Yesterday i had the rare opportunity to drive a V8 version of my car back to back.

A man and his wife came to view a car that i had for sale and turned up in a 2002 V8 sport - similar spec to my V6, but with Nav.

After a long conversation about all things Jaguar, oh and taking a deposit for the car that he has brought for his wife, he let me have a go in his V8 in return for a drive of my V6.

The first thing that was instantly noticeable was the burble. Boy did she sound lovelly but i had the sense that the extra sound didn't really live up to a lot of extra performance. My 3.0V6 has had an ecu upgrade, granted but the V8 never felt considerably quicker. Nor did it feel as agile around the twisty country lanes around my workshop/forecourt. I'm sorry to say but the nose felt heavy and the steering less responsive. It had the same sized alloys with the same Pierrelli PZero tyres as my car. It seemed as though it understeered more and the throttle response wasn't quite quick enough to counter act this.

The V8, was definatly a more relaxing cruiser though, sitting in sixth at less RPM at 70mph and somehow quieter at this speed also.

Having never driven a normally asperated V8 (driven a few STR's) i must say i was a little disapointed. Don't get me wrong, if the right V8 came my way, i would consider it but I would ideally skip it completely and go for an R.

The drive of my V6 was a little more possitive. My customer was impressed by the stronger performance than he expected and agreed about the better turn in and front end grip.

 

The 2002 V8 was 4.0 and importantly cars up to 2002 had the rather ordinary suspension. 2003 had major suspension improvements.

Summary: try a 2003+ 4.2 (and if you can't tell the difference something is very wrong)

 

Was a late 2002 face lift 4.2.

 

Then you're the first ever not to detect the huge differences! Or it must have been seriously broken.

 

So you had an ECU upgrade on your V6? What year car do you have, what kind of performance difference did you notice and what was the overall cost?

 

His 1st post (only) lists some oddities:

HIDs - factory-fit?

Superchip - er, they only do the diesel so what is this???

 

Ditto to Jagv8. The 300 hp @ 300 lb/ft trq. 2002 (03 ?) ZF 6 speed 4.2 should have left an almost permanent smile on his face when compared to the V6, and a $69 SuperChips for the ECU? LOL! If all checks out, the V8 was way behind in maintenance, etc.

 

I have driven both an 03' with V6 and I own a 03' with a V8. The V6 was nice but nothing compared to the power of the V8. Something must be a miss with the V8 you drove.

 

He's not the first, John (and Seth). Seems this (AdzBo's drive) happened this week and yet back in the fall of 2008 I drove a 2004 US Spec NA V-8 whilst searching for what ultimately became my daughter's 2003 3.0L and there wasn't really a sensible difference worthy of remark. And the 2004 4.2L was perfect. ~30k mi. no codes/lights; sounded fine, no smoke nor stutter...even smelled right.

 

Weird. So many HP more and so much more TQ but some people can't tell.

 

I have a postulate: Given the experience of only a short test-drive, the (IMHO) overactive trac-cntrl equalizes the sensible differences between the two mills. Either engine is capable of "lighting 'em up" nearly at will so trac-loc becomes a prominent player when you are flogging it around on a quick check ride. Then, you settle on one or the other and "take her home." Perhaps more noticeable if you lived with both or otherwise spent a signifcant amount of time with both rather than just the V-6 or just the V-8.

might be blowing combusted particulate matter...but that's my postulate....

 

Firstly the HID's are aftermarket on my car. Brought the kit off of HIDS4U.co.uk for roughly £110 +p&p. Secondly, the car was re-mapped by the previous owner by Sean Hollemby over at AMD essex. I know that they are a major user of Superchip products thus have assumed that the ECU upgrade is a superchip. It is more than posible that it is from another company.

Before buying my S, I drove various 3.0s, both sports and SE's. Driving my car compared to another 3.0, you can notice a difference in performance.

Compared to the V8, there wasn't a significant performance difference. The other point I was trying to make was the fact that my car also felt more agile and the steering more direct. I suspect this is down to less weight out front. So if someone were to re-read my first summary (JagV8) you'll realise that I was also talking about handling.

Oh and in this economical climate that we are in, I cannot find any reason to change from my V6 to a NA V8. STR then yes, I could justify.

Lastly, in terms of BHP + Torque for my car, the last time she was rolling roaded was straight after the ECU remap and figures according to previous owner are 256.4BHP at the rear wheels with 251 lb/ft of Torque. Since the remap the auto 'box' has been rebuilt with new a new torque converter. I've added a pipercross airfilter and had the engine de-carbonned by one of those new machines by a company based Bristol way.

 

I would LOVE my V6 to be remapped... I think there is a place over in grimsby area, lincoln way... that does them... I need to call them up... but I would love to hear as much details or paper work as possible ... I know its pushing it a bit... but to get that extra grunt and also save fuel when doing town driving is worth it.


I had many cars remapped, superchiped and even custom chipped... so would love to know how, who etc.. I dont doubt for one minute its been done... but I want more info please for my sake.. that would be awesome.

many thanks in advance
Jon

 

AdzBo, 251 rwhp equates to 300+ hp at the crank. Damn good for a 3.0 L V6.

 

That's about the same as a pure stock 4.2 V8 so along with the lighter weight of a 3.0 V6 I can see where there wouldn't be a difference. I'm not aware of anybody stateside that does re-maps of the 3.0 V6 engines though.

 

So really this is more of a comparison of a modified 3.0 V6 vs. a stock 4.2 V8. Assuming the V6 figures are correct, then the parity of "quickness" seems plausile. As does the handling virtues of a lighter V6 mill on the chassis. Anybody know the actual weight differences between a V6 and V8?

As for the fuel economy, I'd imagine for this comparison they figures would be very close, depending on driving style/location/terrain etc.

 

Kerb Weight for a 2002 V8 is 1735kg or 3825lbs

Kerb Weight for a 2002 V6 is 1673kg or 3688lbs

a differance of 134 lbs.... so its like having a average woman in your car.

 

There:
must always account for CG

 

Hmm - the 2002 curb weight...maybe we should look at 2003 curb weight since the 4.2 in question is spec'd out with a 2003 4.2 and not a 2002 4.0.

Either way, thanks for looking up the figures Jon!

 

Eek.... no self-levelling as now required by law here? Headlamp powerwash (also required now)? Should fail MoT.