F-type V6 S BHP
Discussion
a8hex said:
I thought Jaguar had switched from the SAE to DIN back in the 70s which is why the quoted figures for the 4.2 XK engine dropped when they'd just fitted bigger valves and other improvements.
This is from the 2001 XKR brochure, sorry I can't find anything newer at the moment.
http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/xk8/xk2001s_p2...
It shows engine performance data as DIN.
I suspect that in Europe that is what manufacturers have to quote.
The link just comes up with a jaguar lovers advert, but never mind.You did at least find some evidence they were using DIN standards a while back which is more than I could find. No they wont have to use DIN - it is after all a German national standard. They could use the EN euro norm equivalent but dont have to do so. I was thinking SAE on the basis that the States had to be a huge market for them,, but maybe not.This is from the 2001 XKR brochure, sorry I can't find anything newer at the moment.
http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/xk8/xk2001s_p2...
It shows engine performance data as DIN.
I suspect that in Europe that is what manufacturers have to quote.
Whatever the origin of the discrepancy between real world and brochure power figures, it isnt a good situation and reflects badly on Jaguar.
Edited by bordseye on Saturday 25th July 17:32
I spoke to Jaguar customer relations today to try and get some kind of feedback. They won't talk to me about the case now because I no longer own the original F Type. When I swapped my V6 for a V8 it was mainly because the V6S lacked power, and I wasn't prepared to wait the best part of two months to get this situation resolved. When I did the swap it was on the understanding that Jaguar reimbursed me my extra costs when it was proven that the V6S lacked power. But today I was told, 'We never said that'.
So jaguar don't mind asking me for the rolling road data that I paid for, I'm very disappointed in Jag, I thought for a crazy moment that they might have some kind of morals. Me and Geoff have done all their work for them!
Meanwhile my old F Type is back up for sale, just be warned, it does NOT have 380BHP as it says in the advert, it has 335BHP. And they know it!!
https://www.hafoxjaguar.co.uk/vehicles/ftype/ftype...
So jaguar don't mind asking me for the rolling road data that I paid for, I'm very disappointed in Jag, I thought for a crazy moment that they might have some kind of morals. Me and Geoff have done all their work for them!
Meanwhile my old F Type is back up for sale, just be warned, it does NOT have 380BHP as it says in the advert, it has 335BHP. And they know it!!
https://www.hafoxjaguar.co.uk/vehicles/ftype/ftype...
Dolittle said:
I'm very disappointed in Jag, I thought for a crazy moment that they might have some kind of morals.
Mirrors my experience of Jag customer service - Once they have your money they dont give a s
t about you. One of several reasons I wont ever have another one which is a shame as I love my current Jag.[quote=bordseye]Doesnt Geoff still have his car? Wont they speak to him?
Most unsatisfactory. I was thinking of buying an F type but no way will I do so unless Jag live up to their obligations
Howxabout writing to the advertising standarsd people?[/quote
Yes Geoff still has his car, well jaguar have it, they are doing tests on it. Jag are still talking to Geoff, but not me, as I dont own a V6S anymore. Geoff is keeping me in the loop to whats happening. They dont seem to understand the fact that I wouldnt have bought a V6s had I known it had only 335BHP, id have gone straight for a V8. Even during my swap to a V8 I got stitched up. My V6s cost £52500, the car I wanted to swap it for was at another dealer, my dealer bought the car for £52300, then charged me an extra £2000 to do the swap! I agreed on the understanding that i would get some of my money back once it was proven that the V6s is underpowered. Now they are denying this.
I have been to trading standards and the advertising standards comission who have agreed at first glance that it looks very fishy.
I dont think Jag want to admit that the problem runs across their whole range and I got the impression they were saying it was only geofs car with the issue.
I do love my V8, but will never buy another Jag again. Shocking experience.
Most unsatisfactory. I was thinking of buying an F type but no way will I do so unless Jag live up to their obligations
Howxabout writing to the advertising standarsd people?[/quote
Yes Geoff still has his car, well jaguar have it, they are doing tests on it. Jag are still talking to Geoff, but not me, as I dont own a V6S anymore. Geoff is keeping me in the loop to whats happening. They dont seem to understand the fact that I wouldnt have bought a V6s had I known it had only 335BHP, id have gone straight for a V8. Even during my swap to a V8 I got stitched up. My V6s cost £52500, the car I wanted to swap it for was at another dealer, my dealer bought the car for £52300, then charged me an extra £2000 to do the swap! I agreed on the understanding that i would get some of my money back once it was proven that the V6s is underpowered. Now they are denying this.
I have been to trading standards and the advertising standards comission who have agreed at first glance that it looks very fishy.
I dont think Jag want to admit that the problem runs across their whole range and I got the impression they were saying it was only geofs car with the issue.
I do love my V8, but will never buy another Jag again. Shocking experience.
Interestingly, DTUK who make tuning boxes for a huge range of cars (I have one on my SEAT) are sending me a dyno plot from their tuning partners in Germany who only got 344bhp, or thereabouts from their V6S.
The plot thickens.
Again, if you have a V6S, get a power run done and let us know.
The plot thickens.
Again, if you have a V6S, get a power run done and let us know.
Dolittle said:
Has anyone with a V6 S ever had their car on a Rolling road? The reason I ask is that both myself and a friend with another V6 S recently did this and the results were quite surprising. My runs showed that my car had 335 BHP at the flywheel and my friends had 340 BHP. Considering the cars are supposed to have 375 BHP thats quite a difference. Its the level of power you might expect from a non S version of the car. Jaguar are on the case and have checked that the dyno run was done correctly. Which they have confirmed it was. It would be interesting to see if anyone had seen the full 375. My cars a late 2013 and my friends an early 2014 car. I find it hard to believe that All F types were sold grossly underpowered like this, perhaps one or two of the S versions got the non S map in error?
I can't comment on if the cars make the claimed power or not, many car makers LR, Ford and others have had legal action taken against them for such things.However a couple of points.
A chassis dyno or rolling road CANNOT give accurate flywheel figures ever!
This is simply because of the additional drivetrain losses involved can only be estimated at best, even with rolling roads that do a rolling run down and measure that part of the loss.
There are then 3 other major issues:
1. Unit type. An imperial HP and metric HP are not the same thing. And any rolling road maybe not be 100% calibrated.
2. Standard used. Dyno's can tell you the 'now' power at the wheels. This means on a hot day you'll see lower figures than on a cold day. Testing at higher altitude will also affect this, as can humidity. So there are standards that can be used. These are calculations which will balance out the variances. But there are many different types of standards SAE, DIN to name but two. And within these standards there is scope to change how the calculations work.
3. Types of dyno. All dyno's measure torque via braked device (hence the 'B' in brake horse power). You then calculate power from the torque. But not all dyno's do this in the same way, there are static weight drag braking systems, there are eddy current braking system, even electronic and hydrolic braking systems. This huge variance means that while a dyno may use 'x' unit and 'y' standard, how it actually derives these figures can be very different. Examples of this are all over the internet. A static brake "Dynojet" rolling road might measure 20-30rwhp more than an eddy current "Mustang" rolling road does. Even when both are using SAE correction figures. Both are correct, but neither is directly comparable to the other, nor to manufacturer claimed figures.
Minor issues that cause problems with comparisons:
-graph smoothing
-heat soak
-operator (i.e. many cars have torque limiting features to protect the transmission, this means your engine might make less power in 1st and 2nd gear than it does in other gears)
Dolittle said:
4th gear I believe, Jaguar did actually speak to the rolling road company to check it was all measured correctly. They were satisfied.
Without more info it's hard to know. But the green lines looks to be the the power at the wheels from measuring torque at the wheels.Edited by Dolittle on Saturday 20th June 10:21
And the red line above it appears to the the "Corrected" flywheel figure. I don't know how it calculates this, but if it is "guessing" drivetrain loss then correcting, there is a good chance of error.
That said, that wouldn't have any affect on the profile of the curves.
When tested by Jaguar on an engine dyno, there will be very strict rules regarding ambient temp and humidity. As correction factors will only get you so far, especially with boosted engines. Also remember for their own power runs they will have no ac running (did you turn yours off?) and little to no alternator load.
My betting for the curve profile is heat soak as the biggest culprit.
Dolittle said:
jamieduff1981 said:
At the risk of stating the obvious, it could be the rolling road that's out by a country mile. They're very inaccurate at the best of times, but some are much worse than others.
Of course that could be a possibility, but they do seem to get other manufacturers cars spot on. So why would the Jag be any different. I'm sure we shall here from Jaguar very soon.300bhp/ton said:
How do you know they get other cars spot on? Not all car makers are honest about power figures, and these lies can go both ways. For example, if you put a 1998 Camaro/Trans Am on a Dyno it'll walk away with the same rwhp figures or higher than a 1998 Corvette. GM rated the TA's at 305hp and the Vette at 345hp "officially".
OK, so how would you explain the F Type V8 putting out the correct figures?bordseye said:
Any news from Jaguar yet? I tried asking customer service for some clarification before I bought a car but they couldnt be bothered to reply.
That doesnt surprise me. I doubt they want to answer your question. They know its down on power, they must do. I guess at the moment they are trying to find some reasoning on why it isnt down on power. Or at least somthing that they can tell V6 and V6S owners to avoid getting massivly sued. Im still waiting to hear what Jag have got to say for themselves, via a friend as Jag wont discuss it with me as I no longer have a V6S. Which is irelevant. As I may have been miss sold a car.Well, I'm due to get a whole lot of data from the test at MIRA tomorrow so will see what it says.
They are impartial so I hope a good explanation is forthcoming and I get a car back that produces what it says on the tin. They do admit to a 'software problem' but what that is and how they are going to correct it, is unknown as yet.
They are impartial so I hope a good explanation is forthcoming and I get a car back that produces what it says on the tin. They do admit to a 'software problem' but what that is and how they are going to correct it, is unknown as yet.
If it is proven that the car is down on power, due to software or whatever, I wonder where previous owners and current owners stand legaly. Especially previous customers. My argument with Jaguar has constantly been that if I knew the car was only 335 BHP, I would never have bought it, Id probably have gone straight for the V8, where after considerable stress and money I am now. So far, all Jag customer relations have done is stick up two fingers, and lie to me. Even after I supplied them with data that they asked me for, that I paid to aquire. I should also point out that they asked me for this data after I had swapped cars for a V8. So it seems its ok for them to get info from me FOC but not me get info from them.
ewolg said:
Well, I'm due to get a whole lot of data from the test at MIRA tomorrow so will see what it says.
They are impartial so I hope a good explanation is forthcoming and I get a car back that produces what it says on the tin. They do admit to a 'software problem' but what that is and how they are going to correct it, is unknown as yet.
Is that the same data you were due last Tuesday Geoff? And then last Friday? Whats the betting it gets postponed again. Also, is the data from your car going to cause a mass recall, or will they say that its only your car thats effected. I'd put money on the latter, and them saying its down to individual customers to make their own enquiries. But I guess we shall have to wait and see.They are impartial so I hope a good explanation is forthcoming and I get a car back that produces what it says on the tin. They do admit to a 'software problem' but what that is and how they are going to correct it, is unknown as yet.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff