Right, when assertions are made by Mikey that cannot be supported, and perpetuated by lying, and those claims are refuted by documentation, then we should close the door? Is that honesty in action?

 

My comment has nothing to do with Mikey, IMHO this thread has become pointless and boring .
Who mentioned closing the door? If I was going to lock the thread it would be locked. Just thought you all could probably find something more useful to do, if not feel free to carry on.

 

I'm sorry you're bored. Maybe if more folks took an honest informed position, then there wouldn't be so many of these types of threads where every assertion under the sun happens, and confusion reigns. Educate yourself. I know that is boring and pointless to some.

 

As long as you are having fun it's all good.

 

May be becoming pointless, but boring it is not. Laced with references to English literature, quotations from unidentified Jag staff, recommendations for counseling, dismissal of lab test results, moderator threats to lock the thread, and vigorous arguments based on lack of evidence due to inefficient searching, this thread has it all!

Promise me faithfully, Box, that you will stick around until the next new member raises the question of octane.

 

There was a threat somewhere from me?

 

I have no desire to leave. I also have no desire to see inaccurate information perpetuated as fact. I know you can understand this. But to those who don't have much training or have listened to erroneous assertions, my intent is not only to help try to inform, but educate. I do have little tolerance for BS or liars.

This board is viewed worldwide as one of the leading places to come for accurate and complete information on Jaguar vehicles, and I appreciate the time volunteered by those involved.

 

I'd enjoy that too. We can rehash oil, filters, octane, ethanol and nitrogen ad nauseam but with no proof to back up the theory it's all a moot point. I wish some were mute but no such luck.

 

The preferred fuel should have an octane rating of at least 95 RON (Research Octane Number) which is 91 (R+M)/2. "Super Green" Plus 98 RON (93 (R+M)/2) unleaded fuel (where available) may be used as an alternative to the standard 95 RON unleaded fuel.

Using unleaded fuel with an octane rating lower than recommended can cause persistent, heavy "spark knock" (a metallic rapping noise). If severe, this can lead to engine damage. Failure to use the recommended fuel is misuse of the vehicle, for which Jaguar Cars Limited, is not responsible.

Jaguar can, at customer expense, reprogram and detune the ECU to allow regular grades, but will adversely affect engine performance.

 

Holy Cow - My wish may be coming true without delay!

Box, I hope you are not suggesting that 94 (R+M/2) is superior in any way to the 95 RON minimum specified by Jaguar. And I hope you are not suggesting that anyone who uses 87 Regular in their Jag is misusing their vehicle.

 

Not quite.

Perhaps he has the stamina and the desire to finally
put an end to some of the drivel that is spouted by
the keyboard mechanics inhabiting this joint.

I have gone head to head with Box on another subject,
but on this one, I wholly agree with what he has said.

 

Consider that GM just put 800,000 vehicles using their original
oil change interval using their fancy DEXOS 1 oil on 5 year
extended warranties to cover cam timing components

And sent out letters shortening said oil change intervals.

There were too many warranty claims coming in for the cam timing
components. I am being vague because I had no idea you would
be posting this, and I read the article and closed it before coming
here.

Now, GM powertrain engineers likely graduated from the same
schools as Jaguar powertrain engineers. So, is Jaguar somehow
immune from mistakes?

I saw yesterday that Jaguar is still pumping the old transmission
and differential are sealed for life. That is technically correct if
life is defined as whenever they die from lack of clean lubricant.

Jaguar also pushed the superchargers as being sealed for life.

GM and Ford, as well as Eaton do not agree. All of them have
seen far more superchargers go past than Jaguar.

So no. Jaguar engineers are not infallible. If they were, there
would be no such thing as a recall or service campaigns.

 

I have read further into the thread on this particular aside,
but I will respond to it at this point.

Oil threads on JF in particular tend to get tedious precisely
because of certain participants who do not value learning
beyond what is laid out in the owners manual, and indeed
will not even interpret the full content of the owners manual.

Instead, they practice a stunning degree of willful blindness.

On no other automotive forum have I seen the degree
of intransigence which is tolerated here without those
responsible being called to task by other members.

I suggest that automotive dicussion forums exist for the
purpose of discussion. If people cannot stomach anything
that is not written in the owners manual, and if the owners
manual is entirely sufficient for their purposes, then I
suggest they stick to reading them.

As usual, ymmv and all that.

 

You forgot "ignoring citations in response to demands for said citations".

Not in this thread perhaps, but I have had that exact experience
in the past. Multiple times. I know most readers aren't missing
them, but the main protagonists put the blinders on lest the
light shine through.

Even pasting the material into a post with a link to the source
citation doesn't work.

 

There is only one refiner in our region in Arkansas that is still producing 94 (R+M/2) which is 100 RON, and is sold only at a couple of stations in my area who also sell racing fuels. The normal price for premium unleaded in our area runs close to $2 a gallon, and the 94 (R+M/2) is almost double that. So when I want to have a little fun with the accelerator, I splurge. MTBE was outlawed in the US in 2006, so the use of ethanol is used as an oxygenator instead, and octane ratings that are higher can have more ethanol than desired, so the use of 100 (R+M/2) which is 104 RON can begin to push the edge of ECU pulse width/injector flow rates.

And concerning suggesting use of 87 (R+M/2) is considered misuse of the vehicle, I'm not saying it, Jaguar states it, and disclaims any liability for damage.

 

I have always valued your input. What gets me, and I'm sure you can relate, is that anyone who claims that their background is one of higher education, and cannot understand, and any PhD program should certainly teach you this, is that the matriculation process should teach you the ability to do research. And any learned person, knows that the more you know, you come to find just how much you don't know. As the sphere of knowledge on a given subject increases, you come to realize the sphere of things you don't know grows exponentially beyond that which you do know.

 

So- as Norri has diplomatically suggested above- has anyone got anything else to add, or is that it?

If no one can offer proof that engines live longer using synthetics oils, then I guess not. All the theory and lab results in the world mean nothing without it.

Edit:

In reading all of the latest posts above, I find it humorous to read comments taking Jag to task over their blunder regarding the 'sealed for life' transmission issue. Since it was quickly proven they were way wrong on that one, purely by field results and no other means, why are the same persons so sure that Jag got it right with oil specs?

Seems to me that field results would give some indication one way or the other. Given that he oldest S-type is 17 if not 18 years old, that's plenty of time in my books. Perhaps the specs re just right/too conservative?

The same logic could be applied to other hot topics, but they've been beaten to death too.

 

And the name of the Zone rep and the contact number that you claimed you contacted is what? Let's start there.

Pappy used to always say, "Son, it is good to follow the first law of holes, when you find yourself in one, stop digging...."

 

That exactly describes the problem. It's not as if research on lubrication ended when the last S-type was built.

 

But we're trying to answer a question that applies to S-types and only S-types. I have no idea if the oils that suit an S-type also suit an F-type or if they fall tragically short. Nor do you or our other friends here.

Many of those F-type owners are up in arms because one and only one brand and type of oil currently meets the OEM's spec. Unfortunately, it's not easy to purchase outside and beyond the dealership network. I'd be upset too if out in that situation.

Some owners are calling Jag's bluff on it and are substituting a non-approved oil, warranty or no warranty. I think the whole concept is rather refreshing and is reminiscent of owners experimenting with non-approved fluids for the ZF transmissions.

Again, it's amusing that some posters pick and choose some specs as gospel and others as hogwash.