Blown Engine - 2017 F Type R
#81
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I was considering a tune, but a few weeks ago decided that for the driving I intend to use the car, it has plenty of power if you have it in the right mode, so have now decided against it. I find a lot of people are more infatuated with stating/bragging about the hp and torque than actually using it...just my 2 cents. Thanks, but for street driving my 340 hp does just fine!
.
.
But it might be worth pointing out that the engine in my 340HP is the same as the "S" - JLR have just chosen to "nobble" it because I didn't stump up the $$$ to get the unlock. This is of course different to those with the V8 who want to take it to 11.
So if JLR already rate the engine at higher HP than my sticker, for me that's additional comfort.
So for me, with the tune, I appreciate a more responsive throttle for one thing. I've said I'm not interested in dyno certificates for potential bragging rights although I'm not sure Jaguar owners are quite as rabid about that as other makes (no names no pack drill). When I revert it to stock, it feels flat.
Life is full of risk of course but I went with VAP because of their reputation on this forum and their openness to answering questions both private and public.
#82
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I brought up VAP in this thread, but tried to be exceedingly clear that it was a different tune on the OP's car. At one time there was a tuner here called Vmax. They both start with V. Easy to see how they can get intermingled. I was well aware of that, and if one re-reads my post, I would think the distinction was pretty clear.
#83
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Get an attorney. If im not mistaken CA law requires Jaguar to prove it was the tune that caused it if they cannot you will prevail, but im not completely sure on that. Furthermore, I don't blame Jaguar for not wanting to pay if they have a potential of having you pay for it, thats where lawyers come in its just business.
#84
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Get an attorney. If im not mistaken CA law requires Jaguar to prove it was the tune that caused it if they cannot you will prevail, but im not completely sure on that. Furthermore, I don't blame Jaguar for not wanting to pay if they have a potential of having you pay for it, thats where lawyers come in its just business.
Now a tuner hacks away at the engine code changing parameters to increase engine performance with rudimentary basic testing and no insight into the original development program or code.
Why should Jaguar pick up the tab for a broken engine? Other than lawyers and a litigious culture?
#85
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
But why should he? Jaguar developed and tested their engine programming over probably hundreds of thousands of test miles with an army of test drivers in climates ranging from the Sahara desert to arctic conditions to arrive at a reliable configuration.
Now a tuner hacks away at the engine code changing parameters to increase engine performance with rudimentary basic testing and no insight into the original development program or code.
Why should Jaguar pick up the tab for a broken engine? Other than lawyers and a litigious culture?
Now a tuner hacks away at the engine code changing parameters to increase engine performance with rudimentary basic testing and no insight into the original development program or code.
Why should Jaguar pick up the tab for a broken engine? Other than lawyers and a litigious culture?
Wow. Is that what you think we do?
#86
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i think you really are missing the point here. in a car has know oil issues, then adding a tune to that car is going to increase the chances of engine failure. I never said that a tune would cause oil starvation, but in an engine that is supposedly prone to it, only an idiot would condone a performance tune on it. surely you can understand that logic????![Icon Deadhorse](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_deadhorse.gif)
![Icon Deadhorse](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_deadhorse.gif)
#87
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Adding a tune to any engine is going to increase the chance of engine failure. Every engine has a flaw that could potentially cause engine failure at some point under some conditions; does that make every tuner/customer an idiot for tuning a car?
No, the answer is no. It is the customers job to educate themselves and understand the risks of their actions. You cannot blame the alcohol manufacturer because you decided to get into a car drunk and killed someone.
No, the answer is no. It is the customers job to educate themselves and understand the risks of their actions. You cannot blame the alcohol manufacturer because you decided to get into a car drunk and killed someone.
Failure-to-Warn
Manufacturers of products have a duty to provide adequate warnings to consumers about the dangers their products present. If a product manufacturer knows or should have known about a risk of injury and fails to adequately disclose it, then under the product liability law theory of “failure-to-warn” the manufacturer may be liable to a consumer who is injured or incurs losses by use of the product.
And
yes you can sue the alcohol manufacturers just as the cigarette manufacturers have been.
#88
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
A car with 600 horses is transmitting twice the energy to the crank than a car with 300. If the car was on the limit with lubrication at 300, taking it to 600 is going to cause metal to metal contact as the lubrication film breaks down. As I've said before , it makes it possible to use the engine at lower RPM's where the lubrication is marginal, so premature failure is quite likely in a car which 'supposedly has lubrication issues'. Its not rocket science so I dont really know why you cant grasp the concept
The following users liked this post:
ndabunka (12-04-2017)
#89
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
But why should he? Jaguar developed and tested their engine programming over probably hundreds of thousands of test miles with an army of test drivers in climates ranging from the Sahara desert to arctic conditions to arrive at a reliable configuration.
Now a tuner hacks away at the engine code changing parameters to increase engine performance with rudimentary basic testing and no insight into the original development program or code.
Why should Jaguar pick up the tab for a broken engine? Other than lawyers and a litigious culture?
Now a tuner hacks away at the engine code changing parameters to increase engine performance with rudimentary basic testing and no insight into the original development program or code.
Why should Jaguar pick up the tab for a broken engine? Other than lawyers and a litigious culture?
The following users liked this post:
ndabunka (12-04-2017)
#90
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
However I am sure you will admit in your industry there are a lot of unreputable organizations out there that disappear overnight as quickly as they appeared often leaving their customers with broken promises or at worst broken cars - and fit the bill of "hacking around".
That is why it is so hard to build a reputation in the tuning game, and why a lot of people are rightfully wary of modifying their cars.
#91
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I don't think it's so much hack jobs as playing with a modern tune is like playing three dimensional chess. A smart move on one level may make you vulnerable on another. I do also agree with the 300 vs. 600 analogy. Pushing the power up across the board like a positive displacement blow does may put the engine on the edge at an unexpected point.
#92
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
A car with 600 horses is transmitting twice the energy to the crank than a car with 300. If the car was on the limit with lubrication at 300, taking it to 600 is going to cause metal to metal contact as the lubrication film breaks down. As I've said before , it makes it possible to use the engine at lower RPM's where the lubrication is marginal, so premature failure is quite likely in a car which 'supposedly has lubrication issues'. Its not rocket science so I dont really know why you cant grasp the concept
Yes 600 horsepower is going to have more risk of failure than 300 horsepower. But the oiling issue is not dependent on that.
The following users liked this post:
SinF (07-04-2017)
#93
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm not an engine designer, but if the oiling system to the bearing - both main and rod- are designed to provide adequate lubrication for X hp, does that same design suffice for the same engine producing 2X hp? I would think that potentially more oil pressure and volume are needed to prevent oil sheer at the higher output. Obviously this is a theoretical question since in the FT world we're looking at increases of at most ~25% which should fit into the normal design margins.
#94
![Lightbulb](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/icons/icon3.gif)
OK, analogy time. Get a skinny person to step on your toe, then a fat one. Your toe is the oil film and which hurts more? It just takes metal to metal contact once for the metal to gall and create a high spot that will be easier to gall more under the next load.
#95
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The supposed cause is oil starvation meaning that the oil was not being delivered in the first place.
Cause for the starvation, according the now missing OP, is a faulty oil pan design.
Stohlen and unhingd are correct in the statements above.
What's missing is a more in depth explanation from the mechanic who tore down the engine as to how the starvation occurred, substantiation of statements that this is a known issue and an explanation as to how more frequent oil changes can avoid the starvation issue.
Add the supposed screaming match between the Jag dealer, a Jag corporate rep and the OP and something doesn't quite add up. These heavily biased one-sided stories rarely do.
Grandpa.
Cause for the starvation, according the now missing OP, is a faulty oil pan design.
Stohlen and unhingd are correct in the statements above.
What's missing is a more in depth explanation from the mechanic who tore down the engine as to how the starvation occurred, substantiation of statements that this is a known issue and an explanation as to how more frequent oil changes can avoid the starvation issue.
Add the supposed screaming match between the Jag dealer, a Jag corporate rep and the OP and something doesn't quite add up. These heavily biased one-sided stories rarely do.
Grandpa.
The following users liked this post:
rtcosic (07-27-2017)
#96
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I read through this thread and the answer is very simple. It is clear to me that the engine warranty is null and void when you change the software and do something not approved by the party providing the warranty. The warranty is for the engine as is.
That being said; if one owns the car then one can do as he/she/gender-neutral decides. However, then one has to take personal responsibility.
I have a lowly 495hp RWD V8 and have no plans to modify it. I have never personally felt; "Gosh, I wish I had more power."
That being said; if one owns the car then one can do as he/she/gender-neutral decides. However, then one has to take personal responsibility.
I have a lowly 495hp RWD V8 and have no plans to modify it. I have never personally felt; "Gosh, I wish I had more power."
#97
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The modification must be demonstrated to have directly contributed to the failure. If an owner chooses to use a non-OEM oil filter and the next day the entire fuel injection system packs it in, there's no connection and no basis for denial of warranty.
For Jag corporate to have already denied coverage on the OP's engine as per story above, they must believe that they are on solid ground to do so. We are all sitting here with baited breath (fish for lunch) waiting for some credible information that there is evidence to the contrary.
The following users liked this post:
SinF (07-04-2017)
#98
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I have a lowlier V6 and for me it wasn't about wanting more power but a more responsive throttle...same reason I put an APR tune on my NA 4.2V8 Audi, got maybe a handful of extra torqs and horses but the throttle was much less dead pedal...
#99
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
A car with 600 horses is transmitting twice the energy to the crank than a car with 300. If the car was on the limit with lubrication at 300, taking it to 600 is going to cause metal to metal contact as the lubrication film breaks down. As I've said before , it makes it possible to use the engine at lower RPM's where the lubrication is marginal, so premature failure is quite likely in a car which 'supposedly has lubrication issues'. Its not rocket science so I dont really know why you cant grasp the concept
"oil starvation" is different than "barely adequate oil flow by design".
The following users liked this post:
SinF (07-04-2017)
#100
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My point is that an oil starved engine will fail whether it's tuned or not. Whatever is causing the oil starvation (oil pickup exposed, failing oil pump, etc), is just as likely to occur regardless of the tune level.
"oil starvation" is different than "barely adequate oil flow by design".
"oil starvation" is different than "barely adequate oil flow by design".
Check your oil levels often is best prevention.
Lawrence