RE: Jaguar XF: Driven
Discussion
I think you could call any modern engine from a major manufacturer a "modular eco engine". Anyone selling a car for less than 6 figures would be crazy to build anything else. At least Jaguar aren't giving in to turbocharging, which puts them at the top of the "interesting engine" pile for me.
aeropilot said:
kambites said:
At least Jaguar aren't giving in to turbocharging, which puts them at the top of the "interesting engine" pile for me.
I'd bet a fair chunk that the next gen engines 6/8 cyl engines will be turbocharged.kambites said:
I think you could call any modern engine from a major manufacturer a "modular eco engine". Anyone selling a car for less than 6 figures would be crazy to build anything else. At least Jaguar aren't giving in to turbocharging, which puts them at the top of the "interesting engine" pile for me.
Excellent point. I stand corrected - they are at least bucking that trend and good on 'em.elementad said:
Don't 'v's offer more torque normally? Also I prefer the sound of a v than straight - more burbley.
I'm no expert. If straight 6 is more superior than v6 then why don't or haven't BMW made a straight 8 instead of using v8 engines in m3s? Surely they could get them to fit.
No. Inline sixes, along with flat sixes, V12s and crossplane V8s (though the latter only thanks to the counterweighted crank) are inherently balanced. I4s, I8s and V6s are not. What's more, the I6 and V12 are pushing it in terms of crankshaft length - much longer and the torsional rigidity of the crank becomes a problem. Most straight-eights have a bevel-driven output shaft halfway down the engine, with a split crank, one driven by the rearmost four cylinders, one by the foremost four. At least, I THINK that's the case.I'm no expert. If straight 6 is more superior than v6 then why don't or haven't BMW made a straight 8 instead of using v8 engines in m3s? Surely they could get them to fit.
ORD said:
From what I have read, the I6 layout is superior to a V6 in all except packaging. The V6 is the most easily packaged 6 cylinder engine for lots of applications, but V6s are rarely excellent engines. I read something quite comprehensible to a layman explaining why a V6 is inherently less balanced and efficient than an I6 or a flat 6. I can't now find the link, sorry.
I doubt Jaguar will make an I6. Two 3 cyl banks used to build a V6 seems more likely. These ingenium engines are boring as hell, aren't they? No idea why Autocar has such a hard on about them. Modular Eco engines! Wow!
I will take that back if the V12 turns up
Yup. The I6 is a much smoother engine than the V6, which is a compromise engine. It's used either by low end manufacturers as their premium unit or by premium manufacturers as a cheap solution. I doubt Jaguar will make an I6. Two 3 cyl banks used to build a V6 seems more likely. These ingenium engines are boring as hell, aren't they? No idea why Autocar has such a hard on about them. Modular Eco engines! Wow!
I will take that back if the V12 turns up
Both Merc and JLR rolled out V6s on the back of their V8 designs and production lines to save time and money. Both are currently planning to deliver I6 units to replace them.
RoverP6B said:
A proper 60-degree V6 (or V12) has very little in common with a V8 that manufacturer might offer. It's not a cheap solution. It just has some packaging advantages.
The 90 degree ones are the cheap fix to needing a smaller cc engine as it is turned out on the V8 design and line. The 60 degree is the better design and what is used in ground up designs. It is cheaper than a corresponding V8 and is used as such. Hence its general appearance in lower end products.
And both are inferior to an I6, especially nowadays when all such engines will now be FI.
The V6 is and always has been the poor cousin of both the V8 and the I6 and very much a compromise solution based around cost.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 20th August 21:29
RupertM said:
There doesn't look to be a lot wrong with the panel gaps or the colour to me. Perhaps you should consider a career in metrology or spectrophotometry if you can tell so much from some press shots.
I agree. It's a white car so panel gaps always stand out more for obvious reasons. I do wonder why Jaguar keep using white pre production cars for press shots, as you inevitably get the arm chair engineers (like crimbo) having a pop.crimbo said:
Wow, are the side shots real?
The doors look a different colour and the panel gaps are shocking. The crease on the door really does not look right next to the crappy vent/grill in the front wing.
Just lazy and careless design.Should be built to a higher standard than it looks.
Who cares how it drives it will feel like and other car it has suspension and tires is going to be no real improvement. If it handles on rails it's going to be too firm for the road and if it's comfy is going to be soft in the bends. So how it drives is not important.
Is the engine going to be so much better than before,nope!
So basically you are buying it because of its looks and it's new and with them panel gaps it's looks terrible. So well done jag, brilliant you have built a slack half arsed looking car that instantly looks not up to the quality standard you expect of the brand or the image you are looking or charging for.
And are you serious about jag having to try hard to get from 550bhp to 600bhp from a supercharged 5 litre v8 to keep up with the new m5 or merc.
Yeah real hard that, according to a pistonheads right up it needs a smaller pulley, intercooler, induction kit and a remap for over 620bhp and that comes with a 3 year warranty.
So there is no reason at all that they can't launch with an R version other than a marketing stunt so cut the rubbish.
The doors look a different colour and the panel gaps are shocking. The crease on the door really does not look right next to the crappy vent/grill in the front wing.
Just lazy and careless design.Should be built to a higher standard than it looks.
Who cares how it drives it will feel like and other car it has suspension and tires is going to be no real improvement. If it handles on rails it's going to be too firm for the road and if it's comfy is going to be soft in the bends. So how it drives is not important.
Is the engine going to be so much better than before,nope!
So basically you are buying it because of its looks and it's new and with them panel gaps it's looks terrible. So well done jag, brilliant you have built a slack half arsed looking car that instantly looks not up to the quality standard you expect of the brand or the image you are looking or charging for.
And are you serious about jag having to try hard to get from 550bhp to 600bhp from a supercharged 5 litre v8 to keep up with the new m5 or merc.
Yeah real hard that, according to a pistonheads right up it needs a smaller pulley, intercooler, induction kit and a remap for over 620bhp and that comes with a 3 year warranty.
So there is no reason at all that they can't launch with an R version other than a marketing stunt so cut the rubbish.
Edited by crimbo on Sunday 16th August 01:15
DonkeyApple said:
The 90 degree ones are the cheap fix to needing a smaller cc engine as it is turned out on the V8 design and line.
The 60 degree is the better design and what is used in ground up designs. It is cheaper than a corresponding V8 and is used as such. Hence its general appearance in lower end products.
And both are inferior to an I6, especially nowadays when all such engines will now be FI.
The V6 is and always has been the poor cousin of both the V8 and the I6 and very much a compromise solution based around cost.
There have been a number of notably good forced-induction V6 engines where cost cannot be said to be a factor. The Nissan GT-R's VR38 is the daddy of them all, of course, and one could also highlight the current Audi S4 and Mercedes C400 engines. Yes, M-B is moving to I6s soon, but that V6 is still a pretty good engine and not related to their V8s. Ditto the supercharged V6 in the S4 - although Audi would struggle to package an I6 in their nose-heavy chassis.The 60 degree is the better design and what is used in ground up designs. It is cheaper than a corresponding V8 and is used as such. Hence its general appearance in lower end products.
And both are inferior to an I6, especially nowadays when all such engines will now be FI.
The V6 is and always has been the poor cousin of both the V8 and the I6 and very much a compromise solution based around cost.
kambites said:
Ares said:
kambites said:
I'd be surprised if Jaguar have designed their current crop of cars to be able to take an inline-6? They're horrible things to package. 
Obviously it's a trade off. A straight-6 is smoother, simpler and probably lighter for the number of cylinders.; a V6 gives you more flexibility for weight distribution and drive-train packaging. I suppose personally, I prefer straight sixes in saloons and GTs and V6s in sports cars.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 20th August 20:06
kambites said:
aeropilot said:
kambites said:
At least Jaguar aren't giving in to turbocharging, which puts them at the top of the "interesting engine" pile for me.
I'd bet a fair chunk that the next gen engines 6/8 cyl engines will be turbocharged.
Ares said:
kambites said:
aeropilot said:
kambites said:
At least Jaguar aren't giving in to turbocharging, which puts them at the top of the "interesting engine" pile for me.
I'd bet a fair chunk that the next gen engines 6/8 cyl engines will be turbocharged.Ares said:
Not sure what styling you mean, but if you look at the installation of I6's in BMWs, they still fill less than half the engine bay - they are pushed so far rearward for weight distribution they are almost mid-engined. The is so much space at the front of the engine that the dimensions are nothing to do with the engine.
Look at the profile of the bonnet line of a 3-series compared to an XE (it's easiest if you can find a silhouette of the cars in pure profile because the manufacturers use all sorts of styling tricks to try to hide the height of their bonnets); the 3-series bonnet is held higher for longer directly over the front axle line. This leads to that (IMO) vile droopy snout that has ruined the styling of the two two versions of the 3-series and also contributes to the "melted" rear end look of the E92 as they try to keep the shoulder line rising along the length of the car without having too much metal above the rear wheels. The F30 does better than the E90 in that regard but it's still a horribly proportioned car to my eyes. Audi suffer from a similar but slightly different issue because the A4's engines are pushed so far forwards by the design of the transmission.
The difference isn't all that pronounced in something as huge as the 3-series and its competitors have got, but it's still there.
Edited by kambites on Friday 21st August 13:52
kambites said:
Ares said:
Not sure what styling you mean, but if you look at the installation of I6's in BMWs, they still fill less than half the engine bay - they are pushed so far rearward for weight distribution they are almost mid-engined. The is so much space at the front of the engine that the dimensions are nothing to do with the engine.
Look at the profile of the bonnet line of a 3-series compared to an XE (it's easiest if you can find a silhouette of the cars in pure profile because the manufacturers use all sorts of styling tricks to try to hide the height of their bonnets); the 3-series bonnet is held higher for longer directly over the front axle line. This leads to that (IMO) vile droopy snout that has ruined the styling of the two two versions of the 3-series and also contributes to the "melted" rear end look of the E92 as they try to keep the shoulder line rising along the length of the car without having too much metal above the rear wheels. The F30 does better than the E90 in that regard but it's still a horribly proportioned car to my eyes. Audi suffer from a similar but slightly different issue because the A4's engines are pushed so far forwards by the design of the transmission.
The difference isn't all that pronounced in something as huge as the 3-series and its competitors have got, but it's still there.
Edited by kambites on Friday 21st August 13:52
And bonnet height is more down to pedestrian crash protection?
Edited by Ares on Friday 21st August 14:23
kambites said:
Ares said:
Can't honestly say I see much difference?
Fair enough. I can. I may, of course, be wrong about the reason but to my eyes the bonnet line of the 3-series is awful compared to the others that you've pictured.
Take it further and you get the M3/M4 bulge:
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff