lowebird

I am visiting the works today to talk to Roger about the new company, " Suffolk Classic Services" which will hopefully be around for a long time not least to service all the existing SS100's and "C" types out there.



I'm sure we'll all be very interested to hear whatever you can tell us from the horse's mouth about this whole sorry story.

Giles, I put what I thought was a reasonably report of my visit to Suffolk yesterday on the SS100 Owners site and met with not a few alternative views most of which I am not qualified to comment on so please excuse me if I don't reiterate them here. I have declined to make any further comments on the SS100 site as well.
Posted By: howard

Re: Suffolk Cars - 21/08/20 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by CooperMan
Very sad, if indeed it's JLR that forced them to stop 'because we can & we've got more legal budget' then they should be ashamed, it not as if Suffolk pinch any customers


They could well pinch some customers from the "continuation" cars that JLR make. And there is the legal idea that you cant half be a virgin ie ignore Suffolk and not ignore the Chinese companies doing the same thing. A licence would have been the sensible approach since it would give JLR control over the areas in which Suffolk copied JLR's IP.
Posted By: sospan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 21/08/20 10:19 AM

There are a few kitcar companies who do replicas. Jag C and D types, GT40 for example. The most common kits seem to be Cobras, Lotus7 styles. There are some very good versions to be had. I seem to remember one company doing Ferrari fibre glass bodies for MX5 donor cars and Ferrari stopped them selling Ferrari badges, possibly also the bodies. Just imagine a Ferrari 2/3 the size with a piddly 4 cyl engine!
It is a shame that Suffolk have had to stop making new cars as they had a very good reputation and quality. Revenue from sales must be tough to get these days for similar specialist, niche companies. I wonder if a licensing agreement was one option but the sums not adding up? JLR asking too much or up front fees and not based on individual car sales? Very protective trademark attitude?
Posted By: Jens

Re: Suffolk Cars - 21/08/20 12:21 PM

Why don´t Suffolk sell his cars without a Jaguar badge, or with an own badge? After all these years there should no longer be any design protection on an SS100 or a C Type. Am I wrong?
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 22/08/20 08:04 AM

Didn't Morgan do something similar to another kitcar manufacturer?
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 22/08/20 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Jens
Why don´t Suffolk sell his cars without a Jaguar badge, or with an own badge? After all these years there should no longer be any design protection on an SS100 or a C Type. Am I wrong?

Noel Edmonds tried that with the "La Rivera" and sold 1 plus 1 for himself. Shame, it was a good idea.
Posted By: John V6

Re: Suffolk Cars - 22/08/20 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by TBM
Didn't Morgan do something similar to another kitcar manufacturer?

yes they did . But Morgan still make that design of car & have copyrighted I believe the shape.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 23/08/20 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by lowebird
Chaps, some of you will be aware that I have a very personal interest in the tale of Suffolk Sports Cars. I have known the chaps for many a long year and have helped out on their stands at shows, been to lunch with them and, of course bought 3 of their cars. It is a great shame that a partially Chinese funded, Indian owned maker of stupid SUV's should find it of benefit to close down a small British company of the type that this country is founded on.
I am visiting the works today to talk to Roger about the new company, " Suffolk Classic Services" which will hopefully be around for a long time not least to service all the existing SS100's and "C" types out there.

I never thought I would say this but "BOO" to Jaguar !!!


How was your trip to the works, Reg ? Did it throw any more light on the whole situation ?
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 23/08/20 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by pandy
Originally Posted by lowebird
Chaps, some of you will be aware that I have a very personal interest in the tale of Suffolk Sports Cars. I have known the chaps for many a long year and have helped out on their stands at shows, been to lunch with them and, of course bought 3 of their cars. It is a great shame that a partially Chinese funded, Indian owned maker of stupid SUV's should find it of benefit to close down a small British company of the type that this country is founded on.
I am visiting the works today to talk to Roger about the new company, " Suffolk Classic Services" which will hopefully be around for a long time not least to service all the existing SS100's and "C" types out there.

I never thought I would say this but "BOO" to Jaguar !!!


How was your trip to the works, Reg ? Did it throw any more light on the whole situation ?


It did Giles and I will 'mail you some of the details. I don't want to put them out here as they will be a personal observation and I am aware of speaking out of turn.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 23/08/20 02:56 PM

Cheers Reg.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 24/08/20 08:29 AM

Giles, PM sent.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 05/09/20 05:50 AM

This is from the East Anglian Daily Times

Suffolk Sportscars goes into liquidation
Posted By: John V6

Re: Suffolk Cars - 05/09/20 07:17 AM

Ouch. Looks like one the directors took a big hit there. What a waste & a spiteful action by JLR.
Posted By: mutley

Re: Suffolk Cars - 05/09/20 07:41 AM

looking at companies house they did have some assets stock etc, also no real accounts for 4 years
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 06/09/20 09:35 PM

Very stupid on the part of JLR. The existance of Suffolk Sportscars did not take 1 penny of business away from Jaguar and gave them a lot of free publicity. I'm a Jaguar owner but this and other issues would make me think twice about buying another JLR product. I like so much about the car but I have become disillusioned with both the dealer and JLR.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 11:23 AM

As a long time owner of Suffolk cars ( I've had 3 ) and being quite involved on a personal basis with the Directors, I have found the whole event quite sad however that's that and we must look forward. A new company "Suffolk Classic Services" is going to look after the servicing and provision of spare parts for the SS100 and C Types but on a very much reduced size after all they only built around 350 SS100's over 26 years and they are scatered all around the world so the demand in the UK will not be vast.
As for JLR, well the Jaguar arm is now IMHO a pathetic relic of a once great car company. They built some of the most iconic cars in the world and over different periods had some of the worlds fastest cars but now, if you don't notice the leaper on the boot lid you could be looking at a Vauxhall or a Ford they are so non individual so I will continue to enjoy my SS100 and it's wonderful XK engine until HMG decrees that I'm no longer allowed to drive it.
Posted By: DaveW

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 12:01 PM

I think that two things have killed individuality in modern cars.

1) The corporate obsession in making all models have the corporate look, but at the same time making most SUV's look the same.

2) The inexplicable growth in SUV ownership, right up to the ridiculous barges made by Audi, Mercedes, BMW and Porsche.

And the inexorable increase in footprint, when roads stay the same, car parking spaces stay the same.....

Then people who are barely competent to drive, get a huge car with a touch screen and are incapable of doing much with it other than drive in a straight line, expecting the hoi polloi to get out of the way.

The best example of this, I watched from the top deck of a double decker in Devon, when the woman in the SUV coming the other way was so incapable of reversing that we stood for maybe fifteen minutes, as she attempted to reverse.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by DaveW

.......The inexplicable growth in SUV ownership, right up to the ridiculous barges made by Audi, Mercedes, BMW and Porsche.


Each to his own, but unless you live right out in the sticks and need the high ground clearance and 4WD this is quite baffling to me. I also have found that the drivers of SUVs over here seem much more aggressive behind the wheel, maybe as a result of the sense of security they get from being in seemingly invincible cars.
Posted By: Steve +8

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 12:27 PM

I have a “ridiculous barge” made by Mercedes as my everyday car, why? Because it’s incredibly useful, it carries a huge amount of stuff to/from the garden centre, DIY store, refuse tip etc. We have 13 (no that’s not a typing error) grandchildren so it’s regularly used in 7 seater mode. I do accept that some people have big SUVs but don’t know how to drive them properly but I think it’s a shame that every SUV driver gets tarred with the same brush. My SWMBO drives my Merc. SUV regularly and has no problem handling it, it’s probably a case of confidence. I don’t see van drivers berated for the size of their vehicles taking up road space and my Merc. is smaller than a lot of vans. Perhaps I should start a campaign “SUV Drivers are people too”? laugh2
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 12:54 PM

Steve, it sounds like you need a Winnebago to me...
Posted By: Steve +8

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Steve, it sounds like you need a Winnebago to me...


Can you imagine the abuse that would generate scared, mind you we have two more grandkids on the way so maybe.... laugh2
15 grandkids sounds crazy but SWMBO has four sons from her previous marriage and I have two, so six sons producing 15 kids is only (!) 2 1/2 each.

p.s. I’m trying to get Christmas abolished spend sos
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by N22MOG
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Steve, it sounds like you need a Winnebago to me...


Can you imagine the abuse that would generate scared, mind you we have two more grandkids on the way so maybe.... laugh2
15 grandkids sounds crazy but SWMBO has four sons from her previous marriage and I have two, so six sons producing 15 kids is only (!) 2 1/2 each.

p.s. I’m trying to get Christmas abolished spend sos

What a fantastic family you have around you, very rare to hear of a "proper" family these days, I sympathize with you over Christmas though a nightmare.

We have three grandchildren sprinkled around our three youngsters and we have a complete family day once in a while at an event such as Red Bull Air Race or a Duxford open day and it's good and pretty full on, this would take on a whole new meaning if you all had a get together.

We have a few Winnebago's parked up down here as temporary accommodation on farms prior to planning permission being granted, it's a well known loop hole down here justifying the need to be on site 24hrs tending livestock. They don't move so for that we are thankful as you say they are go large big time.
On the odd occasion there is one on the move it is a bit of a nightmare on our narrow roads I have to say, no different from the artics delivering our food though, we're big on patience in Devon wink.

The SUV attitude I think comes about when we see Yummy +1 brat being transported around, whenever you see one packed to the gunwhales with kit or people it all makes sense unlike us owning three cars for the two of us spend
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 03:36 PM

Until we moved up to Norfolk from the M25 car park area, SWMBO used to drive our Mercedes Motorhome everywhere as it was our only vehicle but being only 25' long she had no problems.
Posted By: Clipper

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/09/20 06:54 PM

Watch out for me Reg - drove mine up to Beccles today for a day boat hire boat
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 08/09/20 09:02 AM

Clipper, if you are going to be in the area of Wroxham, do drop me a p.m. and you will be most welcome to come round for a natter.
Posted By: Jon G4LJW

Re: Suffolk Cars - 08/09/20 10:24 AM

Apart from useful load-carrying, an SUV has better visibility being higher up. My Mum likes to be able to see the view more easily, and it is good to be able to see more at bends and junctions. Plus, you don't get dazzled at night so much!
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 08/09/20 02:21 PM

The overtly large SUV from Mercedes Benz (ML class) I am currently piloting does bring some strengths and weaknesses.

I am not certain the generalisation that ALL drivers of SUV are aggressive self important monsters. This is the first one I have had and some of it was to find out what all the fuss is about and we also needed to move the M-i-L and they do offer useful space. I have never troubled the off-road ability beyond main road snow and some trotting about in grassed fields. I always loved having a decent estate (E-Class and an A6 model at various points) which combined most of those roles as well. I think there are issues with them that increase the intimidation factor which I myself noticed when I had the E-Estate.

I used to hate having one behind me even if it was not too close as it blocked my working rear vision with it's big flat front and width. This reduced my ability to predict and react (bikes filtering on the motorway for example) which annoyed me when they were behind. The headlight height can be annoying but the advent of better headlamps and selective lighting especially has improved this to a degree. I used to hate having one in front of me for much the same reason, limited view and reaction time.

I do find that the additional height and resulting driving position view does mean that I can predict problems earlier and so I am actually more relaxed in an SUV vs the E-Estate. However this is tempered with the fact that you need to be as 2.1 tons on stilts needs more room to maneuver so if anything you should leave a bigger gaps anyway. Especially in the snow and rain where mass has a mind of it's own when you are trying to swing or stop it! I think this is where I see the worst activities on the road, people with a better view will compromise other margins of safety such as reaction room to the car in front. When you combine this with the car in front finding it's rear view mirror going dark with the SUV's grill I can see why it is intimidating.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 11:44 AM

Richard,

there is nothing unreasonable in running 3 cars for 2 people, when one is a Morgan. joy

We have three cars.... but do we need 3 cars with a total of 22 cylinders, 7.8L and about 1200 bhp? Of course not. But we are in the last 10 years of large, multi cylinder ICE power units and I'm determined to have my fun before we go electric, which we will. I've spent 52 years enjoying ICE powered vehicles, I understand them and am comfortable with them.
I also like excess...

But as to SUVs.... they are largely fashion statements and it seems to me they are driven by people who would be terrified sitting in a Morgan. I think cars should be taxed not only by their CO2, but also by the space they occupy on the road, length x width, and by their weight. I suspect that this would result in SUVs falling out of favour.....
Posted By: Steve +8

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J


But as to SUVs.... they are largely fashion statements and it seems to me they are driven by people who would be terrified sitting in a Morgan.


Mine is definitely not a fashion statement but, as I said earlier, a highly practical vehicle for my needs. I suppose I could buy a minibus and avoid the SUV hatred.
I must be the exception to the rule because I drive an SUV AND a Morgan (and SWMBO’s Porsche) and am terrified of none of them.

Come on guys let’s drop this “all SUV drivers are ridiculous” attitude and judge each individual on their merits rather than broad sweeping generalisations. It’s a bit like saying all Morgan drivers are old farts stuck in the past wearing flat caps and smoking pipes (with apologies to any Morgan owners who wear a flat cap and smoke a pipe) laugh2
I don’t normally get on my soapbox but this is one subject that gets my goat soapbox
Posted By: SALMO

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 12:46 PM

Good comments on vehicles.

These days cars mean less to me than they did in the past. My Morgan is a fun car, which I also like to maintain myself and of course for the driving experience it gives.

I own an SUV, wouldn’t be without it, but I am in the countryside a good deal.....
Great driving position
I have a large garden so am constantly delivering greens to the tip
can load it with fishing gear (and I need a lot!),
will go down or up off road rough tracks
Don’t get stuck in mud
it only need an annual clean

Soon be in the market for replacement and won’t hesitate.
Posted By: GRB

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 01:13 PM

+1 to that N22MOG
Posted By: Ncik P

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 02:01 PM

+2 to that N22MOG. We have two SUV’s as well as our 3.7 Roadster and an F458 within our household, I wonder how many low sports cars Peter J has owned. The above rather offending comments are the reason I very rarely contribute on this site.
Sorry on this occasion I just couldn’t resist reacting.
Posted By: Jon G4LJW

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 07:08 PM


thumbs

Originally Posted by N22MOG


Mine is definitely not a fashion statement but, as I said earlier, a highly practical vehicle for my needs. I suppose I could buy a minibus and avoid the SUV hatred.
I must be the exception to the rule because I drive an SUV AND a Morgan (and SWMBO’s Porsche) and am terrified of none of them.

Come on guys let’s drop this “all SUV drivers are ridiculous” attitude and judge each individual on their merits rather than broad sweeping generalisations. It’s a bit like saying all Morgan drivers are old farts stuck in the past wearing flat caps and smoking pipes (with apologies to any Morgan owners who wear a flat cap and smoke a pipe) laugh2
I don’t normally get on my soapbox but this is one subject that gets my goat soapbox
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 08:35 PM

I used to drive a small car but I have now decided that the possibility of a collision with a SUV could be very dangerous. I have therefore decid to buy something suitable for survival on today's roads.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: DavidR

Re: Suffolk Cars - 09/09/20 08:40 PM

Ah a cute little Ferret, try keeping that down your trousers!
Posted By: ChrisConvertible

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/09/20 01:13 PM

How did we get from Jaguar SS100's to SUV'S? That is like changing the topic from Chocolate to Brussels Sprouts.

Originally Posted by Peter J
I think cars should be taxed not only by their CO2, but also by the space they occupy on the road, length x width, and by their weight. I suspect that this would result in SUVs falling out of favour.....



In Australia cars are taxed on their weight. But the difference is not enough to make anyone change cars, just enough to whinge about it.

You don't mention height, my thoughts are that pedestrians are much safer if the can see the traffic behind the car they are waiting for, whether that it is car behind the car or next to it in another lane. Many times i have seen a vehicle stop and wave a pedestrian across only for the pedestrian to nearly be cleaned up by a car in the inside lane. With the number of vans and SUV's I feel being a pedestrian is a less safe than when most cars were a lower height and generally could be seen over.
Posted By: MJF

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/09/20 01:38 PM

The problem with taxing cars based on weight is that electric cars are very heavy. A Tesla model X / Porsche Taycan is as heavy or heavier than a Range Rover which would undermine a drive towards Ev's.
Posted By: Image

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/09/20 01:51 PM

Taxing by weight may not be politically expedient but in some ways not a bad idea ..... weight will reflect the wear and tear on the roads and, as weight more or less corresponds to amount of materials used, and amount of material relates to environmental impact of manufacture there's worse ways to share the tax burden. The fact that much of the environmental impact of EVs is 'out of sight out of mind' in the form of manufacture and generation, doesn't mean they should be allowed to breeze past it because politicians feel promoting EVs will make them look good.

K
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/09/20 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisConvertible
How did we get from Jaguar SS100's to SUV'S? That is like changing the topic from Chocolate to Brussels Sprouts.

Originally Posted by Peter J
I think cars should be taxed not only by their CO2, but also by the space they occupy on the road, length x width, and by their weight. I suspect that this would result in SUVs falling out of favour.....



In Australia cars are taxed on their weight. But the difference is not enough to make anyone change cars, just enough to whinge about it.

You don't mention height, my thoughts are that pedestrians are much safer if the can see the traffic behind the car they are waiting for, whether that it is car behind the car or next to it in another lane. Many times i have seen a vehicle stop and wave a pedestrian across only for the pedestrian to nearly be cleaned up by a car in the inside lane. With the number of vans and SUV's I feel being a pedestrian is a less safe than when most cars were a lower height and generally could be seen over.

Oh the joys of the TM thread drift. You can never say this forum is boreing nor predicdable.
Posted By: Jays ex Nero

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/09/20 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by N22MOG
Originally Posted by Peter J


But as to SUVs.... they are largely fashion statements and it seems to me they are driven by people who would be terrified sitting in a Morgan.


Mine is definitely not a fashion statement but, as I said earlier, a highly practical vehicle for my needs. I suppose I could buy a minibus and avoid the SUV hatred.
I must be the exception to the rule because I drive an SUV AND a Morgan (and SWMBO’s Porsche) and am terrified of none of them.

Come on guys let’s drop this “all SUV drivers are ridiculous” attitude and judge each individual on their merits rather than broad sweeping generalisations. It’s a bit like saying all Morgan drivers are old farts stuck in the past wearing flat caps and smoking pipes (with apologies to any Morgan owners who wear a flat cap and smoke a pipe) laugh2
I don’t normally get on my soapbox but this is one subject that gets my goat soapbox


I totally agree with you. Sad that some on here have a rather blinkered view of SUVs. No doubt others have an equally blinkered view about old farts driving Morgans, two seater sports cars etc. Just because you drive something like a Morgan doesn’t necessarily make you a better driver than someone who drives a SUV or any other car for that matter.

And getting back to the topic of the sad demise of Suffolk Cars, I spent some time in their stand at Goodwood and loved both their cars and their enthusiasm. Sad that JLR have done this...they certainly have taken their time about it.
Posted By: PeterG

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/09/20 09:30 PM

I have to say I really like an SUV as my daily drive, my current one is the fourth SUV in a row. They take up similar space as a large estate car on the road and in most car parks, ones I visit anyway. Current one also has sports car like performance with top speed of 170 odd and 0-60 in about 3.5 secs. Plus it was on a building site today and looks pretty good covered in mud smile Do I buy one because I'm vain or want the latest fashionable car more than likely 😁

As for Suffolk Cars, I do understand Jaguars point about IP but I'd of thought they must of been able to overlook this one compared to a mass production factory churning out fake cars. Real shame.
Posted By: The Austrian

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 12:08 AM

Oh God! I have got two 4WD SUV's im my garage.
They both have better fuel economy than the small 4/4 Morgan, not to mention the M3W which was even worse than the 4/4. At least I can drive only one car at the same time so the number of cars does not increase my fuel consumption. Getting in and out of a SUV is so much easier than the same procedure with the Morgan. I drove 4/4 cars all of my business lifetime (for a reason) and I do not understand all the fuzz about SUV's from people who drive other cars, especially when the other cars are sports cars driven for fun.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 06:52 AM

I'd love one of those 4x4 crewcab pickups. It would fit most of my requirements. Unfortunately, my drive is only 4.5 metres so they won't fit ;(
Posted By: DaveW

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 09:22 AM

I just don't like big cars. Never have. We've had a few SUVs as rentals, I've passengered in loads of others. Not one has wowed me.

If we need space I rent something, I would hate to be lugging one around every day. However quick they are.

Happy to be different.
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 11:10 AM

I think many like the elevated driving position that an SUV offers. They're also easier to get in and out of and they generally have a smaller footprint that an estate car.

Many are based on "jacked up" versions of a saloon car - and what's six inches between friends ?

Then what do I know, I'm thinking of buying a KIA Stinger wink ?
Posted By: Jon G4LJW

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by mph
I think many like the elevated driving position that an SUV offers.
.....


thumbs
Posted By: Paul F

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 12:57 PM

One thing that surprised me was when I asked my 89 year old father which of our cars he found easiest to get in or out of. Mrs F has a Mini Clubman and I have a Disco 4. He was emphatic that the Disco is easier - if I remember to lower the suspension. We keep the Disco because of its towing capability. When time comes to replace it, it will most likely be a crew-cab pickup unless our finances change. I really don’t want to draw masses of capital for the next car - unless Mrs F approves a Plus Four of course.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by PeterG
I have to say I really like an SUV as my daily drive, my current one is the fourth SUV in a row. They take up similar space as a large estate car on the road and in most car parks, ones I visit anyway. Current one also has sports car like performance with top speed of 170 odd and 0-60 in about 3.5 secs. Plus it was on a building site today and looks pretty good covered in mud smile Do I buy one because I'm vain or want the latest fashionable car more than likely 😁

As for Suffolk Cars, I do understand Jaguars point about IP but I'd of thought they must of been able to overlook this one compared to a mass production factory churning out fake cars. Real shame.

I love it, I laughed out loud isn't that why any of us buy a toy or car to be enjoyed we'd all drive around in a Tranny else with a couple of windows popped in DIY styly laugh2 with discount parts freely available at your nearest Romany encampment..
Posted By: SFG

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 05:52 PM

I have an SUV but I think it’s based on a c-class saloon, no-one would gripe about the size if I had a standard c-class. Or a 4wd saloon. They’re a bit taller, which is nice, and I suppose they’re a bit more expensive , which might be objectionable, for some reason.
Just because ladies also drive them doesn’t make them any larger than saloons either. Why the emotion?
Posted By: Clipper

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/09/20 09:55 PM

Guilty as charged m'lud, recently went from an A3 Sportback to its jacked up crossover Q3 Sportback with a slightly larger footprint. Great car though - glad I went for it.

Posted By: DavidR

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Clipper
Guilty as charged m'lud, recently went from an A3 Sportback to its jacked up crossover Q3 Sportback with a slightly larger footprint. Great car though - glad I went for it.

Same here, we have XC60 a lovely drive, relaxed and seats 4 adults and their luggage with comfort.

Love it that people get so worked up about the different cars others drive, so what about middle aged men in sports cars!
somestick
Posted By: Rob Thornton

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by DavidR
Originally Posted by Clipper
Guilty as charged m'lud, recently went from an A3 Sportback to its jacked up crossover Q3 Sportback with a slightly larger footprint. Great car though - glad I went for it.

Same here, we have XC60 a lovely drive, relaxed and seats 4 adults and their luggage with comfort.

Love it that people get so worked up about the different cars others drive, so what about middle aged men in sports cars!
somestick


+1 for the XC60 but think that 'middle' should be changed to 'old' in the second sentence!
Posted By: DavidR

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton
Originally Posted by DavidR
Originally Posted by Clipper
Guilty as charged m'lud, recently went from an A3 Sportback to its jacked up crossover Q3 Sportback with a slightly larger footprint. Great car though - glad I went for it.

Same here, we have XC60 a lovely drive, relaxed and seats 4 adults and their luggage with comfort.

Love it that people get so worked up about the different cars others drive, so what about middle aged men in sports cars!
somestick


+1 for the XC60 but think that 'middle' should be changed to 'old' in the second sentence!



rofl
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 05:16 PM

The SUV "thing" always makes me smile, I will confess to not being a fan unless they are used for the designed purpose (never quite sure what that is) i.e stuffed to the gunwhales with bodies or kit.

I think the Bugatti Veyron is possibly the ugliest large car around and fairly expensive but I understand some people covet it as I do my Traditional Plus 8 and for that reason I really don't see the point in anyone rubbishing a particular shape or classification of vehicle as thankfully we are all different.

Thank goodness for the plethora of choice, bring on the hydrogen Morgan I say smile
Posted By: bmgermany

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 05:29 PM

We discuss about SUV and drive such unreasonable cars as our Morgans ?
innocent
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 05:31 PM

Of course, we are all still students remember - all theory with zero responsibility and just enjoying life laugh2
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 05:39 PM

I think that the SUV debate in the UK is caused by the width of most of our minor and unclassified roads, which are frequently used as alternative roads to avoid congestion on main roads.
We have an unclassified road that runs from our village on the A36 south of Salisbury to Downton, a small town the other side of the Avon valley, most of the road is just about wide enough for two vehicles to pass, but some is not. .
The A36 from Southampton to Salisbury and beyond is a primary "Trunk" road and the A338 from Poole to the A420 near Oxford is a secondary main road. In Salisbury the A338 intersects the A354 to Blandford and Weymouth.
Crossing Salisbury on the A36 to join the A354 can take 25 minutes on a busy afternoon to drive just 5 miles. So drivers cut across to the A338, avoiding the Salisbury ring road.

I have been told by a retired traffic engineer that the vast majority of these unclassified roads remain unaltered from the post WW1 period of the 1900s, when cars were few and far between and much narrower.
My first car, a Ford 100e from the 1950s, and a length of 151.75 in (3,854 mm) and a width of 60.5 in (1,537 mm). Cars from the 1930s were narrower still, the Austin 7 was 1.25m wide.
So a road which would comfortably allow two cars of less than 1.5m wide to pass is more challenging when two cars of 2m width want to pass. Add to this the presence of potholes on the side of the road where the paved surface has broken down so drivers of expensive SUVs with 21 or 22 inch wheels and low profile tyres are reluctant to pull over and risk damaging their wheels and tyres. Drivers of Land Rovers and similar vehicles don't worry, nor do drivers of delivery vans. They pull over and help oncoming traffic pass.

My experience of driving in Europe is that the minor roads are wider and in far better state of repair, or have so little traffic that the chances of meeting another vehicle is minute.

So, the issue is not really SUVs, but the volume of traffic and the appalling quality of England's unclassified roads.

BTW, I still don't like driving them, I hate the high up sitting position. Many feel otherwise and I'm happy for them to drive what they enjoy.
Posted By: bmgermany

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Of course, we are all still students remember - all theory with zero responsibility and just enjoying life laugh2


Ok...

I also drive a reasonable car! My buisiness car is a Skoda Kodiaq... laugh2
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by bmgermany
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Of course, we are all still students remember - all theory with zero responsibility and just enjoying life laugh2


Ok...

I also drive a reasonable car! My buisiness car is a Skoda Kodiaq... laugh2

laugh2 Of course we all have to have something sensible to drive, I borrow my wifes Polo GTI which has more power than my Plus 8 but handles better and does twice the mpg grin2
It's more interesting than my Fiesta Titanium diesel which is very accomplished at going from A to B end of story .....

p.s. My neighbour has the 1.0ltr Kodiaq and he loves it.
Posted By: Gordon D

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 07:18 PM

Everyone needs an escape! For different people it's a different escape route.

I know what mine is drive then wine

Seriously though, I agree with Peter, the road system has not kept up with the pace of change in the motor industry. Driving education has also neglected to inform students that they might end up driving a road that has no white line in the middle, many of our roads in this area are like this and many of the drivers I meet (and not just in SUVs) don't know how to drive on them.
Posted By: bmgermany

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 07:20 PM

I thin
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Originally Posted by bmgermany
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Of course, we are all still students remember - all theory with zero responsibility and just enjoying life laugh2


Ok...

I also drive a reasonable car! My buisiness car is a Skoda Kodiaq... laugh2

laugh2 Of course we all have to have something sensible to drive, I borrow my wifes Polo GTI which has more power than my Plus 8 but handles better and does twice the mpg grin2
It's more interesting than my Fiesta Titanium diesel which is very accomplished at going from A to B end of story .....

p.s. My neighbour has the 1.0ltr Kodiaq and he loves it.


I think a little Polo is much more acceptable than any SUV
laugh2

My excuse for my "huge" 150 HP SUV is that I need it to save fuel ...... when I use it to transport my 4/4 on my trailer to vacation destinations happy3 woohoo
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by bmgermany
I thin
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Originally Posted by bmgermany
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Of course, we are all still students remember - all theory with zero responsibility and just enjoying life laugh2


Ok...

I also drive a reasonable car! My buisiness car is a Skoda Kodiaq... laugh2

laugh2 Of course we all have to have something sensible to drive, I borrow my wifes Polo GTI which has more power than my Plus 8 but handles better and does twice the mpg grin2
It's more interesting than my Fiesta Titanium diesel which is very accomplished at going from A to B end of story .....

p.s. My neighbour has the 1.0ltr Kodiaq and he loves it.


I think a little Polo is much more acceptable than any SUV
laugh2

My excuse for my "huge" 150 HP SUV is that I need it to save fuel ...... when I use it to transport my 4/4 on my trailer to vacation destinations happy3 woohoo


Brilliant and spot on with the thread rofl rofl
Posted By: Clipper

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 08:24 PM

Went for a test drive in an XC40 and after a mile it was like driving the A3 - but went for the Q3 Sportback but basically all modern quality cars are fantastic and I have not had a fault for the last 8 years in three cars - keep fingers crossed!
Posted By: Rob Thornton

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 08:55 PM

[/quote]
Brilliant and spot on with the thread rofl rofl
[/quote]

Whilst thread drift is inevitable I think that this is a bit wide of the mark in this instance!
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/09/20 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton
[/quote]
Brilliant and spot on with the thread rofl rofl


Whilst thread drift is inevitable I think that this is a bit wide of the mark in this instance![/quote]
Dead right of course - it was the drift I was referring to, he said fibbing thumbs
Posted By: Rob Thornton

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/09/20 06:47 AM

Thanks for the clarification Rich. I obviously misunderstood your drift if you know what I mean!
If I could post a suitable imogee thingummy I would do but I don't seem to be able to transpose these in the full text editor for some reason.
Posted By: DavidR

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/09/20 09:24 AM

Talking of drifting, I wonder if mine would? The XC60 that is, I know the Aero does woohoo
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/09/20 09:27 AM

Go on David give it a go you know you want to.. there must be things you can switch off that will let you laugh2
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/09/20 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Clipper
Guilty as charged m'lud, recently went from an A3 Sportback to its jacked up crossover Q3 Sportback with a slightly larger footprint. Great car though - glad I went for it.


Perhaps one should define the difference between a cross-over, which is largely the modern replacement for a station wagon, and something that has twice the weight, a big engine to power it, and is more akin to a commercial vehicle or a light truck than it is to a car.
Posted By: DavidR

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/09/20 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Go on David give it a go you know you want to.. there must be things you can switch off that will let you laugh2


The Mrs shocked2
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Go on David give it a go you know you want to.. there must be things you can switch off that will let you laugh2


I know the C63 can be drifted..I've seen the "expert" do it at Brooklands. But me? Not a chance....
I'm not good enough and I can't afford to bin it.... or the tyres....
Posted By: sospan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 12:07 PM

Went to a drift day at Pembrey track a few years ago with Ray. Watching the attempts at drifting on one of the bends. A big variation in ability observed! Many Japanese cars there. They apparently have a big drift scene in Japan so parts to convert the car to drift are available.
There was a tyre guy there being kept permanently busy. Strong burning rubber smokescreens with pops as tyres gave up.
A few good drivers consistently creating smokescreens like a WW1 destroyer laying a smokescreen!
Scandinavian flicks to throw out the tear and throttle feathering clearly seen.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Go on David give it a go you know you want to.. there must be things you can switch off that will let you laugh2


I know the C63 can be drifted..I've seen the "expert" do it at Brooklands. But me? Not a chance....
I'm not good enough and I can't afford to bin it.... or the tyres....

I've seen some crazies doing it at Goodwood but it strikes me as an expensive hobby, I don't blame you leaving it to others.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 01:02 PM

Thread drift.......about drifting !!

This really is top notch work chaps. Keep it up.
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Go on David give it a go you know you want to.. there must be things you can switch off that will let you laugh2


I know the C63 can be drifted..I've seen the "expert" do it at Brooklands. But me? Not a chance....
I'm not good enough and I can't afford to bin it.... or the tyres....

I've seen some crazies doing it at Goodwood but it strikes me as an expensive hobby, I don't blame you leaving it to others.


Quite right. The correct reaction of a Morgan driver to these sort of shenanigans should be to pull down his tweed cap, have a puff on the faithful old briar pipe, whilst muttering “when I were a lad, we used to take pride in how many miles we could get out of a pair of rear covers”.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 01:33 PM

Eh Lad, nice remoulded cross-plys as well.

I back in the early 70s I had a Ford 100E that I could easily drift, at very low speed, especially in winter: 20bhp and narrow hard (old) rubber cross ply tyres on a rigid rear axle and cart springs.
I suppose it is all down to the relative amount of grip and power, irrespective of the absolute numbers....
Posted By: Heinz

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 02:20 PM

For this reason, I have completed a safety training where the rear axle is placed on a skid plate. The roadway, or rather it was a wide place, was sprayed with a kind of soapy water to earn control and car behave at low speeds.
Posted By: nick w

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 02:22 PM

It was hard to get my Sunbeam Rapier around any corners at all when it was on crossplys!
Mind you, I was 17......which is why the dealer had refused to sell me a TR2 I really wanted.
Nick
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 03:31 PM

Thruxton used to offer advanced skills courses with a car that had a casters/pump unit fitted so it could simulate wet break away. An hour in that please a little time on the track in the new toy sound like a present for christmas from the good lady. Lots of run off area and no one coming the other way. Just wait until the rears are down low and need replacement then have some fun.

Given my old 2WD E63 had a habit of being a bit tail happy it could just save you NCB on a wet diesel covered roundabout one cold morning scared
Posted By: Fingles

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 03:38 PM

Mmmm...symapthy for Suffolk Sportcars didn't last long on this thread confused2
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Fingles
Mmmm...symapthy for Suffolk Sportcars didn't last long on this thread confused2


I still feel sorry for them and the situation JLR created, but thread drift is TM normality
Posted By: KEVFITZ

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:37 PM

Thread drift..what you on about? !!!


Anyhow..anybody keep chickens?
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:37 PM

I thought talkmorghan was an anagram of thread drift ?
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by KEVFITZ
Thread drift..what you on about? !!!

Anyhow..anybody keep chickens?


Naa, but I did roast one yesterday, accompanied with Yorkshire Puddings thumbs
Posted By: Image

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:47 PM

If there's leftovers in the fridge you'd qualify smile

K
Posted By: KEVFITZ

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:48 PM

Jon

Can I have your car if it goes badly tomorrow at the back doctor ?..(cant spell chiropractor)


Even the mini will do..just something to remember you by !!
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 04:53 PM

Careful, if he can't cure me I'll have to cancel painting your shed !
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 05:55 PM

Anybody else got an interesting chicken shed ?

[Linked Image]
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by CooperMan
Originally Posted by KEVFITZ
Thread drift..what you on about? !!!

Anyhow..anybody keep chickens?


Naa, but I did roast one yesterday, accompanied with Yorkshire Puddings thumbs


I know that can be controversial for some folk, but I totally agree with you. Yorkshire pudding with ALL roasts, not just beef.
Posted By: Hamwich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by pandy

I know that can be controversial for some folk, but I totally agree with you. Yorkshire pudding with ALL roasts, not just beef.


Yorkshire pudding, roast and mashed potatoes, broad beans, peas and carrots, smothered with a nice thick onion and mushroom gravy, with a good splodge of creamed horseradish on the side. You don't even need any meat.
Posted By: KEVFITZ

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 07:17 PM

Anyway back to Suffolk Cars....
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by KEVFITZ
Anyway back to Suffolk Cars....


I wonder if the owner liked Yorkshire Puddings innocent
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Hamwich
Yorkshire pudding, roast and mashed potatoes, broad beans, peas and carrots, smothered with a nice thick onion and mushroom gravy, with a good splodge of creamed horseradish on the side. You don't even need any meat.


That's not fair, food pron at this time of day, now dinner is going to be a pale victory......
Posted By: Heinz

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 08:06 PM

I think the wide threaddrift is related to the fact that we find it too horrible what is happening. A small company is deprived of its livelihood because a car manufacturer who has nothing to do with his tradition but his name is throwing up. And that is why we have avoided the bad subject. This thread is actually not about SUVs but about the survival of a small company that is conscious of tradition. I would never describe Suffolk as a kit car company but as a manufacturer committed to the old Jaguars. Even if it has been said before many pages of this thread, I will gladly repeat it. JLR is fighting against the values of its own past that it has not nurtured itself.
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/09/20 10:54 PM

Speaking of Suffolk - I'll have a pint thanks cheers

PS. Giles will know what I mean smile
Posted By: pandy

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Heinz
I think the wide threaddrift is related to the fact that we find it too horrible what is happening. A small company is deprived of its livelihood because a car manufacturer who has nothing to do with his tradition but his name is throwing up. And that is why we have avoided the bad subject. This thread is actually not about SUVs but about the survival of a small company that is conscious of tradition. I would never describe Suffolk as a kit car company but as a manufacturer committed to the old Jaguars. Even if it has been said before many pages of this thread, I will gladly repeat it. JLR is fighting against the values of its own past that it has not nurtured itself.


Quite so.

What’s more, JLR’S bullying behavior doesn’t stop me wanting a Suffolk Sportscars SS100, but it does put me off buying a car from Jaguar themselves.

No Adnams for me this week Peter, as we’re in Sardinia. Strictly ichnusa while we’re here (the unfiltered ichnusa is very nice). cheers
Posted By: ChrisConvertible

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by pandy
What’s more, JLR’S bullying behavior doesn’t stop me wanting a Suffolk Sportscars SS100, but it does put me off buying a car from Jaguar themselves.


100% agree. Three cars I had on my "I would really like one list" is a Morgan +4, Suffolk SS100 and frontline MGB and the list has not changed at all. I did end up choosing the MGB but not due to JLR bullying as I made the decision earlier this year, Being able to buy a car locally built and keep 6 workers in work during the COVID shutdown was part of the decision.
Posted By: Hawki

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Heinz
I think the wide threaddrift is related to the fact that we find it too horrible what is happening. A small company is deprived of its livelihood because a car manufacturer who has nothing to do with his tradition but his name is throwing up. And that is why we have avoided the bad subject. This thread is actually not about SUVs but about the survival of a small company that is conscious of tradition. I would never describe Suffolk as a kit car company but as a manufacturer committed to the old Jaguars. Even if it has been said before many pages of this thread, I will gladly repeat it. JLR is fighting against the values of its own past that it has not nurtured itself.

Jaguar is not the company it once was and is all about generating cash for the parent company. Let’s hope Morgan don’t go the same way and lose much of what makes them special.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 08:34 AM

I wonder if the 'Cease and Desist' notice came through out of the blue, or there had been any dialogue/requests made beforehand.

Speaking from experience with IP in publishing , there is sometimes an attempt to find a compromise - making suggestions for slight changes, or amendments. Only when these were ignored or point blank rejected without discussion, did we send in the big guns.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 09:09 AM

Chaps, as you are all aware, I have been very close to SSC and I don't intend to fan the flames here, there's no point however the good news is that the new company "Suffolk Classic Services" is alive and well but not making any more cars. They will do service, parts and generally look after the existing SS100's and C Types. I hestitate to talk about the few cars that were/are for sale at the works, they are mostly on commission I think but still worth a look if you are interested.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 09:09 AM

Someone on pistonheads has offered an alternative viewpoint. Don't shoot the messenger.

Originally Posted by pistonheads
Of course, the other scenario is that the owner, who is the debtor has the advantage of using a letter from JLR and a supposed slow down due to C19 to crystallise his loss for tax purposes, dump the employee liabilities overnight and retain first dibs on clean slating the operation if he desires.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 09:10 AM

Of course I ment consignment not commission-----what a twit !!
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/09/20 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by pandy
No Adnams for me this week Peter, as we’re in Sardinia. Strictly ichnusa while we’re here (the unfiltered ichnusa is very nice). cheers

As I write I am drinking a very nice Poretti unfiltered. Unfortunately no longer an independent but now part of the Carlsberg group, a nice drop non the less.

[Linked Image]

The "3 Luppoli", by the way, are hops. cheers
Posted By: Perry_P_M3W

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Hawki
Originally Posted by Heinz
I think the wide threaddrift is related to the fact that we find it too horrible what is happening. A small company is deprived of its livelihood because a car manufacturer who has nothing to do with his tradition but his name is throwing up. And that is why we have avoided the bad subject. This thread is actually not about SUVs but about the survival of a small company that is conscious of tradition. I would never describe Suffolk as a kit car company but as a manufacturer committed to the old Jaguars. Even if it has been said before many pages of this thread, I will gladly repeat it. JLR is fighting against the values of its own past that it has not nurtured itself.

Jaguar is not the company it once was and is all about generating cash for the parent company. Let’s hope Morgan don’t go the same way and lose much of what makes them special.



Not sure how to take that. JLR was alway a company that was interested in making money. They were never a charity! All companies are there to make money. MMC is just as interested in making a profit now vs. before they were sold. That part never changes and you would be hard pressed to find any company who is doing what they are for the sake of the buyer. Never happens, unfortunately for us. smile

As a simple example, VW Group does look to all the brands to turn a profit and contribute to the bottom line. However hypothetically, Audi AG can report massive profits across the global brand yet Audi UK is deep in the red. Without boring you with all the details, Audi AG could very well be happy with that for many reasons.

In fairness to Jaguar, their new owners have been VERY hands off and have just let Jaguar get on with it. I recall the parent company's CEO stating something along those lines.

it's quite sad that Suffolk are no longer. I was quite interested in pulling the trigger on their C Type last year! However, as with all things, there is always two sides to every story and a company as large as Jaguar don't normally comment on such matters.

In regards to Jaguar fitting abasing the values of it's own past - it is their past and any company has the right to intellectual property/design etc. I am certain that if a company in China came out with a car that looked the spitting image of Morgan at a fraction of the price, this whole forum would be up in arms. Or if I set up a company to build a 'classic' 4/4, MMC's lawyers would be at my door in an instant.

Without all the facts, I don't think it's fair to place full blame on JLR. Again, it's very very unfortunate but JLR should and has the right to their company designs/name etc. Many Ford Cobra replica companies pay a license to allow this to continue. Perhaps the business case wasn't viable for Suffolk to invest such a thing. Here's hoping they can regroup and find another niche to fill.
Posted By: Hamwich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Perry_P_M3W

In regards to Jaguar fitting abasing the values of it's own past - it is their past and any company has the right to intellectual property/design etc.


Quite true, and they must also accept the consequences of the actions that they take as a result - for examples sales falling because people don't like their treatment of Suffolk Sportscars.

Originally Posted by Perry_P_M3W

I am certain that if a company in China came out with a car that looked the spitting image of Morgan at a fraction of the price, this whole forum would be up in arms. Or if I set up a company to build a 'classic' 4/4, MMC's lawyers would be at my door in an instant.


But Morgan cars are currently in production. If JLR were still producing the SS100 and the C Type it would be an entirely different matter.

Originally Posted by Perry_P_M3W

Without all the facts, I don't think it's fair to place full blame on JLR. Again, it's very very unfortunate but JLR should and has the right to their company designs/name etc.


Jaguar's refusal to comment is a significant part of the unavailability of those facts. If they refuse to tell us the real reason for their action, they must accept that we will look at the available facts, weigh up the balance of probabilities, and draw our own conclusions.

As far as I can see there are only three reasons why JLR would choose to stop Suffolk from making cars which they no longer produce but for which they still have the rights:

1. Lost sales: JLR think that people are buying SS100's instead of F Types - so if they stop SS100 production and they'll sell more F Types
2. Lost credibility: JLR think that people will look at SS100s and think that all Jaguars are like that - As if they really think SS100s have a lower build quality than JLR's output.
3. Lost opportunity: JLR see Suffolk making literally thousands of pounds profit each year and don't like it because they can't or won't do it themselves at that price point and instead want to sell SS100 recreations at £500k+ each

And of those 3, the first 2 are so ludicrously unlikely that the third reason is the one to my mind is the most likely. If they do, let's hope their financial modellers have done the projections for lost sales to SS100 enthusiasts because people dislike their treatment of Suffolk versus increased sales because those same SS100 enthusiasts, unable to buy their sub £200k (guess) SS100 from Suffolk will instead happily cough for a >£500k (guess) recreation from JLR.

Originally Posted by Perry_P_M3W

Many Ford Cobra replica companies pay a license to allow this to continue. Perhaps the business case wasn't viable for Suffolk to invest such a thing. Here's hoping they can regroup and find another niche to fill.


If it's as simple as this - ie that JLR wanted Suffolk to pay a licence fee that Suffolk couldn't afford, then to my mind it's a clear failure of negotiation. JLR can easily see how much profit Suffolk has been making from its operation, so if they wanted too large a slice of the pie then they must accept that the public perception of their action will be that it's motivated by sheer greed.
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 07:05 AM

So where do you place the various 3 wheelers that are similar to the Morgan? It is true that they are not the same as the Morgan but certainly some have been inspired by the original Morgan 3 wheelers. I never understood why Pete Larson was talking to Morgan about a licence (so the story goes) when the Liberty Ace was not a replica and really the only thing in common is that they both had 3 wheels.

It is true that the Suffolk cars are replicas and are touted as such but they are not being passed of as originals. I immagine that it would be easy enough to engineer in some slight differences to be able to say it was "inspired by" instead of a replica of the Jaguar. Most, if not all, of their cars use more modern suspension and steering and all of them use many original Jaguar components; engines, gearboxes, diffs, etc. Probably where they run into difficulty is with a car like the C Type where they (according to the Suffolk Web site) actually copied the C Type bodywork.

It all makes my wonder where the Frontline MGs stand. Probably they are OK because they are rebuilding cars based on the original chassis and adding new components just as any workshop could do for private individuals. No doubt no one could complain if Suffolk re-built a crashed or poor condition original C Type.

The big question is at what point does an object become "inspired by" instead of a "copy of" or a "replica" of the original?
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 08:27 AM

One of the strange things about the whole sad story is that the Suffolk SS100 was 100% Jaguar in it's parts whereas the original SS100 was merely a Standard Car Company chassis ( and that wasn't even built by Standard ) a Standard Side valve engine modified to o.h.v. by Westlake and a pretty body placed on top, so for JLR to say you have to stop producing the car is a bit much as they didn't build it like that anyway.
I can't see Jaguar ever building a "continuation" SS100 as the difficulties with regulations would make it far too expensive. The last list price for a Suffolk SS100 ( in basic form ) was £92K or there abouts. Obviously just like Morgan, the extras added extra to that price. My aluminium "C" type was £145K which was still a bargin when you look at the cost of an original if you can find one for sale.
Life moves on, now I have to dream about that replica Ferrari 250 SWB !!!
Posted By: Perry_P_M3W

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 09:48 AM

Jaguar's sales are actually up in most key markets. I highly doubt that 99.99999% of their customers are even remotely aware of what has unfortunately happened with Suffolk. I would love to go into detail on how such disagreements come between an OEM who truly owns the rights to a design and companies like this but would either bore the socks off most or more importantly share company info that I'm not allowed. And it goes both ways - we don't have all the facts.

As for sales, the SS was not what one would call a high volume seller so rest assured Jaguar were not losing sleep over lost sales.

Looked at from a Morgan perspective, BMW is also not remotely worried that Morgan are taking away sales with Morgan now using BMW engines in the two new models. Doesn't even hit their radar one bit. Perhaps I'm a bit more sensitive than most when it comes to comments being made towards manufactures due to knowing what truly goes on behind close doors. I'll leave it at that smile

I do feel massively sad for the workers and company as a whole but as Reg says, life moves one.
Posted By: SFO

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 10:17 AM

There is much more to this JLR and Suffolk Cars issue. Everything here is pure conjecture. No one knows what actually happened.
Posted By: Hamwich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by SFO
There is much more to this JLR and Suffolk Cars issue. Everything here is pure conjecture. No one knows what actually happened.


Nowt wrong with a bit of conjecture - after all, you are doing it with your statement that "there is much more to this" smile

Unless of course by 'No one knows what actually happened" you really mean "No one knows but me" smile

The idea that a company (or anyone) can do something which is bound to annoy some people, but then say "You mustn't speculate about this and we're not going to tell you why we've done it" and expect people to meekly accept it is more than somewhat optimistic, don't you feel?
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 11:00 AM

Good old speculation.

Is it s smokescreen as the business and it allowed a story with the creditors which lets the losses being removed and a rebirth.
Are JLR going to introduce yet another limited edition OTT garage queen.
Are the people that built the car able to find some other decent work to make certain their excellent skills are not wasted.

Somewhere in all of those ?

Or is it just that they did not have critical mass of customers and enough budget to promote it leading to business closing. It's tough out there.
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 11:06 AM

There are a few specialists that re-engineer E Types as we know, I wonder if they are the next ones to line up in JLR's lawyers sights ?
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 11:18 AM

I still reckon debts of £850,000 may have had a major influence on the decision.
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 10:46 PM

You're right, Suffolk were in serious financial trouble long before Covid or the Jaguar letter.

It appears the company is now back up and running under the same management but no longer has any debt. If true, that ties in with what the financial chap on Pistonheads speculated would happen (as quoted previously on this thread) .

Jaguars motivation is unclear, but looking enviously at Suffolks "profits" seems rather unlikely. Opinion in the Classic Jaguar world seems to be that JLR have zero chance of winning any court action against replica manufacturers. They've just lost the case against Ineos regarding the Defender and that's a car that was recently in production.

There's a lot regarding Suffolk business practices on other forums and much of it isn't complimentary. How much is true is another thing of course. They certainly turned out some cars with fake identities and I wouldn't want to be an owner of such a vehicle.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 10:57 PM

Well that certainly is illuminating particularly the last paragraph if it is proven and would explain why TATA wants to distance itself.

Things are seldom what they seem in the car business and this is a very convenient route for the Suffolk management if not a noble one.
Posted By: Perry_P_M3W

Re: Suffolk Cars - 18/09/20 11:41 PM

. If anyone on this thread thinks that JLR for one second thought for a millisecond that they were afraid of Suffolk sales are cutting into their sales are delusional. They sound less cars per year than you can count on both hands than JLR sell in a day.

Suffolk make great cars, for what they were in limited numbers for those that wasted a classic/modern Jag but I'm sorry for being so blunt, let's give this a rest. There wasn't a market for a such a car and sadly, the business case wasn't sound.

if this was BMW wanting to build a Golf and VW beat them in court as they were building a car that looked and gave the dynamics of a Golf, I can see see the arguments of some of the comments. Suffolk sold an inconsequential fronton of what JLR sell. It's crazy to think that for a nano-second that JLR were afraid of losing sales to Suffolk.


@ Admin, feel free to delete my account. .
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Well that certainly is illuminating particularly the last paragraph if it is proven and would explain why TATA wants to distance itself.

Things are seldom what they seem in the car business and this is a very convenient route for the Suffolk management if not a noble one.


Unrelated, but a University mate of mine was the 'godson' of the chair of Tata. Went over to visit in the late 80's and he took me up to the penthouse of Tata Tower in Calcutta. The views were amazing!
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 08:39 AM

I am aware of a hell of a lot more detail than has been expressed here but as I said before, there's no point, lets just move on and enjoy what may possibly be the last couple of weeks of driving freedom.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by TBM
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Well that certainly is illuminating particularly the last paragraph if it is proven and would explain why TATA wants to distance itself.

Things are seldom what they seem in the car business and this is a very convenient route for the Suffolk management if not a noble one.


Unrelated, but a University mate of mine was the 'godson' of the chair of Tata. Went over to visit in the late 80's and he took me up to the penthouse of Tata Tower in Calcutta. The views were amazing!

Good stuff quite an experience, I guess the air was a bit cleaner out there then, a good contact to keep.
I don't see you as an Evoque kind of man though more old style Defender..
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
Good stuff, I guess the air was a bit cleaner out there then a good contact to keep, I don't see you as an Evoque kind of man though more old style Defender..


Too right - I've had a S3, a couple of S2A, a RR Vogue and a Jag X300 but the Ewok is just a bit too 'Beckham' for me smile

Wouldn't say no to an F Type though smile
Posted By: Gambalunga

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Perry_P_M3W
. @ Admin, feel free to delete my account. .


Why? If you have broken the rules or gone "over the top" in any way I have not noticed it.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by TBM
Originally Posted by +8Rich
Good stuff, I guess the air was a bit cleaner out there then a good contact to keep, I don't see you as an Evoque kind of man though more old style Defender..


Too right - I've had a S3, a couple of S2A, a RR Vogue and a Jag X300 but the Ewok is just a bit too 'Beckham' for me smile

Wouldn't say no to an F Type though smile

A mate of mine a local farmer has an older Epsom Green RR and it’s a beauty and comfortable to ride in they just exude style in the countryside.
I had to look up that Jaguar number, I’ll bet that was a nice car, to me they were the last of the stylish saloons.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 19/09/20 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
I had to look up that Jaguar number, I’ll bet that was a nice car, to me they were the last of the stylish saloons.


It was - 4.0l Sovereign. Beautiful to drive and so comfortable. Once did an 800 miler in a day, and felt fine at the end of it. Also had a 'sport mode' o the autobox, which gave the boy racers in Essex a few surprises. Would return about 28mpg on a good run too.

One of the very few things I miss about my previous lifestyle smile

I could probably pick one fairly cheap these days, but it wouldn't fit on my drive smile
Posted By: Clipper

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 09:26 AM

Just reading about Eagle in Classic & Sports - wonder why they haven’t had a nasty lawyers letter?

[Linked Image]
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 09:31 AM

I wonder if it is because they 're-engineer' existing Jaguars rather than make a 'kitcar' replica?
Posted By: Ian Wegg

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 09:49 AM

I think that's exactly it. Every Eagle is a Jaguar E-type restored. No different to a great number of vintage cars around.

With regards to Suffolk, I notice that the liquidator has confirmed there was a "threat" of legal action but no details as to the exact nature. The company owed nearly £800K to creditors, all of whom are listed in the winding-up order; I don't see any solicitors amongst them so I'm guessing no formal action had taken place. I'd guess that the company was already insolvent and any approach about intellectual property rights from JLR would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

I like Suffolk Cars but I have to say I always wondered how they got away with it.
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Wegg

I like Suffolk Cars but I have to say I always wondered how they got away with it.


By that do you mean got away with making replicas of an 80 year old Jaguar model ?

The replica business has been a thriving industry for decades and I'm not aware of many, if any, companies being stopped from making "copies" of long discontinued models. Indeed Lynx, who make a high quality replica have only recently brought the business back to the UK. Realm and several others are still advertising C Type replicas and there seems to be little change in the rest of the market.

There are several companies that build toolroom replicas of interesting cars including Bugatti, Bentley and of course Jaguar racing models. Links below.

The one car that does surprise me is the AC Cobra replica. AC were still making cars while the replica industry was churning out copies of their product. Allegedly more that 60,000 to date.


https://pursangargentina.com/

https://www.bobpetersenengineering.co.uk/speed-six

https://classic-jaguar-racing.co.uk/product/fia-dtype-copy-poa/
Posted By: Clipper

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 11:16 AM

Also ASM with the DBR replica

There is money to be made with continuation models now - Aston & Jag like these cash cows.

http://www.asmotorsport.co.uk/

Posted By: Ian Wegg

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by mph
The replica business has been a thriving industry for decades and I'm not aware of many, if any, companies being stopped from making "copies" of long discontinued models.

Ferrari has issued literally hundreds of lawsuits to protect their IP. I've nothing against replicas, "Total Headturners" is a stand I always visit at motoring events, but some of them are on shaky ground with regards to trade marks.

All of which is contrary to my original point that I'm not convinced Suffolk's demise is very much the result of a legal threat.

Posted By: sospan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 02:44 PM

There are several companies selling kits of old jags. C-type and D-type. There are several ki car companies selling replicas. This link gives a good insight into many types, inc Chesil Porsche 356, Nostalgia Jag cars, a couple of Ferrari Dino kits based on MX5 etc.
http://www.kitcarlinks.com/
Caterham own the Lotus7 but Westfield make a “Seven inspired” car with Westfield livery. That seems to be the cop out.
Posted By: Stewart S

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 02:54 PM

Sad about Suffolk

Loved looking at them at the Classic Car Show over the years and have quite a few photos of Reg’s (Lowbird) Suffolks

Beautiful cars

I must admit I’ve always thought it odd that they could use Jaguar badges to adorn their creations, I guess Suffolk relied on the fact that there was an original donor car of the same marque

What about Eagle? How do they continue to make their E types? Or are they just complete restorations?

Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 03:17 PM

Stewart, I must say I agree. It has been very sad to see the demise of Suffolk and even I can't get the full picture of what happened and I certainly don't intend to say anymore about it however, my latest SS100 is possibly the best of the 3 that I have had. I was lucky to have been involved with it's build from the chassis upwards and had many happy visits whilst it was being built. A bit like Morgan but even more detailed and personal. I have been to the old works a couple of times and, whilst things are on a quite small scale now, the new company and team are still able to provide support for all the cars out there.
The thing with the Jaguar badge was resolved some years ago when Jaguar contacted the company to tell them to stop using the Jaguar Lozenge shape in their publicity marerial, which they did,as this is used by Jaguar themselves but I'm not at all sure about the badge on the cars. Certainly my "C" type had the lozenge badge on the rear.
Posted By: sospan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 13/10/20 07:06 PM

I seem to remember the use of a badge was the crux of Ferrari’s legal take on replicas. Totalheadturners was, I think, one of the main targets.
Several times people have asked if my Morgan was a kit. My answers are sometimes wind-up “yes”.
Earlier this year in a carpark with aerotaff he started a wind-up of someone who was asking about the cars and we kept it going.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/10/20 09:46 AM

Especially when you get an "expert" who wants to tell you all about the 8 year wait for delivery and the wooden chassis, all good fun.
Posted By: Image

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/01/21 09:46 AM

Saw this today ..... great cars but it raises some questions.

How come Jag won't be going after this, considering their behaviour set out above

There seem plenty of 'restomod' upgrades that will presumably stop them competing against original cars

If the Bentley recreations from the factory can't be road registered how do these get round that (and if they can't go classic racing and can't go on the road, what will the market be?)

Though if one was a billionaire I suppose you could buy one to look at ... they are beautiful things

https://www.evo.co.uk/jaguar/203430/ecurie-ecosse-c-type-homage-series-revealed?amp

K
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/01/21 12:14 PM

Good question, I heard about these cars a while back from a chap on one of the Jaguar forums. I guess we will never know the truth behind Jaguars motive in stopping one and allowing another, could big money be involved?
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/02/21 10:45 PM

Seems that JLR have finally had another "success."

They've taken a private individual, and lifetime Jaguar enthusiast, to court in Sweden for building a Replica C Type - and won.

He's had to sell his collection of classic Jaguars to pay the legal expenses

Jaguar enthusiasts are up in arms and I can't see that this is anything but terrible publicity for Jaguar.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 10/02/21 10:56 PM

They have achieved nothing but make their Indian paymasters look small in the eyes of the world, sad...
Posted By: MJF

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 07:58 AM

You would have thought that JLR would have been more concerned about the Ineos Grenadier than a retired couple in Sweden making a one off of a car that went out of production in 1953.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 08:12 AM

Does seem a bit small minded - but apparently there was a company involved with more plans to build additional C-type replicas (much like Suffolk). Been reading round this story and it seems it's not just Jaguar who have been doing it - apparently Ferrari, Mercedes and Caterham have done something similar to protect their IP.

JLR did try with the Land Rover Defender 'shape' but lost that court case.
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by MJF
You would have thought that JLR would have been more concerned about the Ineos Grenadier than a retired couple in Sweden making a one off of a car that went out of production in 1953.



Unless they intend to make a restorepeat model of it themselves again a.k.a Aston with the recent 007 DB?
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Alistair

Unless they intend to make a restorepeat model of it themselves again a.k.a Aston with the recent 007 DB?


Given that there are probably in excess of 1000 C type replicas in existence already, it hasn't impacted on the value of the real thing so far.

Anyone prepared to fork out the best part of a million quid for a Jaguar built continuation C type (or E or D) is hardly likely to be tempted by a replica.

The irony in this, and other cases, is that JLR have previously actively supported some of the replica builders with technical advice and even drawings.

I find it strange that the court has ruled that Jaguar can copyright the design and shape of a car that has been out of production for almost seventy years, whereas JLR lost their case against Ineos when they tried to copyright the Land Rover Defender shape.

Whatever the reasoning, the general consensus is that they've shot themselves in the foot PR wise. Even the Jaguar Drivers Club has a dedicated section for Replicas, I'd be surprised if their response is positive.
Posted By: John07

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 10:28 AM

Yes, but things have changed in recent years. People are not just building kit cars/ replica and calling it what it is. Now people are buying one real, high value car and breaking it into three piles of parts. They then build up three cars and try to sell them all off as the real thing. There is a joke in the Lotus world that there are now only 156 Elan 26R's left out of the original 52 that Lotus made.
Cheers
John
Posted By: sospan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 11:09 AM

One local high end car builder made a replica for a very prominent fashion icon. He couldn’t use his original car due to insurers barring it due to multi million value so the replica was ordered and made. He could then drive it, albeit a damn good replica. He has both....moneybags original plus a usable version.
Provided the replica is a good one not just cobbled together then they are fine. In the kitcar world there are both types. There are excellent and poor Cobra kits for example. Lots of Lotus 7 type variants.
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 12:17 PM

If anyone is interested here is a press release (from the family I believe)

WORLDWIDE PRESS RELEASE Tuesday 9th February, 2021

Jaguar – the unacceptable face of capitalism
Big business crushes Swedish couple
Impact on loyal Jaguar enthusiasts worldwide
Alleged unethical behavior
International fund-raising seeks support to fight back



Shock Court Ruling

Jaguar Land Rover wins rights to the 1951 C-type – far reaching consequences for the whole replica community

Jaguar Land Rover recently sued a lifelong Jaguar enthusiast, Karl Magnusson (age 68), for copyright infringement after building a C-type replica in his home garage in Gothenburg Sweden, despite decades of global public approval of the replica industry from Jaguar themselves. Jaguar won. Unless overturned, the ruling is expected to set a global precedent for car manufacturers, opening up copyright proceedings for other car models across the global car industry.

Swedish pensioner and honorary member of the Swedish Jaguar Club, Karl Magnusson was invited by senior management to the Jaguar Land Rover Classic UK HQ in 2016 to give a presentation about his C-type project. “Our C-type replica was going to be the cherry on top of our small private collection of restored Jags,” says Magnusson. That collection has had to be sold to fund lawyer costs.

Despite two years of correspondence regarding future project collaboration, meetings and nothing but praise from Jaguar Classic management, Mr. and Mrs. Magnusson were sued in 2018 by Jaguar Land Rover for copyright infringement. A staggeringly uneven battle began between a global corporation and retired pensioners, who have had to put everything on the line.

“We feel so betrayed. They had every opportunity to warn me if I was doing something wrong.” says Karl Magnusson.

After a surprising verdict by the Stockholm District Court in December, Karl and Ann-Christine were found guilty of copyright infringement and their privately-built C-type replica deemed illegal and subject to destruction - a project inspired by passion that took nine years of research and labour to complete.

In addition, the Magnussons are required to pay Jaguar Land Rover’s legal costs of £450,000. Furthermore, JLR can also claim damages.

“We don’t understand why a multi-billion dollar company needs to destroy the lives of two grandparents. And this is just one of at least 1,500 replica C-types built globally in the past 45 years. The consequence of the verdict is that all owners of C-type replicas now risk being forced to destroy their cars when JLR comes after them,” said Ann-Christine.

As for the replica industry, this verdict giving a 70-year-old car shape copyright protection is likely to have far-reaching consequences - in essence, making all C-type replicas unlawful to display, sell or use on public roads or in other public circumstances, under threat of penalties and/or destruction.

While this is a verdict by a Swedish court, because of EU directives the judgement will be invoked in other EU countries, potentially threatening the entire European replica industry. Under the current understanding of relevant agreements, this can be invoked in the UK even after Brexit. Due to this verdict, other car makers can use this precedent and claim copyright of their historic models, threatening 10s of 1,000s of Ferrari, Ford GT40, Porsche, AC Cobra, Aston Martin and other replicas.

“We don’t understand where this has come from considering Jaguar's history of supporting the replica industry,” states Karl Magnusson.

“We feel it’s so hypocritical of Jaguar to sue us when their own senior management privately build, commission, race and own C-type replicas themselves.”

Over the years Jaguar have supported the replica industry in various ways. No less than three Jaguar CEOs have supplied close to 2,000 drawings to replica builders as well as given awards to replica builders. Three Jaguar senior managers and one Director, previous and present, have privately built and raced C-type replicas themselves.

“The Engineering Manager at JLR Classic, who met with us, was used as a witness against us in court, all the while keeping his own C-type replica in his garage.”

Since 2015, 25 historic Jaguar Land Rover Classic Challenge races have been held, and 5 more are planned this year, publicly inviting replicas. On YouTube official Jaguar Land Rover marketing films feature proud displays of replicas.

You can even pay to take the Jaguar Land Rover “Classic Drive” experience, which includes driving C-type and D-type replicas. None of them built by JLR.

JLR Classic Works are currently launching their own “continuation” replica E-types and C-types with the help of replica producers in the UK, who are the ones with the skill and knowledge to produce the parts. In other words, at the same time as JLR are calling replicas illegal and pursuing this in the courts, they financially support and cooperate with replica producers.

And it does not stop here: just google “JLR Replica” and the first hit takes you to an official Jaguar Land Rover dealership, selling US kit-car C-type replicas on their website. https://www.jlrclassics.com/cars/

Despite the initial setback, the Magnussons remain determined to continue the fight and proceed with an appeal. “Anyone who has been involved with classic cars would understand the absurdity of all Jaguar replicas suddenly becoming illegal. The court ruling is highly questionable to say the least, and we have a very strong appeal,” says Karl Magnusson.

The appeal process will put a further extreme financial strain on the retired couple and their family. “We are going to have to sell our house and all of our belongings if we lose an appeal. Jaguar would essentially make us homeless.” The Magnussons have now resorted to crowdfunding to raise the needed funds, hoping for the engagement of the replica community to support them through the appeal process.

Unless the ruling is overturned in the Court of Appeal, it will not only open the door for Jaguar Land Rover to continue to sue and crush small replica builders and passionate Jaguar enthusiasts but sets a precedent for all other car manufacturers, threatening replica builders and owners on a global scale.



Enthusiasts worldwide are encouraged to share this on social media and to donate any amount, however small. At the Go-Fund Me page [request for donation retracted]



For more information and direct quotes, please contact Elizabeth Magnusson, daughter of Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson and Official Spokesperson.

Email: [personal information retracted]

Phone: [personal information retracted]


FURTHER INFORMATION:

Court documents

The Swedish court files are public and can be requested from the Swedish courts at https://www.domstol.se/ and are also available in original and auto-translated versions using the following links:

Court ruling
Auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/38UwvJj
Appeal
Appeal, auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/2LhwaYY
Supplement to the appeal, auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/3abYy81
Annexes: http://bit.ly/3iQxbUF
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 01:01 PM

It's really playing on the 'going after the pensioner' although even his daughter has said:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Magnusson
They had plans to build two more cars and sell through the company, but it never came to that, since Jaguar ordered them to destroy their car and cease all other manufacturing.


In reality, no different to the Suffolk situation. Going after a company selling replicas.

Not defending the action, but it's all getting rather emotive!
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 01:58 PM

Had a boring lunch break (working in school) and read through some of the Court proceedings. it seems the company 'Creare Form AB' were creating and promoting a C Type copies under the name Authenticat.

The original one had been sold by Creare Form to Karl Magnusson (owner of the company). It had then been displayed in public, and marketing produced for sale of subsequent models.

Some employees of JLR had been liaising with Karl with drawings and design since 2006 on the belief that he was creating a one off, personal replica, not that he was creating a number of copies for commercial reasons.

So it seems that if you want to build your own one off copy, not a problem. If you want to produce and sell copies, then JLR will come after you.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 02:02 PM

From 2018 C Type replicas

You will need google translate smile

Quote
It is well known that there are car enthusiasts who build and rebuild cars. When small-scale private car construction is taken further and leads to marketing and sales, then there is of course a risk of getting the original manufacturer after you. Creare Form in Hålta in Bohuslän builds JAGUAR C-TYPE copies and sells them under the name "Authenticat C-type", something that Jaguar Land Rover can unsurprisingly cannot accept, but has sued for infringement of copyrighted utility art.

In the lawsuit to the Patent and Market Court (PMD), Jaguar gives detailed reasons as to why the C-TYPE model meets the copyright work height requirements for applied art. As support, they have a statement from design professor Aina Nilsson at the Umeå School of Design, she has worked with design at both Saab and Volvo.

According to information on Bohuslän's Creare's Facebook, they build the cars according to Jaguar's original drawings and 3D scanning of the original car, and they have even begins to market itself in the UK.

Jaguar believes that the copies involve copyright infringement and claim, among other things. prohibition, damages in the form of reasonable compensation and that the copies are destroyed. Claims apply to both the company and the couple who run the business personally.
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 03:57 PM

Agreed MPH.

The PR angle of this does make them seem grasping when as brand with that reputation and current market challenge should be doing all it can to foster the love from the field. They have a big hurdle to climb in this world market. When CV19 comes more under control and people come out of their boxes I cannot see the return to travel being the same. Private cars will do less mileage. Company cars will likely come under scrutiny if WFH can be achieved more. All good for the planet and recovery of spare hours for real life.

The difference between a (quality) hand built replica and a new-old release from a vendor is probably a zero on the end from £200k to £2m. The difference is that the manufacturer also really wants the brand extension and PR kudos which these releases bring as a halo for the other sales. Example being all the press around the Aston DB007. If they can make money out of it all the better! I just meant that I expect they are willing to pay lawyers when they see a benefit which justifies it and that could be a new-old one coming down the pipeline. As always I explained myself way too briefly sorry.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 06:02 PM

As the action against Creare pre-dated the case against Suffolk, one wonders if JLR went after Suffolk as a result of the stink the Magnussons caused. It does say that because of EU directives they could then invoke the result in other EU countries.

The Press Release above is VERY economical with the truth. There is not one single mention of the company they set up to sell these replicas (and shown in the 2018 article above) and the number of cars they were building, clearly visible in the photos.

They are also trading off the premise that all replicas will be illegal, which again is a complete fabrication.

I'm afraid any initial sympathy I had for their situation is slowly vanishing.They have been the architects of their own demise, and brought Suffolk down with them.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by JLR Press Release


Despite assertions in the Creare News Release, Jaguar Land Rover is not going after private owners of pre-existing individual replica vehicles, nor insisting upon the destruction of their vehicles. However, we will take action to enforce our rights against businesses using our IP illegally for their own profit.

The defendants in this case had started a business to build and sell six Jaguar C-type replicas for over Euros 250 thousand each. Action to protect our IP has been very much aimed at the commercial replica manufacturers, people aiming to build and sell replicas as a business infringing our copyright and trademarks.

Jaguar Land Rover did not undertake this case lightly and, before resorting to legal action, gave the defendants ample opportunity to stop copying our design.

Jaguar Land Rover is disappointed that it had to resort to commencing legal proceedings and only began the lawsuit nine months after we asked Creare to stop their plans to make money from our copyright.

Jaguar Land Rover continuously tried to avoid litigation, but Creare would not accept any realistic compromise.

Jaguar Land Rover take whatever action is needed to protect our IP.

A plethora of copies of varying quality risk collectors and customers of the original being misled as to what they are buying. Our own vehicles are sold with clear provenance and title.
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 06:38 PM

At the end of the day if you play with fire somebody will end up singed in the corner crying.

tbh I don't have much sympathy for either of the "hurt" companies but it does show TATA in an unflattering light, the cynic in me says even bad press raises the failing company profile of JLR one of the giants smaller sattelite companies.

With hindsight Suffolk were going down the tubes anyway so this issue just accelerated the process a little, maybe they were a senior outfit and retirement suited them is a possibility not unheard of.

Just a totally personal view on this very 1st world issue.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by +8Rich
At the end of the day if you play with fire somebody will end up singed in the corner crying.


Agreed - when I worked for Lloyds, one of the big wigs on the Names group (post crash) gave me some sage advise, only gamble with what you can afford to lose.....

(and he assured me that before the crash he'd said that to every 'Name' before they signed up)
Posted By: +8Rich

Re: Suffolk Cars - 11/02/21 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by TBM
Originally Posted by +8Rich
At the end of the day if you play with fire somebody will end up singed in the corner crying.


Agreed - when I worked for Lloyds, one of the big wigs on the Names group (post crash) gave me some sage advise, only gamble with what you can afford to lose.....

(and he assured me that before the crash he'd said that to every 'Name' before they signed up)

Spot on, these people are not innocents are they, they are trading "for free" off the back of a once great company.
I don't think you or I would feel that was a good moral decision or a sound business arrangement.

Again a totally personal viewpoint, Jaguar have never done it for me really.
Posted By: JohnHarris

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 09:00 AM

There are no free lunches in life.

All manufacturers including car manufacturers have at some point been subject to the IP, Trade marks, patents and licences of others, so they have either paid a licence fee for its use, or bought out the licence holder or invested vast sums in R&D to develop their own technology and design. Why should there be different ground rules for copycat manufacturers?

Its rather a sad case, but someone was trying to take commercial advantage and make financial gain out of someone else's design and IP and not pay for the privilege. Then apparently without adequate resources and silly enough to challenge a corporation with by comparison deep pockets and most likely inhouse legal team that would specialise in that area.

This is nothing new in other industries of major corporation protecting their interests, one of the most protective companies is Rolex, that up until recently for example used the US Customs to seize unaccompanied Rolex imports that did not come thru it's USA subsidiary.

regards
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 09:26 AM

Agree completely.

Considering the pack of lies statement from the family is now all over social media and Auto forums, if I was JLR I think I'd be wanting another day in court for defamation.
Posted By: JohnHarris

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 10:32 AM

Whilst a sense of vindication of your Corporate position is perfectly understandable, morally I would stand back from such further legal action against an already defeated and close to bankrupted litigant...........it would be enough to point out the case to others without rubbing the litigants nose in it. Usually putting them on notice about their misrepresentations whilst the appeal runs its course should be enough, Then again some people never learn and on occasion need that extra legal remedy to correct the record.........

You don't want to appear too heavy handed but do enough to deter others from following the same path. Sometimes a very difficult balancing act.

regards
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by JohnHarris
There are no free lunches in life.
Its rather a sad case, but someone was trying to take commercial advantage and make financial gain out of someone else's design and IP and not pay for the privilege. Then apparently without adequate resources and silly enough to challenge a corporation with by comparison deep pockets and most likely inhouse legal team that would specialise in that area.
regards


Not disagreeing with your comments but it feels a little inconsistent.

Follow the path of Bowler?

Making cars that look rather like something else.
Every article talks about LR and Defender.
Shapes and body panels (somewhat abused) from the donor car.
Promotion of it in the press and comments from JLR in a couple.

Company on the edge of going broke, JLR buy it and make it SVR tier 2. Not a punitive lawyer in sight?
Don't get me wrong as an enthusiast I am very pleased they made that move. If it means they are going to do some Rally-Raid/Dakar stuff then brilliant it finally looks to the future brand and not the past. Building new brand equity not robbing old sterotypes.

It does make you wonder.

I would have thought that the money being spent on cases like that would have been better spent working out why they were still making X types, sorry X type Mk2 the XE and who signed it off. Cleaning up the massive bifurcation of the line up and working out how to get to BEV faster.

Sorry if that is the elephant in the JLR room and not meant personally at your comment but someone in management needs a MASSIVE kick up the a__e before they waste time on things like that.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 11:05 AM

It has gone even further than we thought. JLR have now had a court ruling in Sweden which has forced an old couple to scrap their "C" type and pay all JLR's costs amounting to £450K. What a despicable company they have become whilst continuing to build non road legal copies to sell to "collectors" for around £1 millon.
The UK has always had a very healthy replica/kit car industry and Jaguars have always been some of the most popular. Just what they hope to gain apart from a couple of dozen sales, I can't imagine.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by JohnHarris
Whilst a sense of vindication of your Corporate position is perfectly understandable, morally I would stand back from such further legal action against an already defeated and close to bankrupted litigant...........it would be enough to point out the case to others without rubbing the litigants nose in it. Usually putting them on notice about their misrepresentations whilst the appeal runs its course should be enough, Then again some people never learn and on occasion need that extra legal remedy to correct the record.........

You don't want to appear too heavy handed but do enough to deter others from following the same path. Sometimes a very difficult balancing act.

regards


Just to make it clear, I have no association with Tata/JLR (apart from once owning an X300, and once spending an evening sight-seeing at the top of the Tata Tower in Calcutta smile )

This whole thing has just got my back up and smacks of the Daily Mail 'my kid got sent home from school for wearing the wrong uniform after 500 warnings for wearing the wrong uniform'......
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by lowebird
It has gone even further than we thought. JLR have now had a court ruling in Sweden which has forced an old couple to scrap their "C" type and pay all JLR's costs amounting to £450K. What a despicable company they have become whilst continuing to build non road legal copies to sell to "collectors" for around £1 millon.
The UK has always had a very healthy replica/kit car industry and Jaguars have always been some of the most popular. Just what they hope to gain apart from a couple of dozen sales, I can't imagine.


Read the posts above for the fuller picture.
Posted By: JohnHarris

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 12:25 PM

Alistair,

The car manufacturing world is a very strange one, when just simple things like the Porsche 901 became the 911 because Peugeot objected to Porsche using any three digit number where the middle number was 0, asserting ownership of the naming rights in key markets, and having already sold many models with that scheme. We can try and rationalise what real benefit Peugeot gained till the cows come home but at some point they would reach the end of the range X09 (eg 209, 309) ...

And if you think this is heavy handed on the part of JLR do a search on the actions taken by Rolex to protect its brand and trademarks, taking action against and even closing down second hand watch dealers for unauthorised use of their name. We may not like it , but that's the way the world operates today.

regards
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by TBM
Just to make it clear, I have no association with Tata/JLR (apart from once owning an X300, and once spending an evening sight-seeing at the top of the Tata Tower in Calcutta smile )
This whole thing has just got my back up and smacks of the Daily Mail 'my kid got sent home from school for wearing the wrong uniform after 500 warnings for wearing the wrong uniform'......


Yes it is a storm in a t-cup for us I guess, but rotten for those involved.

I think the really well made replicas, when they are clearly described as replicas, represent a labour of love and should be applauded for their work and skills. It is not as if the volume of them is going to change the world. Where they are passed of as originals is a legal matter as the Lotus comment above highlights. At this rate there could end up being 200 Plus Six's. oops
Posted By: Ian Wegg

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by JohnHarris
The car manufacturing world is a very strange one, when just simple things like the Porsche 901 became the 911 because Peugeot objected to Porsche using any three digit number where the middle number was 0, asserting ownership of the naming rights in key markets, and having already sold many models with that scheme. We can try and rationalise what real benefit Peugeot gained till the cows come home but at some point they would reach the end of the range X09 (eg 209, 309) ...

Actually, Peugeot has already had a 309 in the late 80s - the rebadged Talbot built at Ryton. Peugeot stopped the numerical progression in 2013 so all models are now X08s.

Did Peugeot ever object to Ferrari's use of 308?
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ian Wegg
Originally Posted by JohnHarris
The car manufacturing world is a very strange one, when just simple things like the Porsche 901 became the 911 because Peugeot objected to Porsche using any three digit number where the middle number was 0, asserting ownership of the naming rights in key markets, and having already sold many models with that scheme. We can try and rationalise what real benefit Peugeot gained till the cows come home but at some point they would reach the end of the range X09 (eg 209, 309) ...

Actually, Peugeot has already had a 309 in the late 80s - the rebadged Talbot built at Ryton. Peugeot stopped the numerical progression in 2013 so all models are now X08s.

Did Peugeot ever object to Ferrari's use of 308?


Originally Posted by Goodwood
The story goes that Porsche presented its new 901 at the IAA Frankfurt motor show in September 1963 as the successor to its inaugural 356 model range. Series production of the 901 began in September 1964, but when Porsche presented the model at the Paris Motor Show in October of that year, French car manufacturer Peugeot objected to the new Porsche’s 901 model designation. The reason? Way back in 1929, Peugeot had globally patented a three-digit model designation code with a ‘zero’ in the middle (e.g. 104, 206, 308, etc.). Porsche was therefore compelled to expensively rename its 901 as the 911, with just 82 examples of the 901 produced before the enforced name change. As an interesting aside however, Peugeot didn’t object to the Bristol (e.g. 401, 402, 406, etc.) and Ferrari (208, 308) marques using its patented three-digit model designation system, with Bristol even sourcing the model badges for its 403 directly from Peugeot!
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 02:13 PM

From the same article:

Originally Posted by Goodwood
Blatant facsimiles and design copyright infringements are another common cause of car company ‘punch-ups’ too. German manufacturers Smart and BMW have been successful at preventing shameless Chinese-made copies of some their models from being exhibited and sold in certain European markets, with the latter also preventing the small-scale British bespoke production of an appealing 1960s Stewart & Arden lowered Mini Sprint replica, due to BMW registering the shape of the classic 1959-2000 Mini.

Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar and Ferrari have also managed to put a stop to various replicas from their comprehensive back catalogues of iconic models being made, with some fake body panels and moulds even being crushed by law! Recently though, Italian coachbuilder ARES Design has played Ferrari at its own game, winning a legal battle in the Brussels EU courts on a copyright ruling, enabling ARES to make Ferrari 250 GTO-inspired models.

Specialist British sports car maker Caterham has arguably been the most effective at stopping direct copies (of its archetypal Seven model) being reproduced, however. The Seven’s originator, Lotus founder Colin Chapman, agreed to pass the production rights to his inspired, simple two-seater roadster over to Caterham (previously the world’s top-selling Seven dealer specialist) in 1972.

Of the many hundreds of Lotus Seven-inspired cars made around the world since then, Caterham managed to quash would-be English rival Chris Smith produce his early Westfield facsimiles in the mid-1980s, forcing a design change to these more affordable Sevens, with all of the tooling for the early models (which subsequently became known as the pre-lit [litigation] Westfields) being destroyed by court order.

Caterham’s Dutch agent/importer – Donkervoort – was similarly forced to stop building its own precise replicas of the Chapman Seven too, with increasingly extreme reinterpretations of the Lotus original being developed and sold as the S8 and S10 models over the last 45-years or so, thus avoiding the need for expensive lawyers and playground-style scraps.
Posted By: Clipper

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 09:16 PM

Jaguar need to focus on making desirable modern cars that compete with todays quality German alternatives and get their market share up rather than wasting time and resources on a few cottage industry restomods.

Otherwise future cottage industry Suffolk's will be making versions of 2019 XJ's and Jaguar will be a Daimler.
Posted By: M3W55

Re: Suffolk Cars - 12/02/21 09:22 PM

To note

https://www.facebook.com/JaguarEnthusiastsClub/photos/a.162069403829130/3704485276254174/
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/02/21 01:03 PM

And so it rumbles on. As you would expect, the Jaguar Forums are full of opinions on the subject and, as a multi Jaguar replica owner, I now really can't decide who is right or wrong. On the one hand you have an old couple building a replica allegedly for themselves which seems not to be true as they wanted to sell some more for profiit then on the other hand you have JLR coming in with a big stick to stop them whilst allowing "continuation " C Type to be built by others who maybe are better placed in JLR's sphere of influence. The published open letter from JLR seems to contradict all the initial reports from the Swedish couple but I'm not qualified to comment, it's just my opinion.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/02/21 01:22 PM

The couple stated that it was a one off replica, however there is irrefutable evidence that they had a company making replicas, and were advertising and marketing them for sale.

The impression I'm getting is if you're upfront, and work with JLR (and I imagine chuck them some wedge) then you can build a replica like the Eagle. Lie to them, of refuse to do it their way, and they'll see you in court.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/02/21 01:37 PM

Just done a google, and there's a few UK based C type replica manufacturers. Can't think they're off JLRs radar as it only took seconds to find at least three.

CJR Replicas
Nostalgia Cars
Proteus Cars
Posted By: Heinz

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/02/21 01:42 PM

The game must be played fairly, and that goes for both sides. My two cents as a suggestion for kindness: Let's assume that well-made replicas also mean image advertising for JLR, in a broader sense. Because the heritage of the brand is made visible and the heritage is so enormously important for the overall image of a brand. Then JLR could change its attitude and continue to accept such companies as Suffolk, for example. On the other hand, it has to be played fair. It is dishonest (without meaning anyone specifically) when classic car enthusiasm is feigned, and there is a business behind it.
My suggestion, the Vintage Jaguar aftermarket scene is accepted by JLR after individual examination. If there is a business background, the producer pays a license that is reasonable but does not kill him. So it would be a possible win win situation. At the same time, it must remain clearly recognizable externally that it is not an original.

I come up with the idea because that's how it works, for example, with the licenses of the BBC replica speakers. E.g. Doug Stirling has to pay a license fee to BBC for each pair of LS3/5a and other models. In return the speaker is officially approved and this is proudly shown on the label on the back.

JLR would have the advantage of a more positive emotional mood and more goodwill in the scene, especially since many of these collectors (and rebuilders) also need a new car, which could be a Jaguar.
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/02/21 02:58 PM

Fair comment TBM. As always you never get the full story on the first pass. That's part of the fun of life.

Well they bought Bowler with some motive so why not purchase Proteus and turn them into a living co-operation branch. As you mention if it is organised then there is no where to hide and no reason to. Unless you have something to hide.
Posted By: CooperMan

Re: Suffolk Cars - 14/02/21 04:59 PM

One of the Morgan dealers used to also sell Proteus C Types, I had a blast round Silverstone in one a few years ago
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 15/02/21 11:39 AM

The other thing to remember is that so called "Replicas" aren't really that at all. They all have slightly different features and fixings, some required by the need for the IVA, others because we all want a little bit of safety and comfort. If you look carefully at the Proteus for example, great car though it is, it only bears a passing resemblance to one of the genuine C Types of which only 53 were built, so the question still remains, why are JLR coming in so hard when all that is really hapening is that all the small companies are just making a living and keeping the flame alive which is more than can be said for Jaguars current range ( F Type excepted )
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by TBM
The couple stated that it was a one off replica, however there is irrefutable evidence that they had a company making replicas, and were advertising and marketing them for sale.

The impression I'm getting is if you're upfront, and work with JLR (and I imagine chuck them some wedge) then you can build a replica like the Eagle. Lie to them, of refuse to do it their way, and they'll see you in court.


I'm not aware of anyone "chucking JLR some wedge" in order to make replicas. The reason they don't go after Replica makers in the UK is because they'd lose. An Eagle isn't a replica BTW, it's an upgraded original.

The head of Jaguar Classic has released an open letter which has since been shown to contain many false statements. This is backed up by court documents that the couple have made public.

The couple were originally planning to make two further replicas for sale but dropped the plans after being contacted by JLR. JLR have stated that they didn't initially ask the couple to destroy their own car. The court documents have shown that to be another false statement.

Personally I hope the couple win the appeal and show Jaguar Classic up for what they are.
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 10:28 AM

MPH, I find it difficult to believe that JLR would present a widely published open letter which contains "False Statements" It has just appeared in this months copy of the JEC magazine and is widely available in various on line car sites.
I have read both sides of the case and am still not reassured that I know what is going on but I just can't see JLR telling "porkies", they are just too big for that, or do you know something that others have missed. I will be very interested in your comments please.
Posted By: TBM

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by mph
I'm not aware of anyone "chucking JLR some wedge" in order to make replicas. The reason they don't go after Replica makers in the UK is because they'd lose. An Eagle isn't a replica BTW, it's an upgraded original.



What about Suffolk?

Caterham has a successful case against Westfield so the legal precedent is there.

Originally Posted by mph
The head of Jaguar Classic has released an open letter which has since been shown to contain many false statements. This is backed up by court documents that the couple have made public.

The couple were originally planning to make two further replicas for sale but dropped the plans after being contacted by JLR. JLR have stated that they didn't initially ask the couple to destroy their own car. The court documents have shown that to be another false statement.

Personally I hope the couple win the appeal and show Jaguar Classic up for what they are.


If that's the case, then the couple will have an absolute field day in court. However, I imagine JLR have employed a rather good team of lawyers, and every press release will have been massively scrutinised to avoid any legal issues, so if I were a betting man, I'd not be putting any money on the couples chances of coming out of this with their shirts on their backs.....
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 10:49 AM

The couple have posted a rebuffal on the Internet - addressed directly to Mr Dan Pink and making specific references to his statements with cross references to court documents.

All that aside what sense does it make for JLR to go after a minute operation that hasn't made a single commercial replica while at the same time ignoring long-established replica makers in the UK ?

Here is the letter.

Open letter to Mr. Dan Pink, Director Jaguar Land Rover Classic.
In response to your letter to the Jaguar community 11 February 2021.

Dear Mr Pink,

It is sad to have to conclude that your letter is full of false statements.

In this case you have in fact gone after two private citizens and life-long Jaguar enthusiasts, Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson. And at no point were they offered the “opportunity to retain their completed replica for private use and enjoyment” as you put it in your statement. To the contrary, JLR have throughout the process insisted on the destruction of Magnusson’s privately built C-Type replica, despite many attempts from the Magnussons to reach a reasonable settlement. We are attaching extracts from JLR’s initial lawsuit in 2018 and from JLR’s September 2020 settlement proposal clearly showing JLR demanding destruction. These facts stand in direct conflict with your public statement to the community.
With respect to the company Creare’s ambitions to build two replicas, you describe this as “using our Intellectual Property illegally for their own profit”, and that you will “take action to stop businesses” from doing this. This begs the question how it was possible for Karl Magnusson to be in correspondence with senior managers at JLR for many months discussing potential business collaborations, even being invited to JLR Classic HQ, receiving nothing but appreciation and encouragement. Attaching court document annexes 7, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 showing this. Here again, the facts of this case stand in direct conflict with your public statement to the community.

If JLR truly stands by the statements made in your open letter, how is it possible that we find ourselves in this situation? The company plans were dropped when JLR suddenly decided to object to them. All we are left with is a pensioner couple and their one and only C-Type replica. Who JLR decided to take to court.

Together with the Jaguar enthusiast community, we can only establish that your attitude towards replicas have shifted, conveniently lining up with the launch of your own continuation program. Actions speak louder than words, and based on your actions in this case we doubt that other owners
of Jaguar replicas feel reassured that Jaguar Land Rover will not come after them, demanding destruction.

Best Regards,
The Magnussons

---
Link to extracts showing JLR demanding destruction of Magnussons replica

Link to court annex 7 and annexes 25, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 showing correspondence between Karl Magnusson and JLR senior managers discussing potential business collaborations.



And here's an interesting opinion from the founder of Proteus, Jim Marland.

I started making and selling C type replicas 40 years ago with the full knowledge of Jaguar. The picture used on some announcements of this action shows Lofty England with one of my cars. He and William Heynes were joint managing directors of Jaguar when William Lyons retired. I also have pictures of William Heynes admiring one of my cars. I attended Jaguar Drivers club events and classic car shows with them. Norman Dewis was a regular presence at these events, acting as brand ambassador after retiring as chief test driver. I advertised in the the Jaguar Drivers Club, and Jaguar Enthusiast Club magazines throughout this time.
Many other well known manufacturers have been doing the same for many years. My point is that it is inconceivable that Jaguar have been completely unaware of the existence of the replica market for so long. I am no lawyer but I would have that continued lack of action in full knowledge of the alleged breach, amounts to tacit approval, so their action should have been kicked out.
If the there is to be an appeal lets hope they get some better lawyers. Is it pure coincidence that this has come about just as Jaguar are launching there own replicas? I think not, and at a million pounds a pop for a car that would be illegal to use on the road they are hardly going to be competing with road legal replicas costing a tenth the price.
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by TBM


What about Suffolk?

Caterham has a successful case against Westfield so the legal precedent is there.



Suffolk were never taken to court.

Caterham was a current production car and their sole product was copied by Westfield. Not really a precedent.

JLR certainly do have massive legal resources but they were rinsed by Ineos which IMHO was a much more valid case. They may well be able to intimidate smaller companies into submission.

Intellectual Property Rights on the C Type have long since expired so even that statement is incorrect in the JLR open letter.

I should add that I'm a lifelong Jaguar fan - it's just that in this particular case I feel that JLR have badly misjudged things and to what end ?
Posted By: Jens

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 12:02 PM

What all of this for? In four years, Jaguar will be a purely electric car manufacturer.
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by mph
They may well be able to intimidate smaller companies into submission.


Not meant in a rude manner to you mph but that is the point. What is the value to their business in enforcing such a minor bump. Even if, as outlined, they make their own multi-million pound ironic continuation models who is honestly going to think that the customer for one would consider the other in both directions?

If JLR have made such crude mistakes in the open letter it would be shocking and a few people need to be marched to HR/Legal for a discussion on end of employment transition. All quite sad for their reputation if true. Also a shocking waste of money that needs to be put into product development right now.

However given they have given us another £100k+ model to support full range overlap this week (Defender V8) I doubt they are listening. I am just waiting for the first £80k Evoque to be released to baffle me further.
Posted By: MJF

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 02:22 PM

The last Defender V8's they produced were about £150k each, so does that make this new one a bargain at £100k ??
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/03/21 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Alistair
Originally Posted by mph
They may well be able to intimidate smaller companies into submission.


Not meant in a rude manner to you mph but that is the point.



Oh I'm aware of the point. I just don't see that it was worth making.

They have pursued a very small "business" in one of the only jurisdictions where they had a chance of success.

If they succeed in destroying the "mass" replica market, which I doubt, they don't have a product to replace it. So once again, what's the point ?

Jaguar Classic has been badly run from the offset and they've shown a lack of understanding of the Classic market.
Posted By: Ian Wegg

C-Type replicas (Re: Suffolk Cars) - 04/03/21 05:11 PM

The April edition of Complete Kit Car magazine has a couple of interesting articles. Whilst all this has been going on in Sweden, there is a completely different story in the U.S:

US REPLICA MARKET OPENS UP
The USA's National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued the new [Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers] Act. Under the new legislation, a replica can now be assembled with many of the old regulatory barriers lifted. The only caveats are that the design is of at least 25 years of age, total production is limited to a maximum of 325 cars a year and that all vehicles meet current emissions standards.


In a separate article on the JLR case, the magazine's opinion is that the suggestion other manufacturers might follow suit is over-stated:

"We've seen similar cases before which have had little on-going effects for the replica scene. If nothing else, the widespread public relations backlash is likely to temper other manufacturers' willingness to pursue such cases".

I have to say my sympathies have swung from one side to the other a couple of times already. Ultimately they will rest with whichever side is shown to have been telling the truth.
Posted By: OZ 4/4

C-Type replicas (Re: Suffolk Cars) - 05/03/21 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Wegg
The April edition of Complete Kit Car magazine has a couple of interesting articles. Whilst all this has been going on in Sweden, there is a completely different story in the U.S:

US REPLICA MARKET OPENS UP
The USA's National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued the new [Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers] Act. Under the new legislation, a replica can now be assembled with many of the old regulatory barriers lifted. The only caveats are that the design is of at least 25 years of age, total production is limited to a maximum of 325 cars a year and that all vehicles meet current emissions standards.


In a separate article on the JLR case, the magazine's opinion is that the suggestion other manufacturers might follow suit is over-stated:

"We've seen similar cases before which have had little on-going effects for the replica scene. If nothing else, the widespread public relations backlash is likely to temper other manufacturers' willingness to pursue such cases".

I have to say my sympathies have swung from one side to the other a couple of times already. Ultimately they will rest with whichever side is shown to have been telling the truth.

Interesting post, thank you
Posted By: Peter J

C-Type replicas (Re: Suffolk Cars) - 05/03/21 06:29 PM

I wonder if MMC is taking advantage of this act: they could easily sell 325 Roadsters a year in the USA. Or are they going to use it for the PlusSix??
Posted By: +8Rich

C-Type replicas (Re: Suffolk Cars) - 05/03/21 06:38 PM

That's the ruling they have been taking advantage of for the Plus 4's and Roadsters so far and I believe the Plus Six is the next one once it has undergone (another set of ) emissions tests over there.
Of course they already have that power unit certified over there in other cars but that's the way it stands at the moment.

I think it was Dennis that put this out on his FB site if I recall correctly around a week ago.
Posted By: mph

Re: Suffolk Cars - 07/03/21 10:27 AM

Here are some statements that JLR made to the court with. The follow-up comments are from a well know Jaguar Specialist.


“Jaguar disputes the claim that various companies over the years have manufactured a number of Jaguar replicas without any discussion with Jaguar, or action taken by Jaguar.”
Utter nonsense

“Jaguar also disputes that the company has allowed replicas to compete in races arranged by Jaguar.”
The Jaguar-sponsored Jaguar Classic Challenge (originally set up between JD Classics and Jaguar) welcomed "continuations and replicas". Indeed, the founding director of what is now Jaguar Classic drove a replica C-Type in the series. The car was not built by Jaguar but by a third party.

“Jaguar is currently reviewing the rules in the Jaguar Classic Challenge to rewrite and relaunch the competition so that replicas are not allowed.” rofl

“...we, as in Jaguar Cars, at that time sold vehicles (C-Type Jaguars) to individuals for use on the road, not as race competition vehicles”.
Jaguar Cars built 53 C-types, including the works cars. Only four examples were not raced, or entered in races, by their original owners.

Probably the best known and pre-eminent Jaguar author, Philp Porter, has now expressed his views. Jaguars so called "expert witness" appears to be under some scrutiny.


https://porterpress.co.uk/blogs/news/jaguar-c-type-replicas
Posted By: Perry_P_M3W

Re: Suffolk Cars - 03/09/21 08:55 PM

This just popped up in my news feed. I guess we knew this was coming,

Jaguar C-Type Resurrected as a Limited-Edition Continuation Model
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/09/21 09:33 AM

Lovely car from Jaguar but, although it was a replica, my Suffolk C Type was also aluminum, had torsion bar front suspension, a solid rear axle, rose joints, a 3.4 ltr engine and, critically was BRG all for £145K. It's was also able to be driven on the Queens Highway.
Posted By: Alistair

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/09/21 10:51 AM

PR click bait, ego stroking cobblers, fool and their money.......cynical me?

Sorry if you have just put your deposit down. quiet
Posted By: Perry_P_M3W

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/09/21 11:12 AM


Originally Posted by lowebird
Lovely car from Jaguar but, although it was a replica, my Suffolk C Type was also aluminum, had torsion bar front suspension, a solid rear axle, rose joints, a 3.4 ltr engine and, critically was BRG all for £145K. It's was also able to be driven on the Queens Highway.


I was seriously considering one of their cars but wasn't quite there yet. Sadly as we know they are no longer unfortunately. Your's sounds like a definite keeper!!!
Posted By: lowebird

Re: Suffolk Cars - 04/09/21 11:59 AM

Perry, too late mate, I sold it to fund the new build of probably the final works built SS100 which is a little more practicle and usable for the things we like to do however, it's comming up to car change time again so I am on the prowl for something else.
© 2021 Talk Morgan - Morgan Sports Car Discussion Forum, Community and News