nikasil engine bites the dust
nikasil engine bites the dust
Author
Discussion

CHJ

Original Poster:

780 posts

235 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Not on my XJR (steel-lined), but on my colleague's year 2000 XKR cabrio.

The problem is with the lining and the first and only warning was a restricted engine performance warning on the dash. It only has/had 64k miles on the clock, with full service history!! He has had it for 3 years and it was an `approved` used Jaguar MD car at the time when he bought it.

Evidently the nikasil problems do not relate to just pre-2000 models!

x200sxy

515 posts

222 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Sorry to hear that, what a bummer.

If it's an early 2000 car (pre X-reg-ish) it would still be Nikasil I think. However, I did believe, as I've just posted elsewhere on this forum(!), that if an engine was OK now it would be OK for good.

JamesK

2,124 posts

301 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
I'd question whether this is a nikasil related issue.

The Nikasil engines per se are great (some argue better than the steel lined ones) and the only issue I am aware of relates to the metal's interaction with high sulphur content in fuel. The law regarding the maximum sulphur content in fuel was changed in 1998 so even if the block is Nikasil in theory it cannot have failed due to sulphur content if registered in 2000.

This applies to the BMW Nikasil engines as well as Jaguar.

G_T

16,163 posts

212 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
JamesK said:
I'd question whether this is a nikasil related issue.
+1

As a Nikasil owner who flaunts the merits of it to his colleagues, I find this both unlikely and frightening.

Surely an approved Jag dealer would have the common sense to do a compression test?


restoremgb

15 posts

208 months

Thursday 12th February 2009
quotequote all
Nickasil failure on its own will not bring on the restricted performance warning, have the fault codes scanned, the problem may not be as expensive as you think.

Jaguar steve

9,232 posts

232 months

Thursday 12th February 2009
quotequote all
Is he sure? Who told him and has he had a blow by test done to confirm?

scratchchin It's not just flooded is it?

CHJ

Original Poster:

780 posts

235 months

Thursday 12th February 2009
quotequote all
It's difficult for me to get all the info really as it's not my car - and the guy who's car it is is obviously not very happy! The car is at a Jaguar specialist and they have said there is a lining failure. I do know the car had emptied the sump of oil in a relatively short space of time, but whether this led to or was caused by the lining problem I don't know.

He is having a new block fitted - Jaguar are selling them at half price apparently ... still about £6k I think eek

P700DEE

1,181 posts

252 months

Thursday 12th February 2009
quotequote all
This is not a "Nikasil" issue, it is outside of the dates when this could have occured. It could be a liner issue, with steel or Nikasil you still get bore wear. If a piston ring scores the bore you need a new block regardless of Steel or Nikasil. If the posts are right them massive oil loss through the block would indicate more than just porosity caused by Sulphur damage to a Nikasil lining. This is also backed up by the no warning signs other than the light followed by a dead engine diagnosis. Nikasil usually presents as oil in the breather pipe, poor start up , high blow by values followed by a slow death.

exgtt

2,067 posts

234 months

Saturday 14th February 2009
quotequote all
Is it not possible that Nikasil lined cars can still be prone to this kind of failure? Ok Sulphur content has been reduced now in our petrol, so groups of cars coming in for replacement engines has ceased but won't Nikasil engined cars that survived the Sulphur period be aggravated by stuff like stop start driving (making lower mileaged cars more prone to worn out bores?)




Edited by exgtt on Saturday 14th February 19:08

P700DEE

1,181 posts

252 months

Saturday 14th February 2009
quotequote all
No, Nikasil was damaged by corrosion. Low use short journeys should not cause damage. Nikasil does age harden so any damage cause could get better

JamesK

2,124 posts

301 months

Saturday 14th February 2009
quotequote all
Also te engine in question didn't "survive the sulphur period", it post dates it by 2 years.

jkennyd

3,142 posts

221 months

Saturday 14th February 2009
quotequote all
I also dont think its a nikasil problem. As the other posts have already stated the whys and nots I wont blabber on but I would be wary of the guy who said it was.

CHJ

Original Poster:

780 posts

235 months

Sunday 15th February 2009
quotequote all
If I find out any more specific info I'll post it on here for further discussion. I just feel really sorry for the chap on the thick end of the bill - I think he is still in shock!

NormanD

3,208 posts

250 months

Sunday 15th February 2009
quotequote all
CHJ said:
If I find out any more specific info I'll post it on here for further discussion. I just feel really sorry for the chap on the thick end of the bill - I think he is still in shock!
I have a second hand steel lined XJR engine in good condition.
It has not been reduilt but has been checked over with new gaskets and head gaskets.

If it's any use email me