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.
The USA version was actually 262 SAE net HP. But, either way, whether you call it 66 fewer horsepower or 37 fewer horsepower, it is quite a significant difference :-).
'Tis the lazy 2.88 gearing used on the V12s that blunts the acceleration until some momentum was built up.
Cheers
DD
Doug, are you saying that the 3.6L in question already featured Jaguar's 3.54:1 rear end? Because, if the 3.54:1 rear end had been already in use by Jaguar, it would've been very unfair to the performance prestige of the famous V12 not to incorporate it to the flagship car, unless, again, it was an EPA mandated aberration, where the V12 had to pay for its poor gas mileage via a ridiculous 2.88:1, performance-robbing rearend.
So, in short, could the manual tranny actually overcome so many HP on 0 to 60 or 1/4 mile stints?
Doug, are you saying that the 3.6L in question already featured Jaguar's 3.54:1 rear end? Because, if the 3.54:1 rear end had been already in use by Jaguar, it would've been very unfair to the performance prestige of the famous V12 not to incorporate it to the flagship car, unless, again, it was an EPA mandated aberration, where the V12 had to pay for its poor gas mileage via a ridiculous 2.88:1, performance-robbing rearend.
That's exactly what happened. The motivation behind the 2.88 gears (and the "HE" cylinder heads) was fuel economy. And it worked....with the HE cars using quite a bit less fuel than the earlier V12s
So, in short, could the manual tranny actually overcome so many HP on 0 to 60 or 1/4 mile stints?
Cheers,
Yes....IF measured only from a standing start where initial off-the-line acceleration would be much stronger and likely result in the 6 cylinder car being well ahead of the V12. The V12 would eventually catch up.
In a different race....let's say 40-85 mph or something like that...the V12 might have the advantage. By then the 6 cylinder car would be in 2nd gear but the V12 just starting to wake up in 1st gear.....which is good to 65 mph
(The same thing happens at even higher road speeds. With the v12, 2nd gear is good to 105-110 mph....so the sprint from 75 to 110 is pretty brisk at a point where many cars are in top gear and the acceleration has tapered off quite a bit. This is great on the open road but...otherwise...not so much )
Jaguar's 3.54:1 rearend goes back as far as the 1961 Mk 10 and E Type cars, so it was obviously available when the 3.6L cars were being produced, but they could not allow themselves the temptation to use it on the flagship V12 cars. So, it's obvious that the manual tranny and the 3.54:1 rearend were just far too much of an advantage for the straight six 3.6L over the (otherwise) "crippled" V12.
The only thing is that, back in those years, our good ol' American strong-acceleration-off-the-line preference was of little importance to Brits and Europeans in general (and I know it to be still the case with some of our members today..) so, this V12 shortcoming was hardly an issue back then. As long as the car came alive somewhere in the high revs segment, a quick start was not that important. America's interest in low end torque and its fun benefits didn't come to life among Euros until the '90's. Jaguar's new V8's along with the superchargers came to join the struggle for superiority vs. Merc, BMW's, the new Cads and a few more, thus creating a totally different approach to performance from European manufacturers, I.e. strong acceleration off the line was now of paramount importance, but, again, not so much back in the '80's, so being left behind by the 3.6 wasn't such a big deal after all.
The only thing is that, back in those years, our good ol' American strong-acceleration-off-the-line preference was of little importance to Brits and Europeans in general (and I know it to be still the case with some of our members today..) so, this V12 shortcoming was hardly an issue back then.
Additionally, the UK/Euro V12s have 30-35 more horsepower. That's enough to make a difference....so those owners didn't have as much to complain about as we Yanks
JT, I hate to be a pest, but if you could take an overhead of that I would be grateful. Is it the Growler with Jaguar Coventry? Hard to make out what it is. Thanks.
Not my car, I just expanded his picture and screen shot it to make it bigger.
Not my car, I just expanded his picture and screen shot it to make it bigger.
Ha, oops, sorry. thanks for the effort.
OP (or anyone else with a factory manual), It'd be cool to see what that looks like. Mine is a manual out of an XJR with just a normal shift pattern. Been looking at some of the offerings from that fellow in florida, but would be neat to see what it looks like "stock."
EDIT- I'm totally hijacking OPs thread, sorry. I was just curious what the stock shifter looked like. Mine is as below (taken from the internet). Also showing BAW's, which is pretty.
Just curious if OP would show his knob (wait, what?) and let us know if it's stock or aftermarket or from another Jaguar.
OP (or anyone else with a factory manual), It'd be cool to see what that looks like. Mine is a manual out of an XJR with just a normal shift pattern. Been looking at some of the offerings from that fellow in florida, but would be neat to see what it looks like "stock."
EDIT- I'm totally hijacking OPs thread, sorry. I was just curious what the stock shifter looked like. Mine is as below (taken from the internet). Also showing BAW's, which is pretty.
Just curious if OP would show his knob (wait, what?) and let us know if it's stock or aftermarket or from another Jaguar.
That bottom picture, that's the exact knob on my kitty; it's one of Saul's knobs and I frankly believe that he couldn't top himself from such a beautiful achievement. That knob totally steals the show from the kitty's cockpit.
01-26-2016, 12:32 PM
)
