RE: Beijing show: Jag's Supercharged V6 and turbo four

[davepoth]

While it would be lovely for Jaguar to use a 2 litre supercharged v6, you have to consider the economics. While they're doing a lot better than they were, Jag are still small fry in comparison to the rest of the market. They can't afford to develop lots of new engines, so it makes sense to buy them in where they can. If it's the EcoBoost as in the Evoque it makes a lot of sense.

If the downsized engines are as big of a success as I hope they are then JLR will be able to afford to develop their own dinky engines, hopefully with more cylinders.

[DJRC]

So its going to be £55k for the 2ltr turbo 4 pot F-Type and £60k for the Supercharged V6.

No fking way Jag.

[anonymous-user]

DJRC said:

So its going to be £55k for the 2ltr turbo 4 pot F-Type and £60k for the Supercharged V6.

No fking way Jag.

Doesnt look like the 4 pot is going in the F

[Triumph Man]

kambites said:

MonkeyMatt said:

Triumph Man said:

No, I didn't. Did you miss the bit about a turbocharged 4 cylinder replacing the N/A V6s?

But there will still be a V6 if you want one

I think I'd put that as "there will still be a V6 if you can afford it". The V6 entry point will presumably be considerably more expensive than it was.

That's part of my point, it's a shame that the 6s won't be as readily available.

[Triumph Man]

stuart-b said:

Triumph Man said:

No, I didn't. Did you miss the bit about a turbocharged 4 cylinder replacing the N/A V6s?

Do you think Jag have a choice?

I know they don't, hence why I commented about emissions regs. It's just a shame really...

[anonymous-user]

Triumph Man said:

That's part of my point, it's a shame that the 6s won't be as readily available.

That is a god point! anyone have any first hand experience of the 2.0? is it any good?

[Triumph Man]

MonkeyMatt said:

Triumph Man said:

That's part of my point, it's a shame that the 6s won't be as readily available.

That is a god point! anyone have any first hand experience of the 2.0? is it any good?

I think personally if it was me, I would always be slightly disappointed turning the key (or should I say, pressing the button), in a large Jaguar, just to turn over a small 4 cylinder engine. It wouldn't feel 'right'.

[Dan XJR]

Take note of the bit of info saying the Turbo 4 pot is replacing the old NASP V6... and that's not sold in many markets especially in Europe .

[JonnyVTEC]

Triumph Man said:

No, I didn't. Did you miss the bit about a turbocharged 4 cylinder replacing the N/A V6s?

That one isnt sold in the UK anyway. That previous 3.0 V6 introduction increased XJ sales in China ten fold rather than the heavily taxed 5.0 NA.

[JonnyVTEC]

Triumph Man said:

I know they don't, hence why I commented about emissions regs. It's just a shame really...

Its import tax related....

[DJRC]

MonkeyMatt said:

DJRC said:

So its going to be £55k for the 2ltr turbo 4 pot F-Type and £60k for the Supercharged V6.

No fking way Jag.

Doesnt look like the 4 pot is going in the F

It will. It will be the entry level model. You can pretty much bet the bank on it. If they dont it will be quite possibly the daftest decision made since Gerald Ratner described his products as being that which comes forth from your bottom.

[Lowtimer]

If this new supercharged V6 is based on the old V8, that rather implies that it is a 90 degree included angle design, i.e. basically a 90 degree V8 with the front two cylinders sawn off, rather than the normal 60 degree included angle V6. In which case it won't be very smooth at all. The last time we had a mass produced engine with that layout was the Douvrin V6 used by Peugeot, Renault and Volvo (not to mention De Lorean). It was sort of OK but nothing special at all.

[GroundEffect]

Triumph Man said:

MonkeyMatt said:

Triumph Man said:

I hate this recent trend of turbo charged 4 cylinder engines in larger cars, the new 3-series for example, and now in a Jaguar XJ! I know it's for emissions reasons, but why does everyone seem to forget about the lovely sound of a 6 cylinder engine?

Did you miss the bit about a supercharged V6?

No, I didn't. Did you miss the bit about a turbocharged 4 cylinder replacing the N/A V6s?

Because a 4 cyl engine is more efficient than a 6 cyl...

[Stedman]

fk this.



I'M EXCITED AND THEY LOOK SEXY.

[urquattro]

Triumph Man said:

I hate this recent trend of turbo charged 4 cylinder engines in larger cars, the new 3-series for example, and now in a Jaguar XJ! I know it's for emissions reasons, but why does everyone seem to forget about the lovely sound of a 6 cylinder engine?

what one like this makes you smile?

[gck303]

Triumph Man said:

I hate this recent trend of turbo charged 4 cylinder engines in larger cars, the new 3-series for example, and now in a Jaguar XJ! I know it's for emissions reasons, but why does everyone seem to forget about the lovely sound of a 6 cylinder engine?

A four cylinder XJ. With or without balancer shafts, it is sacrilegious. You could not get away with this nonsense in the USA.

I don't quite understand why we can't just make smaller multi-cylinder engines. Ferrari used to make a 3 litre V12 which possibly sounds better than anything else ever made.

[FWDRacer]

Not a V8 in an XJ? Maybe sacriligious for Uncle Sam - not for China, Brazil, Russia and India. Guess who's buying the cars in this recession hit new world order?

[Stew2000]

I was hoping for an XJ12. but I fear my dream will never be

[anonymous-user]

Stew2000 said:

I was hoping for an XJ12. but I fear my dream will never be

Unless they stick two Supercharged V6 engines together! Now that would be a flagship car!

[Lowtimer]

gck303 said:

I don't quite understand why we can't just make smaller multi-cylinder engines. Ferrari used to make a 3 litre V12 which possibly sounds better than anything else ever made.

I agree that they don;t sound as nice as a musical six or eight, but that's a long way down the list of priorities for most car buyers and I think manufacturers have decided that they can get away with synthetic sound tracks (think new 911 and new M5) for the few car buyers who do care what a car sounds like.

Simply making existing engine designs in small sizes would not be much help. You can easily make a 2.0 V6 or a 3.0 V8, say, but simply scaling down the previous engines won't move the numbers where Jaguar needs them to be. A baby V6 and V8 won't gain any significant fuel economy / CO2 advantage over the 3.0 V6 or 5.0 litre V8 that you have now.

If you need to change an engine to reduce fuel consumption, what gets you big wins on fuel and CO2 is:
- optimum cylinder sizes (which BMW reckon is near enough 500cc per cylinder, which is why they only use that now on all their new car engine designs)
- as few cylinders as you can get away with, for lowest internal friction
- running with no throttle, which means diesels or DI petrol with variable valve timing
- forced induction to get the power back, ideally turbocharged as that recovers energy from the exhaust gases

gck303 said:

A four cylinder XJ. With or without balancer shafts, it is sacrilegious. You could not get away with this nonsense in the USA.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. I note that for the last 20 years the biggest fan base by far for the four-cylinder turbo Porsche 944 has been in the USA, where they love them just as much as they love their flat-six Porsches. The turbo four-cylinder 328i and 528i seem to be going down fairly well in the USA. What if BMW does a four-pot 7-series?

In Europe, with Mercedes already producing a four-cylinder S-Class, and with the four-cylinder diesels being the European customers' engines of choice in the 5-series, A6 and E-class, four-cylinder engines in big cars is the way that history is going, and three-cylinder engines in the mid-sized family car category. The USA could well follow.