Friday 20th April 2018

Jag kills six-cylinder saloons

300hp four-cylinder turbos replace XE S and XF S as most potent models

---

The introduction of the more realistic WLTP emissions test has claimed another victim, this time in the form of Jaguar's 3.0-litre supercharged V6. Due to the stricter limitations imposed on manufacturers by the new checks, Jag has announced the cessation of XE S and XF S sales in the UK and Europe once residual stock has been sold, although the model will remain available in the USA. It would also seem for now that the XJ continues with this engine, the 340hp version still available on the configurator.

Environmental concerns aren't solely to blame, however. With the cars apparently accounting for fewer than two per cent of sales, the effort required to make the models compliant was understandably deemed commercially unviable.

When asked about the decision a Jaguar spokesperson explained, "380ps sales accounted for less than two per cent of XE, XF sales in the UK. Coupled with impending emissions regulation changes, it makes sense to remove these variants from sale. We have introduced the 300ps 2.0L Ingenium, our most powerful four-cylinder engine yet, at a better price point which we are directing customers to, still getting a Jaguar driving experience but more efficiently."

On that note, Jaguar has also announced the availability of an XE 300 Sport model, set to be introduced alongside the preexisting XF 300 Sport. The new XE will use the same, lighter, four-cylinder Ingenium petrol engine as is available in the XF of the same name, and which has been previously seen in the F-Type P300.

Boasting 300hp and 295lb ft of torque, the all-wheel drive powertrain propels the XE 300 Sport to 60mph in 5.4 seconds (around half a second slower than the RWD XE S's 5.0 second time) and on to the same limited 155mph top speed.

With a starting price of £45,160, the XE 300 Sport will cost around the same as the outgoing XE S. While the loss of the V6, and its soundtrack, will no doubt cause consternation amongst fast saloon fans, it seems not enough people put their money where their mouths were to justify its continued production. Hopefully the increased economy of the new model will persuade more buyers to do just that, and don't forget, for those after a truly monstrous four-door Jag, the 600hp, 200mph Project 8, complete with a 5.0-litre V8, will be hitting roads later this year.

 

[Yoof]

"Jag kills six-cylinder saloons" ...until they launch the straight six Ingenium.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/jlr-la...

There's hope for cylinder counts >4 yet

[culpz]

I think it's a good route for them to take. Basically, save the 6-cylinder and up engines for the more special cars. It makes sense if no-one was really buying them in the first place. It is a bit of shame still, as Jaguar are kind of renowned for their bigger engines. Emissions really are getting tougher these days.

[southerndriver]

I'd like to see car makers introduce smaller capacity six-cylinder engines so drivers can enjoy the refinement without huge fuel bills. After all, Formula One engines are 1.6 litre V6 format so why can't we have something similar (but suitably modified for longer life than an F1 season) in road cars ?

[simonsaunders]

Yoof said:

"Jag kills six-cylinder saloons" ...until they launch the straight six Ingenium.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/jlr-la...

There's hope for cylinder counts >4 yet

They’ll stick a turbo on the straight 6 and kill the V8s... Hope not, but you can kinda see the trajectory here.

[IanCress]

Article said:

the XE 300 Sport will cost around the same as the outgoing XE S

Loses 2 cylinders and 80bhp, but they're charging the same money.
Good trick, Jaguar.

[otolith]

Inevitable. Still, everything coming with peasant engines will make the transition to electric easier to take.

[daveco]

There's going to be a huge emphasis on car design considering the internals of Jaguar and its competitors are seemingly consolidating to one engine and transmission type (and likely drivetrain to come).

No one seems to question the false economy of forced induction either.

Edited by daveco on Friday 20th April 13:50

[DanielSan]

Hope this makes them cheaper second hand then, I really like the XE S.

[Frimley111R]

IanCress said:

oses 2 cylinders and 80bhp, but they're charging the same money.
Good trick, Jaguar.

Because all the other manufacturers haven't done that? Err....

[Megaflow]

southerndriver said:

I'd like to see car makers introduce smaller capacity six-cylinder engines so drivers can enjoy the refinement without huge fuel bills. After all, Formula One engines are 1.6 litre V6 format so why can't we have something similar (but suitably modified for longer life than an F1 season) in road cars ?

Running costs. The vast majority of friction in an engine comes from the piston rings, it obviously varies but something like 60-70%, more pistons = more friction = less mpg.

[NickofName]

southerndriver said:

I'd like to see car makers introduce smaller capacity six-cylinder engines so drivers can enjoy the refinement without huge fuel bills. After all, Formula One engines are 1.6 litre V6 format so why can't we have something similar (but suitably modified for longer life than an F1 season) in road cars ?

This might not actually be as far-fetched as it initially sounds. It seems obvious that with the previous generation of emissions tests in place a small-mid capacity N/A engine just couldn't be competitive on emissions vs. headline power figures when compared to tiny-capacity heavily boosted turbo engines.

However with tests that mean engines get driven more realistically (i.e. not able to produce emissions and performance figures that just can't ever occur together under the same type of driving) the apparent gulf will narrow significantly and make something like the old 2.5l Busso (obviously a modern version) a bit more viable.

Could be wishful thinking, but Mazda clearly agree as they've been sticking to their 'right-sizing' policy of just putting sensible and driveable mid-capacity N/A engines in stuff for years and as a result they now seem ahead of the game.

[NickofName]

Megaflow said:

Running costs. The vast majority of frictional in an engine comes from the piston rings, it obviously varies but something like 60-70%, more pistons = more friction = less mpg.

But you gain efficiency in reduced rotational mass. It obviously varies with bore and stroke (because it depends largely on piston size) but after roughly 500cc cylinder capacity you'll start to see more benefit from adding a cylinder than by increasing the size of the existing cylinders, assuming you've got the space and flexibility of layout to do so.

Not sure this would totally counter the additional frictional losses (probably not in fact) but it would certainly help.

Also, stop runing my Friday-afternoon fantasy of it now being viable for someone to make an MX-5-alike with a tiny capacity V6.

[J4CKO]

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the removal of an engine form a car none of us buy in a configuration we wouldn't go for, even if we did as though its probably pretty good its down on power compared to its competitors, the V6 XE is stuck in limbo between normal versions of cars that size and the daft 400 to 500 bhp stuff, perhaps the odd wealthy retired chap in the home counties goes a bit crazy when ordering, or Jag dealer principles, JLR employees but these have sold in tiny numbers.


.

[syl]

At a time when there is a big move away from diesel, and Jaguar were BIG on diesel, it seems an odd choice to remove one of the alternatives available to their customers. And an odd choice to rely on historical buying patterns as a predictor of the future when we are in the middle of this massive shift in sales patterns.

My last 4 cars have been JLR; some petrol but more latterly, diesel. All have been 6 or 8 cylinder and I just can't see myself ever buying a rattly 4 cylinder and I think my next car will be a move back to petrol. A lack of 6 cylinder engines means I may have to look elsewere.

[J4CKO]

syl said:

At a time when there is a big move away from diesel, and Jaguar were BIG on diesel, it seems an odd choice to remove one of the alternatives available to their customers. And an odd choice to rely on historical buying patterns as a predictor of the future when we are in the middle of this massive shift in sales patterns.

My last 4 cars have been JLR; some petrol but more latterly, diesel. All have been 6 or 8 cylinder and I just can't see myself ever buying a rattly 4 cylinder and I think my next car will be a move back to petrol. A lack of 6 cylinder engines means I may have to look elsewere.

4 cylinder petrol is rattly, so buys diesels instead

Diesels, definitely not rattly in any way shape or form.....

[mrbarnett]

I think it's highly likely the straight 6 will replace these within the next year (hurrah), possibly with more aggressive styling to lure more buyers (hurroo).

[HeMightBeBanned]

J4CKO said:

syl said:

At a time when there is a big move away from diesel, and Jaguar were BIG on diesel, it seems an odd choice to remove one of the alternatives available to their customers. And an odd choice to rely on historical buying patterns as a predictor of the future when we are in the middle of this massive shift in sales patterns.

My last 4 cars have been JLR; some petrol but more latterly, diesel. All have been 6 or 8 cylinder and I just can't see myself ever buying a rattly 4 cylinder and I think my next car will be a move back to petrol. A lack of 6 cylinder engines means I may have to look elsewere.

4 cylinder petrol is rattly, so buys diesels instead

Diesels, definitely not rattly in any way shape or form.....

6 cylinder diesels are smooth. The 3 litre V6 in my Merc C320 was lovely. The 3 litre V6 in my FiL’s XF was lovely. Neither rattled.

[Charlie Croker mk2]

J4CKO said:

4 cylinder petrol is rattly, so buys diesels instead

Diesels, definitely not rattly in any way shape or form.....

Jag and Land Rover 3.0 v6 diesel engine is very smooth and in most application is silent. Now compare this with a 4 cyl petrol ( read low torque unless you rev it). You need to book yourself a test drive LOL

Edited by Charlie Croker mk2 on Friday 20th April 16:19

[finlo]

Isn't this more likely because of the phase out of Ford supplied engine's?

[aston addict]

Or why can't manufacturers make smooth, nice sounding 4 cylinder engines?

There have been great ones over the years (remember the first M3, many Alfas etc).

We have a Golf Gti - love the car, but the worst thing about it is the engine. Sounds dull and lacks refinement. Suspect the R is even worse.