Just wondering if anyone has ever transplanted a later XK
4.2 from a Series III XJ6 into an XKE, with fuel injection
and all? I understand there were a few cooling improvements
to the 4.2 by the time the Series III came into being, what
with water jackets around the cylinders (correct?). And
certainly, we might lose some hp with the injection system,
but I’d have to think it might make for nicer drivability, no?
In reply to a message from zundfolge! sent Sun 31 Oct 2010:
I don’t know if anyone’s tried it, but I do believe that the
injection manifold won’t fit on an E-type. Jeff Hartmann (?), who
writes books on fuel injection, uses his injected triple-turbo E-
type as a case study. He mentioned that the manifold doesn’t fit
and needs to be reworked (he used the Series III injection as his
basis, at least initially.)
A 100% healthy and stock late model injected XK might not lose any
HP to a triple SU, stock XK. Several authorities (including AJ6
Engineering) say the late model injection XK engines were in
reality probably the most powerful XK engines made. Jaguar’s HP
claims in the 50’s and 60’s are considered by most to
be ‘‘optimistic’’, but the 80’s figures were measured by SAE and DIN
standards.–
The original message included these comments:
Just wondering if anyone has ever transplanted a later XK
4.2 from a Series III XJ6 into an XKE, with fuel injection
and all? I understand there were a few cooling improvements
to the 4.2 by the time the Series III came into being, what
with water jackets around the cylinders (correct?). And
certainly, we might lose some hp with the injection system,
but I’d have to think it might make for nicer drivability, no?
–
David Y.
Bothell, WA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from zundfolge! sent Sun 31 Oct 2010:
S3 XJ block is dimensionaly the same as all 4.2 blocks. They all
had siamesed bores, they did cut slots thru the top of the block to
allow water between the cylinders for better cooling, but it’s
doubtful it made any difference. The blocks did have a tendancy to
crack between the cylinders. The injected engine was the most
powerful of all the XJ family, E types included.–
The original message included these comments:
with water jackets around the cylinders (correct?). And
certainly, we might lose some hp with the injection system,
–
Norman LUTZ
HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Norman LUTZ sent Mon 1 Nov 2010:
Norman, in terms of bore centres and crank saddle etc they are all
the same but the later 4.2 blocks are signficantly longer than the
early ones. This brings the cast lump on the back of the long S3
head VERY close to the engine stabiliser / bulkhead and I had to
grind my head away at the point by about 3/8’’ 8mm to be sure of
clearance.
The Series 3 water pump is also deeper at the front so it hits the
picture frame unless you swap to an E-type pump or do what I did
which is machine the back groove off the pulley and grind the shaft
down about 10mm and press the pulley further onto the shortened
shaft to line up with the pulley on the crank which is also trimmed
at the back. Both pulleys are cast iron so are a treat to machine.
The S3 uses a heavily angled manifold / plenum arrangement which is
incompatible with the top frame rail on the right side. By the time
you cut and shut it you have other issues. Ultimately it could be
worth it as the big valve EFI engine is the quickest of the lot and
more driveable and economical than triple SUs, but it looks a mess
compared to a shiny alloy manifodl with triple SUs. I supposed you
could ploish the alloy EFI manifld but to run EFI you need
significant fuelling mods elsewhere and in my case the simplicity
(read ‘no electronics’) of these cars is part of the their charm.
Pete–
The original message included these comments:
S3 XJ block is dimensionaly the same as all 4.2 blocks. They all
–
69 E-type OTS 99 Daimler Super V8, Long nose D-type replica
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from PeterCrespin sent Mon 1 Nov 2010:
Gentlemen,
I keep getting mixed up on this, so I ask the following.
I’m interested in differences between the S3 XJ head and the
S1 XJ head. Pete, by later 4.2 blocks I believe you include
the 1968 XJ6 block? In other words, the S3 head doesn’t
extend past the rear of my S1 block (but does on the E-type
block)?
Norman, regarding cracking between bores…is this a
property of the S3 XJ block with extra passages or is it a
property of earlier blocks, and presumably fixed by the S3
head? You say the passages do little good, which is
encouraging for me.
Which blocks have liners? All, late including the S1 XJ, or
only the big valve S3 XJ? The last time I had a head off of
an early XJ I didn’t notice liners, but wasn’t looking for
them either.
Sorry to hijack. I’m trying to get straight what the
advantages are of a S3 block and/or a S3 head relative to my
S1 versions.–
The original message included these comments:
Norman, in terms of bore centres and crank saddle etc they are all
the same but the later 4.2 blocks are signficantly longer than the
early ones. This brings the cast lump on the back of the long S3
–
Bob Wilkinson, 73 XJ6
Saint Louis, MO, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Robert Wilkinson sent Mon 1 Nov 2010:
By pin-pointing it to 68 you’ve put me in a pickle Bob.
We can say for sure the early deck stud blocks are ‘short’ and are
rectangular at the back and that this includes the first 4.2
engines. We can also say that from at least the mid seventies all
4.2 blocks were the long ‘coffin’ head/block design with the
through studs and the trapezoidal extension behind #1 cylinder. So
from Series 2 XJ6 they are all long. I don’t think the Series 2
long heads had the large square boss at the back with the three
digit number stamped on it. That’s where my head came close to
fouling.
At exactly which point the block changed from short to long I do
not know. The XJ came out in 68 and the Series 2 XJ around 73.5 so
I’m tempted to say it might have been 68. But I could easily
believe it was 69 or 70 and maybe even 73.5? Is your S1 XJ head
square and vertical at the back level with the cam box rear face,
or trapezoidal from above and sloping at angle beyond the camboxes
when seen in profile? I assume it’s a long head with the two extra
coolant holes and that therefore a Series 3 XJ block fits perfectly.
I think there were long-stud Series 2 E-types but can’t be sure.
Someone will know.
Pete–
The original message included these comments:
I keep getting mixed up on this, so I ask the following.
I’m interested in differences between the S3 XJ head and the
S1 XJ head. Pete, by later 4.2 blocks I believe you include
the 1968 XJ6 block? In other words, the S3 head doesn’t
extend past the rear of my S1 block (but does on the E-type
block)?
–
69 E-type OTS 99 Daimler Super V8, Long nose D-type replica
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from PeterCrespin sent Mon 1 Nov 2010:
Before the fire, my 69 2+2 was getting a series 3 block under its
series 2 head and the combination lined up just fine. Even the
motor mounts from the S2 block mated to the S3 with no problems. I
didn’t have a fit problem as you mention Pete. I DID have to drill
and tap for a rear oil pipe fitting and extend the pipe length a
few inches as for some reason the block I had had no provision for
the (head) oil pipe. I never did get to here it run…
Bill–
The original message included these comments:
from Series 2 XJ6 they are all long. I don’t think the Series 2
long heads had the large square boss at the back with the three
digit number stamped on it. That’s where my head came close to
fouling.
In reply to a message from Bill Fleming sent Tue 2 Nov 2010:
Bill–I’m not sure what you’re describing. Do you mean the
oil feed to the cams located on the exhaust side of #1 main
bearing? This was deleted on the S3 block and the cams were
fed from the top of the oil filter housing.–
The original message included these comments:
didn’t have a fit problem as you mention Pete. I DID have to drill
and tap for a rear oil pipe fitting and extend the pipe length a
few inches as for some reason the block I had had no provision for
the (head) oil pipe. I never did get to here it run…
–
Bob Wilkinson, 73 XJ6
Saint Louis, MO, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from Robert Wilkinson sent Tue 2 Nov 2010:
Hi,
Already all S2 4.2L XJ6’s had the oil feed from the oil
filter head, not from the LH side of the block (at the back
of the crank rear main bearing) as on E-types, but this is
easy to change to whatever configuration as all the oil
filter heads also are interchangeable between different
4.2’s. (and 3.8’s and 3.4’s I think!) I did not know that
some late blocks would not have the lower oil feed bored and
blocked, bu I guess it’s possible as they did not use that
oil feed anymore.
Cheers,
Pekka T. 1E76372BW MOD–
The original message included these comments:
Bill–I’m not sure what you’re describing. Do you mean the
oil feed to the cams located on the exhaust side of #1 main
bearing? This was deleted on the S3 block and the cams were
fed from the top of the oil filter housing.
In reply to a message from ptelivuo sent Thu 4 Nov 2010:
Are you sure you aren’t mixing up the block tap and the oilway Peka
in your memory?
My 83 & 84 engines have no oil drilling, blocked or otherwise, left
of #1 main, although you can see the plain boss in the casting
where it used to be machined. There IS a drilled and plugged hole
just above that spot, which is where the old block drain tap used
to be. Not redundant I guess as a hex plug just replaces the tap,
but not using its original connection anyhow.
Pete–
The original message included these comments:
4.2’s. (and 3.8’s and 3.4’s I think!) I did not know that
some late blocks would not have the lower oil feed bored and
blocked, bu I guess it’s possible as they did not use that
oil feed anymore.
–
69 E-type OTS 99 Daimler Super V8, Long nose D-type replica
Cambridge, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from PeterCrespin sent Thu 4 Nov 2010:
Hi Pete,
yes, but I am not talking about S3 block, I think you are
right in that they would not have any of those oilways, but
I have a replacement engine block from my S2 XJ6, the car
was made in 1975 and the replacement engine later that same
year. It has the oilway although the feed to camshafts was
from top of the oil filter head. My current engine in that
car has the head from that engine, but the block is from a
1970 420G. When rebuilding we could not see any other
differences in the blocks, AFAIK the 420G block S2 E-type
block and S1 XJ6 block should all be the same, right? But
the S3 XJ6 block is very different.
Cheers,
Pekka T. 1E76372BW MOD with original block and head–
The original message included these comments:
Are you sure you aren’t mixing up the block tap and the oilway Peka
in your memory?
My 83 & 84 engines have no oil drilling, blocked or otherwise, left
of #1 main, although you can see the plain boss in the casting
where it used to be machined. There IS a drilled and plugged hole
just above that spot, which is where the old block drain tap used
to be. Not redundant I guess as a hex plug just replaces the tap,
but not using its original connection anyhow.
Pete