Manual transmission conversion? Dreaming?
The following users liked this post:
mosesbotbol (12-11-2019)
#125
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There are different sets of criteria when dealing with a manual or automatic setup and automatic-only. This is because AT will never drop the clutch or power-shift. As such, you don't need to build measures to dampen spikes in moment (rotatum) and so on. So if you do a conversion, you can't just connect it to a driveshaft and expect it to last - your differential will fail, your driveshaft links will fail and so on. So if you are dealing with AT-only car you also have to harden the rest of driveline and/or add flex disks to driveshaft.
For example. My MT F-type, an early production version that was going through growing pains as JLR was figuring out MTs, had a differential replaced under warranty after one of the early iterations of clutches with too-rapid pickup overloaded its bearings. This is on OEM setup with Jaguar engineers not getting it right the first (few) times.
For example. My MT F-type, an early production version that was going through growing pains as JLR was figuring out MTs, had a differential replaced under warranty after one of the early iterations of clutches with too-rapid pickup overloaded its bearings. This is on OEM setup with Jaguar engineers not getting it right the first (few) times.
#126
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There are different sets of criteria when dealing with a manual or automatic setup and automatic-only. This is because AT will never drop the clutch or power-shift. As such, you don't need to build measures to dampen spikes in moment (rotatum) and so on. So if you do a conversion, you can't just connect it to a driveshaft and expect it to last - your differential will fail, your driveshaft links will fail and so on. So if you are dealing with AT-only car you also have to harden the rest of driveline and/or add flex disks to driveshaft.
For example. My MT F-type, an early production version that was going through growing pains as JLR was figuring out MTs, had a differential replaced under warranty after one of the early iterations of clutches with too-rapid pickup overloaded its bearings. This is on OEM setup with Jaguar engineers not getting it right the first (few) times.
For example. My MT F-type, an early production version that was going through growing pains as JLR was figuring out MTs, had a differential replaced under warranty after one of the early iterations of clutches with too-rapid pickup overloaded its bearings. This is on OEM setup with Jaguar engineers not getting it right the first (few) times.
On the later DEW98 based XKs (Like S-types) Jag went with a 3 bolt input flange and flex coupler. This would have to be swapped out or an adapter made to eliminate the flex coupler for a standard u-joint or CV joint. I do not believe that the 2008 version of X-150 differential is as stong as the X100, and you might have to swap in the Ford 8.8/Mark VIII differential. (Then you could put in a Torsen LSD)
Last edited by Tijoe; 12-13-2019 at 12:10 AM. Reason: spelling
#130
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
But in the end of the day it was a combination of things which led me to go for it. The main thing is, if I wasn't getting exactly what I wanted and would go for a compromise, I might as well go for the more affordable compromise. I don't love the Vantage looks. The Vantage was not my choice. It would be a back up just the same.
But I liked the way the sorted 4200 GT drove. It has a more charismatic engine than the Vantage. The engine is more special. The engine sounds better, even looks better when you open the hood.
Then the nail in the coffin was that, from the most important angle, the one which I'm always seeing, the Maserati just trumps the Vantage in a non contest kind of way. I'm talking about the interior. The Maserati is just such a nice place to be. It feels more special. More of a sense of occasion. I never liked the Vantage interior. It was always a weak point for me. I don't know. It always reminded me of a Honda or Toyota interior, especially from a design point of view.
So with the combination of all the above and when you factor in the Maserati costs less, it was a no-brainer. Better sounding and more special engine, better sense of occasion and nicer looking interior, good driving for what it is, a GT, and lower priced than the Vantage. I like the looks too. Not totally in love but neither was I with the Vantage.
I have not regretted so far.
#131
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Even though a 4200 GT Aston Martin is a really nice car, it still isn't a Jaguar with a manual tranmission. Perhaps the title of the thread should be changed so future readers wont need to read this thread only to be saddened that this thread ran into a dead end and ended up being a debate between the Vantage and 4200 GT
#132
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Even though a 4200 GT Aston Martin is a really nice car, it still isn't a Jaguar with a manual tranmission. Perhaps the title of the thread should be changed so future readers wont need to read this thread only to be saddened that this thread ran into a dead end and ended up being a debate between the Vantage and 4200 GT
Besides I have not completely given up on the idea. Hence why on my update I said for the time being I have gone with the Maserati.
#133
#134
#135
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
As has been discussed, the mechanical installation of a 6-speed transmission is straight forward, and not too expensive. The hard part is how to deal with the electrical: ECM/BCM CAN signals...
Aftermarket ECMs are getting better and better at interfacing with a donor cars electrical, but one still needs to do a lot of backwards signal/code processing. Although an ECM can be made to be universal running any engine, there is way too much work to figure out how to get everything working. For vehicles with high production volumes companies like HP tuners figure it out and consumers benefit. But for an owner of any Jaguar, with an automatic, perhaps 20 people might be interested in the swap. It isn't worth the cost for a car that is worthless in 10 years. (Think X100 LS engine swaps. Andrew/Jaguar Specialties put a lot of energy into his CAN converter, to J1850 code. He appears to have no way yet to crack the X150 CAN controllers.)
Aftermarket ECMs are getting better and better at interfacing with a donor cars electrical, but one still needs to do a lot of backwards signal/code processing. Although an ECM can be made to be universal running any engine, there is way too much work to figure out how to get everything working. For vehicles with high production volumes companies like HP tuners figure it out and consumers benefit. But for an owner of any Jaguar, with an automatic, perhaps 20 people might be interested in the swap. It isn't worth the cost for a car that is worthless in 10 years. (Think X100 LS engine swaps. Andrew/Jaguar Specialties put a lot of energy into his CAN converter, to J1850 code. He appears to have no way yet to crack the X150 CAN controllers.)
#136
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Interesting thread. Indeed, the challenge here is in the electronics and communication, something that requires specialized software (expensive) and experience in automotive CAN (extensive) to resolve. We spent a year+ with an Auto-CAN consultant getting the basic X100/X308 format in place, and (luckily) we were successful. And there have been several updates since adding more capability. The process was not made any easier by the fact that Jaguar (unlike the big 3) do not open their CAN up to users, so our process had to be backwards engineered to even get in the door to see what could be done...
On X150, there has been very little interest in LS conversions so we have spent virtually no time looking into it (I get maybe 5 calls a year). I think that's primarily because the 4.2 solved many of the 4.0's engine issues and the 6 speed automatic cured what ailed the 5HP24. Nonetheless, I'm certain that if we decided to go into this, go LS for X150, it could be done, with similar results to the LS-X100. We'd just go through that process again, although I have a feeling it would go much faster this time.... We haven't "cracked" the X150 because no one is asking for it....
One last comment - our X100/X308 interface is not J1850.... that's a very old format essentially abandoned by GM in 2004 or so as all of their cars went to pure LAN/CAN. Had we standardized on J1850 to communicate with the LS ECM's, we'd be locked out of virtually every 2005 and later GM controller... The way our interface is set up, any GM LS will work with us, and conceivably, any aftermarket controller as well....
Thanks
Andrew
Jaguar Specialties
On X150, there has been very little interest in LS conversions so we have spent virtually no time looking into it (I get maybe 5 calls a year). I think that's primarily because the 4.2 solved many of the 4.0's engine issues and the 6 speed automatic cured what ailed the 5HP24. Nonetheless, I'm certain that if we decided to go into this, go LS for X150, it could be done, with similar results to the LS-X100. We'd just go through that process again, although I have a feeling it would go much faster this time.... We haven't "cracked" the X150 because no one is asking for it....
One last comment - our X100/X308 interface is not J1850.... that's a very old format essentially abandoned by GM in 2004 or so as all of their cars went to pure LAN/CAN. Had we standardized on J1850 to communicate with the LS ECM's, we'd be locked out of virtually every 2005 and later GM controller... The way our interface is set up, any GM LS will work with us, and conceivably, any aftermarket controller as well....
Thanks
Andrew
Jaguar Specialties
#137
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Perhaps I am confusing older S-type ECM control with XK8. Doesn't XK8 use an early CAN protocol for the engine and J1850 PWM for the body control via standard Ford SCP on a serial databus?
I know that X150s are a full CAN bus implementation. (High speed CAN Bus, Medium Speed CAN bus, and MOST Network.)
GM CAN is a different implementation than CAN used in our Jaguars.
I forget all the CAN standards as fast as I can read them. Don't think about it enough for it to go into long term memory,
I know that X150s are a full CAN bus implementation. (High speed CAN Bus, Medium Speed CAN bus, and MOST Network.)
GM CAN is a different implementation than CAN used in our Jaguars.
I forget all the CAN standards as fast as I can read them. Don't think about it enough for it to go into long term memory,
#138
#139
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
https://www.cnblogs.com/shangdawei/p/3570546.html
Now a days, GM uses their GMLAN, I believe under J2534 Protocols
Last edited by Tijoe; 01-14-2020 at 06:05 PM. Reason: spelling
#140
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Smile](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Funny, my X150 purchase was kicked off when I saw a 4200 Skyhook advertised nearby. They would not give me a date for a test drive so I didn't take it further, also put off by the reputation of the Skyhook reliability and the cost of the usual spare parts such as brake discs. No manuals turned up anywhere near me
![Frown](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/frown.gif)
Shock! 5 years later, that same 4200 is still for sale. Same photos, same mileage, slightly higher price. Something very fishy there!
https://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/d...l?id=262795125