Talk:Jensen-Healey

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Jensen Healey picture

Hi,

The main picture on the Jensen Healey page shows a car with non standard wheels - could it be changed for a more representative picture?

Thanks Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.73.192 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're right. I took a look at Commons and the two following seem the best candidates. Both could use some editing though, tomorrow I'll see what I can do. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A
B

They both look like better examples - thanks for that Dave.

Collectibility

There is a list of cars that an editor thought should be used as comparisons as collector cars. First of all, the information is unsourced. Second, the editor is making a random comparison of vehicles without information on model and year. And, per the Sports Car Market price guide, the Jensen-Healey is nowhere near the others in collectibility. The Jensen-Healey has a D-F collectibility rating with a price range (in US dollars) of $6,500-$10,300. By comparison, the Aston Martin DB6 listed has B-C rating in the price range of $412,500-$899,600. They are not comparable under collectibility by any stretch of the imagination. I removed the section once, and it was restored, so I am bringing it to the talk page for other editors to weigh in. Bahooka (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bahooka,

I am not the editor that wrote this section but I am the one that reinstated it. I understand where you are coming from but I feel that amending it would be more worthwhile as it does contain some interesting facts. When I reinstated it I also added all but one of the "citations needed" that you had added to the article.

With regard to the comparisons made to other vehicles of the same era and performance I found that interesting and agree that the particular models of the cars listed would give more detail. I considered listing sources for each vehicle but thought that would look messy and add too many sources to the page. If you disagree I'd be happy to put them in. Of the vehicles listed I assume that the E-type and the TR6 were included as at the beginning of the article it says the the JH was position in the market between them. The others I guess were chosen because they are European, built at the same time and have similar performances. To me it doesn't suggest that the cars listed are of the same value or desirability. Perhaps a line or two stating that would make it clearer for those that know little about classic cars. - Cheers John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.111.46 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bahooka,

Two weeks on and it seems no-one else has an opinion strong enough to weigh in. How about a compromise - one of us re-instates it but with specific models listed in the tables and a note at the bottom of the section stating that the acceleration and production numbers are not a reflection of value or desirability.

Best Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.64.26 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the compromise, but I really feel that information doesn't belong there. And, it fails the verifiability policy. The next step should be getting a third opinion per WP:3O. I may request that opinion in the next couple of days. Bahooka (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I really feel that it does belong there, so I guess that a third opinion per WP:3O is the way to go. Best Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.64.26 (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.64.26 (talk)

I've added this dispute here under WP:3O. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request :

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Jensen-Healey and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I believe the dispute in question is mainly on this diff. I'd suggest not including comparison with other vehicles if it's not been compared by a reliable source like a major car magazine. Even in those cases, only include if it adds something notable. For example, if an old antique vehicle is being compared to a modern classic and some interesting facts come up, it can be included but not to show that a vehicle is better than the other. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Bahooka (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real reason for the failure of the J-H?

According to a number of car classic magazines (like AutoBILD classic for example), the main reason for the demise of the J-H and Jensen as whole was the Lotus engine which tended to fail quite often causing Jensen to come up for fixing/replacrment of the units. Already being plagued by insufficient funds, Jensen eventually went into folding the business - while Lotus was able to sort out the problems with the 907, greatly improving the reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:560:424D:BE00:1C80:446F:7F33:A1FC (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]