F-Type: Well, Now I've Seen Everything...

[DB9VolanteDriver]

Can you believe that the F-Type V6 uses the V8 block with blanking plates for the rearmost 2 cylinders, the same long crank, and shortened cylinder heads? It may save some money, is clever, but it sure isn't elegant. This alone would put me off the V6.

[DB9VolanteDriver]

Piersman2 said:

Actually... I don't believe it.

I'm off to google.

Hmmm... So V8 = 5l, V6 = 3L

V8= 0.625L / cylinder
V6= 0.5L / cylinder

Two 'blanked' cylinders would be 1.25 L down from 5L = 3.75L engine in V6 config.

I have got the right car haven't I, the Jaguar F-Type? In which case I'm calling bull.

Or do I need a whoosh parrot?

Edited by Piersman2 on Monday 2nd December 22:04

Didn't believe it either until I saw a photo of the V6 and the V8. V6 clearly uses the longer V8 block with shortened cylinder heads. And you see the blanking plates for the rearmost cylinders.

Clever, but a terrible bit of engineering for such an expensive car.

[DB9VolanteDriver]

Greenslade said:

Wasn't the XJ220 engine a V8 with 2 cylinders lopped off ? Nothing new going on then really. Maybe they will go one step further and bring out an economy V4.

Lopping 2 cylinders off a V8 is fine, but NOT lopping the cylinders off as in the Jag V6 isn't. See here...

Edited by DB9VolanteDriver on Tuesday 3rd December 14:39

[DB9VolanteDriver]

pb1695 said:

John, I can now categorically confirm you are correct.

The engine block for the V6 is produced on the same line and using a similar cast, however, it is cast as a 6 cylinder block and not an 8.

So this thread can now be closed, the potential purchasers that had decided against an F Type due to their fear of it being a cut down V8 can now go ahead and place their orders instead of a V8V, and George can go ahead and have a test drive safe in the knowledge that the car is now significantly better than he had anticipated and certainly better than a TT.

Thank you all, I am now going back to work and continue my search for a lovely used LR Defender TD5!

Regardless whether or not the back two cylinders are cast in place or not, the block is still V8-length, as is the crank. That is the problem, not whether there are blanking plates over empty bores or that the bores don't exist, as such. Take a look at the video posted above. A V6 engine built upon a V8 length block. Very bad...

You want to disprove this? Then please post photos of the V6 and V8 motors showing that the V6 is indeed shorter than the V8. Until then, I'll believe my eyes.