No, you haven't shown anyone how to double the life. You've guessed at problem, cause and solution, just as Jag and the early owners of the 4.0 guessed at the root cause of their issues.

Maybe you are right- but maybe we'll all be here in X number of years learning that contaminated oil had nothing to do with it.

Time will tell.

 

Oh, dont forget to apologize to everyone here that you disrupted with your internal sense of jealousy.

You first argued that we should not be prudent about increasing maintenance- which in itself is hilarious, its like me arguing with a McLaren owner how he should take care of his car. Then you say you would wait till they release an even more expensive Mclaren. LOL.

 

There are good clues if you follow the logic of law. There is no data/ evidence that soot contaminated oil is a good thing. There is no data that timing chains are bulletproof with contaminated oil. There is ample data that this soot is abrasive and premature timing chain wear can occur across all manufacturers.

Beyond that there is absolutely no downside to enhanced maintenance- which shows that your approach to this is emotional and not logical. There is no downside! i.e. no-brainier.

 

I'm sure you meant 'no-brainer'. Your ironic Freudian slip is forgiven however.

 

This thread is hilarious.

 

I think it's kind of sad, really....

 

To me this whole thing regarding the "nano" particles and their grit issue should be looked at rather seriously and handled with the best current solution so as not to have a catastrophic event down the road.
How to handle it? Easy, change your oil every 5 to 7k miles with the manufacturer recommended product. The cost is relatively low and changing the oil on one's vehicle has always been (in my memory) the least expensive "best" maintenance available for internal combustion engines. Therefore, this should end the discussion.

 

Exactly, many best practices are discovered by the same people who discovered all the other recalls, us the public.

Think sealed for life transmission fluid. By life they mean about 120k miles.

ABOUT RECOMMENDED OIL: not many know the oil recommended in their owners manual is NOT the oil used by Jaguar now in the same engine. They have gone to an even lighter oil. Because with soot loading the oil gets heavier and wont flow fast enough to lubricate timing chain at start up. Thus a runaway problem.

 

Yes, that's a simple way to avoid the issue- but it has not been proven that this tactic is effective.

T&C stated that the issue involves a $3K repair. That's hardly 'catastrophic'. The early S-type owners with 4.0 would have been thrilled if their issues were only $3K to fix.

I dropped nearly that much yesterday on a relatively minor boat repair. We had a roofing guy here who quoted us $37K to redo the entire roof on our 16 year old house that failed from a factory defect. It's part of a class action suit. We'll get back just pennies on the dollar if we're successful.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

 

Again you pull one out of the ether.
Clean lubrication has not been proven effective- lol.

Removing abrasives from oil not been proven effective. OK.
Refreshing protection package in oil not been proven effective. OK
Quicker flow to lubricate chain at startup not been proven effective. OK

How about your suggestion- (which I dont even know what it is) has that been proven effective?

 

I think we're going in circles. Show us proof (not theory and logic) that your tactic effectively eliminates or delays the need for chain replacement.

 

Indeed it is. If you have an investment- i.e. skin in the game- horse in the race- neck on the line; it does alter one's perspective as to amount of caution to heed.

 

Finally we agree. I have chosen not to invest in a car with a known engine fault and an unproven fix. This is 4.0 deja vu all over again.

 

Yeah just like I have chosen not to invest in a McLaren or a Gulfstream that has to have a engine every so often by law.

Wake up an smell the coffee, I would not even get in a uber taxi that was an Stype, let alone a 2003.

But thank you for showing your hand that you are making these statements based on a bias.

P.s. since you have chosen not to invest- can you buzz off and let those of us who are vested discuss.

 

There is evidence that it has been. It is a myth that they are new and previously unknown. The current iteration of engine oil specifications, ILSAC GF-5, was implemented in 2010 for 2011 model vehicles and consideration of chain wear was incorporated in the specification.

The engine oil specification being developed by ILSAC,GF-6 provides for some modest improvement in chain wear specification and calls for a specific test to demonstrate its efficacy. However the most significant improvements are aimed at fuel efficiency and other factors , to support the operation of small capacity, high powered, turbocharged engines. See the attachment.

I should point out that ILSAC a group sponsored by major auto manufacturers and lubricating oil manufacturers. It has nothing to do with legislation!

The ultimate solution to timing chain wear issues will come from improved design of timing chains, improved materials selection, improved manufacturing processes and improved engine assembly techniques.

So by all means increase the frequency of oil changes and hope that your timing chain is not one of the few which will exhibit premature wear.

 

I am not sure I understand your position. Its no myth.

Soot accelerates timing chain wear, as does the breakdown of the additive package in in oil. Countless studies have confirmed that. Did I mention Studies. Below is one.

So removal of soot does the opposite. We have metric on this stuff. See below.

https://www.stle.org/images/pdf/STLE...ry%20Plays.pdf

 

Incidentally- does anyone remember the name of that Gentleman who was a ASE cert tech, who recommended Moly added to crankshaft. Guess what, look at the study above look at how chain wear is non existent with moly. Go figure.

Another guy Mikey ran off.

 

Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been----the myth I was referring to is the claim that the soot particles are new and not previously seen.


That is a good paper you have quoted. I have read it carefully and the conclusions drawn by the authors are not exactly the same as yours. Read carefully p24. They seem to believe:

1. the fundamental problem is an unknown chemical reaction initiating chain wear, encouraged by the presence of zinc and inhibited by phosphorus,

2.soot and/ OR acid function as wear accelerators.

3.phosphorus anti-wear additives not required to prevent timing chain wear.

So I will simplify my position:

1.You do not KNOW why your timing chain suffered premature wear. I definitely do not know.

2. More frequent oil changes are generally good for an engine.

3.They will NOT ALWAYS prevent a timing chain from wearing excessively.

4.Your engine may exhibit premature timing chain wear again.

Time will tell.

 

If I wanted to move up, I'd go out to the Porsche dealer and order 2016/2017 Porsche 911 or go next door to the Jaguar dealer and pick up a used manual transmission Aston Martin DB9.

I like my lower maintenance cycles though, more time to post here.

The nice thing about the 4.2L, I didn't have to touch my buy a nice car when 35 years old savings fund I made when I was a 15 year old teen. Its still there growing. Originally intended for a Ferrari, now, five years out, and the destination is unknown. Truth be told though, it was the only car available locally at the time with a light colored interior. I would of sprung for a 5.0 if it'd been available. There is pretty much always a demand for more horse power.

 

Another pesky S-type guy putting sticks in the spokes of T&C's wheel. Tsk tsk.

PS- Your position is spot on.