F-type V6 S BHP
Discussion
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?
a8hex said:
How did you measure the crank BHP on a rolling road?
Surely they measure the BHP at the rear wheels and then subtract some random numbers and percentages, there is no way to know what the actual losses are in the car. Different rolling roads can use different figures, maybe it depends on whether they are taking a before or after measurement
Maybe the rolling road you used assume bigger in car losses than are really happening.
I've had 2 dynos return figures 60BHP apart. I think the numbers you get are really only useful for comparing before and after numbers for some work, and then only if you trust the person doing the test not to skew the figures.
Im afraid I cant answer that, my friend who is also a member here might be able to, hes more technical. But the chart was enough to alarm Jaguar. My cars going into them for a diagnosis. Im hoping its somthing silly. I should add that my friends car has been dyno'ed twice by two seperate companies. It seems odd that the figures are what you would expect the non s to produce.Surely they measure the BHP at the rear wheels and then subtract some random numbers and percentages, there is no way to know what the actual losses are in the car. Different rolling roads can use different figures, maybe it depends on whether they are taking a before or after measurement
Maybe the rolling road you used assume bigger in car losses than are really happening.
I've had 2 dynos return figures 60BHP apart. I think the numbers you get are really only useful for comparing before and after numbers for some work, and then only if you trust the person doing the test not to skew the figures.
Im surprised that there is not more interest in this. Doesnt anyone care if their F-Type S has only got 335 BHP? Jaguar HQ seem very concerned, they are doing diagnostics on my car as I type. My car is not an isolated case either. No coincidence that Geoffs car is the same. He put his car on a dyno for the third time yesterday and still got less than 335 BHP. Would be really helpful if a few others tested their cars to add to the evidence.
CarbonXKR said:
This sort of thread went on and on for ages on the HSV and Monaro forum with many a heated discussion re RWHP to FWHP and how such huge power losses were calculated. Bear in mind that the machine is working out RWHP i.e. power being put down on the road. As with any engine, this can vary greatly depending on how much power is being used/lost to the supercharger, aircon, electrics etc. etc. If you're happy with the way that the car drives (I am as I had a full day test in one on Tuesday!), then why worry about what the bragging rights are as seemed to happen on the other forum. As has been said though, it is a great tool for comparing before and after figures. Jaguars hp figures are measured with the engine on a bench btw.
I'm not bothered by bragging rights, if that were the case I would have kept my 580BHP Murcielago. All I want is the 375BHP that I paid for when I bought a V6 S, not the 335BHP that you get with a non S. Jaguar HQ seem to be just as concerned from what I gather. There seem to be rumours of incorrect ECU's being put into some of the cars Prior to mid 2014. As from what I can gather it's the map that makes most of the difference between S and non S models where power is concerned.
a8hex said:
Yes it's off a cliff edge by 6200, so there's no way it could be making peak poke at 6500.
Thanks for posting the graph, I can understand your concern now. You can argue about the accuracy of guessing flywheel BHP figures, but measure revs accurately isn't rocket science and seeing the shapes of the torque graph it clearly isn't doing what the specs say.
Thanks for that, i dont understand anything on that graph, it may as well be in chinese, I have been relying on what the rolling road company have said. I have a feeling that a high percentage if not all V6S cars are like this. So far there are including mine 2, would be very helpful if more owners would check their cars to find out if any are actually putting out the correct figures. Thanks for posting the graph, I can understand your concern now. You can argue about the accuracy of guessing flywheel BHP figures, but measure revs accurately isn't rocket science and seeing the shapes of the torque graph it clearly isn't doing what the specs say.
TuxMan said:
well ours appears to be in very good health according to a very surprised guy in a f type V8 !!!! much as he tried he could not shake me off his tail in the end he pulled over for a chat and was pretty impressed with the V6S .
What sort of mileage have you done , ours has done 13000 and feels to be bedding in nicely .
Perhaps you were a better driver than him?? in the end he pulled over for a chat and was pretty impressed with the V6S . What sort of mileage have you done , ours has done 13000 and feels to be bedding in nicely .
My cars done about 12000 miles, and Ewolgs has done around 3000 I think.
Jaguar are taking Ewolgs car back to the factory for between 14 and 21 days to investigate. After his has been they wanted to see mine. I'm not prepared to wait near on a month for them to take my car for another month. I'm not actually driving my car so as to not put any mileage on to it. And its the summer, the time of year that we all wait for to drive our cars! I want to replace the car with a V8. Jag have agreed to this, I'm just waiting for a call today to find out what they can do for me. Jag head office have been very helpful and understanding. It should be mentioned that my car has not just got the BHP issues, its been back to them 5 times for repair in as many weeks.
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.
a8hex said:
OK, I'm not sure why I'd assumed that the torque curve was a measured one.
Calculating back from the rw bhp the torque curve is still not quite flat. Eyeballing from the graph isn't the way to do things, but it look like it's about 420ftlb @ 3000 rising to about 426 @4000 before dropping down to about 400 @ 5500. So the displayed torque curve is the wrong shape.
I really wish I understood what you are saying. I guess I need to read up on this subject!Calculating back from the rw bhp the torque curve is still not quite flat. Eyeballing from the graph isn't the way to do things, but it look like it's about 420ftlb @ 3000 rising to about 426 @4000 before dropping down to about 400 @ 5500. So the displayed torque curve is the wrong shape.
Turkish91 said:
Interested to see where this goes... I'm leaning towards the dyno being not quite right.
Another V6s has been on a totally different companies rolling road today with similar results, Im sure those details will be up here soon. So that will be three seperate rolling roads used to date, with the same results so I doubt its the dyno.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...
[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.
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.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