Of course oil analysis would answer all these questions and more. Absolutely. Maybe- just maybe, OEM's have already done this and maybe that's where the service intervals come from?

A little searching on this very website would reveal a considerable number of oil analysis reports, including some from owners living in supposed 'dusty environments'. They have no more contamination events than those living in clean environments. Each and every one of the reports supports Jag's recommended full intervals.

But Q&C is not listening. He's got his mind made up and wouldn't want to prove himself wrong by taking your suggestion.

 

Q&C - with regard to your posted link, where does it state the oil used? I only see "manufacturers recommended". Was it synthetic, which is pretty much demanded in high-revving turbo small engines?

Also not seeing where they have any history as to how this car was driven (raced? lugged badly? any issues prior to this sludge/crud?). This is anything BUT a case study and comparing a 4.2 or 5.0 ltr to a 16L turbo that is a stretched at best. All we see is claims of 3000 mile changes and carbon deposits not exactly something we can send to Jag to have them update our recommended oil change intervals. How is it that you are making the inference that this is oil related and also why is it that you ignore or fail to acknowledge that oil sampling would have shown carbon levels too high and If this was a result of oil degradation or particles that it would have also shown up warning the owner?

Seems like quite a big jump to surmize this is directly attributed to oil not being changed at a lesser mileage but please explain your thought process in getting to that conclusion

 

The conclusions are yours and not that of the document. If you read my post without prejucide. It only has to do with how difficult it is to remove sludge once formed. And that is what that article was about.

If you further read my post- it states" no this will not happen to us"

 

Gotcha. I reread your post a couple ago. In the way you have written it again you are simply "inferring", by way of injecting the "fear" sentence of "if only 10% happens in our cars (not exact quote but summizing). Though your statement is true that it would be bad in correct you still have not shown ANY proof that shows that in any way that could be the least bit lessened by more frequent oil changes which is what you tried to elude to. Though several of us have brought up using oil sampling you ignore that or say something along the lines of "it won't tell me what's going on in my engine today (which it will), or "if I'm going to take a sample I might as well just change it" (completely ignoring what the reason for sampling is about", or the cliche "oil is cheap insurance" again if that's the case then using your line of thinking it would be best to change yours even 11 miles or 24 hours. Yes some Mfg's have restated their intervals for reasons you do not know (was it due to mechanical breakdown, wanting to increase profits at their service depts, use of older non-synthetic oils possibly breaking down... the bottom-line is you really don't know until you know and guessing then professing isn't helping. I don't knock you on your ritual, I do question the validity of your claim and have repeatedly asked you to back, with facts, your fear-mongering that in some way we are abusing our cars by following the recommended Jaguar intervals.

Even though Box has lots of nice medals on his chest in terms of his credentials he has not shown much of anything in terms of his stance that most every car now should fall under the umbrella of "severe conditions" which would dictate sooner changes. I will check to you on the reasoning and examples by Mikey, though we may sit on the same side of the fence I in no way will refer to his reasoning as any sort of support... he's on his own

Dust existed way back in 2007 and continues today not sure why anyone thinks that has now become an issue of concern, the reason given for upping the frequency, that Jag OUGHT to revise their recommendations. Trying to use "F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) or emotion to sell your position isn't new but kind of disappointing as it most often means the lack of factual basis. I don't think anyone here was unaware that crud/sludge exists, maybe they didn't know what it looked like, but to project that link over our engines give us a reason to believe if we follow the Jag recommended oils and recommended intervals that we are somehow putting ourselves at risk.

 

I really couldn't care less what you think, to be honest. Jaguar's documentation spells out what is severe service. You have reports here in this thread what Jaguar has recommended upon contact by owners. You have my voice in the matter, having worked for a major manufacturer, you have documentation from other manufacturers that has been posted here, and easily reviewable by you. You have the recommendation from one of the most recognized, largest non-profit automotive organizations, stating in print the exact same thing, on this matter specifically.

Then we have the "opinions" of you and others here who bring their own rhetoric to the table. Again, I couldn't care less what you or Mikey or any other person does as far as maintenance goes, but don't insult my intelligence. I certainly wouldn't want to be the owner of any vehicle that you have been the prior owner of. Have a great day.

 

Leeper, If I am gullible and selling "fear mongering". What are you doing? trying to convince me that you are a contrarian with no horse in the race?

And who the heck is try to convince you of anything anyway. Arent you the one who is trying to convince others without having any experience whatsoever with a new Jaguar engine.

 

Those reading for actual information: The notion that OEM's do extensive end-all testing on oil is a fools fallacy. Its an ongoing project because there is no way to drive a car the way that it will eventually be driven. Thats why JLR has changed the viscosity in the same engine! go figure. Add that to lots of OEMs retracting from their original position of how long the oil change interval should be. To that add they are not retroactively notifying older customers with the same engine.

 

Leeper what I find really distasteful about your stance is that you are not arguing by providing any proof to support your point- you are making your point by trying to belittle others integrity.

 

No, it hasn't.

It was a 4.0 for a few years until about 2002 and then became the 4.2, with a considerable number of changes.

I gather the 5.0 is about 2009.

 

Thats just it, most dont realize how new the 5.0 is. The high pressure fuel pump, driven by timing chain, the oil driven cam timing, the direct injection, long timing chain, are not only new to Jaguar, but entirely new to mass production. (i.e. commoner use)

The 4.2 has no new technologies that havent been around for 30 years and more. I cant see how you could damage that engine even with wrong viscosity. You definitely can the 5.0 with just the wrong quality of oil. They have never been this strict about oil. Did I tell you that it has a UV dye in it.

 

Seems we've come full circle for the third, maybe fourth time with still no definitive evidence of any type. Certainly not a smoking gun

Three separate 'severe service' documents from Jag have been produced, each different from the others in a significant manner. The newest and most visually prominent, from the owner's point of view, is in the current owner's manual. It differs from the others in being the least restrictive in it's definition of severe conditions.

A survey is posted stating that while 50% of drivers should be using the severe service schedule, only 6% do. IOW- 44% of cars are following the wrong schedule.

A poster here claims that the number of owners who should be following severe service is actually 80%. This infers that 74% of owners follow the wrong schedule.

The source of confusion seems to be in the individual interpretation of the Jag definition(s) of what exactly constitutes 'severe service'. According to two posters, not only do the vast majority of owners get it wrong, every other poster here have got it wrong and have been getting it wrong for many years on many vehicles, despite their being obviously being 'car guys' who take such things seriously.

As such a bold statement would cause extreme controversy, requests for some sort of proof would obviously be made. It would be logical that the person making such a statement would have extensive first person evidence at hand and extensive corroborating evidence from the industry demonstrating the effects of following the wrong mtce. schedule.

We're at post 210 (I think) and no such evidence has been produced. We're still stuck at a theoretical position where 74% of people are wrong.

There has been attempts at cherry picking and manipulation of indirect evidence supporting the theory, but similarly cherry picked indirect bits of evidence that disprove the theory are dismissed.

The two posters who support the theory don't actually agree with each other on the most basic of ground rules. One states that a person that does not own the engine in question has no business posting, but doing so would exclude the originator of the controversy- on whom he relies for support.

How about you two guys get your act together?

It's still not too late to just let it go that so this thread can just fall off the bottom of the page.

 

I tried to update my other post but it wouldn't let me, so...

Turns out US is at best jag's 3rd market after China & UK. (I didn't find German figures so they could be 3rd.)

 

Not for the XK. I could be wrong, much might have changed since I purchased my car. If you need to look it up, watch the making of the XK video, it available on youtube. They mention it in there.

 

Mickey have you posted any proof yet. I don't care if it is from the Mickey mouse club, do it, or its hot air. You belittled our. educated colleague for posting from the largest auto association in America. I'll lower the bar for you.

 

Proof of what? Despite decades of owners following the regular schedule instead of severe service schedule, nothing bad happened? It's all around you.

How much more do you need?


BTW- since you brought it up it's 'Mikey', not 'Mickey'.

 

 

Btw im going to start doing 6 month oil changes...why... because it gives me a reason to go into my dealership and complain about other things on my car!!

 

When you put your hands over your eyes, and say, "I just cannot see that..." What Mikey fails to recognize and admit, is the over 500+ threads alone on VVT issues caused by poor maintenance (oil related) from the AJ26/AJ27 to the AJ33/AJ34. Not to mention the enumerable shots over the last decade and a half of internals well coked by the same poor maintenance schedules.

 

I thought they stopped making them (not that they made many and of course quite low numbers compared to other jags/JLR cars).

 

Are you sure this is true for the XJ and XK models