This has been a disturbing thread. If the engine design concerning the oil delivery system was faulty by design. Is this really a known fault? How many F type owners on this forum have suffered from a failure of this type? That information should be available somewhere. Back in the old days when engines were modified by changing components like camshafts, carburetors, stroker cranks and the like, it was assumed that the modified motor would produce more power but would have a reduced service life. It might also suffer catastrophic failure if operated at or above "the limit".

I would imagine that an electronic tune would have much the same effect, the motor would be worked harder and some components would be worn out prematurely. It is entirely possible that the engine in question had a manufacturing defect that was unknown during the early mileage. It's possible that the oiling system was defective. As has been mentioned earlier, manufacturing defects usually show up within the lower mileages covered by the warranty. The accepted wisdom was to wait until the car was out of warranty before doing any modifications to the motor. It would seem that the burden of proof was on the owner that had authorized the modifications. As mentioned previously, the warranty states that modifications would void the warranty.

Modern motors are amazing in regards to the power outputs of the past. Much of this is from much better electronic engine management and control. A "tune's" extra power doesn't come from magic or thin air. It changes the engine parameters to allow the engine to work more highly stressed and produce more power. There has to be trade offs to length of service life.

 

So for me, would I put a tune/mod on in the first few months/thousand miles on a brand new car - no; regardless of make. Because IMHO that's when a manufacturing/assembly defect is more likely to show up..

 

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think the Oil Pan or Oil Starvation had anything to do with JVIII's engine troubles, other than being used as a scapegoat... in an attempt to shift blame from one party to another!!!

Even if oil starvation could be isolated as a contributing factor, all evidence offered here - of which there is plenty - suggests a bad tune or tuner was the root cause of the engine problems on this vehicle.

Just read JVIII's tune experience as chronicled in this thread:
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/f...100-hp-178358/
Scan and read only JVIII's posts and follow the dates in the story, post #47 in particular. Engine problems began 3 days after first installing the tune, and became readily apparent for all the world to see - including Jaguar - while on the dyno, with technicians tinkering with the tune.

Reading Velocity AP's insight offered at post #55 in the same thread, certainly conjures up a vision of some tech heads modifying code they didn't fully comprehend.

 

+1. On all of my projects, I would wait until driving it per guidelines for the break-in period, and then would drive the snot out of it for the following 2-3k miles to ensure that it had no weak links. Did the same on the F-Type.

 

A couple of things here. Not speaking from a position of authority but I have never heard of a poor or faulty design on the oil pan on these cars before. I remember hearing about a couple of 5.0SC engines failing due to oil starvation back in 2010/11/12 but these were due to low oil levels and oil consumption and a failure of the warning system, not a faulty design. Since the engine has been out since 2009 (albeit with Denso Electronics) I would expect that a major 'fault' like that would have been addressed in the intervening 8 years.

Also - someone mentioned oil pressure vs RPM and applying load at low RPM. Remember that oil pressure is not a simple line graph starting at virtually nothing on idle and running up to super-high pressure at max RPM. You'll find on most modern engines that the oil pressure at idle is very close to that at max RPM. The pump is able to supply much more pressure than it delivers, and pressure is regulated with a relief valve. There's often some incremental increase as RPM's go up but on a fairly small scale. The idea that at low RPM's there's not enough oil pressure to withstand higher load is assuming that lower RPM = lower oil pressure with really isn't particularly accurate.

 

+1 Isn't this the first blown engine story we have ever had here on the forum? I have been on here for 3 years and don't recall seeing any others... V8 or V6 and many on the site have tuned their cars.

VIN's are now running in the 50k range and at least 1/3 of them are V8's so even if we were to give JVII the benefit of the doubt and assume it was not from someone messing with the safety parameters and pushing the engine beyond its limitations it would still be a very rare and isolated incident.

There is just too much that we don't know about this whole story.

 

Spot on, again I cant understand why a simple concept isnt being understood by some.

 

And yet you posted
'FWIW, oil consumption and subsequent main bearing failure due to starvation has been an known failure item since 2009.'

Parden the pun, but you seem to have changed your tune

 

But the manufacturer rightly refuses a warranty claim because of a non authorized modification. Sort of defeats the object really

 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? What don't you understand about oil starvation?! The topic of this discussion was oil starvation. No tune is going to make that worse. You either starve the engine on your don't.

Oil pressure is a completely different topic that naturally comes with adding power to any engine. This is irrelevant to your claim that adding a tune is somehow magically going to starve the engine of oil more quickly. No one ever said this engine had lubrication issues beyond oil starvation, you're twisting words to try and make your point that you dislike tunes. We get it; its clear based on the way you're needlessly attacking VAP.

 

This is the first time I have heard of a blown engine too. I, also, have experience on the Range Rover forums.

I had a 2012 RRS 5L V8 and now have a 2016 RRS 5L V8. My F-Type has the same 5L V8 engine.

Granted I have never had AWD with this engine as the RRS has permanent 4WD while my F-Type is RWD. I have over 100,000 km on this engine and I have never had a problem with the engine, transmission, drivetrain etc.

 

Not in the slightest. I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully, you're conflating two separate things.

1. Someone asserted that the 5.0SC engine has an inherent fault with the oil pan. Many expressed concern. I stated that to the best of my knowledge there is no inherent design flaw with the oil pan. This thread would be the first I've ever heard of it.

2. A couple of 5.0SC engines that I know of failed 5+ years ago due to oil starvation to the main bearings. The reasons for the starvation were:

• Oil consumption rates in excess of expectation
• Failure of the electronic dipstick, therefore failure to warn of low oil levels and/or failure to enact protections such as limp mode activation

My understanding is, said electronic dipstick issue was subsequently addressed by JLR with either software updates or part revision and is no longer an issue (see my comments about the engine being in production for nearly 10 years and revisions/corrections being enacted.)

 

It's clear that most F-type forum members don't venture outside of F-type postings to read other views in the XF or XK forums. While it's certainly not an everyday occurrance, there are many reports in both, reporting "oil starvation" related blown 5.0L engines. That's not to say that there's an inherent flaw in the design, but that it's an issue that has happened more than a few times. And in virtually all of the instances that I've read about, no aftermarket tune was involved. That includes my 2010 XKR which had the engine replaced at the time of my purchase from the previous owner. And there were no warnings or codes displayed, even on the day the motor was replaced. So, while a bad tune might have the possibility of hastening the demise of an engine, it shouldn't be held responsible for such maladies as oil starvation.

 

I suspect that most of us who tune our cars, are more diligent than the average car owner to monitor the oil level (to avoid oil starvation).

 

I would suspect you're right. I have a pulley and tune on my 5.0L, and I check before I leave in the morning, both coolant and oil. It's not as accurate before first start up, but at least it gives me an indication. I have never been able to check oil on the display in less than 20-30 minutes after stopping the car, and how I wish we just had a simple dipstick.

 

Yes, every day. These motors consume oil at a considerable rate. I was very concerned about the issue at first, but the oil consumption rate was close between my stock R and my Stock SVR. Every car I have owned with forced induction has consumed enough oil to warrant checking once a week. These 5.0 SC motors seem to consume about 1 liter per 2000-3000 miles driven if driven hard, based on my experience.

Also, I must say that the oil consumption after tuning did not change significantly for the R or SVR.

I really wish these cars had a mechanical dipstick!!

 

I've never seen a difference in e-dipstick reading between post-oil change, and just prior to the next change 8,000 miles later. Always at 100%.

 

+1. The V6 engines might burn less oil than the V8s.

 

I've just seen the first reading below 100%. But, after leaving it a bit longer its back up to 100%.

 

Agreed; well said.


Dave