When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It's not a recall, it's a "service action." If it were a recall, owners of all affected vehicles would be sent notification. It would also show up on the NHTSA website. I don't see anything related to this at all, not even a Service Bulletin filed with NHTSA.
Actually, I may have misspoken when I called my VW letter a "recall"...it's been so long ago now that I can no longer remember for certain. As I think back on the wording of it, it may very well have been a service action instead. Their subterfuge was that they were merely trying to prevent an inconvenience to me, so it may not have been a recall after all.
Originally Posted by Foosh
I don't have any reason to believe there's anything suspicious about this "service action." As Cambo as noted, there have been problems w/ the 02 sensors on these engines in this and other JLR models. I simply noted others (like Dr. Manhattan) have been suspicious, and that it was "curious" no explanation was offered. It would have been very simple for JLR to offer a one sentence explanation that it was to cure the problem noted above. Silence, in light of the recent VW scandal, can lead to suspicion.
Truthfully, I have no suspicions about Jaguar one way or the other. It didn't even occur to me that Jaguar may have been lying until Foosh raised the possibility. That just caused me to speculate about Jaguar based on my experience with VW...and when I did, you could just as well have substituted the name of any other OEM in place of Jaguar. My point was that I don't fully trust any of them any more, regarding emissions.
I believe we were able to confirm that there is not much in the way of additional peak power or torque available out of just a tune with the V6S given the relatively mild stock boost ~13psi. The final results of the tune shown below is not much different than what was accomplished last month with the 2.5% reduction (read minimal) pulley that added about 1/3psi. The fresh tune, however, did result in safe stoichiometry across the engine speed spectrum (safely below lambda=1.0), and increasing the speed limiter from 240kph to 320kph. However, my tuner now has the proper mapping to safely upgrade a V6 engine to a V6S.
Real improvement for the V6S can only be accomplished with additional boost. A mild boost of 3-4psi should be easily handled by this engine, which I will be exploring. No flexibilty to reduce the upper pulley size, so the lower pulley has to be changed.
The big problem is that the clutch is now starting to slip when fully engaged, so we now need to actively address that issue before any additional work is done.
Well results are results, which is more than anyone else could offer prior so good work there.
I'm not so sure agree with the notion of "mild stock boost" though, 13-odd psi is what the tuned+pulley 5.0L's are running, and don't forget that the compression ratio of the 3.0L is 10.5:1 compared to the 5.0L at 9.5:1
17psi on top of 10.5:1 sounds, um... interesting....
Well results are results, which is more than anyone else could offer prior so good work there.
I'm not so sure agree with the notion of "mild stock boost" though, 13-odd psi is what the tuned+pulley 5.0L's are running, and don't forget that the compression ratio of the 3.0L is 10.5:1 compared to the 5.0L at 9.5:1
17psi on top of 10.5:1 sounds, um... interesting....
Yes, I am almost ready to declare "proven" that the oft-speculated theory of the V6S being essentially safely maxed out at the OEM state of tune. Moreover, since the base V6 is producing essentially the same peak torque in the 4K range, I've about decided not to bother and just love it as is. You just can't do 5.5K rpm on the street very often to see the extra HP in the S, and it's just a "lose your license," top-speed, issue anyway.
I also think increasing the boost more is a very slippery slope.
Yes, I am almost ready to declare "proven" that the oft-speculated theory of the V6S being essentially safely maxed out at the OEM state of tune. Moreover, since the base V6 is producing essentially the same peak torque in the 4K range, I've about decided not to bother and just love it as is. You just can't do 5.5K rpm on the street very often to see the extra HP in the S, and it's just a "lose your license," top-speed, issue anyway.
I also think increasing the boost more is a very slippery slope.
The value in what was done (2.5% pulley & tune) is the area between the two torque curves which peaks at 4200 rpm with an 8.5% increase at that engine speed. The butt dyno certainly detects a strong difference, but I don't think its worth the money.
The value in what was done (2.5% pulley & tune) is the area between the two torque curves which peaks at 4200 rpm with an 8.5% increase at that engine speed. The butt dyno certainly detects a strong difference, but I don't think its worth the money.
Yeah, I saw that, and I agree.
I do want to sincerely thank you for being willing to explore the limits and share with everyone!
So are you going to try the bigger crank pulley or leave it at that?
When I said interesting, I really meant interesting, as in i'm interested to see what'll happen with more boost. It's uncharted territory, so yeah, it's interesting.
So are you going to try the bigger crank pulley or leave it at that?
When I said interesting, I really meant interesting, as in i'm interested to see what'll happen with more boost. It's uncharted territory, so yeah, it's interesting.
The only over-sized crank pulley I am familiar with is the one under development by VMaxTuning. He specifies that it is 10mm larger in diameter than the stock 6.5 inch pulley. That's only a 6% increase over stock, and will result at most in another 1psi of boost. Certainly conservative, but might also not result in significant gains.
The good news on the F-Type, is the lower pulley is actually easier to replace than the upper pulley. There is, in fact, sufficient room to increase the diameter of that pulley by up to 20mm, which would be ideal.That along with the 2.5% reduction pulley on top would net an overall 14.8% increase in SC speed that we are looking for to get a 1.7-2.0psi boost over stock.
Short answer: not yet certain. For now, we will be monitoring the effects of the minimal tweaks that have been done, looking at fuel efficiency and looking for any negative side effects to the various engine and handling nannies.
Not really. The intake manifold temps in the low 70's (Fahrenheit) is pretty cool and indicative of a very efficient intercooler.
Noted. But the shape suggests the inlet air temperature was a bit high - it ought to be pretty flat from 2500 up to 5000. Obviously, this may only be achievable in a Northern Alaskan winter...
Noted. But the shape suggests the inlet air temperature was a bit high - it ought to be pretty flat from 2500 up to 5000. Obviously, this may only be achievable in a Northern Alaskan winter...
The torque curve is actually a bit flatter than it looks. The horizontal axis on this graph is at 242 lb-ft. rather than zero.
11-30-2015, 02:52 AM
