Well i'm not gonna play anymore then.........and seriously whats wrong with steering slightly off topic?? If Jagular and i were down the pub face to face it would have been the same........i may have even bought him a beer and shook his hand!! If you have no input and you don't like it well then ignore it.....simples!!

 

You don't think I've read this thread?
The discussion off IAT was already off topic to the question asked which was would harm result from leaving the cover off not would there be a benefit to taking it off.

 

I feel like I'm about to get trolled by a moderator...

I've got a solid rebuttal for you but honestly this thread is already dirtier than a New Orleans callgirl so I will let it go.

You guys can keep arguing with jagular all you want, it's just annoying when people search for threads to get actual insights into their questions and they have to sift through multiple pages of drivel before they find it.

 

The slots "breaking" in the early days lead to if they break at all you will get a penalty which then evolved into what we have today.

 

this thread should have been re-opened to someting like the benefits of putting holes in the air box. When a topic changes from the initial question, it really confuses the searches for information. Just saying............

 

You know... although Jagular and others like him who THINK they know it all really annoy those of us who actually do, the discussion of intake pressure loss is just plain stupid without data! The fact that you hear more noise with an open intake plenum seems reasonable, but it I doubt the Jag engineers would miss this "great" opportunity to improve performance. Why not make a manometer and actually figure out what the pressure is doing? Or dyno the damned thing and bring the charts. Blabbering on about improved CAS with no data is just as bad as running your mouth about washing an engine causing harm with no proof. BTW, the X-308 forum is full of reports of engine problems after washing an engine, usually either because the coils or plug wells get wet OR the piezoelectric knock sensor's insulation breaks down. Of course, if either happens, something else has already begun to leak! For me, I bathe myself daily and my engine quite a bit less frequently.
The data on the IAT with the cover on or off IS meaningful because it is data, not conjecture, although for me, the data is highly suspect due to a small sample and limited controls.
And WRXtransformed, just because you don't like grown men having stupid arguments does not mean they should not happen! Just jump to the discussions about what leather cleaner to use and be happy!

 

Best leather cleaner: Leatherique! LOL

 

If companies keep liking my car enough to give me hundreds of dollars in free products I'll keep posting about them all day long

 

I use for ease and convenience with the same long lasting results and some sunscreen too....Meguiars



IMHO..Leatherique is old school for Connolly leather back to 1878, and a PIA to use...although the best leather product out there, if you got the three days to put it on and treat the leather...

 

I am sure glad we have returned this thread to something REALLY important !

 

Not entirely stupid but a bit pointless. For a supercharged engine already producing peak torque more or less at the detonation limit if the fuel there can be no useful changes to air intake paths. Reducing IAT would produce higher bmep but that is really limited by intercooler efficiency. There are serious space limitations to changing the existing intercooler system. About the only feasible mod there might be adding a coolant reservoir as a heat sink, suggested elsewhere on this site.

Changing air intake pathways or removing the engine cover are pretty much useless exercises. The biggest restrictor in the intake is a bloody great pair of helical meshed lobes....

And just btw, I am one of those people who are annoyed, but I am very patient so I don't let it bother me much.

 

I agree with Sparkenzap........and i appreciate this thread has gone off on a major tangent.....if you check back through the thread i have allready said i have a mate in the UK who is developing an intake and i've asked him to do some dyno runs with and without open airboxes.......honestly not expecting any gains......purely done it for the intake noise.

I have been in the automotive engineering industry for many years now, working with British leyland, Rover group, MINI and BMW......my latest 3 year consultancy position is with ummmm Jaguar/Land Rover.......

Please don't be under any illusion that the 5.0 supercharged engine is maxed out........trust me it really is not!! The intake really is a weak point. Unlike some i'll put my money where my mouth is and speak with factual numbers........bring on tne dyno!!!!!!

In terms of the healthy discussion on hear its all good and nothing more than how things go down your local boozer..........all my friends are into cars and we have some real fall outs for days!!!! Maybe its just a British thing..........sorry!!!

 

I am under the illusion that the current Jaguar supercharged V8 is knock limited and is at max bmep for that reason. I note for example that although the V6 comes in two power levels in reality peak torque is pretty much the same for both. The V8 produces far lower specific peak torque than the V6 though. This would indicate that the V8 has some headroom to deliver higher bmep than it currently does if the combustion pressure can be matched to that produced by the same basic engine but in 3.0 V6 format.

The turbo four is at 125 lb ft per litre, the V6 is at 111 - 113 lb ft per litre and the V8 is at 100 lb ft per litre in XFRS tune. The higher output tuned V6 has higher specific power than the turbo four, which is pretty good going for a mechanical supercharger. Of course, the turbo four has a lot more headroom should anyone wish to write the software for it. Even Ford could get a lot more power out of it should they wish to and the Focus RS is an example of where that engine could have gone if Ford and Jaguar continued their engine partnership. It remains to be seen how much power the Ingenium gas engines will eventually produce.

The combustion chambers in the 5.0 are 625 cm3 each while those of the 3.0 are only 500 cm3 as are those of the 2.0 four. The challenge combines getting the air in and keeping the combustion temperatures down. Larger combustion chambers tend to detonate earlier all other things being equal. For a supercharged engine getting the air in is not the issue it's keeping air temperature down while you do so. For the 5.0 you need lower air temperatures than for either of the other two engines because of the length of flame travel within the larger diameter combustion chamber.

Bigger intercoolers would be the first step to getting higher bmep.

 

When finances allow I'm going water/meth injection to lower IAT. Going to go 70% water to 30% meth to get mostly cooling and a bit of octane boost since we get crap 91 octane fuel here in CA. Not going to change my tune though in case I ever run the tank dry.

My main goal is to let the ECU run in the leaner more efficient part of the fuel/spark curve to make it think detonation isn't so imminent and to keep it from dumping fuel or cutting advance as soon.

 

Thanks guys I just removed mine from my stock V8 - surprisingly clean engine. Looking at the cover it surprises me that it is plastic but it also has a foam liner underneath - I guess for noise reduction.

In any case, since I have magnaflow exhaust pipes I do not care if it even louder !

 

I can see why people might clean an engine. Avoiding splashing water all around is the thing that some people seem unable to grasp - at least until they've done it and got codes / RP. (See some of the occasional posts in the S-Type forums.)

 

A clean engine bay is a good idea for when selling a car as to the potential buyer it normally shows a well looked after car, rather than a dirty engine bay.

The S/C 5.0 has a lot more potential than it has now, the main limit was actually the ZF 6HP28 box as it couldn't take the torque, now the 8 speed ZF with an improved TC is with the 5.0L, expect a 600bhp+ SVR in the near future.

The main reason why the whine is quieter on the 5.0L is the actual TCS R1900 Eaton SC itself, it was designed to be and be more efficient too compared to the 4.2 M112 Eaton SC.

 

Having had both the 4.2 S/C and now the 5.0 S/C i would say the whine at WOT on my intake tube deleted, K and N'd, drilled box is louder than a standard 4.2........now if you carried out the mods on a 4.2 you may get near tbe scream of a VXR8 bathhurst!!!

 

Thinking about those specific torque numbers and the specific power that follows from those numbers the V8 SC could develop as much as 560 lb ft of torque and 625 bhp if it could be made to breathe and burn as efficiently as the V6 SC.

Alternatively, a 4.0 litre version of the V8 could produce as much power and torque as the current XFR engine if it could be made with the same bore/stroke, air intake capability and intercooling performance.

Lead me to wonder if the current V6 just uses the same intake and intercoolers as the V8 with a smaller supercharger. That would be enough to explain the power advantage the V6 enjoys. If true then it also points the way to power improvements in the 5.0 V8: bigger intercoolers and bigger air intakes.

Anyone seen both engines with the engine covers off?

 

Have another guess........

Henessey have allready produced a 650hp conversion for the 5.0 S/C.