Anyone catch this:

Finally, the CCP offers a way to cover up the N63's habit of chewing through batteries: It contains a technical service bulletin to replace them at every oil change. This is where things get confusing. Why not just fix the underlying electrical problem? As it turns out, BMW can't.

And they reduced the OCI to 10K miles from 15K miles.

Since the only way to get the battery at no charge is under
the CCP, I guess the oil change has to be at the dealer.

After the CCP expires, the oil+battery changes are going
to be expensive.

 

I did understand that's what you meant. I guess the electric assisted turbo is easier to engineer than electric drive assist, but the latter approach seems much more interesting and scalable technology.

Electric drive assist can smooth out power curves, create radical improvements in active traction control, save energy, and boost torque massively.

Having come from a 10 years of BMW V-8's I'm just not that excited about this news unless it comes with some more leading edge innovation.

I'm more excited about seeing what JLR can get out of its forthcoming inline 6 ingenium engine.....the power densities coming out of that line are really compelling. 500+bhp out of an I6!

 

This is insane. I can't imagine this won't end up in a class-action.

 

My guess is it's going to be fixed w/ a software change at some point, perhaps in response to a class-action lawsuit.

 

If you read online this is being done for financial and fuel economy reasons. Jaguar/Land Rover going too inline 3 and 6 cylinder engines. V8's only in high end models, since they will be dropping their V6, it's not cost effective to keep producing their V8's or engineer a new smaller fuel efficient V8. BMW needs to produce more V8 bi turbos to bring their costs down. So its a win for both.

Most V8 engine units are sold here in the US anyway, more European units will have I-3's and I-6's. EU taxes I have heard are also much higher when engines are over 4.0L.

 

"That's what cars like the porsche 918 do."

Ditto the new NSX. Even though the electric motors aren't all that powerful, you can't beat the torque with Turbo's.

 

Since the current V6 & V8 are off the same block base, is that end of contract also behind the move from "V" to "Flat" 6's?

 

That's the reason for the CCP.

BMW cannot fix it without recertifying the engines in question.

It sounds very similar to the problem discussed in the X150
section that causes many owners to fall back to using a
battery maintainer.

 

Yes and no.
Jaguar's Ingenium platform was always intended to be a highly modularized power plant and the I6 is both an elegant way to extend their in-house 4Cyl engine block and a way to drive some really solid performance out of a ground-up engine architecture.

Jaguar had planned to take its large volume engines in house for a long time....but this wasn't quite in response to the looming end of the supply contract with Ford: rather, it reflects the strategic intention of the brand to broaden its sales volume and product lines and a reluctance to give up engine margin and intellectual property to vendors.

 

This makes absolute sense to me. When the Acquisition contractual arrangements are stated, most organizations establish a cutover plan first, and then a plan (in declining risk order) of what is needed for the enterprise to sustain itself with help (in this case the engines from Ford), and a plan to switch over to an alternate source of supply, be it internal or external. It is totally normal, and would explain simply the potential of an alternate here. Either they work with the supplier post the contract and negotiate a new deal, or they go elsewhere.

I think this is a business enterprise value decision, vs. anything else, but purely a hypothesis that supports what you wrote.

 

Figured the front page would be interested too...
Jaguar-Land Rover Replacing S/C V8 Engines with BMW Turbo V8s

 

Not a fan of BMW and definitely will not be a fan of their engines in Jags.

 

At this point I would agree and for me its the loss of the supercharged engine that would be the most concerning.
Lawrence

 

I agree. BMW is not what they used to be and they always seem to have oil consumption issues, oil leak issues, oil sludge issues. One of my neighbors has a new X5, he has had the "Add 2 quarts of oil" light come on twice already. The dealer told him it was normal for the Turbo engine because it was high performance.

 

Agree on all counts here. One of my colleagues X5 twins tanked just after the warranty period. $10k Bill. I don't think Jag should go anywhere near BMW from a branding perspective or lose their supercharged engines. BMW brand is on the downside with regard to sport cars. The M4 was abused in a head2 head with Camero at $40 k cost differential. BMW led the way a decade ago to niche marketing every car. Others followed and now Jag. Sport is the sacrificial lamb and will come at higher premiums if they follow their model. I could be ahead of myself here, but i cancelled my 550xi order in '11 and bought my XF because I didn't like BMW direction and thought Jag was going in right direction. Having onto to your v8 SCs

 

If I wanted a BMW, I would have bought one. This is sad news IMO, regardless of how good the Beemer engine is or isn't; it represents a loss of identity for Jaguar.

Dave

 

Ralf Speth (CEO Jaguar Land Rover) came out of BMW before Ford, and still co-resides in Munich where BMW's headquarters are located.

The Munich business community is very close knitted, and while it's unlikely that Ralf drove the decision, it's very likely that his relationships have helped the dialogue between the two companies.

 

Ford engine vs. BMW engine...hmmm.


That implied, I've always preferred a supercharged vs. turbocharged torque profile.

 

The AJ V8 Jaguar engine was never a Ford engine. Made in Fords engine plant for Jaguar, but not a Ford engine.

THE JAGUAR AJ-V8 ENGINE / AJ6 Engineering

 

...he knows that; just trying to get a rise out of us! LOL

Cheers,
Dave