Not Speculation

Also not speculation. This is called Disinformation. I'm not sure how to explain to you better than Chris did - WE RAN OVER 100 DYNO PULLS WITH THE OEM, TUNE, TUNE + UPPER AND TUNE + LOWER PULLEY. EVERY SINGLE RUN WAS FULLY DATALOGGED MONITORING EACH CYLINDER INDIVIDUALLY. THE CAR DID NOT PULL TIMING ONCE ON THE ORIGINAL FILE, OR ANY OF OUR COMPLETED MOD FILES.......

 

Sorry I thought this was your own generated graph - Chris told me it is a customer supplied dyno graph on our site. We don't have any logs for this car as it was independently customer produced. The torque curve looks pretty close to how it should, normally it would start to tail off at 5250 where torque should peak. It's possible that the dyno operator didn't fix the RPM's spot on (some dynos set RPM by having the operator hit a button to lock in RPM at 2000, you can be off by a little bit.)

There's one small dip up top which could be quite a few things, most often what we see is inadequate airflow cooling on dynos. For example, we had a customer once who was testing our tune on his FType R, both before & after. He was actually disappointed that it didn't make more power, but when we were able to get further data (in this case it was just AFR) we could see that the AFR was plunging to 9.5:1 on not only the 'After' run but the 'Before' also. When we got pictures of the dyno setup there was one tiny little carpet dryer fan in front of the engine. Car was getting hot and dumping fuel. So it could be a few things, could be old fuel, who knows.

But inconsistencies and unknowns like those are the reason we brought in another test vehicle to do some re-verification of our own and produce some bulletproof data, which is what we've supplied above, and what is being populated to the website.

 

No need to yell. The GF-6 standand states GF-5 0W/5W-20 causes excessive heat from insufficient wedge strength at high RPM causing metal on metal contact and excessive bearing, piston, and timing chain wear.

But they are talking about insufficient oil strength in boosted economy cars. Using it in a monster Jag is unthinkable, unless, as all dynos including yours show, you only cruise for max mpg. Then it is adequate. But not good. None of these high mpg oils, neither known defective GF-5 nor the new GF-6 standard are even remotely aimed at supercars.

 

excellent thank you!

 

Except that you're still not listening? WE.... DATALOGGED.... EACH....CYLINDER....ON....ALL....RUNS.... And it is not pulling timing. Nobody is disputing that there are different oil grades with different characteristics, but yet you keep stating that all dynos including ours show timing being pulled due to the oil grade. That is incorrect.

Is it a good idea to look at different oil grades? Perhaps. However, could you please refrain from making factually inaccurate statements about our dyno runs when we have ACTUAL data that shows the contrary?

 

The power pull is obvious. You also said I was wrong that your oil choice was providing insufficient engine protection. The May 1 appearance of GF-6 says I was right and you were wrong. You could politely apologize and switch to GF-6 oil sufficient for low viscosity high mileage econobox applications and look bigger.

 

Okay, I understand you now. We have over 100 datalogs showing that the car is not pulling timing, you are pointing at dyno graphs and say it is 'obvious'. So you're saying that we are lying about the data. If you think that's how we do things there's nothing else I can say at this point.

I never said anything about oil. Chris did (he's a factory trained JLR Technician.) And as far as I can see (I only scanned the comments quickly) I don't see him commenting on viscosity or engine protection, I see him explaining to you that the viscosity doesn't change the thermal capacity of the oil and that even if there was additional heat generated that we logged oil temperature and it never got even remotely close to the point at which the ECU would start to restrict power. And incidentally (Chris would know this definitively) I would be blown away if the factory protection for oil over temperature was to pull timing. If the oil hits that high a temperature it's more than likely going to limp mode the car.

Nobody is disputing what you found or are suggesting about oil grades and wear, however it is either 100% factually inaccurate to state that this is causing the car to pull timing, or Chris and I are lying. One or the other.

 

Sorry but ​​​​​​as far as being JLR trained, we all know that tuning is not JLR sanctioned, so you are not following JLR protocol.

I never implied anyone was lying. How could you be lying? Your answer is that the power pull is to avoid speeding tickets.

But we have made a liitle progress, we now seem to agree the OEM's unique choice of using a light weight econobox high mpg oil provides inadequate wedge strength resulting in increased friction/heat at high boost/RPM, even by accepted GF-5 standards in relatively low HP applications.

I view this as progress.

 

You have absolutely ZERO analysis performed to prove this theory of the 0\5W 20SAE being an issue in that claimed rpm region.

I've already explained how a heavier weight oil will increase load on crank to alter results on an Inertia Dyno lasting a run of 10-12 seconds. You've not commented on that fact, thus discrediting the theory..but with what research/data/logging/facts??????

All you have is 1 dyno graph showing a result. BUT YOU HAVE ZERO DATALOGGING!!! You never logged oil temperatures with 0/5w 20SAE and never logged oil temperatures with wtv brand you swapped out, igntion was never even logged by a simple $3 ELM327 dongle and Android app..even your dyno operator would of had something, but again zero data has been provided from you.

I'm not stating it's entirely impossible, I'd be intrigued to test this out on the next car that comes in due for an oil change and dyno session..and yes I would datalog accordingly. An apples to apples would have to be a fresh batch of 0/5W20 against new batch of wtv heavier visco oil.

However, avoid spreading info on facts in this VAP thread, on nothing more than a "Hunch", zero data on the vehicle in question to back up the claim.

Until data/research is provided to back this claims, feel free to open your own topic on jaguarforums.

Right now your trolling, filling a VelocityAP thread with ZERO data/research.

 

No need for multiple fonts. Sounds great. I was just trying to help out based on the success with a mid level performance oil (5W-40) in my V8, and given the same question was posted by another and you brushed it off with a joke.

That is not trolling. Our cars are very important to us.

Obviously I disagee the existance of GF-6 standard is just "a theory of mine." And just to be clear I don't think using a low viscosity GF-6 compliant oil is the answer for a Jag supercar. GF-6 is just an urgent push by manufacturers to get econobox repairs the heck out of their warranty period.

Have a nice day.

 

Stuart, I thought you were offering both the steel and aluminum pulleys. The aluminum ones are about 60% lighter than OEM.

 

I am sure I remember a post by Stuart / VAP somewhere around here where he said they discontinued the steel version and went to alu only.
And yes the alu version is a lot lighter than the OEM steel one, although my exceptionally precise measurement technique was to simply heft one then the other!

 

I seem to remember posting that the OEM pulley was 7 lbs and the aluminum one was 3lbs.

 

We stopped making them because there wasn't that much demand and they were more expensive. I think the steel ones were around 7lbs. Aluminum (or Aluminium for my friends across the pond) is pretty similar to the OEM pulley in weight - if you figure 60% that's probably about right, but I think the OEM pulley is about 3lbs so it's not a ton of weight reduction, in the scheme of things compared to the full rotating assembly of the engine, flexplate etc.

 

The OEM pulleys are steel at 7 lbs.

 

Hey guys, I’m new, but I have a quick question and I apologize if it’s already been addressed. I’m looking at just the Ecu tune for now. If at a later date I wanted to upgrade to the larger crank pulley, would I have to pay full price, as I only see its listed as a package that comes with the tuner and tune? I would already have the tuner..

 

VAP used to supply a crank pulley tune with the tune only for people to upgrade once they added a pulley. At least that is what they did for many on the forum in the past including me. Don't know if they still do that. Just email them and ask they are quite good at getting back to you with answers.

 

Yep. I had talked with Stuart about this during the Black Friday sales. If you buy their base ECU tune, you can get the updated tune for the pulley for free *IF* you buy the VAP pulley kit. i.e. if you buy someone else's pulley kit you will not get their pulley tune for free even if you already have their non-pulley tune.

 

Maybe I got lucky then!
I bought just the tune and got the "with pulley" tune as well for free, then a few months later I fitted a Eurotoys crank pulley (virtually identical to the VAP one) and applied the VAP "with pulley" tune and VAP didn't charge me a bean. I apologised to them for buying a competitor's pulley and explained that I only did so coz they were having a sale on it and it was half the price of the VAP pulley.
Maybe the same still applies, maybe not, that was well over two years ago now.

 

It's possible I misinterpreted the conversation. However, if I were a business owner there would be only so many favors I would provide.