Would you like a more powerful GT? Would you sacrfice the V8 engine for it?

Prefferred engine:

  • 300bhp 4.6 V8

    Votes: 155 90.6%
  • 350bhp 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder

    Votes: 16 9.4%

  • Total voters
    171
  • Sponsors (?)


Hell yeah. Lets make a V8 only stang. That'd cut down on the rejects that buy a v6 and put fart cans and neons on it. I've seen mustangs with low rider wheels. Ridiculous? I think so. The v6 is more of a grandma kinda thing. Sure it has 200hp but people are using it more like a Taurus.

The bad part of that is the people that cant afford the V8 model are outta luck. But hey, thats why we have the Focus.
 
70lightning said:
Yeah but where do you think Jag gets all it's new engine designs from F-O-R-D.
Actually go so some FRIGGING research.

The AJ-V8 is a JAGUAR own engine and has nothing to do with Ford. The only thing Ford may have contributed was financial stability for Jaguar when they took them over, in terms of this engine.

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT MY FRIEND
 
300bhp/ton said:
Actually go so some FRIGGING research.

The AJ-V8 is a JAGUAR own engine and has nothing to do with Ford. The only thing Ford may have contributed was financial stability for Jaguar when they took them over, in terms of this engine.

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT MY FRIEND


"it's gettin' hot in heeeya" :D
 
300bhp/ton said:
Actually go so some FRIGGING research.

The AJ-V8 is a JAGUAR own engine and has nothing to do with Ford. The only thing Ford may have contributed was financial stability for Jaguar when they took them over, in terms of this engine.

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT MY FRIEND
Your from england, and your english is horrible, so try typing in american next time and we will understand you better :nice:
 
illwood said:
AHHHHHHH!!! :nono: :nono: :nono:

Practically impossible. You need to have an even number of cylinders on a vee engine to have any hope of dynamically balancing it. It would shake itself (and the driver) apart.

How about an inline 7? or a V14?

Easy killer. I think he knows the basics of engine dynamics.
Perhaps gp should have included the [sarcasm] tag? :rlaugh:
 
70lightning said:
Your from england, and your english is horrible, so try typing in american next time and we will understand you better :nice:
still English I'm afraid but some of the more techy people may find this of interest:

Roger Bywater ex Senior Development Engineer at Jaguar Cars said:
Some History.

Let us start by dispelling the belief still held by a few people that Jaguar just adapted a Ford designed V8 to create their new power unit. The truth is actually the reverse. Jaguar designed the engine in its entirety, it is manufactured in the UK, and a simplified variant is shipped over to the US where Lincoln install it in their LS model!

Jaguar's design team started with a clean sheet of paper for this new V8 engine. Nothing carried over from previous engines and the aim clearly was to produce a class leading power unit with few compromises. In most respects they achieved success and were able to devise remedies for the inevitable weaknesses that emerged with time.

So wide ranging was the research to determine the best engine format to carry Jaguar into the 21st century that the program included building and testing a number of advanced two-stroke engines. Most impressive was a 3.2 litre V6, lean burn, supercharged, two-stroke using the Orbital air-assisted injection process. It produced 350 b.h.p. but emissions and durability proved to be hurdles that were too difficult to overcome. Although a fairly conventional V8 was soon perceived as being the best solution, details like the number of valves to use were resolved in a series of single cylinder prototypes, echoing the V12 program 30 years or so before. Most modern engines use the four valve layout but as befits a project aiming for the best solution, Jaguar's engineers also considered alternative arrangements like the five valve configuration used so successfully by Yamaha on their high performance motor cycle engines. No real advantage could be found that way so progress continued with a more conventional four valve layout.



A very efficient and compact combustion chamber was achieved by closing up the angle between the valves from the 47 degrees of the AJ6 and AJ16 engines to a more ideal 28 degrees, accepting the slight drawback that the head bolts were situated right under the camshafts so the heads could not be totally pre-assembled. An incidental advantage of the narrower valve angle is that it helps to keep the cylinder heads compact, so minimising the weight and package size of the complete power unit.



Special attention was devoted to the valve train to keep masses as low as possible, valve stems for example being just 5 mm in diameter. This brings advantages in three respects: firstly, there is a measurable improvement in fuel economy due to reduced friction losses; secondly, it is easier to reduce mechanical noise thereby improving refinement; finally, the mechanical stresses in the valve train are reduced. The latter point is particularly relevant but to understand why a short digression is necessary.

Purpose designed four valve V8 racing engines use a single plane crankshaft (like an in-line four cylinder) to obtain evenly spaced firing impulses along each bank to allow for optimum exhaust tuning, the downside being that the engine shakes laterally because of unbalanced forces. Even with a regular firing order such engines are notorious for timing gear problems associated with severe instantaneous torque reversals, which at different times have caused much trouble in four valve V8s from such illustrious names as Coventry Climax, Repco, Cosworth and Ilmor.

Production V8 engines almost always use a two plane crankshaft (four crank throws disposed at 90 degree intervals) which provides good balance but an uneven firing order along each bank. Because of this a four cam production V8 inevitably has the cams asymmetrically phased around the axis of each camshaft as shown in the diagram. This gives rise to irregular loads on the drive between the crankshaft and the cams and between the two camshafts on each head.



It is perhaps then not surprising that on the Jaguar V8 the tensioners on the secondary camshaft chains in particular have developed a reputation for being troublesome. In fact it may not be that there is any weakness in the tensioners themselves, rather that at certain critical speeds heavy torque reversals on the chain can produce higher than expected stab loads, a condition which can probably be exacerbated by some usage patterns. It is perhaps interesting that the later 4.2 V8 uses more rugged morse internal tooth primary chains and that when BMW introduced a similar V8 (four valve, twin OHC, Nikasil bores, sintered fracture split con-rods) in 1992 they used duplex chains throughout. Whilst Jaguar's design team, in choosing a single link chain drive, did specify that it should be rated for heavy duty, one wonders if there have been any regrets that space wasn't made to use a duplex chain rather than relying on the lightweight valve gear to let them get away with the narrower option?

Of course, all engines have weaknesses that only become apparent with time and the engineering of the Jaguar V8 is not without many positive attributes. The combination of quite large valves and cam profiles of modest duration, allied, in the case of the naturally aspirated 4 litre, to a variable timing mechanism controlling the inlet cams, results in an engine with a particularly wide spread of torque.

The early variable timing device was a two state system - either advanced or retarded over a range of 30 degrees (at the crankshaft). Retarding the inlet cam eliminated overlap so improving idle and drive quality at very low speeds and light loads. It also meant the inlet valve closed later thereby improving power at higher speeds. In the mid-speed, part to high load range, the cam was advanced giving early inlet closing to boost torque, the extra overlap then also providing a degree of 'internal EGR' to reduce NOx emissions. Later engines use a more advanced system that optimises the cam phasing within a much wider range of, incredibly, 48 degrees.

With the benefit of hindsight the decision to use Nikasil plated cylinder bores instead of conventional liners might be judged a bad mistake, but it is one that was understandable and which caught BMW off-guard as well. The Nikasil process had been used for years on motorcycle engines and is in common use for F1 and other racing engines so it is hardly unproven technology. At the time BMW's exceptionally tight control of oil on the bores was thought to be a factor in their troubles, which would not apply elsewhere. In truth, instances of failure of the Nikasil coating appear to have been induced by poor fuel quality in certain markets allied to short journey usage, and engines running on low sulphur fuel would be most unlikely to suffer the problem. Jaguar resolved service failures in an honourable fashion but eventually decided to abandon Nikasil and revert to conventional cast iron liners (from VIN 42776 XK8, 878718 XJ8). The advantages of light weight and close running clearances were sadly lost. Ironically the fuels which caused the problem have now virtually disappeared from the market.

The size increase to 4.2 litres was obtained by increasing the stroke - always a favoured approach at Jaguar - necessitating the crankpin journals to be reduced in diameter to maintain the same block height.
 
Pliskin said:
Hell yeah. Lets make a V8 only stang. That'd cut down on the rejects that buy a v6 and put fart cans and neons on it. I've seen mustangs with low rider wheels. Ridiculous? I think so. The v6 is more of a grandma kinda thing. Sure it has 200hp but people are using it more like a Taurus.

The bad part of that is the people that cant afford the V8 model are outta luck. But hey, thats why we have the Focus.

mustang has ALWAYS offered a 6 cylinder option. matter of fact, the mustang started life not as a car to go stomping down the track, but as a car to just bring in the youth or help people "recapture their youth." yeah, many think of it as a peformance car now, but it's nice to see that the mustang has held its heritage and original purpose.

Mike
 
A 2.0 4 banger with 360 lb tq? Man, that's a motor that's already overstressed from the factory. 360 tq is a LOT for a 2.0. I'd have to say no way, hose. Because if you want to add even 20 HP, I'm sure you'd run the risk of throwing a rod. That motor is already maxed out, not to mention the fact that such a modded motor will drive the price of the car way up. Give me the V8 and with the extra 5k I'll have in my pocket, I'll get that baby up to 400 HP/420 TQ, no problem.

Oh, and it'll sound better, too. :)
 
[QUOTE='01SilverBullet]Uh there was no 6 cylinder option on 87-93 Stangs, they were either 4's or 8's.[/QUOTE]


yeah, i remembered that after i put the post up, but it still shows that the mustang was a car that was meant for the masses, not just for performance junkies.

Mike