 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Jaguar Cars / November 2004V8 or V6 S type Dilemma
Please help Which is better the V8 or the V6 S type ? V8 is fuel hungry but fast , Has anyone any idea what sort of mpg you get - mostly highway ? Daniel ** You must never bath in an Irish stew It's a most illogical thing to do But should you persist against my reasoning Don't fail to add the appropriate seasoning S Milligan > Please help > > Which is better the V8 or the V6 S type ? > V8 is fuel hungry but fast , Has anyone any idea what sort of mpg you get - > mostly highway ? I don't know how this is possible, but Edmunds.com has the V6 version of the S-Type listed as getting 18/26 mpg (City/Highway) while the V8 gets a near-identical 17/26 mpg. How this plays out in the tarmac of reality I do not know. Rob >> Please help >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >near-identical 17/26 mpg. > How this plays out in the tarmac of reality I do not know. Bigger engine in same weight of car does less work. Choice is more a matter of preferred feel rather than fuel consumption. V6 is available as a manual and the V8 isn't. The manual V6 is the sportier option. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 Thanksk Chaps bought the V8 on the weekend DM > > Please help > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rob > Thanksk Chaps bought the V8 on the weekend I have 1,400 miles on my V8 S-Type; and so far the computer says I am doing 14.9 MPG. I drive it like it was stolen; so hopefully your mileage is not that bad.  Signature____________________________ Ah, Young Grasshopper. Sometimes it is eyes that blind a man. V8 beats V6 everytime. I used to have a 4.2 straight 6 Sovereign and a 3.5 Litre V8 Rover, and although the Rover had a smaller displacement, it left the Jag for standing. If you want fuel economy buy a mini - Jags are for enjoying !!! Stu > Please help > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > S Milligan >V8 beats V6 everytime. > >I used to have a 4.2 straight 6 Sovereign and a 3.5 Litre V8 Rover, and >although the Rover had a smaller displacement, it left the Jag for standing. Lighter car; different gearing. You are not comparing the engines here. Twin ohc Jaguar XK - five times a Le Mans winner - far superior engine to pushrod Buick V8, even if it was all ally. >If you want fuel economy buy a mini - Jags are for enjoying !!! As are Minis, Stu (the real ones - not the BMW thing). Some of us have both. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 Ive owned both. The V8 is stunning but i rarely acheived above 17MPG whereas the V6 would deliver about 20MPG. Ive just bought a new 2004 XJ6. Ive gone for the 3litre. Ive only had it 2 days but am returning 21MPG > Please help > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > S Milligan We have a 2003 XJ8 Supercharged Vanden Plas with the 4.0 Supercharged V8 engine, we have owned her for around 3 months now. The computer states that we are getting an average of 26MPG, however I must state that around 80% of our driving is highway driving. Seems rather good to me. No idea what the V6 model S-Types will get, but I would assume it will be no worse. We have a 2003 S-Type R (Supercharged V8) with 14,000 miles on it. Its mostly used for a short daily commute and has made a couple of Pittsburgh to Ft Lauderdale round trips. Its also been out on the north course at Beaverun for some very hot laps. The trip computer has never been reset since it was new and its average fuel mileage is holding at 23.4 MPG. Not too shabby, if you ask me. .On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:00:33 +0000 (UTC), "SG" <grady4@hotmail.com> wrote: >Ive owned both. The V8 is stunning but i rarely acheived above 17MPG whereas >the V6 would deliver about 20MPG. Ive just bought a new 2004 XJ6. Ive gone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Daniel Neither of them - Only engine good enough to sit under a leaping cat has 12 cylinders - AND DEFINITELY NOT A DIESEL !!! Stu > Ive owned both. The V8 is stunning but i rarely acheived above 17MPG > whereas [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> S Milligan >Neither of them - Only engine good enough to sit under a leaping cat has 12 >cylinders I know you are troling and I shouldn't bite, but... The most significant engine in Jaguar history is not the V12, it is the XK. A straight six, twin ohc engine sketched out in wartime and built to power the post-way big saloons. It was launched in the XK120, which was never intended to be a big seller but became one and spawned a long series of sports and sports-racing cars, right through to the E-type Series II. During this time it won Le Mans five times in 'C' and 'D'-types. Available in sizes ranging from 2.4 litres to 4.2 litres, it also powered the compact saloons in all their variations and the first three series of the XJ6. It was in production in its many configurations for more than 40 years, continuing to power Daimler limousines and Alvis light tanks long after it was replaced in the mainstream cars by a new straight six. Don't get me wrong, the V12 is a great engine. A very minor player in Jaguar history compared to the XK, however, and certainly not deserving of the statement above. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 David, You are right, you shouldn't bite!! This is a guy who thinks the ONLY car that is truly a Jaguar is the XJS-V12. He does not care about Jaguar as a marquee OR the Jaguar history. Ironically, NO Jaguar from 1968 until the modern line came with a leaper from the factory -- including the XJS. In fact, I don't believe there was a Jaguar made from the factory that EVER had a V-12 and a leaper!! It was an "add-on" from the dealerships. The XJS rarely had a leaper added any way, it had a growler badge on the hood. Most owners thought the leaper on the XJS was as silly as the leaper on the XKE. The XJS he drives was a design and product of British-Leyland, if I am not mistaken. And finally, the XJ40 was initially designed as to purposely NOT use a V-12 in the production, which is why the Series III cars were produced to handle the V-12 sedan well into the 90s. To dis-regard the history of the XK engine in both production and racing is to dis-regard the history of the marquee. He might as well say the 1988 XJ40 was the only proper saloon ever made by Jaguar!! Cheers Webserve > >Neither of them - Only engine good enough to sit under a leaping cat has 12 > >cylinders [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) > The Classic Car Gallery: http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 > David, > You are right, you shouldn't bite!! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is to dis-regard the history of the marquee. He might as well say the 1988 > XJ40 was the only proper saloon ever made by Jaguar!! Leapers were banned in the UK and Continental Europe as part of Vehicle design safety Standards, they were also banned in Australia and are only now being reconsidered for introduction by the Federal Vehicle design standards branch. Maybe we will get these again, maybe not. Jaguar Australia are pursuing this. The XJ40 was purposely designed not to include the then Rover V8 (Oldsmobile parentage). Leyland did not want to continue with the V-12 and wished to include the V8 which the Jaguar design people and engineers thought was considerably inferior to the V-12. The V-12 was included in the XJ40 when Ford gave the go-ahead and the front end was re-engineered to take the V-12 as was originally intended. The Series III was contninued with the V-12 because the demand was still there and until the XJ40 could be produced to include it. It took some considerable persuasion on the part of Jaguar to convince Ford Brass to lob the V-12 into the XJ40. By tyhen Ford were concentrating on the X300, a much simplified car which returned to Vacuum brake boosting and rid itself of the stupid hydraulic suspension. The revised AJ 6 engine was much refined over the Xj40 version along with better ECUs primarliy because of newer chip and software development. The later V8 again improved the smoothness although still has some incredibly stupid coolant pipe design. The development of Jaguar is an object lesson in why Governments should never be allowed to get into business decisions. The Leyland experimetn was an absolute idsaster of not only Jaguar but the entire British motor industry. cheers Bill >>Neither of them - Only engine good enough to sit under a leaping cat has >>12 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The Classic Car Gallery: > http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?m=17830847103&n=398038677 The XK was also a notorious oil leaker, which the Jaguar engineers steadfastly refused to rectify. I was apparently part of its British charm and was thus responsible for sealing more highways with oil than any other production engine. Rumor has it that world petroleum inventories gradually increased as a result of scrappage of XK engines over the past 20 years. No, you shouldn't bite but you know you love to .. Just as much as I love looking at things from a slightly different angle ... This has to be one of the best newsgroups around - Stu >>>Neither of them - Only engine good enough to sit under a leaping cat has >>>12 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > gradually increased as a result of scrappage of XK engines over the past > 20 years. > No, you shouldn't bite but you know you love to .. Just as much as I > love looking at things from a slightly different angle ... > > This has to be one of the best newsgroups around - > > Stu I bought the 05 S-Type with the V8 and so far I have been extremely happy. I didn't like the noticible lack of power in the V6 version of the car (test drove it). I would have bought the S-Type R; but they only had 2 of them and I didn't like the color choice in one, or the lack of the touch screen in the other. So far I have added a JaguarXP air intake system. Dealer installed it (had like 30 steps, looked like a pain to do); and it adds to the growl sound of the engine and [allegedly] added some horsepower (I can't tell the difference). I met with a sound system group (Tweeters) that has a kit to add DVD movie capability to the touch screen. Think it's worth doing? I should add - it was not inexpensive. It was about $2K to add the functionality, an Alipne 6 DVD changer in the trunk, and 2 Alpine monitors in the headrests. Signature____________________________ Ah, Young Grasshopper. Sometimes it is eyes that blind a man.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.