Car & Driver Article on V6-S
 

In the May issue, there is a 1-page article on AJ126 V6 and the block's common origin to the 5.0L V8. (Page 20).

I'll post a link if they put it on-line.

In net, the added block weight costs about 50 lbs. "Customer have nothing to gripe about, though...the F-Type owner would be wise to take a leave when the bar debate turns to engine design."

Hated the reference back to GM's crazy initial shared block V8/V6.

Ask and you shall receive.

How Jaguar Land Rover Cleverly Creates a V-6 from a V-8 ? Feature ? Car and Driver | Car and Driver Blog

That's a very interesting (yet to the point) article. Thanks for sharing.

"But the evil side of having two cylinders on permanent vacation is the weight of the longer-than-necessary block, crank, and oil pan."

I don't see as having larger oil pan as a bad thing. Modern cars are under-engineered to have bare minimum oil pan capacity. I think larger pan will be a benefit during track conditions, so you won't have to worry about momentary drops of pressure due to Gs.

Ingenious? Maybe. But still sad. I would've much preferred an NA V8, or even a Supercharged V8 with less power if they had to have a base option to go with the 500+hp V8s.

Seems to me that the ultimate goal here was improving fuel economy.

I see it as sad. the car does not warrant a purpose built v-6? I would never consider a v-6 version of the f-type after reading this.

Neither the V8 or the V6 are/were purpose built for the F-Type. They've both been around for years in virtually all Jaguar and Land Rover models, long predating the F-Type. However, they've both been continually developed.

The V6 is wonderful, reliable engine that's actually putting out more HP/liter than the 550HP V8s even in the base 340HP configuration.

the v-8 was / is a purpose designed v-8. the v-6 it sounds like it was a v-8 lazily made into a v-6...a bit of a Chrysler k car concept in sharing parts along the model lines. ugh. not the best of form jag.


regarding the v-8 hp/liter, I suspect the state of tune is quite conservative and could be making a significantly larger number of ponies if the rest of the drivetrain were up to the task?

I disagree. Good engineering is good engineering, regardless of how it's accomplished. The design has more than proven itself in the V6 configuration, and has also been used in many earlier model Jaguars and Land Rovers.

There is a long history of shared engine block family designs from virtually all manufacturers.

A compact V6 that didn't need counterbalancers, with a couple of turbochargers hung off of it would be pretty swell. Or maybe even a modernized version of the 3.5L twin-turbo V8 that Lotus used. They got 500HP out of that, but detuned to 350 to spare the transmission. Either one would have saved quite a bit of weight.


Then again, I didn't want a powered hatch or a glass roof. I'd like to see a Superlight model.


As an aside, I did drop by the dealer today. There were four F-Types in a row that looked like they were getting prepped for sale. One was a manual transmission. Then, as I was leaving, a Project 7 was pulling in. He blipped the throttle. It sounded like restrained fury.

That engine wasn't around very long, and you have to think if it were that good, they wouldn't be using Toyota engines in all subsequent Lotuses.

do not disagree with much of what you say but block and engine sharing is not too common where the block of a v-8 is shared for a v-6 offering by simply not line boring the last two cylinders. maybe it was done by gm for the 3.8 but I would certainly not consider that the standard for which others should be judged.


I suppose that one could point to Porsche as having done similarly in the 4 and 6 cyl air cooled engines but they did only share a similar design and by no means did they share the block/cases.

I should not impose my will or opinion here as I am not trying to joust. my posts are just my opinion and I am new here so...I will stand down. I must say however, the f type both coupe and drop head coupe are simply the best looking sports cars on the market today. I also really like the large dual exhaust pipes exiting on the v-6 version. very aggressive!!!

With regard to your comment in bold above, that's not what they did. The internal casting is different, and only the exterior dimension is identical. Internally, there's an empty cavity where the other two cylinders would be in the V8. The cylinder bores are obviously different, because you don't pick up 2 extra liters with just 2 more cylinders of the same bore and stroke.

The C&D estimate of extra weight was just a WAG, by their own admission. There is no question that the V8 does weigh more, as the front/rear balance of the V6 models is 50/50 and the V8 models are 52/48.

I appreciate your clarification.

Actually, it had quite a long run in its various incarnations. Rover got the design from Buick but it had substantial legs. Wikipedia indicates production, in its numerous variants, from 1960 to 2006. A modern version, with modern turbos and engine management, would be an interesting proposition.

I think Toyota engines may have come with the Toyota chassis, but haven't investigated that. I did think about a later model Esprit Turbo for quite a while, but ruled it out as a daily driver when I drove one of the last I4models. Not that Toyota engines weren't worth considering on their own merit. That was hardly the case; they have a lot going for them.

OK, wasn't aware of the Lotus V8 engine's other incarnations.

Toyota chassis? I can't find any source that suggests Toyota ever had anything to do with any Lotus chassis.

I was talking about the Elise/Exige which had Toyota engines (Celica 1.8 w/ Yamaha heads) and Evora with the Camry V6. Everything I've read is that chassis design and development is where Lotus excels and is all Lotus. Lotus sold the Elise/Exige chassis to Elon Musk for the first Tesla.

It is certainly fly in the ointment, but it is still the same car. V6 MT, regardless of block, is still fun car to drive.

The buzzard in the tar pit is the R weighing over 3800 lbs.

I thought there was more Toyota than just the engine, but three minutes of pre-coffee research turns up nothing.

I knew about the Tesla Roadster though. Tesla's just down the road. In fact, their current factory is across the street from the shop that made my last two sets of motorcycle leathers.

Great clarification IMO.....these engine are everywhere in the JLR lineup and have been for some time now.

The IDEA of a shared/similar block may be distasteful to some people but the flip side is that the block is obviously capable of handling far more power than the V6 makes and the same goes for the tranny so those components being a bit "overbuilt" for the V6 application and HP has some value IMO. It can't hurt to share a bunch of other external components either.....

Sure it could have been perhaps 50 lbs lighter with a dedicated V6 block but really the difference is negligible in real life use unless you race your F type. I'd suggest the reliablity and longevity are more important concerns for 99.9% of owners.

2 cents,
Dave

Does anybody have real world weights on these cars; info online is all over the map...

I would imagine a V6 MT coupe is lightest and a V8R AWD roadster is heaviest...

So I'm curious;

- what is the difference between IDENTICALLY equipped V6's and V8's (20" rims, etc. etc.)

- MT vs. ZF

- Coupe vs. Roadster (thought I saw somewhere that the 'vert was 50 lbs heavier but I suppose the different roof options for the Coupe change things too.)

- AWD vs. RWD. Again, I believe I saw 170 lbs and 200 lbs somewhere though the 200 was likely a guess.

I'm sure nobody has all this info but.....


Cheers,
Dave

Great idea, which prompts me to make the following suggestion. The next time you see a truck stop on the highway, go into the area w/ the truck diesel pumps and next to them, you'll see a ramp with a truck scale. You can drive up on that scale and get your car weighed quickly.

In rather short order we could get weights for each model.

I use them routinely on my motor coach to ensure proper loading.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.jag...ac462939c.jpeg

Yep, I was just thinking the same thing; I will endeavour to do just that and post it in a separate thread to see what we get. Would also be prudent to note how much fuel in the tank at the time so we can eliminate that variable.

Cheers,
Dave

Gone are the days when we opened the bonnet to show off our new motor.
Who knows what's under that black plastic cover? -- I'm happy with it! So I'm surprised that it's a V8 block, I think our cars have the best of German Engineering with a British Soul.

When I'm asked "what's the engine? how much horsepower?" my standard answer is:
"I don't know how it translates into horsepower, the F-Type is powered by a 45 kilowatt cold fusion reactor."

When my passenger asks "what's that crackling and popping when you ease off?" my standard answer is: "that's the sound of the excess power discharging out through the flux capacitor."

Truth is, it's NOT a V8 block. That's what was misleading about the C&D article because they left so much of the story out, leading many to that less than accurate conclusion.

Externally, it looks exactly like a V8 block, but inside it's a completely different casting, and it's the internals that define what an engine is. Contrary to what some have been led to believe, JLR does not manufacture a V8 block and simply leave a couple of pistons out.

I guess the question is--is the V6 engine any cheaper to produce than the V8?

...sure; two less pistons, rods, rings, smaller heads, etc. .....how much cheaper? well, less than $20K! LOL

Dave