Future of business automotive innovation: The car comes with a v8 but 2 cylinders are deactivated unless the customer wants to purchase the "premium" subscription package for only $199.99 a month. 💵✌️
Don't forget the added $189.99 "Ultra Performance Fuel Pump" subscription needed to supply extra fuel and the $169.69 "Performance X2-Ultra Spark Plug" subscription for the two spark plugs.
An interesting similar case would be the "Laziest Way to Create an I4"... The Pontiac 'Trophy 4' which was quite literally half of an existing V8 engine Pontiac had at the time. They just removed 1 cylinder head (and bores) and left you with a 45Deg I4 engine.
Talk about a car guy, I remember those! It's half a 389, with the super odd fire and they couldn't get it right. Pontiac even tried flex discs on the driveshafts to dampen the vibration. Bold attempt, bad execution, the sprint 6 sure was dang cool!
International did the same thing with 2 Scout engines. One was half a 345, and the other half a 392. Used them for a long time and they worked decently well.
@@mikebell9166 I think you got that slightly wrong. The first was a cut 304, I just rewired a 64 scout 80 with a 152 i4. Clearly a V8 lopped in half, the valley pan and intake manifold are obviously cut down. So primitive it doesn't even have reverse lights, no neutral safety switch, clutch interlock. Had a oil indicator on the dash, never could find a sender on the block... After that came a cut down 392, but I don't think there ever was a 172.5 i4 scout. GM cut down a SBC to a 90 degree v6 for decades. Same earlier with a I4 from a I6 with a 153 from a 194. GM even did the 8 to 4 with the iron duke series of engines, had one of those in a S10. Your mail probably gets/got delivered for decades by either a V6 cut down SBC, or a I4 cut down pontiac V8.
@@pontiacg445 Then there was the Buick V6 that was cut down from a V8. It was a 90 degree block and had an uneven firing order since it didn't have split crankpins. I had one of these in a Jeep around 1970 and it shook like hell. The thing had a dual point distributor to handle the firing order and it was nearly impossible to time correctly. But it did make plenty of power, at least for a Jeep.
I remember they chose this route because they would have to redo the entire crash structure of the front end due to the shorter block so it was cheaper to keep the full block in place. But makes you then think theres no point in not buying the full v8 as the 6 has few to no advantages in placement or weight etc 🤷♂️ (PS. Sources EVO magazine, Chris Harris, Harry Metcalfe and Jason Camisa)
@@devlintaylor95203 reasons, Smaller engines often lead to less weight and better Handling dynamics, also non Americans sometimes dislike the idea of a big loud v8 opting for a more " Social " friendly 4/6, this is especially common in Australia where v8s can be seen as bogan ( White trash/lower class ) In Europe/Japan it's usually for tax purposes smaller engines being cheaper.
@@devlintaylor9520 I personally think anybody who chooses a v6 over a v8 is a crazy person, just pay the damn tax and fuel its usually a 10x better experience but yet people still skimp out!
My favorite V8 based v6 is still the Chevrolet 4.3L. based on the tried and true 350 small block v8! Sadly production ended in 2014 when it was replaced by the LV3, which was a clean sheet design
I worked at a transmission/driveline specialist shop for a while, and we rebuilt a 4L60E for a Chevy Express, with an LU3 4.3 V6, it had 330,000 miles on it, we built it with a Sonnax smart tech drum, and Z pack Raybestos frictions, and a Precision converter, he brought it back with 778,000 miles, and we serviced the trans, and replaced a leaking intake gasket, and sent it. If you keep after that 4.3, they will run a long time....
@@1258-Eckhart The 4.3L Chevy V6 is a chopped down 5.7L SBC. Everything not affected by length fits between the two engines. This was made over 40 years ago.
It isn’t elegant. It is compromised. But crucially the car’s crash behaviour is the same as the V8 so the V6 models did not need to be crashed again. Also the shared components makes cost savings. Finally it is a swet driving & great sounding engine.
And then no one buys the car anyway - because it’s so compromised relative to the competition…. This is why British companies are so rubbish now - all because of stupid accountants.
@@rep7552 British car companies have always been rubbish. They have made the least reliable and finicky vehicles of all time. They just seem to have no concept of how to engineer things in a way that makes them reliable or reasonable to repair.
@@dominikkanzler2967 Spacesaving is not really existant in this case, since the chassis is designed to house the V8. Weight for sure, but it's a heavy SUV anyway and your not going to improve MPG much through that. So yes, it's very much not elegant, but the downsides are surprisingly small.
Apparently, this design best met the company's targets for power, emissions, fuel economy, and cost. What blows me away is that GM didn't try pulling a stunt like this, since their considerable engineering prowess is ALWAYS used to save a production buck rather than build a better product....
It's still lighter as there are no pistons, rods and crank journals, plus the heads are lighter. And the heads are shorter and smaller in size. So, it's not got the weight and bulk of a V8. Also, who cares about 10-20kg difference?
I've had an rb26, numerous bmw straight 6s , audi supercharged v6 and this v6 in the xe ...I can tell you with out any hesitation it's the best 6 cylinder engine I've owned...it sounds amazing and pulls like a train. What doesn't make sense to me is why Jaguar had to build an entire new front end for the project 8? If the engine has the same dimensions, it should have been easy to fit a.v8, and it wasn't... something doesn't add up
Why would you design a completely different engine and face some reliability issues? The aj126 is the best sounding V6 there is, has plenty of power, is somewhat reliable and meets all the emissions requirements.
The V6 of Jaguar's 2010s was a real sweet engine to have. It's more reliable than the car itself and it holds shitloads of power to upwards of 800hp. Even at its stock setup, it's pretty punchy and sounds absolutely grunty. It's just Jaguar's version of the Alfa Busso V6 and they miraculously pulled it off.
I didn't know the duratec family had such a prestigious design background. The longitudinal versions (and any version without the internal water pump) seem to be reliable.
The AJ-V6 was co developed by Jaguar and Mazda separately from the Ford Duratec V6,it has Variable timing and a direct acting valve train,the Ford offering having fixed timing and follower activated valves. The output of the 3.0 MEBA ford Duratec V6(Tribute,Mondeo,Taurus,maverick etc.) is around 205 bhp,I've seen a couple make around 210-ish, compared to the Jaguars 240,almost all the REBA Ford Duratecs (ST220 Mondeo) I've seen or had tested seem to peak around the high 230 figure meaning that for all the added complexity of vvt the benefits are miniscule,although the DAMB valvetrain layout is a better design in terms of application and durability. FWIW we use quite a few Duratec V6's,they aren't cheap to tune and modify,parts are hard to come by/expensive over here but given the correct build approach you can achieve a tough power train that will endure some stick,our built 2.5 Duratec with one off cams and TBI currently in my old Mondeo estate parts getter, Revs to 8000 rpm reliably and from around 1800 rpm outperforms all standard 3.0 Ford and Jaguar/Mazda versions ,our single turbo REBA V6 even with its manifold set up that isn't ideal for low rpm torque is superior from idle.If jaguar were looking for refinement why did they introduce the Ingenium,that steaming log is as refined as the three cylinder lister in my old sailing boat and a damn sight less reliable😂
@@notpoliticallycorrect1303 In the US, the later 3.0L Duratecs that Ford and Mazda used starting in 04-06 did have variable timing and 221HP from the factory. There was a second generalization of this variant that made 240-250HP. All of these engines are easy to find in salvage yards and dirt cheap.
It may be a cost cutting design but by all accounts it's still a driver's delight. The sound quality and power delivery were praised from launch. I would be interested to see a back to back comparison with the new i6 in terms of sound, refinement, performance, economy etc. Incidentally, I believe we are seeing a return of straight 6s because 4 cylinder motors are now more common in premium cars and it is relatively easy to engineer a i4 into an i6....
"I would be interested to see a back to back comparison with the new i6 in terms of sound, refinement, performance, economy etc." It's inferior in every regard. The AJ126 wasn't even much better at fuel economy than the V8 it was based on.
That v6 does sound great.. for whatever reason. Probably just proper exhaust engineering by Jaguar. If F type gets the new straight six, then it'll really be like a modern E type
"It may be a cost cutting design but by all accounts it's still a driver's delight." I guess, but making a V6 the same size and nearly the same weight as a V8 seems quite an asinine way to do it so as to undo any advantages the V6 might have in packaging! At least it makes V8 swaps easier I guess...
I have always been a fan of the straight 6 design, perfect primary balance, which is evident, and lovely smooth power. The final iteration of the Ford Australia straight 6 from the 1963 Falcon, was progressively developed into a modern European style engine, and given its own well deserved name, 'Barracuda' at 4 litres was a better engine than the Ford USA supplied V8 unit, with a much lighter weight and such a high power output, so much so, that it was de-tuned in the turbo variant, because it produced more power than the V8, while providing better handling for the vehicle. It became known in racing and drag circles for its ability to produce 1000 BHP. With an upgrade to titanium piston rods, it could be run much higher with absolute reliability. A demonstration of what can be achieved by throwing away the pushrod concept. It had HYVO chain driven DOHC, 4 valve heads, with high compression heads. It was not a fuel guzzler, except when pushed, so a very tractable engine package all around. So, sadly, the Barracuda engine was lost to the world when Ford Australia was closed down by head office in the US. Those who are familiar with this engine around the world still recognise its unique development cycle, and earliest frail agricultural beginnings. The versions of the engine prior to full top end work, were also an engine I enjoyed very much from as early as the late 1970s.
Nice to see Ford Australia stuck with the inline 6 until the end of Ford production in Australia. The mighty barra still sound sweet and very reliable.
Yep that was due to having zero funding available for engineering but that wasn't a bad thing. If it's not broke - don't fix it, however it was extremely archaic by the time it was phased out. I had an AU with the Intech and a BA with the Barra. The only real change is the DOHC head, the block had barely changed in decades! The Barra was a lot more refined but had a few more issues, the cost to develop the Barra in the BA was taken from the interior, B series Falcons just fall apart around the engine haha
@@MATTY110981 probably didn’t meet the standards of specific markets (maybe too high emission for Europe, or too expensive to ship to North America or too inefficient for parts of Asia, etc). Too bad though. I’ve always considered the Barra as the Aussie 2JZ. It’s almost as strong and can make almost the same power. It’s a stout engine and they put them in everything down there, which means they are MUCH cheaper than a 2JZ
One point not mentioned was the fact that Jaguar wanted to develop an entirely new V6 when this and the 5.0 V8 were being developed. But Ford, having just developed the 3.5 Ecoboost wouldn't let them and told them to use that instead. Jaguar didn't like the engine because it wasn't refinded or smooth enough for a jaguar which resulted in the development of this engine as a compromise.
I don’t really buy it. The 3.5 is a update of the 3.0 duratec mentioned in the video, used in many Jaguars. How much rougher can a slightly different engine be?
@@johnherbold6539 Well obviously quite a lot rougher. And your definition of "slightly different" really doesn't apply here. For instance, if the throttle bodies on an engine are slightly off ballance then the engine is _much_ rougher. Such a small change makes a massive difference. So, a redesigned engine, even a slightly different one could be very much smoother. It depends on the initial design criteria.
@@johnherbold6539 The larger V6 duratec engines are great overall (especially versions without internal water pumps), but they are definitely 'rougher' running engines compared to a similar V8 or V6 with balance shaft. Not enough to affect reliability, but enough that you do notice it at lower idle speeds, and high load + high rpm operation in my experience.
Bro you are making some of the best gear head content on the platform, love that you showed us seaborne gear heads some love with your videos on mercury outboards, which are something I grew up with. Pls don't stop!
Always looking forward to seeing your new videos. Always a treat to get to see some history and the technology that is behind the wheels. Now if it was a great hit or a massive waste, the Visio Racer is going to steer your to the answer! 😉🏁
This was one of the most interesting videos I've ever seen. I never knew about the construction or history of the Jaguar V6, I've never heard of a V6 constructed like this ever!
I was hesitant to purchase a Jaguar F-Type due to this unusual design, it actually bothered me. Come to find out, the engine is a gem and an absolute pleasure to drive. I'm loving my 2017 V6s.
I will never understand how Visio A) can think of these video ideas B) has this vast wealth of knowledge of vehicle models, manufacturers and engineering. You never cease to amaze me dude.
I appreciate it, guys. It is the fascination that drives me to dig up those information. I have a lot more interesting stuff coming up, hope you will like them ✌🏻
The best approach is BMW's. Make engines with the same bore and stroke with only difference being the length of the block, so a 1.5L 3-cylinder, 2.0L 4-cylinder, 3.0L inline-6 and for a V8 two 4-cylinder blocks could be used but BMW builds a unique engine for that.
So they kill off 2 cylinders because they didn't need that much power in entry level vehicles, then supercharged it to get that lost power back. Got it.
But lesser pumping losses and less friction than a V8, so even at 340-380ps in supercharged V6 format, it offered better fuel consumption and lower emissions (and thus lower annual tax bands in most countries) than a detuned V8. In any 4 stroke engine the majority of internal friction is due to the pistons sliding against the cylinder walls. More cylinders equals more friction.
they sound good. but they also disperse heat better than a v6 and the v6 shudder is almost completely cancelled by the 5 mains. its a really nice engine. but then again inline 6 engines are way more easy to get smooth :P
The Rover (K)V6 was part of a project in the early 90s to replace the Buick-derived Rover V8 and Honda C27A V6. It K Series-based rev happy nature meant a V8 variant couldn’t produce sufficient torque to shift a Defender / Discovery / Range Rover like the Rover V8 could. Thus, sadly, the V8 wasn’t taken further but its 90-degree V6 little brother continued. Initially hand made on a mass production scale with questionable quality control, it was launched in 1996 as a 2.5-litre engine (2,497 cc / 80.0 mm x 82.8 mm) in the 825i, giving 130 kW (177 PS) @ 6,000 rpm and 240 Nm @ 4,000 rpm with the redline at 6,750 rpm. Rover engineers said it could go up to 2.7 litres (2,693 cc) - giving the stillborn V8 a maximum capacity of 3.6 litres (3,591 cc). In 1998 the V6 was heavily revised for the 75, becoming nearly a new engine in the process. The core block was carried over but everything else was changed. It also gained a smaller 2.0-litre (1,997 cc) with a shorter 66.2 mm stroke. This produced 110 kW (150 PS) @ 6,500 rpm & 185 Nm @ 4,000 rpm. Continuous redline at 6,750 rpm and an intermittent 7,250 rpm limiter. Maximum speed: 210 km/h (130 mph). The revised 2.5-litre (2,497 cc) gave 130 kW (177 PS) @ 6,500 rpm and 240 Nm @ 4,000 rpm. Maximum speed: 220 km/h (137 mph) - although owners have got them to 240 km/h (149 mph). For 2001 the 2.5-litre variant was given a small hike in power and torque to 140 kW (190 PS) @ 6,500 rpm and 245 Nm @ 4,000 rpm for the MG ZT 190 / ZT-T 190. Maximum speed: 225 km/h (140 mph). In 2004 MG Rover Australia went to Sprintex to help with a supercharged version: ZT 220S. This produced 165 kW (225 PS) @ 6,400 rpm and 290 Nm @ 4,100 rpm. Maximum speed: 234 km/h (145 mph). However, if Rover 75 2.5 [177] models (above) are anything to go by, it’ll probably go on to 250 km/h (155 mph). The 2.0-litre variant also appeared in 45 2.0 automatic models for BTCC homologation. MG Rover entered the ZS in the British Touring Car Championship in 2002 powered by a 2.0-litre V6 with 200 kW (272 PS). From 2004-2006 private teams ran ZS models with some success. *sorry…*
@@floydblandston108 It would have been better to have read my original comment in full before replying! Nowhere in my comment did I say the Buick-derived V8 and (K)V6 shared any design or parts commonality. To repeat my original comment, the (K)V8 and (K)V6 were a project to replace both the Buick-derived V8 and Honda C27A V6. The stillborn (K)V8 and production (K)V6 engines shared engineering concepts with the K4: sandwich design with long bolts holding the engine together under tension, block / cylinder liner design etc. As I said in my original comment, the (K)V6 was heavily revised, pretty much becoming an entirely new engine, for the 75. Julian Donald, engineer at Longbridge, explains one of the changes: "The cylinder head design of the early KV6 used in the 800 were basically just three-quarters of a four-cylinder K Series, but for the 75 the whole engine was redesigned to make it narrower to fit under the shorter bonnet." Another engineer, Brian Gunn, goes further: "The differences between the early and late KV6 are that the block/liners are dimensionally more accurate, with more tolerance bands. The heads are the same, although Rover changed the top covers." "The inlet manifold is totally different - it does not have the dual butterfly-type throttle body like the early one. The engine management has also been changed in favour of the Siemens 2000 system over the earlier MEMS 2J system. Things like the acoustic cover have been changed in appearance, as well as detail plumbing - and other things that go with an 'improvement'." Due to the (K)V8 not going anywhere, the Buick-derived V8 soldiered on until: - 2001 in the P38A where it was replaced by BMW's M62B44 in the L322 Range Rover; - 2004 in the L318 Discovery 2 where it was replaced by Jaguar's AJ-V8 - AJ41 4.4-litre guise - in the L319 Discovery 3, and - 2003/04 in Rover models by Ford's Modular V8 - 2L2E 4.6-litre 16v guise - in the R40 / X12 ZT 260 / 75 V8 and R41 / X13 ZT-T 260 / 75 Tourer V8 (17/18-year gap between the 3500 and ZT 260 / 75 V8)
@@applejuice5272 - "Little brother" usually defines a relationship much closer than anything between the KV6 and V8 Rover- for instance, the Buick V6 could certainly be called the 'little brother' of the V8 engine it was derived from, while the aluminum Buick/Oldsmobile V8 shared nothing with any prior GM products, or with the V6 engine derived from the Rover K-series. Since you consider yourself such a KV6 expert, please update us on its later life as the 'NV6'- we're just dying to hear...
@@floydblandston108 The V8 was designed by Buick to replace its straight-8 engine. Oldsmobile developed its own version (with a 6-bolt per cylinder pattern head vs the Buick 5-bolt), which it then turbocharged. You seem to be deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding what I am saying about the KV8 and KV6. Seeing as this is the second time of you doing this, it appears that you are doing it on purpose. The KV8 would have replaced the Buick-derived V8 whilst the KV6 actually replaced the Honda C27A. I can't dumb it down any further to your deliberate misunderstanding because I'm scared of heights. The NV6 was the cumulation of MG Rover engineers' efforts to make the KV6 Euro IV compliant and generally improve it (throttle control, improved quality standards) in MGR's last days and further development with Ricardo plc. This resulted in 135 kW (184 PS) @ 6,500 rpm but the same 240 Nm torque peak @ 4,000 rpm as the 130 kW (177 PS) KV6.
@@applejuice5272 - Wrong again; the original aluminum V8 was a purely experimental GM corporate design, while the (iron block) 'Nailhead' was the actual replacement for the straight 8, while Buick and Oldsmobile each adapted the aluminum design to later need- for unknown reasons, Rover chose to use the lesser design. The NV6 was, more accurately, a redevelopment of the KV6, undertaken with Chinese investment after the collapse of Rover. Do you ever tire of displaying stupidity publicly?
Ford did something similiar with their cologne OHC V6. The heads were the same. So in effect both heads could be cast from one cast instead of a left and right mold. Just some changes in the water jacket and plugs iirc but both heads could be used interchangable with the exceptions of a few sensor plugs. But this did result in that rear side timing chain and jackshaft.
I specialize on these cars for a living. Every time I pull one of these for major service, I always chuckle when I see this block. We going on almost a decade now servicing these 😂😂😂
This is a really good, informational video. No matter how true it is, it brings a bit of a negative connotation that this V6 should be considered undesirable. That's just my take on the presentation. No slight intended. I own a Jaguar XE with this engine and it is an absolute THRILL to drive. The power is almost scary (full disclosure: Mods to computer map and supercharger overdrive put it just over 450 HP). The exhaust note is just fabulous too. If you ever get to drive or own a Jag with this engine, I guarantee you'll be in a M5 KILLER and have adrenalin overkill. Thanks for the nice video! --Fink
Premium vehicles with V6s are an oxymoron. ETA: Dino was originally marketed as a Fiat, so Enzo himself saw a V6 as a compromise, while Alfa wasn't really a premium brand back in the day, more like the Italian Pontiac.
@@paulfrantizek102 Funnily enough, their initial plan for the R34 GTR was to give it a front-mid mounted V6 like how it is in the current GTR but they didn't have the money for it at the time so they just said, "screw it, let's just fix what's wrong with the R33 and call it a day."
@@CyanRooper Nissan introduced the GT-R at a low price because many Americans didn't know what it was. At that time, only certain car guys did. Once people who knew nothing about cars sold outside the USA saw the capacity of the Nissan GT-R, Nissan raised the price by about 25%.
I think it would’ve been more cost and fuel efficient to keep it a V8, but reduce the crankshaft stroke to limit displacement. You wouldn’t have to worry about split pin cranks and making cranks and cams with blanked off sections at the back.
Truly, just leave it as a V8, it seems like a good idea to the bean counters on paper, but it would seem you are just creating different problems that require different solutions.
That wouldn't work for jaguars model structure as a brand though, all their specs get the luxury interior and getting the v6, supercharged v6, V8 or supercharged V8 is what changes the more money you spend.
This wasnt done out of laziness, jag wanted to develop a v6 alongside the 5.0 v8 but ford wanted them to use their arguably garbo ecoboost v6 instead. Jaguar refused and developed this v6 from their v8, which got better fuel, made more power and was much smoother than the ecoboost they snubbed.
Im sure that they had their reasons for simply not adding the supercharger to the V8 for entry level models. Owners report very similar fuel consumption for both the V6 and V8
It's down to emissions and therefore annual tax costs for owners in most countries. 8 cylinders is almost always worse on emissions than 6 cylinders so the V8 will almost always sit in a higher tax band. In most markets Jaguar operates in, and particularly the home market, V8s are deeply unpopular except in their halo-model form. Almost nobody wants less power, they want lower ownership cost. Even this V6 was dropped from the XE early on when a turbocharged 4-pot offering almost as much power for less cost was introduced. In the old X-Type the Duratec based 2.1 petrol V6 didn't survive long after the 4 pot diesel arrived offering almost identical acceleration but with much better fuel consumption - the 2.1 V6 was particularly stupid because it cost the same to build as the 2.5 and 3.0 engine, but Jaguar had to sell the 2.1 at 2/3rds the price of the 3.0 version!
It's not like you say with duratec story. The first v6s after 93 to 96-97 had 2564cc and 170hp. All 2.5l Duratec are equipped with the IMRC system - variable length and capacity of the intake manifolds, which increase the torque at low revs and boost the engine at high revs (operating similarly to the ram air system - the engine is charged with the momentum of the air-fuel charge reflecting inside the intake manifold) In facelift models after 97 mondeo mk2 2.5 l capacity was 2544 cm3, the power remained unchanged. A sports version of the st24 / svt with a power of 190 horses was created with an increased cross-section of the intake manifolds (these intake manifolds - black, not silver, are very sought after and are an easy way to increase the power in a regular v6). In 1997 (in cooperation with Mazda and the Ford Performance USA branch), the ST200 SGA version was created with a capacity of 2498 cm3 and an even larger throttle, increased compression ratio and a pwm controlled fuel pump that generated 208 horsepower. Engine parts are interchangeable with each other on all ford2.5L models except for the crank and piston system. The ST 200 also has more aggressive camshafts, but they fit a regular v6. On the other hand, the 3.0l MEBA version with mondeo mk3 and mazda is a completely new engine, with a different intake manifold, which from spare parts for 2.5l has only part of the engine accessories, e.g. feet, alternator, water pump, coil, timing gear. Engine 3.0 was designed by Mazda engineers - for Mazda 6, Tribute, MPV based on the ST200 engine and generates 226 horsepower. There was also a Duratec SE 204hp version - REBA - different camshafts and a smaller throttle. At the time of the Ford/Jaguar merger, Jaguar received the early 3.0L engine blocks, but decided to return the cylinder heads for rework in porsche. Depending on the application, jaguar 3.0v6 has from 234 to 244 horses (x type s type). There are no matching parts from the Jaguar to the Ford, they are very similar to each other and can even be mounted together, but they will not work properly, e.g. crankshaft bearings. In '98, Jaguar customers started complaining that their 3.0Ls were gas-guzzling, so Jaguar designed a 2.5L capacity of 197hp. However, this was not enough and Jaguar wanted a more economical petrol version in the x type model, so it created a 2.1l version with 156 horsepower. This version did not have the possibility of configuration with 4-wheel drive (only front-wheel drive, but the 2.1 engine fits the gearbox from the 4x4 version). Jaguar engines have also been put into late Ford Mavericks, it is a Mazda Tribute in fact, on Mazda engine accessories.
@@papa_pt A lot of different factors. The simplicity for one. It's a single cam pushrod higher displacement motor without a bunch of crazy fancy electronics and stuff, essentially an older LS motor except it's a v6 making it cheaper to maintain and much easier to work on. The ratio of the price you can get these to the reliability they offer is absolutely insane. I bought an old buick with a 1st gen 3800 and that thing lasted over 400k miles with very little repairs. (bought for 600, put 200k on it and sold for 600, still running today) I have several cars with this motor and have rebuilt a few of them and if you take care of them even after hundreds of thousands of miles the internals look like the internals of most motors with like 60k. Plus, many of them came factory supercharged, which is super cool. My gtp with a supercharged 3800 always puts a gigantic grin on my face. 500 dollars in mods and it's making about 320 whp. Plus, cruising on the highway they all get about 30mpg. Don't get me wrong, the cars this motor came in are usually nothing special, but the gm 3800 is an absolute gem of a powerplant. Not easy to make crazy horsepower with them but they are very cheap to own, you can have plenty of fun with them, they are easy to work on and they last absolutely forever. A 3800 will run like shit for longer than most motors will run period. It's one of the only platforms to come out of the U.S. that competes with the stuff toyota and honda were putting out at that time. Had comparable and even better gas mileage in some cases, made more power, and keeps up in terms of reliability for sure.
My question is: if removing 2 cylinders this way is good enough for most applications, why dont they sell the v8 with a low power mode to save fuel most of the time? Wouldn't a 250hp tune on this v8s be feasible instead of cutting 2 cylinders for better mpg?
It's because the problem with a V8 isn't adding fuel or not adding fuel to the cylinders, it's the friction losses of the pistons moving in the cylinders. It's the friction you're stuck with whenever the engine is running, no matter how much power you do or don't need at the time, which contributes most to the fuel consumption and emissions, the latter translating to tax bandings for most countries. Nobody wants low power mode, they want low running cost mode, and the best way to reduce ongoing costs (tax, fuel consumption) is to lose cylinders.
This is making me think: when Rocketeer (UK tuning company) devised the jag v6 swap kit for the mazda mx-5/miata... if the block is the same size... is there any reason you couldn't use a jag v8 instead?
@@alexisg311 if you're good enough at welding you can put anything in anything. I mean reusing the rocketeer subframe etc. People have put hellcats in miatas. Which is of course too much power.
This video is a reminder of the PRV, born as a 90° V8 and shortened to a V6 due to the fuel crisis 40 years ago. It took 15 years for it to finally receive the 30° split crank to perform regular firing and install electronic fuel injection and a catalytic converter...
VisioRacer actually made a video on the PRV engine ruclips.net/video/Wyf92HT0wxk/видео.html. My experience (as working in aftersales) on PRV is more that the earlier versions are difficult to tune (K Jetronic with breaking fuel lines, or multiple carbs hard to synchronize , dual ignition to time, CO2/CO to be adjusted on each bank of cylinder...) and oil leak prone. Once the engine received split crank, silicone based gaskets and Fenix fuel injection, the N.A. versions become bullet proof engines. Turbo versions if not abused will also be super reliable. Yet fuel consumption will never be great.
I worked in JLR for four years...I remember the powertrain director who wanted AJ126, he was PF. Essentially he and his team back then didn't have the money and know how to make a proper V6 so they took the Ford engineered AJ133, removed two cylinders and put two counterweights. Fuel economy was worse than AJ133 but in 2012 they were bankrupted and being sold to Tata they could not used the Duratec anymore. V6s can be as refined as I6s, just have a look at Busso's engine, or the V6 made by Alfieri in Maserati also with little money and derived by a V8.
I was confused about what the problem was, until I saw the block casting for the 'V6'. Holy shit that is bad. No other manufacturer has even considered producing something like that, even if it saved money. I'm surprised I've never heard of this.
Thanks for that, I had somehow missed it and thought Jag were still using the modified Ford unit until the Ingenium engines came on line (4-pots first). The latest F-Type has a straight 4 or a 5ltr V8. So which models will an inline 6 fit?
New ones, I guess? Land Rover already uses the I6, in the new Defender and Range Rovers. I6 doesn't need any particularly special proportions of the car, or size, but it's long enough to require the engine bay to be designed for it, which the F-type's one isn't.
Wow, I already hated 90 degree V6 engines for various reasons, but this takes it to a new level. If a company wants a V6 engine, don't make the inherently unbalanced 90 degree type. Either make a 60 degree V6 or make a VR6. I hate balance shafts with a passion. To me it's like making an engine carry an extra weight continuously because the engine was a stupid idea to begin with. Some people like to talk about the size constraints of an inline 6 and V6 and how it affects car design. When they ask, I tell them to look at a Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo and a Toyota Supra MKIV side by side. That makes it much easier to see the space an inline 6 takes up, and how a car must be be built to accommodate it.
To have a natural even firing order a V6 needs 120 degree bank angle. That's barely narrower than a flat 6, hence 60 and 90 degree sixes, which both need offset crankpins. V6s always need a balance shaft to cancel out the rocking couple that comes as a result of having an odd number of cylinders per bank. If you want balance shaft free operation you need an inline or boxer 6. But they have their own downsides, e.g. inline sixes need heavy harmonic dampers on their crankshafts because their length reduces the torsional rigidity of the crank.
@Skyline Fever if that is the case they just accepted the rocking couple and dealt with it some other way, e.g. by using clever engine mounting to absorb the vibration. If you lift the bonnet with the engine running in one of those cars you'll probably see the engine slightly rocking back and forth longitudinally. It's easier on smaller displacement v6 especially if oversquare design is used, similar to how I4s below 2L often don't use balance shafts but those above often do.
@@nerd1000ify Okay, I see now. The engine is just small enough not to send much vibration through the rest of then car, and the engine mounts are huge.
@Skyline Fever well not huge necessarily, but carefully optimised so that the engine mounts won't amplify (resonant frequencies etc. are important) or transfer the vibration into the car. I think this is increasingly common these days, especially since many small cars are going to I3 engines that have the same balance issue but would experience even more of a penalty from the balance shaft due to their lower output. My original post I miss spoke a bit, the text implies a V6 must always have a balance shaft when I should have said it needs one if the rocking couple is too large to be dealt with by other means in our specific application. Obviously in a luxury car we would be more worried about some vibration than in a truck.
There's a reason why the chevy 4.3L V6 was called a "3/4 small block". Many of the parts interchange. At least they put in the effort to actually remove the unused cylinders and make a different crankshaft.
I guess it saved the company a heap of money vs making a brand new engine, but it has no other redeeming features. The bean counters have a lot to answer for 🙂👍
I like Jaguar and I own an XK X100 but Jaguar hasn't been the same for a very long time. They keep chasing BMW and missing the point of what made Jaguar desirable. Their sales figures for the F-Type and XK X150 reflect that with well under half the sales the XK X100 had. The V6 was a shit idea, whoever came up with that should have been sacked. No need to have so many engine options, the V8 was already very fuel efficient being able to get out 30+ mpg UK on the motorway and low to mid 20 mpg on normal roads. Only ever need the naturally aspirated V8 and the supercharged V8 in different capacities. They should have kept the 4.2 around for the more luxury cars and the supercharged engines in 5.0 versions for the more sporty or higher end performance packages. Should have offered a manual for the V8 instead of a V6. Lexus LC500 is what Jaguar should have made. They are just taking Jaguar sales instead.
Apparently this is or was a common thing to do in certain types of racing to get around rule books for engine displacement limits, and to save costs while doing so.
One word. Cost effective. It's that simple. Tooling is almost similar. Manufacturing is almost similar. This means it can be offered at a "good" price.
Cut costs in developing a V6 by starting with a V8 , then spend extra money changing the bore/stroke making it even smaller, then add a supercharger? I bet this was due to taxes which increase on cars with engine displacements above 3L
Hell ! Even shitty GM did a better job than cheap skate Jaguar. At least on the VORTEC 4.3L you're not lugging around extra weight that's not producing any power to help move itself.
That was one of many engines GM did that with. There was also the 200, and 229 V6's based on the Chevy small block), the 196, 3.0, 3.3, 225, 231 and 252 V6s (based on the Buick V8) and the GMC big block V6 that had a V8 and V12 variant. And before all of those was GM's Detroit diesel division building engines with the modular concept, both inline and V's. I also understand that the Northstar V8 had a V6 variant too.
Doesn’t this mean that a v8 swap would be super easy on any car that used this engine? Literally a drop in substitution because the only difference is that two cylinders are blocked off?
They're not the first to convert a V8 to V6 with this method either. But in this case they'd have had to move the engine mounts if they just went for a new V6 block, and that would have a knock-on effect with transmissions plus other factors. They'd then have to get the car re-certified as the chassis would have been modified.
JLR had previously aimed for a similar arrangement with the TD5 engine. It was originally intended to be a TD4 and TD6 engines but they were never used as BMW took them over.
Im getting 450hp out of my minimally modified v6 f-type. I dont care how or why Jaguar arrived at its decision to reuse the v8 block, it works very well. Drive one.
I'm the guy who built it! Back then I ran the machine shop at Janspeed who developed Leyland Special Tuning stuff and we had a lot of experience with the BOP V8 and turbos (4,7l twin turbo Le Mans car with 600hp) so when the rally project was mooted they came to us, a V8 wouldn't physically fit in and for rally driving really had the wrong power characteristics as we knew from the SD1's so we chopped a V8 and made a billet crank for a V6. Nice engine but basically a mistake, we also had a lot of experience with both the Ford BDA and the Toyota F2 engines which would have been a better basis. Two valvers aren't the way to go fast. The 998 Desmo Mini engine project was another freaky thing we built, 11,000rpm and the noise was indescribable!
Chrysler pulled a similar stunt with the 3.9 v6, but instead of keeping the block the same length, they just shortened it and only changed the crank with no added balance shafts or anything.
BMW did the same thing with the V8 M3. They took the S85 V10 from the M5/M6 and just didn’t make 2 cylinders at the back. When you look at an E92 M3, you can see the flat spots at the back. Thats why the v10 m5 and v8 m3 have the same engine issues. Its a cost cutting tactic but created some of the best sounding and performing engines ever at the expense of reliability.
Ez30 is still by far the best 6 cylinder and all alloy motor out there ...super balanced ...water pump in the sump...revs like a little motor but delivers power like a V8 ..most ppl don't realise the BP/bl legacy/outback can have the ecu retuned by new Zealand performance tuning in Auckland or Christchurch for $1300 u drive away with 400hp atw..only mods required is cat back exhaust and remove silence plenum on intake ...I've got a 3.0 bh outback non vvt (the less powerful motor)with 350kms on the clock still goes hard asf ..took old mate for a drive and at 140+ kph it's got big v8 pull. Even uphill....been my tow car for years never fails
JLR have said that it is to do with cost but also, the extra lump on metal on the block and heads act as a counter-weight for the V6, improving NHV levels. I wouldn’t call this cheap cost-cutting in the same way VW or BMW have done recently such as reducing the number of boot lights from 2 to 1 or by using far lower grade quality carpets throughout (Audi)
Very clever cost cutting solution (using the existing V8 external block dimensions) I wonder if Jaguar have consider a high performance five cylinder derivative design, or possibly a three cylinder version to go into the new Fiesta - just with a much longer bonnet perhaps?
Future of business automotive innovation: The car comes with a v8 but 2 cylinders are deactivated unless the customer wants to purchase the "premium" subscription package for only $199.99 a month. 💵✌️
Apple car
Shoosh! Dont give them any new ideas!!!!
Don't forget the added $189.99 "Ultra Performance Fuel Pump" subscription needed to supply extra fuel and the $169.69 "Performance X2-Ultra Spark Plug" subscription for the two spark plugs.
BMW: WRITE THAT DOWN
If you don't pay the subscription the engine starts shutting off cylinders until it only runs on 2.
Ah yes, permanent cylinder deactivation.
lol
This is probably the most reliable form of cylinder deactivation ever😂😂😂😂 we know how bad AFM was for GM
@@JDMHaze GM learned the lesson in the 80s with the Cadillac v8-6-4. cylinder deactivation and GM just dont go together.
@@chadbullock6326 They definitely didn’t learn because they brought it back around a 2008/2009 years on their Vortech motors lol
Cylindern’t
Make your payment, choose which cylinders to deactivate. Miss your payment, no activation of any cylinders 😂
An interesting similar case would be the "Laziest Way to Create an I4"... The Pontiac 'Trophy 4' which was quite literally half of an existing V8 engine Pontiac had at the time. They just removed 1 cylinder head (and bores) and left you with a 45Deg I4 engine.
Talk about a car guy, I remember those! It's half a 389, with the super odd fire and they couldn't get it right. Pontiac even tried flex discs on the driveshafts to dampen the vibration. Bold attempt, bad execution, the sprint 6 sure was dang cool!
International did the same thing with 2 Scout engines. One was half a 345, and the other half a 392. Used them for a long time and they worked decently well.
@@miniz33 the vibration could have been eliminated with counter rotating balance shafts that all modern large displacement 4 cyl engines use.
@@mikebell9166
I think you got that slightly wrong. The first was a cut 304, I just rewired a 64 scout 80 with a 152 i4. Clearly a V8 lopped in half, the valley pan and intake manifold are obviously cut down. So primitive it doesn't even have reverse lights, no neutral safety switch, clutch interlock. Had a oil indicator on the dash, never could find a sender on the block...
After that came a cut down 392, but I don't think there ever was a 172.5 i4 scout.
GM cut down a SBC to a 90 degree v6 for decades. Same earlier with a I4 from a I6 with a 153 from a 194. GM even did the 8 to 4 with the iron duke series of engines, had one of those in a S10. Your mail probably gets/got delivered for decades by either a V6 cut down SBC, or a I4 cut down pontiac V8.
@@pontiacg445 Then there was the Buick V6 that was cut down from a V8. It was a 90 degree block and had an uneven firing order since it didn't have split crankpins. I had one of these in a Jeep around 1970 and it shook like hell. The thing had a dual point distributor to handle the firing order and it was nearly impossible to time correctly. But it did make plenty of power, at least for a Jeep.
I remember they chose this route because they would have to redo the entire crash structure of the front end due to the shorter block so it was cheaper to keep the full block in place.
But makes you then think theres no point in not buying the full v8 as the 6 has few to no advantages in placement or weight etc 🤷♂️ (PS. Sources EVO magazine, Chris Harris, Harry Metcalfe and Jason Camisa)
That makes alot more sense.
Well for most cars there is no reason not to get the bigger motor other than mpgs. So I don't understand what you mean by your comment
@@devlintaylor95203 reasons, Smaller engines often lead to less weight and better Handling dynamics, also non Americans sometimes dislike the idea of a big loud v8 opting for a more " Social " friendly 4/6, this is especially common in Australia where v8s can be seen as bogan ( White trash/lower class )
In Europe/Japan it's usually for tax purposes smaller engines being cheaper.
@@devlintaylor9520 I personally think anybody who chooses a v6 over a v8 is a crazy person, just pay the damn tax and fuel its usually a 10x better experience but yet people still skimp out!
@@Nightmaretyrant I forgot about the tax thing, but other than that,mpg and price there is no reason to go v6
I didn't know this level of cost cutting was possible, excellent video!
I knew it was possible im just surprised someone did it
@@mfsusanoo7238 lol😂😂
Jaguar - a company known for cost-cutting.
My favorite V8 based v6 is still the Chevrolet 4.3L. based on the tried and true 350 small block v8! Sadly production ended in 2014 when it was replaced by the LV3, which was a clean sheet design
Oldsmobile had a nice V6 in the intrique and second gen aurora
I worked at a transmission/driveline specialist shop for a while, and we rebuilt a 4L60E for a Chevy Express, with an LU3 4.3 V6, it had 330,000 miles on it, we built it with a Sonnax smart tech drum, and Z pack Raybestos frictions, and a Precision converter, he brought it back with 778,000 miles, and we serviced the trans, and replaced a leaking intake gasket, and sent it. If you keep after that 4.3, they will run a long time....
My 93 chevy 1500 has 220,000 i think is just broken in 🤣 and its manual
If they didn't use spider injectors and cheap intake gaskets, the Vortec 4300 would have been trouble free.
@@skylinefever top tier fuel helps, a quart of ATF in the tank twice a year is good too, intake gaskets once every 10 years isn't that bad, really....
Had no idea the V6 was a blanked V8
Maybe the 90° vee might have been a hint.
@@1258-Eckhart I was about to say. You literally wont find a 60 ° V6 these days.
@@jakecole7447 toyota and nissan?
@@vickramgangaram2925 and Honda
@@1258-Eckhart The 4.3L Chevy V6 is a chopped down 5.7L SBC. Everything not affected by length fits between the two engines. This was made over 40 years ago.
It isn’t elegant.
It is compromised.
But crucially the car’s crash behaviour is the same as the V8 so the V6 models did not need to be crashed again.
Also the shared components makes cost savings.
Finally it is a swet driving & great sounding engine.
Yet you waste MPG, space and weight on carrying a piece of block you'd essentially not need
And then no one buys the car anyway - because it’s so compromised relative to the competition….
This is why British companies are so rubbish now - all because of stupid accountants.
@@rep7552 British car companies have always been rubbish. They have made the least reliable and finicky vehicles of all time. They just seem to have no concept of how to engineer things in a way that makes them reliable or reasonable to repair.
@@dominikkanzler2967 Spacesaving is not really existant in this case, since the chassis is designed to house the V8. Weight for sure, but it's a heavy SUV anyway and your not going to improve MPG much through that. So yes, it's very much not elegant, but the downsides are surprisingly small.
@Dominik Kanzler hardly, you would never notice the difference on a 1.7 ton car
Apparently, this design best met the company's targets for power, emissions, fuel economy, and cost.
What blows me away is that GM didn't try pulling a stunt like this, since their considerable engineering prowess is ALWAYS used to save a production buck rather than build a better product....
Arguably that ethos wasn't followed in the C8 flat-plane.
@@exothermal.sprocket We'll see. First year GM product......?
@@Flies2FLL I've never put down personal money on GM products and actually don't care much about any of them. Just an observation.
GM always have a reputation for stuffing something up especially to save money 😆
Lol The Walmart of car companies!
The weight and bulk of a V8 and the power of a V6. Such innovation!
with the balance and smoothness of neither 😂
It's still lighter as there are no pistons, rods and crank journals, plus the heads are lighter.
And the heads are shorter and smaller in size.
So, it's not got the weight and bulk of a V8.
Also, who cares about 10-20kg difference?
I've had an rb26, numerous bmw straight 6s , audi supercharged v6 and this v6 in the xe ...I can tell you with out any hesitation it's the best 6 cylinder engine I've owned...it sounds amazing and pulls like a train.
What doesn't make sense to me is why Jaguar had to build an entire new front end for the project 8? If the engine has the same dimensions, it should have been easy to fit a.v8, and it wasn't... something doesn't add up
Why would you design a completely different engine and face some reliability issues? The aj126 is the best sounding V6 there is, has plenty of power, is somewhat reliable and meets all the emissions requirements.
@@dagnut
Same as you.
Owned a few BMW's and a lot of Holden's with the LS Chevy..
But the supercharged XE will sit in My garage for long time 👌
So glad someone picked up on this!
Thank you VR!
The V6 of Jaguar's 2010s was a real sweet engine to have. It's more reliable than the car itself and it holds shitloads of power to upwards of 800hp. Even at its stock setup, it's pretty punchy and sounds absolutely grunty.
It's just Jaguar's version of the Alfa Busso V6 and they miraculously pulled it off.
Waiting for a two cylinder version with 6 blank cylinders. You know, for small cars.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
haha!
This is the engine in my car (2015 3.0 SC XF). I didn't know until I went to get it tuned. Intersting stuff.
I didn't know the duratec family had such a prestigious design background. The longitudinal versions (and any version without the internal water pump) seem to be reliable.
Yeah AJ-V6 is pretty good also 240hp, which is more than the usual duratec.
The AJ-V6 was co developed by Jaguar and Mazda separately from the Ford Duratec V6,it has Variable timing and a direct acting valve train,the Ford offering having fixed timing and follower activated valves. The output of the 3.0 MEBA ford Duratec V6(Tribute,Mondeo,Taurus,maverick etc.) is around 205 bhp,I've seen a couple make around 210-ish, compared to the Jaguars 240,almost all the REBA Ford Duratecs (ST220 Mondeo) I've seen or had tested seem to peak around the high 230 figure meaning that for all the added complexity of vvt the benefits are miniscule,although the DAMB valvetrain layout is a better design in terms of application and durability. FWIW we use quite a few Duratec V6's,they aren't cheap to tune and modify,parts are hard to come by/expensive over here but given the correct build approach you can achieve a tough power train that will endure some stick,our built 2.5 Duratec with one off cams and TBI currently in my old Mondeo estate parts getter, Revs to 8000 rpm reliably and from around 1800 rpm outperforms all standard 3.0 Ford and Jaguar/Mazda versions ,our single turbo REBA V6 even with its manifold set up that isn't ideal for low rpm torque is superior from idle.If jaguar were looking for refinement why did they introduce the Ingenium,that steaming log is as refined as the three cylinder lister in my old sailing boat and a damn sight less reliable😂
@@notpoliticallycorrect1303 In the US, the later 3.0L Duratecs that Ford and Mazda used starting in 04-06 did have variable timing and 221HP from the factory. There was a second generalization of this variant that made 240-250HP. All of these engines are easy to find in salvage yards and dirt cheap.
@@madmatt2024 that is true, in Germany they sold about 20 thousand s-types, with the 3.0 V6 being the most common
What about 3.5 dura-Tex before the ecoboost? In Fusion sport, and ford flex
I m still trying to work out if it sounds sporty - or if it sounds strained....
Your English is getting so good!!👍
It may be a cost cutting design but by all accounts it's still a driver's delight. The sound quality and power delivery were praised from launch. I would be interested to see a back to back comparison with the new i6 in terms of sound, refinement, performance, economy etc. Incidentally, I believe we are seeing a return of straight 6s because 4 cylinder motors are now more common in premium cars and it is relatively easy to engineer a i4 into an i6....
"I would be interested to see a back to back comparison with the new i6 in terms of sound, refinement, performance, economy etc."
It's inferior in every regard. The AJ126 wasn't even much better at fuel economy than the V8 it was based on.
That v6 does sound great.. for whatever reason. Probably just proper exhaust engineering by Jaguar.
If F type gets the new straight six, then it'll really be like a modern E type
"It may be a cost cutting design but by all accounts it's still a driver's delight." I guess, but making a V6 the same size and nearly the same weight as a V8 seems quite an asinine way to do it so as to undo any advantages the V6 might have in packaging! At least it makes V8 swaps easier I guess...
I have always been a fan of the straight 6 design, perfect primary balance, which is evident, and lovely smooth power. The final iteration of the Ford Australia straight 6 from the 1963 Falcon, was progressively developed into a modern European style engine, and given its own well deserved name, 'Barracuda' at 4 litres was a better engine than the Ford USA supplied V8 unit, with a much lighter weight and such a high power output, so much so, that it was de-tuned in the turbo variant, because it produced more power than the V8, while providing better handling for the vehicle. It became known in racing and drag circles for its ability to produce 1000 BHP.
With an upgrade to titanium piston rods, it could be run much higher with absolute reliability.
A demonstration of what can be achieved by throwing away the pushrod concept. It had HYVO chain driven DOHC, 4 valve heads, with high compression heads. It was not a fuel guzzler, except when pushed, so a very tractable engine package all around.
So, sadly, the Barracuda engine was lost to the world when Ford Australia was closed down by head office in the US. Those who are familiar with this engine around the world still recognise its unique development cycle, and earliest frail agricultural beginnings.
The versions of the engine prior to full top end work, were also an engine I enjoyed very much from as early as the late 1970s.
2:40 The TVS supercharger is actually a roots style supercharger, not a twin screw.
Nice to see Ford Australia stuck with the inline 6 until the end of Ford production in Australia.
The mighty barra still sound sweet and very reliable.
I’m perplexed why Ford didn’t use it elsewhere in the world.
Yep that was due to having zero funding available for engineering but that wasn't a bad thing. If it's not broke - don't fix it, however it was extremely archaic by the time it was phased out. I had an AU with the Intech and a BA with the Barra. The only real change is the DOHC head, the block had barely changed in decades! The Barra was a lot more refined but had a few more issues, the cost to develop the Barra in the BA was taken from the interior, B series Falcons just fall apart around the engine haha
@@MATTY110981 probably didn’t meet the standards of specific markets (maybe too high emission for Europe, or too expensive to ship to North America or too inefficient for parts of Asia, etc). Too bad though. I’ve always considered the Barra as the Aussie 2JZ. It’s almost as strong and can make almost the same power. It’s a stout engine and they put them in everything down there, which means they are MUCH cheaper than a 2JZ
Lowkey been wating on a video on this topic. Such an interesting case in the car world.
One point not mentioned was the fact that Jaguar wanted to develop an entirely new V6 when this and the 5.0 V8 were being developed. But Ford, having just developed the 3.5 Ecoboost wouldn't let them and told them to use that instead. Jaguar didn't like the engine because it wasn't refinded or smooth enough for a jaguar which resulted in the development of this engine as a compromise.
I don’t really buy it. The 3.5 is a update of the 3.0 duratec mentioned in the video, used in many Jaguars. How much rougher can a slightly different engine be?
@@johnherbold6539 Well obviously quite a lot rougher. And your definition of "slightly different" really doesn't apply here. For instance, if the throttle bodies on an engine are slightly off ballance then the engine is _much_ rougher. Such a small change makes a massive difference. So, a redesigned engine, even a slightly different one could be very much smoother. It depends on the initial design criteria.
@@johnherbold6539 The larger V6 duratec engines are great overall (especially versions without internal water pumps), but they are definitely 'rougher' running engines compared to a similar V8 or V6 with balance shaft. Not enough to affect reliability, but enough that you do notice it at lower idle speeds, and high load + high rpm operation in my experience.
I think Ford use that 3.5 litre unit in the smaller engined Mustang as well..
1 word. Cam phasers.
Bro you are making some of the best gear head content on the platform, love that you showed us seaborne gear heads some love with your videos on mercury outboards, which are something I grew up with. Pls don't stop!
The V6 does sound amazing.
Always looking forward to seeing your new videos. Always a treat to get to see some history and the technology that is behind the wheels. Now if it was a great hit or a massive waste, the Visio Racer is going to steer your to the answer! 😉🏁
This was one of the most interesting videos I've ever seen. I never knew about the construction or history of the Jaguar V6, I've never heard of a V6 constructed like this ever!
I was hesitant to purchase a Jaguar F-Type due to this unusual design, it actually bothered me. Come to find out, the engine is a gem and an absolute pleasure to drive. I'm loving my 2017 V6s.
@@cujet I'm very happy for you. I'd never heard of a V6 designed like this before.
In the 90s jaguar were reputedly developing a V6 two stroke. I never heard any more on this, just what I read in a magazine article at the time.
Jag had a hot V6 in the XJ220.
I will never understand how Visio A) can think of these video ideas B) has this vast wealth of knowledge of vehicle models, manufacturers and engineering.
You never cease to amaze me dude.
His detail knowledge is just incredible even down to the hairpin valvesprings in the BRM V16 (and this detail for every other engine in existence).
I appreciate it, guys. It is the fascination that drives me to dig up those information. I have a lot more interesting stuff coming up, hope you will like them ✌🏻
As usual, your content is always unique
Renault: hold my beer!
Citroën: hold my LHM bottle!
The best approach is BMW's. Make engines with the same bore and stroke with only difference being the length of the block, so a 1.5L 3-cylinder, 2.0L 4-cylinder, 3.0L inline-6 and for a V8 two 4-cylinder blocks could be used but BMW builds a unique engine for that.
The current b series of engines is like that. The b48 is a b58 with 2 less cylinders
a v8 with 2 cylinders deactivated would pump needed air into the exhaust stream.
Its not a fault, its a feature.
So they kill off 2 cylinders because they didn't need that much power in entry level vehicles, then supercharged it to get that lost power back. Got it.
Yeah... makes perfect sense. 😛
marketing lol
But lesser pumping losses and less friction than a V8, so even at 340-380ps in supercharged V6 format, it offered better fuel consumption and lower emissions (and thus lower annual tax bands in most countries) than a detuned V8. In any 4 stroke engine the majority of internal friction is due to the pistons sliding against the cylinder walls. More cylinders equals more friction.
they sound good. but they also disperse heat better than a v6 and the v6 shudder is almost completely cancelled by the 5 mains. its a really nice engine. but then again inline 6 engines are way more easy to get smooth :P
Jags in line sixes have excellent drivability and low end torque, if I was jag I look at the speed six as it is truly British and a great engine.
@@jamesocker5235 “speed six”
The Rover (K)V6 was part of a project in the early 90s to replace the Buick-derived Rover V8 and Honda C27A V6. It K Series-based rev happy nature meant a V8 variant couldn’t produce sufficient torque to shift a Defender / Discovery / Range Rover like the Rover V8 could. Thus, sadly, the V8 wasn’t taken further but its 90-degree V6 little brother continued.
Initially hand made on a mass production scale with questionable quality control, it was launched in 1996 as a 2.5-litre engine (2,497 cc / 80.0 mm x 82.8 mm) in the 825i, giving 130 kW (177 PS) @ 6,000 rpm and 240 Nm @ 4,000 rpm with the redline at 6,750 rpm.
Rover engineers said it could go up to 2.7 litres (2,693 cc) - giving the stillborn V8 a maximum capacity of 3.6 litres (3,591 cc).
In 1998 the V6 was heavily revised for the 75, becoming nearly a new engine in the process. The core block was carried over but everything else was changed.
It also gained a smaller 2.0-litre (1,997 cc) with a shorter 66.2 mm stroke. This produced 110 kW (150 PS) @ 6,500 rpm & 185 Nm @ 4,000 rpm. Continuous redline at 6,750 rpm and an intermittent 7,250 rpm limiter. Maximum speed: 210 km/h (130 mph).
The revised 2.5-litre (2,497 cc) gave 130 kW (177 PS) @ 6,500 rpm and 240 Nm @ 4,000 rpm. Maximum speed: 220 km/h (137 mph) - although owners have got them to 240 km/h (149 mph).
For 2001 the 2.5-litre variant was given a small hike in power and torque to 140 kW (190 PS) @ 6,500 rpm and 245 Nm @ 4,000 rpm for the MG ZT 190 / ZT-T 190. Maximum speed: 225 km/h (140 mph).
In 2004 MG Rover Australia went to Sprintex to help with a supercharged version: ZT 220S. This produced 165 kW (225 PS) @ 6,400 rpm and 290 Nm @ 4,100 rpm. Maximum speed: 234 km/h (145 mph). However, if Rover 75 2.5 [177] models (above) are anything to go by, it’ll probably go on to 250 km/h (155 mph).
The 2.0-litre variant also appeared in 45 2.0 automatic models for BTCC homologation. MG Rover entered the ZS in the British Touring Car Championship in 2002 powered by a 2.0-litre V6 with 200 kW (272 PS). From 2004-2006 private teams ran ZS models with some success.
*sorry…*
There are absolutely zero design/build similarities or relationships between the Rover K series and V8 engines- none.
@@floydblandston108 It would have been better to have read my original comment in full before replying!
Nowhere in my comment did I say the Buick-derived V8 and (K)V6 shared any design or parts commonality.
To repeat my original comment, the (K)V8 and (K)V6 were a project to replace both the Buick-derived V8 and Honda C27A V6.
The stillborn (K)V8 and production (K)V6 engines shared engineering concepts with the K4: sandwich design with long bolts holding the engine together under tension, block / cylinder liner design etc.
As I said in my original comment, the (K)V6 was heavily revised, pretty much becoming an entirely new engine, for the 75.
Julian Donald, engineer at Longbridge, explains one of the changes: "The cylinder head design of the early KV6 used in the 800 were basically just three-quarters of a four-cylinder K Series, but for the 75 the whole engine was redesigned to make it narrower to fit under the shorter bonnet."
Another engineer, Brian Gunn, goes further: "The differences between the early and late KV6 are that the block/liners are dimensionally more accurate, with more tolerance bands. The heads are the same, although Rover changed the top covers."
"The inlet manifold is totally different - it does not have the dual butterfly-type throttle body like the early one. The engine management has also been changed in favour of the Siemens 2000 system over the earlier MEMS 2J system. Things like the acoustic cover have been changed in appearance, as well as detail plumbing - and other things that go with an 'improvement'."
Due to the (K)V8 not going anywhere, the Buick-derived V8 soldiered on until:
- 2001 in the P38A where it was replaced by BMW's M62B44 in the L322 Range Rover;
- 2004 in the L318 Discovery 2 where it was replaced by Jaguar's AJ-V8 - AJ41 4.4-litre guise - in the L319 Discovery 3, and
- 2003/04 in Rover models by Ford's Modular V8 - 2L2E 4.6-litre 16v guise - in the R40 / X12 ZT 260 / 75 V8 and R41 / X13 ZT-T 260 / 75 Tourer V8
(17/18-year gap between the 3500 and ZT 260 / 75 V8)
@@applejuice5272 - "Little brother" usually defines a relationship much closer than anything between the KV6 and V8 Rover- for instance, the Buick V6 could certainly be called the 'little brother' of the V8 engine it was derived from, while the aluminum Buick/Oldsmobile V8 shared nothing with any prior GM products, or with the V6 engine derived from the Rover K-series.
Since you consider yourself such a KV6 expert, please update us on its later life as the 'NV6'- we're just dying to hear...
@@floydblandston108 The V8 was designed by Buick to replace its straight-8 engine.
Oldsmobile developed its own version (with a 6-bolt per cylinder pattern head vs the Buick 5-bolt), which it then turbocharged.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding what I am saying about the KV8 and KV6. Seeing as this is the second time of you doing this, it appears that you are doing it on purpose.
The KV8 would have replaced the Buick-derived V8 whilst the KV6 actually replaced the Honda C27A.
I can't dumb it down any further to your deliberate misunderstanding because I'm scared of heights.
The NV6 was the cumulation of MG Rover engineers' efforts to make the KV6 Euro IV compliant and generally improve it (throttle control, improved quality standards) in MGR's last days and further development with Ricardo plc. This resulted in 135 kW (184 PS) @ 6,500 rpm but the same 240 Nm torque peak @ 4,000 rpm as the 130 kW (177 PS) KV6.
@@applejuice5272 - Wrong again; the original aluminum V8 was a purely experimental GM corporate design, while the (iron block) 'Nailhead' was the actual replacement for the straight 8, while Buick and Oldsmobile each adapted the aluminum design to later need- for unknown reasons, Rover chose to use the lesser design. The NV6 was, more accurately, a redevelopment of the KV6, undertaken with Chinese investment after the collapse of Rover. Do you ever tire of displaying stupidity publicly?
Can you do a video on the 4.0 liter v6 found in fords like the explorer and ranger? great video as always!
Ford did something similiar with their cologne OHC V6. The heads were the same. So in effect both heads could be cast from one cast instead of a left and right mold. Just some changes in the water jacket and plugs iirc but both heads could be used interchangable with the exceptions of a few sensor plugs. But this did result in that rear side timing chain and jackshaft.
And they were a true joy to change the timing set too. Have to remove the engine, more cost that its worth.
@@suzi_mai if you DIY and plan on keeping the car its not that bad. Most of the time though the timing chain is just 1 of many problems lol.
I think ford did pretty much the opposite of this for the Aston Martin V12 oddly lol
I specialize on these cars for a living. Every time I pull one of these for major service, I always chuckle when I see this block. We going on almost a decade now servicing these 😂😂😂
Jaguars are a status symbol in that you can afford to maintain them lol
This is a really good, informational video. No matter how true it is, it brings a bit of a negative connotation that this V6 should be considered undesirable. That's just my take on the presentation. No slight intended. I own a Jaguar XE with this engine and it is an absolute THRILL to drive. The power is almost scary (full disclosure: Mods to computer map and supercharger overdrive put it just over 450 HP). The exhaust note is just fabulous too. If you ever get to drive or own a Jag with this engine, I guarantee you'll be in a M5 KILLER and have adrenalin overkill. Thanks for the nice video! --Fink
Premium vehicles with V6s are an oxymoron.
ETA: Dino was originally marketed as a Fiat, so Enzo himself saw a V6 as a compromise, while Alfa wasn't really a premium brand back in the day, more like the Italian Pontiac.
Maserati Ghibli Cup? (1990’s)
Ferrari Dino?
Alfa 166?
3 very lovely vehicles with V6 engines.
I mean, Nissan is selling their aging GTR for, what, $117,000? For like 10 grand less you can get a Porsche 911 Carrera.
@@CyanRooper Yeah, Nissan definitely stepped down when they replaced the I6 Skyline with the V6 GTR.
@@paulfrantizek102 Funnily enough, their initial plan for the R34 GTR was to give it a front-mid mounted V6 like how it is in the current GTR but they didn't have the money for it at the time so they just said, "screw it, let's just fix what's wrong with the R33 and call it a day."
@@CyanRooper Nissan introduced the GT-R at a low price because many Americans didn't know what it was. At that time, only certain car guys did.
Once people who knew nothing about cars sold outside the USA saw the capacity of the Nissan GT-R, Nissan raised the price by about 25%.
Ugh… I could listen to him talk all day and never get tired of it 😆🤦
I think it would’ve been more cost and fuel efficient to keep it a V8, but reduce the crankshaft stroke to limit displacement. You wouldn’t have to worry about split pin cranks and making cranks and cams with blanked off sections at the back.
Truly, just leave it as a V8, it seems like a good idea to the bean counters on paper, but it would seem you are just creating different problems that require different solutions.
That wouldn't work for jaguars model structure as a brand though, all their specs get the luxury interior and getting the v6, supercharged v6, V8 or supercharged V8 is what changes the more money you spend.
This wasnt done out of laziness, jag wanted to develop a v6 alongside the 5.0 v8 but ford wanted them to use their arguably garbo ecoboost v6 instead. Jaguar refused and developed this v6 from their v8, which got better fuel, made more power and was much smoother than the ecoboost they snubbed.
Im sure that they had their reasons for simply not adding the supercharger to the V8 for entry level models.
Owners report very similar fuel consumption for both the V6 and V8
Saves the car company money when it comes to carbon tax credits.
It's down to emissions and therefore annual tax costs for owners in most countries. 8 cylinders is almost always worse on emissions than 6 cylinders so the V8 will almost always sit in a higher tax band. In most markets Jaguar operates in, and particularly the home market, V8s are deeply unpopular except in their halo-model form. Almost nobody wants less power, they want lower ownership cost. Even this V6 was dropped from the XE early on when a turbocharged 4-pot offering almost as much power for less cost was introduced. In the old X-Type the Duratec based 2.1 petrol V6 didn't survive long after the 4 pot diesel arrived offering almost identical acceleration but with much better fuel consumption - the 2.1 V6 was particularly stupid because it cost the same to build as the 2.5 and 3.0 engine, but Jaguar had to sell the 2.1 at 2/3rds the price of the 3.0 version!
It's not like you say with duratec story. The first v6s after 93 to 96-97 had 2564cc and 170hp. All 2.5l Duratec are equipped with the IMRC system - variable length and capacity of the intake manifolds, which increase the torque at low revs and boost the engine at high revs (operating similarly to the ram air system - the engine is charged with the momentum of the air-fuel charge reflecting inside the intake manifold) In facelift models after 97 mondeo mk2 2.5 l capacity was 2544 cm3, the power remained unchanged. A sports version of the st24 / svt with a power of 190 horses was created with an increased cross-section of the intake manifolds (these intake manifolds - black, not silver, are very sought after and are an easy way to increase the power in a regular v6). In 1997 (in cooperation with Mazda and the Ford Performance USA branch), the ST200 SGA version was created with a capacity of 2498 cm3 and an even larger throttle, increased compression ratio and a pwm controlled fuel pump that generated 208 horsepower. Engine parts are interchangeable with each other on all ford2.5L models except for the crank and piston system. The ST 200 also has more aggressive camshafts, but they fit a regular v6. On the other hand, the 3.0l MEBA version with mondeo mk3 and mazda is a completely new engine, with a different intake manifold, which from spare parts for 2.5l has only part of the engine accessories, e.g. feet, alternator, water pump, coil, timing gear. Engine 3.0 was designed by Mazda engineers - for Mazda 6, Tribute, MPV based on the ST200 engine and generates 226 horsepower. There was also a Duratec SE 204hp version - REBA - different camshafts and a smaller throttle. At the time of the Ford/Jaguar merger, Jaguar received the early 3.0L engine blocks, but decided to return the cylinder heads for rework in porsche. Depending on the application, jaguar 3.0v6 has from 234 to 244 horses (x type s type). There are no matching parts from the Jaguar to the Ford, they are very similar to each other and can even be mounted together, but they will not work properly, e.g. crankshaft bearings. In '98, Jaguar customers started complaining that their 3.0Ls were gas-guzzling, so Jaguar designed a 2.5L capacity of 197hp. However, this was not enough and Jaguar wanted a more economical petrol version in the x type model, so it created a 2.1l version with 156 horsepower. This version did not have the possibility of configuration with 4-wheel drive (only front-wheel drive, but the 2.1 engine fits the gearbox from the 4x4 version). Jaguar engines have also been put into late Ford Mavericks, it is a Mazda Tribute in fact, on Mazda engine accessories.
He simply doubt go into all the detail on the Duratec, because it's not the subject of this video.
Took a page out of GMs book. The gm 3800 is my absolute favorite motor in the world. I need to try out one of these, I bet id like it a lot.
What
what makes it your favorite?
@@papa_pt A lot of different factors. The simplicity for one. It's a single cam pushrod higher displacement motor without a bunch of crazy fancy electronics and stuff, essentially an older LS motor except it's a v6 making it cheaper to maintain and much easier to work on. The ratio of the price you can get these to the reliability they offer is absolutely insane. I bought an old buick with a 1st gen 3800 and that thing lasted over 400k miles with very little repairs. (bought for 600, put 200k on it and sold for 600, still running today) I have several cars with this motor and have rebuilt a few of them and if you take care of them even after hundreds of thousands of miles the internals look like the internals of most motors with like 60k. Plus, many of them came factory supercharged, which is super cool. My gtp with a supercharged 3800 always puts a gigantic grin on my face. 500 dollars in mods and it's making about 320 whp. Plus, cruising on the highway they all get about 30mpg. Don't get me wrong, the cars this motor came in are usually nothing special, but the gm 3800 is an absolute gem of a powerplant. Not easy to make crazy horsepower with them but they are very cheap to own, you can have plenty of fun with them, they are easy to work on and they last absolutely forever. A 3800 will run like shit for longer than most motors will run period. It's one of the only platforms to come out of the U.S. that competes with the stuff toyota and honda were putting out at that time. Had comparable and even better gas mileage in some cases, made more power, and keeps up in terms of reliability for sure.
Wasn't the 3.8 Ford V6 just a sliced off Windsor V8?
I drive this (2017 F Pace with Stage 2 mods) and know about this engine. Its a nice engine, wonderfully sounding and a cool vehicle to drive!
I have what could be one of the last V6 powered F Types made for the UK market. Registered in 2020. And I just love it!
You would love the V8 rear wheel drive F Type a lot more !
My question is: if removing 2 cylinders this way is good enough for most applications, why dont they sell the v8 with a low power mode to save fuel most of the time? Wouldn't a 250hp tune on this v8s be feasible instead of cutting 2 cylinders for better mpg?
Many have done that with cylinder deactivation, works ok on ohc engines but horrible on pushrod engines
It's because the problem with a V8 isn't adding fuel or not adding fuel to the cylinders, it's the friction losses of the pistons moving in the cylinders. It's the friction you're stuck with whenever the engine is running, no matter how much power you do or don't need at the time, which contributes most to the fuel consumption and emissions, the latter translating to tax bandings for most countries. Nobody wants low power mode, they want low running cost mode, and the best way to reduce ongoing costs (tax, fuel consumption) is to lose cylinders.
This is making me think: when Rocketeer (UK tuning company) devised the jag v6 swap kit for the mazda mx-5/miata... if the block is the same size... is there any reason you couldn't use a jag v8 instead?
The engine of a Ford Mustang.
@@alexisg311 if you're good enough at welding you can put anything in anything. I mean reusing the rocketeer subframe etc. People have put hellcats in miatas. Which is of course too much power.
This video is a reminder of the PRV, born as a 90° V8 and shortened to a V6 due to the fuel crisis 40 years ago. It took 15 years for it to finally receive the 30° split crank to perform regular firing and install electronic fuel injection and a catalytic converter...
An original V8 PRV prototype still exists at the manufacturing plant.
I rather liked the hoarseness of the original 2664 cc V6 as in the Pug 604.
I heard the PRV had so many reliability problems, that it motivated Volvo to build turbo 4 bricks instead.
I own an early 604, manufactured Feb 1976.
VisioRacer actually made a video on the PRV engine ruclips.net/video/Wyf92HT0wxk/видео.html. My experience (as working in aftersales) on PRV is more that the earlier versions are difficult to tune (K Jetronic with breaking fuel lines, or multiple carbs hard to synchronize , dual ignition to time, CO2/CO to be adjusted on each bank of cylinder...) and oil leak prone. Once the engine received split crank, silicone based gaskets and Fenix fuel injection, the N.A. versions become bullet proof engines. Turbo versions if not abused will also be super reliable. Yet fuel consumption will never be great.
I worked in JLR for four years...I remember the powertrain director who wanted AJ126, he was PF. Essentially he and his team back then didn't have the money and know how to make a proper V6 so they took the Ford engineered AJ133, removed two cylinders and put two counterweights. Fuel economy was worse than AJ133 but in 2012 they were bankrupted and being sold to Tata they could not used the Duratec anymore. V6s can be as refined as I6s, just have a look at Busso's engine, or the V6 made by Alfieri in Maserati also with little money and derived by a V8.
I was confused about what the problem was, until I saw the block casting for the 'V6'. Holy shit that is bad. No other manufacturer has even considered producing something like that, even if it saved money. I'm surprised I've never heard of this.
As usual I put a 👍🏻 from the beginning of the video because I know it will be cool and interesting. Thank you for the job VisioRacer .😉
Thanks for that, I had somehow missed it and thought Jag were still using the modified Ford unit until the Ingenium engines came on line (4-pots first). The latest F-Type has a straight 4 or a 5ltr V8. So which models will an inline 6 fit?
New ones, I guess? Land Rover already uses the I6, in the new Defender and Range Rovers. I6 doesn't need any particularly special proportions of the car, or size, but it's long enough to require the engine bay to be designed for it, which the F-type's one isn't.
The GM 3800 is my favourite V6.
Pushrod with lumpy cam lope.
Wow, I already hated 90 degree V6 engines for various reasons, but this takes it to a new level.
If a company wants a V6 engine, don't make the inherently unbalanced 90 degree type. Either make a 60 degree V6 or make a VR6.
I hate balance shafts with a passion. To me it's like making an engine carry an extra weight continuously because the engine was a stupid idea to begin with.
Some people like to talk about the size constraints of an inline 6 and V6 and how it affects car design. When they ask, I tell them to look at a Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo and a Toyota Supra MKIV side by side. That makes it much easier to see the space an inline 6 takes up, and how a car must be be built to accommodate it.
To have a natural even firing order a V6 needs 120 degree bank angle. That's barely narrower than a flat 6, hence 60 and 90 degree sixes, which both need offset crankpins.
V6s always need a balance shaft to cancel out the rocking couple that comes as a result of having an odd number of cylinders per bank. If you want balance shaft free operation you need an inline or boxer 6. But they have their own downsides, e.g. inline sixes need heavy harmonic dampers on their crankshafts because their length reduces the torsional rigidity of the crank.
@@nerd1000ify Nissan didn't use balance shafts in the VG and VQ 60 degree V6 engines, and they didn't have a problem with vibration.
@Skyline Fever if that is the case they just accepted the rocking couple and dealt with it some other way, e.g. by using clever engine mounting to absorb the vibration. If you lift the bonnet with the engine running in one of those cars you'll probably see the engine slightly rocking back and forth longitudinally.
It's easier on smaller displacement v6 especially if oversquare design is used, similar to how I4s below 2L often don't use balance shafts but those above often do.
@@nerd1000ify Okay, I see now. The engine is just small enough not to send much vibration through the rest of then car, and the engine mounts are huge.
@Skyline Fever well not huge necessarily, but carefully optimised so that the engine mounts won't amplify (resonant frequencies etc. are important) or transfer the vibration into the car. I think this is increasingly common these days, especially since many small cars are going to I3 engines that have the same balance issue but would experience even more of a penalty from the balance shaft due to their lower output.
My original post I miss spoke a bit, the text implies a V6 must always have a balance shaft when I should have said it needs one if the rocking couple is too large to be dealt with by other means in our specific application. Obviously in a luxury car we would be more worried about some vibration than in a truck.
There's a reason why the chevy 4.3L V6 was called a "3/4 small block". Many of the parts interchange. At least they put in the effort to actually remove the unused cylinders and make a different crankshaft.
Ya but it was a dog of an engine
I guess it saved the company a heap of money vs making a brand new engine, but it has no other redeeming features.
The bean counters have a lot to answer for 🙂👍
They probably got a bonus. So in their short sighted view it was well worth it. 😁
@@bogged2theeyeballs695
Exactly
Even more in safety testing for homologation. To be fair, I think it was very responsible to do it this way.
@@bogdanrzeznik627
Just give them the 2 extra pistons and take out some trim options for the cheap model.
Saves even more money 👍
@@bogdanrzeznik627 Why not just make the V8 engine standard, but detune it or reduce the capacity for lower power models?
That's a XXI century British Leyland-esque solution
That holeshot in the tunnel sounded awful
Rev rev rev "skipped tooth farts" rev rev fart fart grinded gears
True.Those dsg gearboxes are not everyone's cup of tea.
@@MattBrownbill it’s a torque converter gearbox. The zf8, the only reliable component in the whole car!
@@Largeone1968 ah, I did not realise. 😊
You had me right up to the point where the block remains the same size.
Average British innovation 😂😂😂
Try Indian
Colin Chapman: Simplify, then add lightness.
Jaguar: How about no.
Get your front and rear crossovers replaced, you don't want to leak coolant
Jag, once again preffering to cut costs over building a great car. Luckily, VisioRacer NEVER sacrifices quality.
Wow I never knew that. That was really interesting. Great video as usual. Cheers 👍
I like Jaguar and I own an XK X100 but Jaguar hasn't been the same for a very long time. They keep chasing BMW and missing the point of what made Jaguar desirable. Their sales figures for the F-Type and XK X150 reflect that with well under half the sales the XK X100 had. The V6 was a shit idea, whoever came up with that should have been sacked. No need to have so many engine options, the V8 was already very fuel efficient being able to get out 30+ mpg UK on the motorway and low to mid 20 mpg on normal roads. Only ever need the naturally aspirated V8 and the supercharged V8 in different capacities. They should have kept the 4.2 around for the more luxury cars and the supercharged engines in 5.0 versions for the more sporty or higher end performance packages. Should have offered a manual for the V8 instead of a V6.
Lexus LC500 is what Jaguar should have made. They are just taking Jaguar sales instead.
Apparently this is or was a common thing to do in certain types of racing to get around rule books for engine displacement limits, and to save costs while doing so.
We need a new word to describe this level of laziness.
Jaguar?
@@applejuice5272 that has a nice ring to it. "Those guys sure Jaguar'd the crap out of that design."
Lajoogie¹wawa
I had one of these supercharged 3.0 V6s in my XFS. It was fucking amazing. No idea it was a V8 in a previous life though!!
I hate this engine based purely on principle.
Great video!
You makes good videos. Best regards from 🇸🇪🙂
One word. Cost effective. It's that simple. Tooling is almost similar. Manufacturing is almost similar. This means it can be offered at a "good" price.
That was definitely better bro, keep it up!
Cut costs in developing a V6 by starting with a V8 , then spend extra money changing the bore/stroke making it even smaller, then add a supercharger? I bet this was due to taxes which increase on cars with engine displacements above 3L
GM did something similiar with the 4.3 liter v6. It was a 350 block with two cylinders taken out.
Hell ! Even shitty GM did a better job than cheap skate Jaguar.
At least on the VORTEC 4.3L you're not lugging around extra weight that's not producing any power to help move itself.
That was one of many engines GM did that with. There was also the 200, and 229 V6's based on the Chevy small block), the 196, 3.0, 3.3, 225, 231 and 252 V6s (based on the Buick V8) and the GMC big block V6 that had a V8 and V12 variant. And before all of those was GM's Detroit diesel division building engines with the modular concept, both inline and V's.
I also understand that the Northstar V8 had a V6 variant too.
You should post a video on the best sounding 2 stroke triple cylinder snow mobile engines
700 srx is king
Artic cat thunder cat 1000 is king
Learnt a new word. Lackadaisical 👍🏼
Like what zakspeed did with the Viper in the late 90s. That v8 sounded so good!
Doesn’t this mean that a v8 swap would be super easy on any car that used this engine? Literally a drop in substitution because the only difference is that two cylinders are blocked off?
Great video. Thanks. I have this engine but didn’t really know anything about it.
They're not the first to convert a V8 to V6 with this method either. But in this case they'd have had to move the engine mounts if they just went for a new V6 block, and that would have a knock-on effect with transmissions plus other factors. They'd then have to get the car re-certified as the chassis would have been modified.
Can you do the Audi 2.7/3.0 90-degree V6? Would be super interesting. Thanks!
Zakspeed Viper approves......
JLR had previously aimed for a similar arrangement with the TD5 engine. It was originally intended to be a TD4 and TD6 engines but they were never used as BMW took them over.
Once again the German SCRAP MISETERS ruin things
2jz and the vr6 are still my fav sounding 6’s but the jag 6 isn’t bad 👍
Interesting points 👍
Im getting 450hp out of my minimally modified v6 f-type. I dont care how or why Jaguar arrived at its decision to reuse the v8 block, it works very well. Drive one.
The MG Metro 6R4 rally car (in 1985) had the same thing done to it; they cut off 2 cylinders from a Rover V8. The Jag and MG even sound the same...
I'm the guy who built it! Back then I ran the machine shop at Janspeed who developed Leyland Special Tuning stuff and we had a lot of experience with the BOP V8 and turbos (4,7l twin turbo Le Mans car with 600hp) so when the rally project was mooted they came to us, a V8 wouldn't physically fit in and for rally driving really had the wrong power characteristics as we knew from the SD1's so we chopped a V8 and made a billet crank for a V6. Nice engine but basically a mistake, we also had a lot of experience with both the Ford BDA and the Toyota F2 engines which would have been a better basis. Two valvers aren't the way to go fast.
The 998 Desmo Mini engine project was another freaky thing we built, 11,000rpm and the noise was indescribable!
@@jimtitt3571 Thank you. Nice info.
2-valve per cyl Delta Integrale rocked on rallies, but this Has nothing to V6/V8s. And even was later updated to 4-valves per cyl.
That would explain why the v8 and v6 engine covers looked the same under the hood.
Chrysler pulled a similar stunt with the 3.9 v6, but instead of keeping the block the same length, they just shortened it and only changed the crank with no added balance shafts or anything.
BMW did the same thing with the V8 M3. They took the S85 V10 from the M5/M6 and just didn’t make 2 cylinders at the back. When you look at an E92 M3, you can see the flat spots at the back. Thats why the v10 m5 and v8 m3 have the same engine issues. Its a cost cutting tactic but created some of the best sounding and performing engines ever at the expense of reliability.
Ez30 is still by far the best 6 cylinder and all alloy motor out there ...super balanced ...water pump in the sump...revs like a little motor but delivers power like a V8 ..most ppl don't realise the BP/bl legacy/outback can have the ecu retuned by new Zealand performance tuning in Auckland or Christchurch for $1300 u drive away with 400hp atw..only mods required is cat back exhaust and remove silence plenum on intake ...I've got a 3.0 bh outback non vvt (the less powerful motor)with 350kms on the clock still goes hard asf ..took old mate for a drive and at 140+ kph it's got big v8 pull. Even uphill....been my tow car for years never fails
JLR have said that it is to do with cost but also, the extra lump on metal on the block and heads act as a counter-weight for the V6, improving NHV levels. I wouldn’t call this cheap cost-cutting in the same way VW or BMW have done recently such as reducing the number of boot lights from 2 to 1 or by using far lower grade quality carpets throughout (Audi)
It's actually smart, because the casting doesn't have to change much just the last two cylinders
What a good idea to save development. And it really sounds the part too.
Very clever cost cutting solution (using the existing V8 external block dimensions) I wonder if Jaguar have consider a high performance five cylinder derivative design, or possibly a three cylinder version to go into the new Fiesta - just with a much longer bonnet perhaps?
Block off all 8 and you have a lovely boat anchor.
Jag has a new inline six. And haven't been related to Ford in a decade and a half