When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It seems that these engines have a design fault. On hard
acceleration the oil is forced to the back giving low oil pressure to the
engine at this critical time..however the sensor does not pick this up
because the pressure of the supercharger makes the engine management think
that all is well.
On the one hand, I absolutely see how under hard acceleration the oil shifts to the back of the sump and given that my rod bearings spun on a hard pull, that would suggest mine suffered the same fate because the oil pick-up was starved of oil.
However, I can't really see how the supercharger, which provides positive air displacement into the engine, could mask these issues from the engine management, especially as there isn't an oil pressure switch so the engine management is never really that sure of it anyway. Masked from the driver, sure
However, yours is not the first post I've read that suggests a design flaw with oil starvation, so I'm intrigued as to whether a baffled sump would help with this. While it's off.....
That document about the 5.0L has this chart about the oil level sensor;
Which seems to say that the oil level is measured continuously whether the engine is running or not but my owners manual says that it does not while running or moving?
What a strange way to specify oil pressures? 3 different temperatures at 3000 rpm's?
With no oil pressure sensor how are you suppose to know what the oil pressure is?
Maybe a typo?
.
.
.
That document about the 5.0L has this chart about the oil level sensor;
Which seems to say that the oil level is measured continuously whether the engine is running or not but my owners manual says that it does not while running or moving?
What a strange way to specify oil pressures? 3 different temperatures at 3000 rpm's?
With no oil pressure sensor how are you suppose to know what the oil pressure is?
Maybe a typo?
.
.
.
I expect they're reference values of what the oil pressure in the engine should be, so if you were inclined to plumb in a pressure sender you could check this. I also suspect that these are the values (rpm and oil temp) that the ECU uses to guestimate oil pressure in the absence of a sender, but that depends on whether the ECU needs this information or not - I suspect it doesn't otherwise they'd have fitted a pressure sender.
I suspect the (usually plugged) 1/2" NPT hole at the back of the block is meant for an oil pressure sender tap if the dealer wants to verify the oil pressure. Or maybe it _was_ for a sender and they decided instead to just ditch the sender and replace it with a cheaper plug. Either way I intend to use mine both to pre-lube the engine when the rebuild's complete but also plumb in a pressure sender afterwards.
I completely agree with this. Hindsight is great, and it would've saved my engine.
However, three things that really aren't working in Jaguar's (or the owner's) favour with that are:
1) The decision to remove the dipstick, which was a perfectly acceptable and mostly reliable (e.g. on reasonably flat ground) measurement of how much oil is in the sump and therefore available to the engine, and replacing it with an electronic sensor that's finicky at best and a royal pain in the **** at worst, primarily because of the strict operating parameters it requires in order to give any reading at all (e.g. engine warm, sat not running for 10 minutes for oil to drain into the sump, etc). Most owners were happy to check oil levels if it takes quite literally 30 seconds with a piece of paper towel at a petrol station - I bet a lot of owners have no time for the new system.
2) The decision to not have an oil pressure sender in this engine, and instead rely on catching inconsistencies in timing sensors due to reduced oil pressure on VVTs. Wait, what? Are oil pressure senders too expensive for $20k engines now? As with point 1), if it ain't broke....
3) The decision to never have the information display warn you of a low oil level when the car is running or driving, regardless of how low that level might get. I'll take a false positive telling me to pull over and check the oil even if it's fine, thank you. The ECU has this information available to it from the sensor, and the idea it couldn't have a safety trip of "well, regardless of situation this is a LOW amount of oil, I'll put a warning up" is just remarkable.
I certainly hold my hands up to having not been as vigilant as I should've been with oil level, and at the end of the day as the owner take responsibility of my engine failure. Of course owners should practice good maintenance, and your points all still stand, but I feel that these design decisions are asinine and have not helped people in doing this.
Finally, at the least there's an issue with underestimated oil consumption with these engines.
The niggles you cite would appear as pound-foolish omissions, however they are anything but. In fact, the route they have taken cost far more money, research , and warranty work.
The issue is that with this engine design and oil strategy, a dipstick would be less accurate and would lead to problems, namely emissions and performance, across all cars. Whereas, digital dipsticks only pose a challenge to few and there is zero chance of bad emissions or loss in performance. Then weigh it against the inescapable truth that majority of the owners never touch nor know where the dipstick is.
So fundamentally they have inconvenienced us at the cost of ensuring durability for a larger group.
The niggles you cite would appear as pound-foolish omissions, however they are anything but. In fact, the route they have taken cost far more money, research , and warranty work.
The issue is that with this engine design and oil strategy, a dipstick would be less accurate and would lead to problems, namely emissions and performance, across all cars. Whereas, digital dipsticks only pose a challenge to few and there is zero chance of bad emissions or loss in performance. Then weigh it against the inescapable truth that majority of the owners never touch nor know where the dipstick is.
So fundamentally they have inconvenienced us at the cost of ensuring durability for a larger group.
I understand your point around emissions, but I would only agree that it ensures durability if it made people any more likely to check their oil level - in most cases I would argue anything that has a fairly strict set of parameters for it to work like the electronic sensor would, if anything, decrease the likeliness of people using it if most of the time they try to it reports UNAVAILABLE - SEE HANDBOOK.
Anyway, I feel we're kind of arguing semantics here. There is quite obviously a group of people in the Jaguar/Land Rover world who have suffered terminal engine damage with this engine simply from not checking the oil level regularly between mandated service intervals. I'd imagine many bought the car assuming it would warn them about something catastrophic like low oil without having to proactively check it on the information display, and let's be honest, for a 2010+ vehicle that has the information available to it from an electronic level sensor, is this really an unrealistic expectation? An idiot oil level message would cost very little to implement. Some have been lucky enough to have the dealer cover the cost, others have not.
This is obviously something JLR are aware of, not least due to warranty claims stemming from oil starvation, causing them to (as TXFireblade points out earlier in the thread) include
Originally Posted by TXFireblade
a single page addition to the owners manual with the following information
reminding owners to regularly check the level of the oil and how to use the display. My 2010 owner's manual made no mention of this.
Anyway - upshot is, these engines can obviously - in the right circumstances - consume enough oil between service intervals to cause terminal engine damage, and owners would do well to remember to check their oil level frequently (JLR's wording), even if this process requires more time (waiting for the display to show accurate level info) as it will pay off in the long-term.
oil level is measured continuously whether the engine is running or not but my owners manual says that it does not while running or moving?
Maybe a typo?
.
A foolproof way of measuring oil.
For consumers requiring to know what level their oil is. The car circulates the oil. then allows it to drain back and takes that measurement, which would be the only accurate way of doing it.
For engine's computer, it takes near continuous measurements- which is the main reason for using an electronic measurement as a dipstick cant talk to the car. It even has a fail-safe that warns when the oil level sensor has malfunctioned.
How folks can run an engine dry with all this tech is beyond me.
How folks can run an engine dry with all this tech is beyond me.
Because at no point does the tech warn you unprompted that the level is too low, even when it is. You have to proactively go into the "oil level" screen in the information console, and this will only show a reading during quite a specific set of parameters. If it's too low, you top it up.
If you never check this screen, the system will not warn you, even if the oil level gets to dangerous levels, which kind of renders the electronics largely useless, wouldn't you say?
Because at no point does the tech warn you unprompted that the level is too low, even when it is. You have to proactively go into the "oil level" screen in the information console, and this will only show a reading during quite a specific set of parameters. If it's too low, you top it up.
If you never check this screen, the system will not warn you, even if the oil level gets to dangerous levels, which kind of renders the electronics largely useless, wouldn't you say?
Yes you are right- that makes no sense- whatsoever.
Are you sure it does not?
I will at my next oil change remove 60% and see if mine warns me.
One thing that I do know for a Fact-
Jaguar's oil computer will not let you take a erroneous measurement, such as not waiting till all the oil is drained back in the pan or while the oil is cold.
Yes you are right- that makes no sense- whatsoever.
Are you sure it does not?
I will at my next oil change remove 60% and see if mine warns me.
100% sure, at least it didn't in my case or apparently in any others. It likely would've saved my engine, which incidentally lunched 2x conrod bearings the day before I was going to change the oil, which is particularly bad luck. I drained well under 50% of the usual level of (glittery) oil out of my sump after this, so in my case it definitely didn't warn me. IThe manual seems to reflect this behaviour too. Seems a little mean on JLR's part, the information is there, and it's surely possible in software alone to automate the level check it makes you do manually and warn you if it's low the next time you start it.
As I said, as the owner I take responsibility for allowing the oil to get too low and not proactively checking it - I guess I overestimated the ability to go one service interval without a top up along with maybe underestimating the amount lost through a weep at the vacuum pump seal. Needless to say the rebuilt engine will have a new oil level sender and frequent proactive checking...
Interested to see if it warms you if you suck out a lot of oil and don't do a level check. My bet is it won't. If you protectively do a level check it should warn you it's too low.
davetibbs,
Did you see the numbers published in that technical training on the algorithm for determining low oil level.
What do you make of it?
I did. I did some digging and it turns out those numbers are a reference point for when dealers do an oil pressure check - they use a special tool 303-1451
which is essentially an oil filter cap with a threaded attachment on it, although the idea you'd pay $200 for one is utterly insane (I'd buy a replacement oil filter cap for $40 and fit my own threaded tap, or just use the 1/2NPT hole on the side of the block). The oil pressure check is described in the attached document, along with quite a lot of interesting information about oil consumption. I wish I'd read all this before my engine had blown. Hindsight!
EDIT: Unless the numbers you're referring to are the level ranges of "Dynamic" and "Static", which are intriguing to say the least. That implies the sensor is able to perform a "static" measurement of between 116mm and 147mm (i.e. when the owner performs an oil level check on the dash), but can also read "dynamic" levels - i.e. when the vehicle is in motion. I wonder why JLR - if the manual, which warns you that the level is not monitored in motion, is correct - chose to ignore those readings.
I hate that all these motors are blowing. Mine went last year and another member has been messaging me about his XKR that's blown recently. VERY odd - all the same motors too.
Interesting. My XKR motor was just replaced by JLR as a CPO with 20K on the clock. I took it in for engine noise I didn't think was normal, and three days later they called to inform me they were replacing the motor. I will say the new motor feels drastically different from the old, which I got with 9K on it, so I could easily believe there was a manufacturing defect all along just waiting to manifest itself in one way or another.
A foolproof way of measuring oil.
For consumers requiring to know what level their oil is. The car circulates the oil. then allows it to drain back and takes that measurement, which would be the only accurate way of doing it.
For engine's computer, it takes near continuous measurements- which is the main reason for using an electronic measurement as a dipstick cant talk to the car. It even has a fail-safe that warns when the oil level sensor has malfunctioned.
How folks can run an engine dry with all this tech is beyond me.
The Japanese have a saying, "Why worry about your beard when you're about to lose your head'" If oil starvation under hard acceleration is the issue, proper oil level will not prevent this from happening. This would be a design flaw, and since it's only on the SC version, one might imagine someone forgot to account for the extra 125hp this block would be pumping out.
Davetibbs your Jaguar Knowledge is huge!
Again if you don't work for Jaguar they should hire you!
Love the idea of using the oil filter cap and did a little research. Looks like all 3.0L and 5.0L use the same cap.
Part number C2D17615. Not bad at around $20. Cheaper than that special 303-1451 tool.
I want to get one and hope someone follows up on Dave's suggestion and actually gives it a try!!
I work on hot rods a bit and wonder if a engine mounted gauge could be installed something like this??
Actually, I'm planning on using the 1/2NPT threaded hole towards the back of the block for an oil pressure sender. It's plugged with a threaded plug from the factory, but the service manual has instructions for removing it:
I would not hang a bulky oil pressure sensor/gauge directly off the block. Use a short steel braided line (like an aftermarket brake line) and remotely mount the sensor to the bulkhead/fender.
I have had one break off the motor due to vibration and make a HUGE mess (and potential major damage to motor). I got really lucky someone behind me saw leaking oil and alerted me prior to oil pressure loss due to pumping out.
Good point - I'd considered doing the same, if only because there's not a huge amount of space around that hole and it's right next to the exhaust manifold, so I can't imagine the sender lasting an awful long time with all that heat.
However, the other issue is the threaded hole is countersunk into the block, and there's no way you'll get most thread adapters that come with a hex head on them to thread into the hole as there's not enough clearance. I've addressed this with the
which was the cheapest source I found to get a 1/8" (which is what most senders use) to 1/2" (the thread size in the block) thread adapter that does not have a hex end on it.
I see those as dubious advertising claims and the oil may well not meet the Jaguar spec. I'd stick to oil I thought did meet their spec (which may be altered over time).
11-19-2017 | 12:28 PM
