Nicoseal Engine

[steve-V8s]

Does the Term "Nicoseal" or similar mean anything to you Jag lot ?

[NormanD]

It is a type of lining but the bad fuel in the 1990s could damage it
Since 2000 the fuel is better so no problem now

[Carfiend]

Think of it as a kind of engine Teflon. Jag used it on engines between 1997 and late 2000 rather than fitting sleeves in their aluminium blocks. Issue is that due to the low running temps of the engine vs its use in the 911 at the time caused sulphuric acid to form when using high sulphur petrol which was phased out in 2000 anyway. The acid eroded the lining and caused the pistons to gouge away at the block.

Jaguar replaced engines effected but if you buy one now and it has low compression due to this issue then you are out of luck. However I picked up a 1997 XJ8 on Monday and it doesn't have any of the symptoms of the problem on the original engine due to the low mileage it did pre 2000 so not every car with these engines that have not had a replacement with steel sleeves is shot.

[tonys]

Nikasil.

As above; there's also a school of thought that an unaffected original one may well be better, now that fuel doesn't have the same levels of sulphur, than a steel replacement.
Jaguar weren't alone, it also affected BMWs in the late '90s

http://www.bmwclassics.co.uk/articles/nikasil.html

Plenty on here if you use the search facility.

[cardigankid]

It did not affect all cars but it seemed to affect those exposed to high sulphur petrol and which had covered very low mileages eg a short commute and never really warmed up. BMW were just as likely to fail as Jag. If it hasn't gone by now it is maybe unlikely to.

[jith]

NormanD said:

It is a type of lining but the bad fuel in the 1990s could damage it
Since 2000 the fuel is better so no problem now

I'm sorry Norman but that is simplistic in the extreme and just not accurate.

The problem was a total and disgraceful lack of development by Jaguar. I have an XK8 in my workshop with a seized engine right now. Full service history, low mileage and ran on modern fuel.

I will be stripping it tomorrow, but I know what i'm going to find. Almost certainly the lining failed and the rings picked up on the bore and it seized.

If there was bad fuel in the '90s, why the hell did Jaguar produce engines that would not run on it, when everyone else could do so successfully?

J

[NormanD]

jith said:

NormanD said:

It is a type of lining but the bad fuel in the 1990s could damage it
Since 2000 the fuel is better so no problem now

I'm sorry Norman but that is simplistic in the extreme and just not accurate.

The problem was a total and disgraceful lack of development by Jaguar. I have an XK8 in my workshop with a seized engine right now. Full service history, low mileage and ran on modern fuel.

I will be stripping it tomorrow, but I know what i'm going to find. Almost certainly the lining failed and the rings picked up on the bore and it seized.

If there was bad fuel in the '90s, why the hell did Jaguar produce engines that would not run on it, when everyone else could do so successfully?

AS you see from the above posts it didn't affect just Jaguar and not all

Any engine can fail for a number of reasons and by the way I read your post you are blaming the liners, but you haven't even striped the engine yet to find out

[XKRacer]

Nikasil is wonderful stuff, 10X better than steel liners, if you have a good nikasil engine it will outlast a steel one with no probs, of course there are always exceptions.

I bought an XKR with a blown engine, 3 pistons had broken up and there was hardly a score on the bores, good testament I would say.

The story I was told was the engine was originally developed for the GT race series but they went over to american V8s instead and Jaguar had all the development work done so stuck it in the XKs, this is why they had nikasil and plastic tensioners, how true that is, who knows? It is what was said to me

Just for a look

[cardigankid]

jith said:

NormanD said:

It is a type of lining but the bad fuel in the 1990s could damage it
Since 2000 the fuel is better so no problem now

I'm sorry Norman but that is simplistic in the extreme and just not accurate.

The problem was a total and disgraceful lack of development by Jaguar. I have an XK8 in my workshop with a seized engine right now. Full service history, low mileage and ran on modern fuel.

I will be stripping it tomorrow, but I know what i'm going to find. Almost certainly the lining failed and the rings picked up on the bore and it seized.

If there was bad fuel in the '90s, why the hell did Jaguar produce engines that would not run on it, when everyone else could do so successfully?

J

A friend of mine had in succession a BMW 323i Coupe and a Jaguar XK8 4 Litre in the late 90's. In both cases the cars covered a 3 mile commute, twice a day when he wasn't out of town. So occasional cold use. Both engines failed. The BMW failed a lot quicker than the Jag. BMW left him to pay for a new engine. Jaguar fitted a steel lined engine for him FOC.

As to why they went with Nikasil in the first place, it saved weight. I think it is basically German WW2 technology. BMW and Porsche and probably others did it, not just jaguar. The implications of the technology were not understood. Jaguar maybe won't replace engines FOC now but we are 12 years down the line and these cars are much older.

[jith]

NormanD said:

jith said:

NormanD said:

It is a type of lining but the bad fuel in the 1990s could damage it
Since 2000 the fuel is better so no problem now

I'm sorry Norman but that is simplistic in the extreme and just not accurate.

The problem was a total and disgraceful lack of development by Jaguar. I have an XK8 in my workshop with a seized engine right now. Full service history, low mileage and ran on modern fuel.

I will be stripping it tomorrow, but I know what i'm going to find. Almost certainly the lining failed and the rings picked up on the bore and it seized.

If there was bad fuel in the '90s, why the hell did Jaguar produce engines that would not run on it, when everyone else could do so successfully?

AS you see from the above posts it didn't affect just Jaguar and not all

Any engine can fail for a number of reasons and by the way I read your post you are blaming the liners, but you haven't even striped the engine yet to find out

Sorry Norman, I should clarify what I said. I meant that the issue of failure I feel was nothing to do with fuel, but Jaguar used the fuel as an excuse for poor development. It doesn't matter what claims are made for the wonders of Nikasil: at the end of the day it caused terminal engine failure. You could argue that it was the fuel or poor development, or a bit of both, but what was undeniable was the problem. Jaguar changed back to steel liners and they give no problems whatsoever.

What you could not do was blame the customer and ask them to pay for it. But this is what happened, and is still happening to little used, low mileage cars. I am fully aware that it happened with other manufacturers, but the same principles apply.

The concept of "known faults" in motor vehicles that are supposed to be properly developed, i.e. fit for purpose, has risen to the point of stupidity. I have cars in this workshop almost on a daily basis with known faults, and the manufacturers make a fortune in supplying spares for rectification. Buyers pay tens of thousands of pounds for these cars: they should be at least technically proficient.

Totally unacceptable, but becoming more prevalent by the day. Trying to make excuses for them only detracts from the reality of the situation.

J

[NormanD]

jith said:

What you could not do was blame the customer and ask them to pay for it. But this is what happened, and is still happening to little used, low mileage cars.
I am fully aware that it happened with other manufacturers, but the same principles apply.

I accept what you say but as I understand it Jaguar for many years did change the engines 'Free of Charge' unlike some other manufactures

[cardigankid]

This must be very frustrating if you are caught up in the middle of a Nicoseal problem. We all know that the XK8 4.0 has a number of known issues, and so do most cars. If anything, I feel that these days cars have fewer built in design faults than they used to have. However you just have to spend a little time on the Porsche forum to begin to question that. Some say with considerable detailed evidence, that the scored bores which can happen on 997 engines are a result of poor oil circulation through the engine block, and that the direct injection engines will foul up over time (and these engines are still being manufactured, apparent flaws and all)

I had a new Fiat X1/9 1500 way back, the bumper assembly was held on by a series of tech screws which sat just in front of the radiator. In the event of any kind of front end impact, you would get a dozen neat symmetrical holes punched in the bottom of your radiator, which I duly got. Apart from that if you did not catch any stone chip instantly, rust ran off under your paintwork.

[Shar2]

Generally if a Nikasil lined engine has lasted this long it will go on for much longer. I've got a 1997 XK8 still with its original engine that has had blow by checks carried out with no problems and just over 104000 miles on the clock now. Although I only ever drive her on long to medium length journeys and change the oil every 5,000 miles just to be on the safe side.

[cslwannabe]

BMW left him to pay for a new engine - am very surprised by that since as far as I know BMW accepted there was an issue with the 323/523 and I think the 328/528 engines and rectified them at their expense.

[a8hex]

jith said:

Sorry Norman, I should clarify what I said. I meant that the issue of failure I feel was nothing to do with fuel, but Jaguar used the fuel as an excuse for poor development. It doesn't matter what claims are made for the wonders of Nikasil: at the end of the day it caused terminal engine failure. You could argue that it was the fuel or poor development, or a bit of both, but what was undeniable was the problem. Jaguar changed back to steel liners and they give no problems whatsoever.

...

J

I think this situation is actually more complex than that.
Jaguar and many other manufactures developed engine around the idea of this "nickel silicon carbide coating" for aluminium blocks. It had a lot of advantages, and still does. You are right though that they failed to test this against all types of fuel that were then on sale.
But they could equally well argue that fuel companies shouldn't be selling petrol with a impurity which turns into sulphuric acid inside a cold engine. Now sulphuric acid will attack steal liners too, it just takes a bit longer to do the same amount of damage so these new engine designs suffered faster than other types.
Is it practical for a component manufacture to test a new product against everything it could ever come up against in its life?

My father was an material scientist and spent his life troubleshooting these types of situation. Somethings you just can't predict up front. Now all manufactures know that this will happen, so in future it will be added to the list of things that must be tested for before you sell a car. Just as back in the 50s the realisation came that if you sold cars to customers who were going to use them in Belgium that they would be shaken to pieces the moment they found the first bit of Belgium pave. So for the last 50 years (nearly) this has been a standard test. But I can't imagine that before then anyone living in Coventry thought about the road surface in Brussels. (probably a good thing they do those test now or most roads near here would reduce cars into a pile of small pieces pretty quickly too).

So whos fault is it?
Is it the engine manufacturers?
Is it the fuel companies, after all they sold you petrol which turned into sulphuric acid? They never warned you about this did they?
Is it Mahle, the company that invented the Nikasil technology and no doubt sold it to the car companies?
Is it the customer for not knowing that brand X of fuel when they buy it on a Friday while the barrel price is over $X will contain >y% of sulphur which will then combine with the water given off as the octane (the bit of the petrol you were told you were buying) reacting with the oxygen in the air when the engine is in a certain temperature range.

Sometimes S**T happens, it is then a question of how these things are dealt with. The car manufactures is an easier target than the petrol companies for the consumer. The government on the other hand found it easier to go after the petrol companies and stop them sell this dangerous muck.

[P700DEE]

Nikasil was tested, in race cars etc. The technique had been around for years and it was superior to steel linings. It was developed in 1967 and used on the NSU RO80.It was only for aluminium engine blocks hence why it waited until the 90s before being fitted to cars like the BMW, Porsche and Jaguar.
The problem occurs when the engine is started and switched off after a very short time. e.g. proud new owner gets car out of garage each day and shows off to neighbours. In this case and other short journeys the cylinders do not retain enough heat to remain above 100C and so water vapour from the burnt fuel condenses on the cool metal. Sulphur dioxide also from the fuel then disolves in the water to form Sulphuric acid that then attacks the Nikasil and Aluminium. Yes it would attack Steel but steel is not porous so the attack is very slow. None of this showed up in tests as no-one thought about really short journeys, Nikasil responds well to long journeys and high miles.
Fuel. The standards for fuel are set out and all the refiners need to do is match or exceed the spec. Sulphur was not cut due to engine specs but for environmental reasons. Bad news for old cars that benefit from the extra Sulphur present.

Jaguar did however make things much worse as the 4.0 engine over fuels massively on choke and if turned off before the choke cycle completes can often suffer bore wash. Add this to the acid formation and you greatly increase the damage.

Simple answer. If you have a Nikasil engine now it will not fail due problems pre 2000 and high Sulphur. You can still suffer from premature bore wear but it will not be related to high Sulphur fuel. Is then engine design negligent ? No , (IMHO) but Jaguar were negligent in saying that the tensioners and gearbox are maintenance free. Do your Cam chains and replace the gearbox oil and filter and you should be fine (if you bought an R)

[NormanD]

jith said:

I have an XK8 in my workshop with a seized engine right now. Full service history, low mileage and ran on modern fuel.

I will be stripping it tomorrow, but I know what i'm going to find. Almost certainly the lining failed and the rings picked up on the bore and it seized.

Any update or was it not the liners, if you striped it Monday

[V8 TEJ]

My Nikasil engined '97 XJ8 has now done 141'000 miles. The last 26'000 of which have been completed in less than 20 months.

I cover 1200 miles a month so this will go up of course.

Shows that there is usually a lot of scare mongering going on without evidence..

[a8hex]

P700DEE said:

Is then engine design negligent ? No , (IMHO) but Jaguar were negligent in saying that the tensioners and gearbox are maintenance free. Do your Cam chains and replace the gearbox oil and filter and you should be fine (if you bought an R)

The situation with the original tensioners wasn't just that they claimed they were sealed for life, but they were probably just not man enough for the job. Tensions in quad cam OHV V8 have a hard job to do because the irregular valve timing the layout dictates.

In terms of the "sealed for life" issue, again this wasn't just Jaguar.
If you have a 4.0R you've got the MB gearbox. MB also claimed it was sealed for life. The same box is also used in the 3.2Diesel Mercs (not many boxes like that sort of torque) and we were never able to persuade the local MB dealer to do a fluid change on SWMBO'd car. I understand that eventually Mercedes did issue a service note suggesting a fluid and filter change at 100K, but the main dealers still insisted it was sealed for life.

[jith]

NormanD said:

jith said:

I have an XK8 in my workshop with a seized engine right now. Full service history, low mileage and ran on modern fuel.

I will be stripping it tomorrow, but I know what i'm going to find. Almost certainly the lining failed and the rings picked up on the bore and it seized.

Any update or was it not the liners, if you striped it Monday

Hi Norman,
Thanks for your interest.

I had real problems with this job, mainly due to the history of what we inherited by way of the circumstances of engine failure. I was completely wrong about the cause, but that's because the circumstances were completely untypical.

Just look at this! Left hand cylinder head.











I believe the appropriate modern response is Oh....my.....GOD!!!

I'm going to put up a separate post for this because the events leading up to it are almost unbelievable.

I'm absolutely up to the eyes in it right now, but I'll try and post it monday or tuesday.

I have no doubts your comments will be many and varied.

J