XJS ( X27 ) 1975 - 1996 3.6 4.0 5.3 6.0
View Poll Results: You MUST LUMP your XJS: choose your poison
2003+ Mercedes V12 Twin Turbo
29.41%
2003+ BMW V12
5.88%
Toyota Century V12
5.88%
Other - explain your insanity
58.82%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

POLL: You MUST lump your XJS V12

 
  #1  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:15 AM
Veteran Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,109
Received 381 Likes on 289 Posts
Default POLL: You MUST lump your XJS V12

1: 2003+ Mercedes V12 Twin Turbo
2: 2003+ BMW V12
3. Toyota Century V12
4. Other (explain your choice)

Title says it all. Hypothetical situation. You must LUMP (Less Upkeep More Power) your beloved Jaguar XJS V12. What do you choose, and why?

Me, I go Mercedes. Proven powertrain with insane amounts of power. Have you driven a CL600? If you get bored with that, a $1200 tune gives you stupid numbers. They are common as Hondas here, so no problem getting work done at an indie, and they FEEL right.

Thoughts? Am I missing something else?
 

Last edited by Flint Ironstag; 09-05-2017 at 12:19 AM.
The following users liked this post:
ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #2  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:28 AM
Jagboi64's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,187
Received 1,110 Likes on 828 Posts
Default

Jaguar 3.0 V6 diesel from the current XF (UK market). 520 ft-lbs at 1600 rpm, and 300 hp has all the refinement and power you expect from a Jaguar and most people would never know it's a diesel, it behaves like a gas engine.

I have driven one in the UK and averaged 47 mpg in mixed driving, on instant fuel economy on the motorway on cruise at 70 mph I was bouncing between 85-95 mpg. It just sipped fuel!

Best of all, it's still a Jaguar engine.
 
The following 2 users liked this post by Jagboi64:
Flint Ironstag (09-06-2017), ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #3  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:38 AM
Daim's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 5,808
Received 2,070 Likes on 1,528 Posts
Default

I would actually go the wankel route. Rather easy to get it in. Use a 3 rotor (or 4) Eunos Cosmo engine. TwIn or triple turbos and that would all fit in the engine bay. Power figures would be around 4 digits...
 
The following 2 users liked this post by Daim:
Flint Ironstag (09-06-2017), ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #4  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:39 AM
Daim's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 5,808
Received 2,070 Likes on 1,528 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jagboi64 View Post
Jaguar 3.0 V6 diesel from the current XF (UK market). 520 ft-lbs at 1600 rpm, and 300 hp has all the refinement and power you expect from a Jaguar and most people would never know it's a diesel, it behaves like a gas engine.

I have driven one in the UK and averaged 47 mpg in mixed driving, on instant fuel economy on the motorway on cruise at 70 mph I was bouncing between 85-95 mpg. It just sipped fuel!

Best of all, it's still a Jaguar engine.
It's actually still a PSA 204 HDI FAP with some tuning by Jaguar...
 
The following users liked this post:
ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #5  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:45 AM
Veteran Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,109
Received 381 Likes on 289 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jagboi64 View Post
Jaguar 3.0 V6 diesel from the current XF (UK market). 520 ft-lbs at 1600 rpm, and 300 hp has all the refinement and power you expect from a Jaguar and most people would never know it's a diesel, it behaves like a gas engine.

I have driven one in the UK and averaged 47 mpg in mixed driving, on instant fuel economy on the motorway on cruise at 70 mph I was bouncing between 85-95 mpg. It just sipped fuel!

Best of all, it's still a Jaguar engine.
Interesting choice - would have to be dirt cheap to make me consider it over a Benz with the requisite # of cylinders though - are they?
 
The following users liked this post:
ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #6  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:48 AM
Veteran Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,109
Received 381 Likes on 289 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Daim View Post
I would actually go the wankel route. Rather easy to get it in. Use a 3 rotor (or 4) Eunos Cosmo engine. TwIn or triple turbos and that would all fit in the engine bay. Power figures would be around 4 digits...
Daim, how's that power delivery? Been in two rotaries - 1 was a friend's mom's from the 70s or EARLY 80s when we were in junior high school LOL - and the other was an RX8. Both really peaky.

Not suitable for an XJS I would say, being a relatively heavy car. Not sure how turbocharging affects that. I can imagine, but haven't felt one. Bet it doesn't feel better than a V12 in this chassis though.

Happy to be shown different.
 
The following users liked this post:
ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #7  
Old 09-05-2017, 01:02 AM
Daim's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 5,808
Received 2,070 Likes on 1,528 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Flint Ironstag View Post
Daim, how's that power delivery? Been in two rotaries - 1 was a friend's mom's from the 70s or EARLY 80s when we were in junior high school LOL - and the other was an RX8. Both really peaky.

Not suitable for an XJS I would say, being a relatively heavy car. Not sure how turbocharging affects that. I can imagine, but haven't felt one. Bet it doesn't feel better than a V12 in this chassis though.

Happy to be shown different.
A normally aspirated wankel lacks torque so it needs the guts reved out of it. Add a turbo or two and you get that missing torque and actually get a lot more than you need. They can easily achieve more power with less worries... Hence why they were banned from Formula 1 racing!

I've driven a couple... A 2007 RX-8 and a 1987 RX-7 Turbo. The RX-8 ran smoother but the RX-7 was a lot faster than the V12 in the XJ-S.

The Turbo had a VERY smooth but steap torque curved which would reach a platteau really early and hold it for a long time. Kind of like the situation, where Jaguar V12 produces 90% of it's torque from idle up...

I also was allowed to start an Eunos Cosmo... The only 3 rotor wankel made as a production engine. Basically it is a 9 cylinder but runs as smoother as a V12 (proper V16!). This was awesome!

As the wankel is a rather easy engine to work with, you can basically, with some workshop tools, extend the engines. Some people have home built some 4 rotor wankel and currently a bloke is build ing a car around a 7 rotor wankel. Without turbos and with a displacement of somewhere around 4.5l (equivilent) it has the engine tester power output of like 1200 hp... Without turbos.
 
The following users liked this post:
Flint Ironstag (09-05-2017)
  #8  
Old 09-05-2017, 06:25 AM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: France
Posts: 9,040
Received 4,512 Likes on 2,882 Posts
Default

AJ16 supercharged 6 cylinder engine from an X300.
or
Aston Martin V12. One must stay English, at the very least!
 
The following 2 users liked this post by Greg in France:
Flint Ironstag (09-05-2017), orangeblossom (09-05-2017)
  #9  
Old 09-05-2017, 08:36 AM
Veteran Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,109
Received 381 Likes on 289 Posts
Default

I had completely forgotten about Aston Martin - I bet there are a few rotting somewhere just begging for a new life...
 
  #10  
Old 09-05-2017, 10:24 AM
Jagboi64's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,187
Received 1,110 Likes on 828 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Daim View Post
It's actually still a PSA 204 HDI FAP with some tuning by Jaguar...
It was jointly developed by Jaguar and PSA. Shall we say offered as a factory engine by Jaguar?
 
  #11  
Old 09-05-2017, 10:28 AM
Jagboi64's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,187
Received 1,110 Likes on 828 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Flint Ironstag View Post
Interesting choice - would have to be dirt cheap to make me consider it over a Benz with the requisite # of cylinders though - are they?
No idea of price. Neither the diesel or the MB V12 are a realistic choice simply due to the integrated nature of the engine and transmission management in modern cars. It's simply not possible to separate out the engine management without the rest of the cars systems being present.

Custom ECU's are a possibility, but they never match the OEM drivability, power and emissions and it's a tremendous amount of work to try and recreate the fuelling and spark curves, not to mention variable valve timing management and turbos/supercharging.
 
  #12  
Old 09-05-2017, 10:35 AM
Daim's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 5,808
Received 2,070 Likes on 1,528 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jagboi64 View Post
It was jointly developed by Jaguar and PSA. Shall we say offered as a factory engine by Jaguar?
That sounds better

Doesn't mean it is a bad engine...
 
  #13  
Old 09-05-2017, 10:37 AM
Daim's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 5,808
Received 2,070 Likes on 1,528 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jagboi64 View Post
No idea of price. Neither the diesel or the MB V12 are a realistic choice simply due to the integrated nature of the engine and transmission management in modern cars. It's simply not possible to separate out the engine management without the rest of the cars systems being present.

Custom ECU's are a possibility, but they never match the OEM drivability, power and emissions and it's a tremendous amount of work to try and recreate the fuelling and spark curves, not to mention variable valve timing management and turbos/supercharging.
Exactly the reason why I would do a Wankel... No VVT to worry about, standalone ECUs help the engine perform as it should and ignition can be achieved via a normal dizzy or a simple aftermarket coil setup...
 
  #14  
Old 09-05-2017, 06:06 PM
warrjon's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vic Australia
Posts: 4,552
Received 2,450 Likes on 1,654 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jagboi64 View Post
It was jointly developed by Jaguar and PSA. Shall we say offered as a factory engine by Jaguar?
It was actually developed by Ford and PSA and manufactured by Ford.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_A...D.2FTDV6.2FHDi
 
The following users liked this post:
ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #15  
Old 09-05-2017, 08:55 PM
Andreas Schmieg's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 549
Received 199 Likes on 113 Posts
Default

Convert it to front-wheel drive and put a Prius motor in there. *duck* *hide*
 
  #16  
Old 09-05-2017, 09:45 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Nevada
Posts: 554
Received 116 Likes on 71 Posts
Default

When looking for a project/classic car, I only considered three options: Mercedes and Datsun. I mean that's before I found my neglected kitty...
 
  #17  
Old 09-05-2017, 10:46 PM
89 Jacobra's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,965
Received 279 Likes on 203 Posts
Default

I chose the Ford 460 for the shear simplicity of it. Simple electronic ignition, two simple 500 cfm Ford 2 barrels and with an overdrive trans, I should have low to mid 20's for mileage. Gobbs of Hp, and torque, and turn key driveability. No hassles, no overheating, Ac, and all the creature comforts wrapped up in a beautiful XJS. What could be better???
 
The following 2 users liked this post by 89 Jacobra:
Flint Ironstag (09-06-2017), ronbros (09-06-2017)
  #18  
Old 09-06-2017, 11:44 AM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin tx and Daytona FL.
Posts: 6,607
Received 903 Likes on 693 Posts
Default

i aint gonna touch this one!!!!

but here goes, Flint knows my choice for conversion, BUT it would be expensive!!. and WAY over the top for performance and better fuel MPG.

but from a practical money point plus good MPG, the Ford /PSA is an excellent choice.

i all ready know what transmission would be priced well, made in USA.

you would use the Ford factory ECU, to run the engine, and there are many trans. TCUs to use ,USA.

rotary just be many headaches, been there done them , at least 6 of rotaries.

rotary great for light weight vehicle, in a heavy car ,noway do it, fuel MPG would reqiure two pockets of money,, HE-HE.
 
The following users liked this post:
Flint Ironstag (09-06-2017)
  #19  
Old 09-06-2017, 11:48 AM
Daim's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 5,808
Received 2,070 Likes on 1,528 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ronbros View Post
i aint gonna touch this one!!!!

but here goes, Flint knows my choice for conversion, BUT it would be expensive!!. and WAY over the top for performance and better fuel MPG.

but from a practical money point plus good MPG, the Ford /PSA is an excellent choice.

i all ready know what transmission would be priced well, made in USA.

you would use the Ford factory ECU, to run the engine, and there are many trans. TCUs to use ,USA.

rotary just be many headaches, been there done them , at least 6 of rotaries.

rotary great for light weight vehicle, in a heavy car ,noway do it, fuel MPG would reqiure two pockets of money,, HE-HE.
Question wasn't regarding fuel economy Ron The Jaguar V12 is no miracle on the dinosaur juice either
 
  #20  
Old 09-06-2017, 12:28 PM
Jagboi64's Avatar
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,187
Received 1,110 Likes on 828 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by warrjon View Post
It was actually developed by Ford and PSA and manufactured by Ford.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_A...D.2FTDV6.2FHDi
I didn't know about the Ford involvement. Makes sense for them to make it though.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: