How would you feel about an XK with a high output 2.0L 4 banger in the XK if it could achieve similar HP (around 300 hp)? The weight savings would be big time.

 

Mosesbotbol,

I think you may have opened up a lively discussion!

A 2.0L 4-cylinder engine is not for me in an XK unless it weighs under 3,000 lbs., which is highly unlikely. Even with forced induction, a 2.0L 4-cylinder would be too small and have too much inherent vibration for a 3,700+ lb. luxury performance GT car. Displacement and number of cylinders matters - especially for low-end torque and smoothness. Jaguar apparently agrees, since the smaller 2014 F-Type weighs in at over 3,500 lbs. and the smallest displacement engine is a supercharged 3.0L V6 with 340HP @ 6,500 rpm and 332 lb-ft of torque from 3,500-5,000 rpm. See: 2014 Jaguar F-TYPE, F-TYPE S, F-TYPE V8 S Specificationss | Jaguar USA

Nevertheless, I could be interested in a supercharged 2.0L 4-cylinder gas engine if it was mated with a proper electric motor system, ala the concept Jaguar C-X75 (at a more affordable price). See: Jaguar C-X75

Interestingly, although the slogan "There's no replacement for displacement" is associated mainly with American muscle car drag racers, it was actually created by a Brit - the legendary W.O Bentley for his 4½L race cars of the late '20's. See: Bentley 4½ Litre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia How times have changed!

Just my

Stuart

 

I Jaguar North American Owner's journal, one of the F-type designers talked about small engines in both F-Type and XJ. He mentioned the XJ's body weighs less than Mini Cooper's and a small engine really shows off the light body. He said (paraphrasing at best) a small engine would make the F-Type go like stink, but might be a tough sell with consumers. The XJ’s V8 weighs as much as the body!

Make it a rev crazy engine like an S2000. Nothing beats hitting 9K rpms and driving around town at 5K!

I am sure someone else here just read the article too...

 

If they can make a 4 cylinder that's light, runs smooth and quiet, makes strong torque at low rpm, and has improved fuel efficiency over the V6 then I'm all for it. But they shouldn't offer it until Aston Martin, Maserati, Porsche, Mercedes and the other XK competitors offer one first and condition the luxury performance buyer to accept a 4 cylinder Otherwise they're welcome to put it into a new non-XK model.

But I don't see that happening in the US market any time soon. Now take that 4 cylinder and marry it to a hybrid system capable of improving every aspect of performance and bring it to market before the competition and I'll sign up for one! In that way technology will become the replacement for displacement!

Bruce

 

BMW has been getting a lot of great reviews with their 2.0L 4-banger....granted its not high output, they say it still gives a kick in the butt

I can see it happening for the X-Type replacement....maybe even lower end XF

 

JLR already has a 2.0L Turbo 4banger which is in my Range Rover Evoque which is sourced from Ford's Ecoboost but only produces 240HP although a tuner claims they can boost it to 295HP already. JLR are already testing the same 2.0T 4banger with 300HP for the Evoque "Sport" or "R" version that could easily be put in the XK. That being said, I rather see the next gen XK to still have a V8 (5.7L-6.2L) in the tradition of GTs and also most 4banger are noisy and buzzy including mine. Also, not sure how buyers will react if they keep the current starting price of $80K with a 4 cylinder. Anyone know how the Lotus Espirit did in sales with their 2.2L 4 cylinder turbo? Just curious. That was a quick car in its time and even now.

JLR testing 2.0L Turbo 4banger with 300HP: We Hear: Hotter Range Rover Evoque Could Get 300-hp - WOT on Motor Trend

300HP Turbocharged 2 Liter Evoque In The Works - AutoSpies Auto News

 

I've had both the Mitsu 2.0T and Audi 2.0T (and a Mitsu 2.6T), all pushing cars of similar weight to the XK. Cabin noise and engine vibration is a none-issue thanks to the modern dynamic dampeners used in them. Of more concern was the outside noise of the Audi's Direct Injection system (tick tick tick tick tick....) Just wouldn't be right coming from under the hood of an XK.

The great fun with the Mitsu and Audi side of the house was that the manufacturers actually offer and support a vast amount of mods to get real power out of each platform. You can take each of them from mild to wild depending on your pocketbook. I don't see Jaguar opening up to that concept any time soon, so what they would offer is what you would be stuck with...

The better option would easily be to follow Audi's path with a light Supercharged V6 in the 340+ hp range for the XK and keep the 5.0 as an option. The "R's" obviously should remain V8, without question.

my 2cents
Vince

 

There is an Evo out there pumping out 600 bhp at the crank on 30 lbs of boost.

 

As a side note, one of the things that usually comes at the expense of shrinking displacement and boosting compression is engine durability. At some point in time, you're going to see an engine rebuild at the 100k mark as part of scheduled maintenance. I'd much rather see the electric hybrid route with the small engines than a hyper boosted one. Electric motors have that beautiful advantage of max torque at 'zero' rpm... then let the motor do it's job of making more electrons to abuse in the pursuit of abusing rubber.

 

In the Jaguar article, the smaller engine idea was for reducing total weight of the car. Adding electronic motors just puts the car back to the original weight, IMO. Sure, electronic motors would have an advantage like launch control or traction control, but I think it defeats the original purpose of the small light engine.

 

Jaguar now has a 2.0L 4banger in the 2013 XF. Looks like the same motor as my Rover as it has the same HP and TQ which is made by Ford and also in the Ford Escape. But this 2.0L I4 is meant more for fuel economy and not really performance.

2013 Jaguar XF Price & Models | Jaguar USA

 

To me, half the appeal of the XK/R is the awesome sound. The other half is its gorgeous looks. The remaining 50% is exclusivity!

You will lose a lot of the awesome sound with a turbo 4, or a supercharged-V6 for that matter. I wish they could go back to their roots and produce an inline-6 or a V12 that would produce a sound that only a Jaguar could make! Unfortunately, I think that would go against the objectives of improved power and reduced fuel consumption.

 

No 4-banger would do it for me in a luxury performance car. Not until the typical issues with idle vibrations, high RPM buzz are successfully and completely eliminated.

Weight is always an issue for me with performance cars but, we are probably only talking about 100 lbs weight savings when using aluminum blocks. In a nearly 4000 lbs car you give up more with a 4-banger than gain in weight reduction. For now, I want that V-8 in my Jag, don't much care for the 3.0 SC V6 either.

Albert

 

The V12's were pretty quiet motors IMO and I think the weight difference between putting a 2.0 L 4 banger and V8 is a lot more than 100 lbs. Heck the Supercharged V8 vs. NA V8 motor is like 200 lbs. if not mistaken.

 

4 banger in a Jag?
Nah!

Man of few words

 

a 4 banger? maybe........on the XK? nope....they're better off adding it to the F-type...leaving the XK alone. the XK is supposed to be this sporty, powerful GT...leave it be.

you dont see the 6 series or SL class getting 4 bangers

 

Maybe they should? I wonder how their weight minus engine compares to the XK? Might not be worth it for BMW or MB.