On the contrary- you've summarized and reposted most of what I've already said here and on previous discussions. The presumption that chain life will be extended through more frequent oil changes is pure speculation.

My prime objection is the ongoing 'slam dunk' nature of the discussion where a reader may be led to believe that problem, cause and solution have been positively established.

The derogatory name calling and veiled personal attacks degrade the discussion even further.

 

Leeper,

Point taken regarding ad-lib, embellishments, and I will add conjecture.

But its isnt entirely my friend, just partially.

What I have observed is that some chains are failing at 40,000miles and some are lasting beyond 80,000. Which validates there is such a thing as double life or half life. It also rules out chain design, besides we are truly making them as good as they get and with stupendous amounts of engineering. Lets not forget the chain in your car and the ones that are failing are the same, so its not the chain design, far from it.

Therefore; it stands reason whatever the guys getting 80k from a chain are doing can be had by those only getting half. Keep in mind all other factors are the same. The part that appears to be conjecture, is me identifying that thing as keeping the crankcase clean.

But that precisely how you take a bull by its horns, you have to make executive decisions, if you want to take action before the market has. The alternative is to follow and wait for destiny to make one for you. Just a matter of personality, as a problem solver that has to sign the front of checks, I know better than to wait till the R&D dog has caught the school bus- he really does not want to.

Embellishment would be an improper use of the word, it would be the case if I were reporting that academia said so. No I said so.

 

So your objection is purely academic
What did I say about master debaters,
Do you have something that can help us, or are you just debating academically. Its a rhetorical question intended to make you think.

 

Mikey, did you read the links? You seemed hell-bent on denying any/all of it from the onset for reasons I'm not sure. It was the recommendation of Jag as well as other mfg's that the oil change intervals be lowered to address this issue as the issue became known. This does not include our, 2007-2007 XK's
#2 - this is a new issue as GDI engines have not been around for a long time so research to cause/effect is also new. Mikey I was with you in asking him to "show us the money" so to speak, he came through and provided numerous studies not from questionable sources such as Jiffy Lube or oil companies who would be obvious biased in theor reporting for pure financial gains.

As was the case with earlier threads/posts on this matter I am not a believer that in non-GDI engines that changing your oil and filter at more frequent intervals will in any way benefit anything other than a mechanics bank account but this is another beast. There are many, including some on this site, who believe 3000 or 5000 miles is the right time and good for them but IF they are going to spout off about the benefits at least provide us with some sort of ACTUAL studies or proof (as Q&C kindly did here) as for regular engines the recommended intervals are well within safe and acceptable guidelines but that is not what we are talking about in this case and the case presented

Again my only mention was the little bit of "creative liberties" taken after the fact in quoting that a certain outcome will happen is only based upon other research however that does not mean that I do not wholeheartedly appreciate the overall message nor do I in any way feel the study and subsequent findings are in any way inaccurate.

The end result of name calling is unfortunate and distracts from the overall value here sadly. Mikey, you've acted like a heckler at a comedy show here not really offering anything but a contrarian viewpoint failing to offering any valuable information to refute what was brought forth. If your studies or research differ than by all means PLEASE enlighten us and let's have an adult conversation and sharing of information rather than potshots from the railing

 

Q&C - if you said "it is my belief that you'll get twice the life out of the chain", that would be accurate. You said "you will get"... I know splitting hairs but one is speaking from one's opinion and the other stated as unsupported fact... big difference. Nothing in your reporting supported that claim it only led to it and using this and other forums to base your claim as to chain demise mileage guestimations is hardly scientific in contrast to the studies offered. If you let the information provided do the talking the point is very well made not need to "creatively" add to it for purpose of fear.

 

Creativity is whats going to be required here for us to keep our necks above water.

No one is working on solving this problem for us. The OEMs are not saying a word-they have moved on and solved the problem in their current designs. It should be noted that all the various research I have posted has been done by folks interested in cleaning the air, not saving your engine.

Its that sort of tracing back through the dots that will lead one to some remedy.

To give an example of what a non-academic debate looks like, I will post a counter argument to my points (counterarguments I was hoping for)

-There is no evidence that any chain has gone above 40k
-Manufacturers have not changed their designs
-No OEM has lowered oil change interval
-They have decidedly identified 'X' as cause of chain wear and you are wrong
- No chain design is new, oil is new, gasoline is new, soot from GDI has been around for a long time and we know exactly how it works.

 

Mikey, I agree with you 100%. I am with you, at this point it more frequent oil changes are a "possible" preventative measure but not an absolutely known cure.

And before anyway says that I am not adding anything, I have read every post, every linked document, and every argument with counter argument. I am not going to try and play engineer, scientist, or mechanic by arguing merits of every side. All members have a right to chime in despite the lack of effort to refute or support any claim or what car is owned.

 

My position is being twisted and the discussion hijacked to something its not.

I, nor anyone else, have never EVER said we have found a 'absolute known cure'. Its just blatantly false and an attempt to cover up other things the same folks were wrong about- crucially the lack of timing chain wear.

I will repeat to refresh memories-What I have said is that timing chain wear is an absolute issue, soot is increasingly looking the likely culprit, behooves us to get it out.

 

That same kind of argument would not have been right (and is not) for the plastic-bodied chain tensioners on the 4.0. If you want that engine to last you have to change the bad parts else you're just relying on luck.

So... more frequent oil changes may or may not help. Each owner can decide whether to do them and the likelihood of it being waste money or a crossed-fingers workaround (on the assumption there actually is a serious problem).

Seems to me people who habitually reduce oil change intervals, even on engines that don't fail early due to the recommended intervals, are wasting time and money (which is OK as it's their time & money but not OK when they start spouting others should do it). With this 5.0 engine it rather depends on whether it is failing early and whether it's a design fault that can't be covered up by more frequent oil changes. I suppose anyone who owns one and wants to keep it (rather than, say, sell) can just choose what they do - based on what looks to be not that much solid evidence but that said it's an expensive engine. I think I won't buy a car with one and would sell if I had one since I would not fancy crossing my fingers and hoping that more oil changes is good enough.

 

I've just waded through this thread and come to the following conclusions:

1. the polar opposite opinions have not and will not change
2. the thread ceased to make progress long ago

It has largely degenerated into an exchange of offensive personal remarks from those who seem to think they set the acceptable standards here and should know better. This stops NOW.

Anything cogent or relevant to the topic is welcome. Keep it on track.

Graham

 

I get people are highly polarized, about oil changes, which this thread is not about.

I dont get how those unaffected have a greater right to be polarized and emotionally charged.

Its as funny as drunks against mad mothers.

 

I guess some time (months/years) will need to pass until relevant, noteworthy, new information becomes available.

 

I agree. There might be several iterations of a fix before Jag gets it right- similar to the tensioners on our cars. In the interim, my new-to-me car search continues. I was ready to drive an hour to go see this car

Used 2010 Jaguar XF | Used 2010 Jaguar XF, Botanical Green, PR0488A | Ottawa, ON

until the dealer posted more detailed pics. The ugly wheels (we say 'wheels' and not 'rims' here ) and blacked out hood were a turn off, but seeing the cone filter and hot air intake downgrade says 'idiot owner' to me. Sorry if this is a site member's former car.

There again, the same dealer is offering this as an S-type

Used 2000 Jaguar S-Type | Used 2000 Jaguar S-Type, , PR0565 | Ottawa, ON

 

Good god that is mufugly! I guess you could push eight ***** in the south side with that