Leaderboard

Retro-fitting Bluetooth phone on the later model S-Types is a bit of a nightmare. Conventional wisdom has it that the BTUM socket, under the arm-rest storage bin will have eight wires if Bluetooth enabled or five wires otherwise has shown itself to be less than accurate recently. I've found several cars that have eight wires but they go to the wrong terminals in the BUTM connector and when traced back seem to bear no correlation at all to the available wiring diagrams. It can be done, but involves either running extra wiring from the boot to the BTUM socket or completely re-wiring a BTUM socket into the phone wiring in the boot. However, there is a much easier way and it relies on the combined Bluetooth / phone module fitted to very few of the last ever S-Types and also later X-Type models. The photograph illustrates the module you need and also shows the microphone (internal one shown here but external and arguably better one is available) and the Bluetooth aerial, complete with Fakra Z type connector which fits the module's aerial connector perfectly and can be had from fleabay for roughly a fiver. Ball park prices on fleabay, for example, would suggest that the components required to do the retro-fit the old way would cost £200. The newer combined module plus the aerial can be had for under £100 so, half the cost and a much easier fit. In addition, the later module allows the touchscreen to display signal strength and phone service supplier as well as allowing up to six different phones to be paired, unlike the earlier setup which allows only one pairing at a time. installation of the module is on the back of the Kaiser panel in the boot, which is directly behind the DVD, CDC, AMP stack. The module is a little smaller than the original so can either be bolted in to place with one bolt, or you could drill the Kaiser panel to secure it with four bolts. In my view, a sufficiently tightened single bolt will do the job. Then all that is required is to plug in the connector which will already be in the loom, make a D2B (fibre optic loop) connection, and plug in the aerial. The aerial is not for the phone's connection to the outside world, it merely serves for the Bluetooth wireless link and as such, it will work perfectly well if located under the parcel shelf or just behind the rear seats. There is no requirement to get it into the arm-rest storage cavity. It can be completely concealed. Initial pairing is the same procedure as for the earlier setup, except that it seems to pair a lot more quickly, gives you a real-time signal strength, directly from the phone, and also tells you the phone service provider. Well, that's the basics. It took Steve Foxton and I something in the region of thirty minutes to install his Bluetooth setup, start to finish, today. Albeit that the microphone was already installed for Jaguar Voice, but even allowing time for the microphone to be fitted it should be doable in less than an hour I'd say. This has to be one of the simplest retro-fits yet, and it works brilliantly.

Someone needs to sneak him some Novichok.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022 As I am sure all of you are aware there have been new Regulations and Rules brought into being concerning Cyclist, Pedestrians, Parking, Overtaking etc., etc., A lot of these rules E.G. Parking near junctions, across entrances, facing against the flow of traffic at night etc., etc., are not actually new and have been in existence in various laws and regulations for many years. It seems that the issuing of an update Highway code has been chosen as a media to reinforce many existing matters, as well as creating NEW. However the new rules regarding cyclists have I believe caused an ambiguous issue to arise in the form of overtaking cyclists on “Double White Lines.” It is now stated that cyclists can be overtaken on double white lines. “You may cross a double-white line if necessary (provided the road is clear) to overtake someone cycling or riding a horse if they are travelling at 10 mph or less (Rule 129). “ What is not written in the gov.uk item (as link at beginning of article, and understandably not quoted) is the fact that there are other acts of law that one must consider in this statement. At one stage The Road Traffic Act deemed crossing a white line to be “an absolute offence”, the witnessing of one wheel over the double white lines was a prosecutable offence. To touch the double white line could be taken to court but depending on the incident and details of the supposed offence was not necessarily a conviction. However there are now the offences of “Driving without due care and attention” and “Dangerous driving” (not least the offences of death by), to consider. These offences can and I am sure will be used if crossing a double white line to pass a cyclist happens and as a result of so doing an incident occurs. The chances are, if overtaking on double white lines, and an incident happens, the overtaking driver is very likely to be, or have been, on the wrong side of the road. That in itself could then quite readily be evidence of at least driving without due care and attention. All offences convicted regards Driving with out due care and attention and Dangerous driving are usually an expensive and often life changing day at court. It is not only the very heavy fines to consider but also the affects of potentially being disqualified from driving. Taken to extremes the expression “provided the road is clear” could very readily be argued in a court room, that the sheer presence of a vehicle being involved in an incident and on the wrong side of the road, is evidence that the road was not clear. An overtaking action may have been commenced when the road appeared clear, but if an oncoming vehicle then appeared, and there was not room to regain the correct side of the road and an incident occurred, then a court could readily argue that the provision of “provided the road is clear” had not been regarded. (E.G. that there was not room/distance to overtake and regain the correct side of the road.) Another point of consideration in this day and age has to be the number of cars and cyclists that are now operating cameras is immense and the video footage from these cameras will always be considered as acceptable evidence. This item is not intended to cover all of the new Highway Code Rules and Regulations but is submitted to bring attention to " The Double White Lines" issue and how easy it could be to fall foul of the new rules and regulations. I fully accept that The Highway Code has never been a Law in itself but it has always been accepted in Courts of Law as guidance on road use and road users and is often quoted in prosecution cases. Please read this in the manner it was intended, “As food for thought and consideration.” Go Steady and Take Care. Best Wishes and Regards, John.

Hi, I've just literally come indoors after emptying about 8/9 pints of water from my boot.. Xf 13 Reg, had a warning message come up yesterday with the message "battery not charging".. Looked on Google and the most obvious answer I was getting was the alternator... Took it to the local garage who checked the alternator and it was fine, went to the boot to check the batteries and that's when all the water was noticed. So I've come home, completely cleaned all the water out, going to see if the message still comes up over the next couple of days, if it does I'll take it back to the garage who'll probably look at the electrics that obviously got wet in the boot.. I'll be keen to follow your post with interest.. Good luck

Hi - just wondering if any XF estate owners have had the same problem as me - water 5cm deep in the boot under the spare tyre. Unfortunately there are lots of electrics in there too and it has shorted a number of things, starting with battery messages then eco start stop not working. So all owners our there - it’s worth checking!! Going to cost me a fortune. Apparently it’s a seal on a vent failing!!!

Agreed. At the same garage yesterday it cost me £1.93 a litre for v-power 😲