Hi all What is your opinion on the running of a 5.3
against a 6 litre V12 I saw somewhere although the 6 has
more performance it is not so sweet and smooth as the 5.3
Den–
denchan 1990 daimler double six
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
i have driven both, and I see no difference between the
smoothnes, but the superior low end performance of the 6L
and in passing situations, NO comparision!! and lets not
forget the 4L80E automatic, much superior to the 1963 GM
400 transmission!
but most important to me is the problem areas of oil
leaky 5.3 and FORD improvements, 6L would be my
preference.
that said, mine is a 1978 V12,5.3 completely rebuilt
100%, and it still has some annoying spots.–
The original message included these comments:
against a 6 litre V12 I saw somewhere although the 6 has
more performance it is not so sweet and smooth as the 5.3
–
Ronbros
daytona fl. / Austin TX., United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
in stock form…the 6litre engine and 4l80e tranny.
in modified form for horsepower most seem to prefer the 5.3
because of the flow limitations of the may fireball head on
the 6 litre.
flow limitations on the 6 litre engine can be overcome by
adding boost and superchargers with aftermarket fuel and
spark delivery systems seem to be the popular way to do that.
as far as smooth goes…they are two sixes together and are
inherently a balanced configuration mechanically(one of the
reasons I chose nigel for a platform to work with)and any
differences in ignition and induction control will make the
difference in how the engine balance’‘feels’’ to the owner/driver.
ex:go back to the days of the adjustable carb and remember
what would happen when one of the idle mixture screws were
moved in or out and what the engine would do when the
distributor was moved.same deal on the v12’s but now the
computer and(pending on where and year)the o2 sensors do the
work/changes for you.how well that process is managed by the
system involved gives the end result of being either rough
or smooth.
as for my personal vote…the 6 litre and 4l80e as i’m not
looking for more h/p or torque than the rear suspension can
easily handle without excessive mods.there also seems to be
a little bit more attention paid to the detail and assembly
of the units in general from what I have seen so far.
=dok= ;-)–
v12fun=thewytchdoktor/94 xjs 6 litre a.k.a.dok -)
Winchester Virginia, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
I’ve owned both. They both run just as smoothly at
cruise, but most of us can’t get a perfectly smooth idle
with the 6.0 like we could with the 5.3. It has just a
very slight bump at idle.
Aside from that, the 6.0, with the newer fuel, spark, and
Forderized seals is hands down stronger and more reliable.
The TH 400 is smoother shifting, but as quirky as it is, I
like the 4 speed more.–
John. '95 XJS 6.0L convertible. Southlake, TX
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
Dear Dennis,
As a practical matter, you’ll be comparing one twenty year old
engine against another one, so any opinion is going to probably be
more heavily influenced by the general state of health and milage
of one versus the other, rather than by the realtive merits of a
specific design feature.
kind regards
Marek–
v12 E-type running MS3/3X sequential lpg and petrol
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
The observed performance difference between the 5.3 and 6.0
is magnified by the different rear axle ratio, 3.54
compared to 2.88.–
The original message included these comments:
Hi all What is your opinion on the running of a 5.3
against a 6 litre V12 I saw somewhere although the 6 has
more performance it is not so sweet and smooth as the 5.3
–
850225/679,1E21003,2W2001BW,JNAEY3AC100218,SAJNV4841KC156072
ROSANNA, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from Norman LUTZ sent Tue 22 Apr 2014:
Assuming that you’re considering replacing a 1990 V-12
HE/Marelli 5.3 engine with a later (XJ40/XJS/X300 type 6.0.
and assuming that you don’t want to ‘‘upgrade’’ the ECU,
wiring harness, etc to ‘‘newer’’ technology ($$$) (which isn’t
always better).
You will gain a little more ‘‘torque’’ (that feeling when you
get when ‘‘nail the pedal to the metal’’ and you feel the g-
forces in the seat of your pants) and really… a minimal
amount of HP increase:
The 6.0 in it’s simplest/basic/long-block form is merely a
‘‘stroked’’ 5.3 HE with improved electronics.
Save yourself a TON of money by making easy/expensiveness
improvements to the intake/exhaust air flow. or as Norman
said ‘‘swap the diff from a 2.88 to a 3.54’’. Though you’ll be
trading fuel economy and top-end speed (155+MPH) for Tire-
scorching 1/4-mile performance.
Just my opinion,
Chad–
The original message included these comments:
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
–
1995 XJR & 1984 XJS Coupe,
San Diego/California, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from BlownKitty sent Wed 21 May 2014:
Ooops:
edit: ‘‘Save yourself a TON of money by making easy/in
expensive improvements to the intake/exhaust air flow.’’–
1995 XJR & 1984 XJS Coupe,
San Diego/California, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from BlownKitty sent Wed 21 May 2014:
I wouldn’t go as far as replacing the 2.88 with a 3.54
unless you are going to replace trans with an OD trans.
I have 4 XJS’s. 2 Coupe’s. one 3.07 and one 2.88 and 2
Conv. one with 3.31 and one with 2.88.
Both 2.88 cars will have their trans replaced with OD
Auto’s with 6L engines. The ratios will not be changed as I
am more than happy with the performance but am looking for
better economy for long distance travel.
the other 2 are being converted to 5 speed manuals, again
with 6L or 7.5L engines as these are my ‘‘FUN’’ cars.–
The original message included these comments:
Save yourself a TON of money by making easy/expensiveness
improvements to the intake/exhaust air flow. or as Norman
said ‘‘swap the diff from a 2.88 to a 3.54’’. Though you’ll be
trading fuel economy and top-end speed (155+MPH) for Tire-
scorching 1/4-mile performance.
–
850225/679,1E21003,2W2001BW,JNAEY3AC100218,SAJNV4841KC156072
ROSANNA, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
The roughest V12 I had was a 6.0L in a 96 XJ. It was
lovely to drive and wasn’t the kind of car you redlined
anyway, but when I did the occasional bit of hard work
with it then it dud sound and feel a bit rougher like a
long stroke does past its sweet spot. The smoothest V12 I
ever had was a carbed non-emissions E-type which would red
line through the gears with no fuss all day if you wanted.
Next smoothest was an 84 XJ12 and a 93 XJ12 6.0L
A couple of years after I sold the 96 to Dave Collishaw it
blew up apparently. Not sure how that ended up but maybe
that was a rough engine?
Pete–
1E75339 66 D, 1R27190 70 FHC, 1E18090 68 OTS
Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
I own and drive two 5.3L V12 equipped Jaguars, a 1990 V12 Vanden Plas
(Series III Saloon) and a 1990 XJ-S convertible. While they are both
enjoyable to drive, the XJ-S (Marelli ignition) has a slightly uneven idle
at times, while the VdP (Lucas ignition) runs so smooth that I find myself
looking down at the gauges when stopped at a traffic light to just make sure
the engine is still running. No kidding, even at idle it runs extremely
smoothly. I don’t own or drive a 6.0L Jaguar, so I have no comparison info
to share.
Regards,
Paul M. Novak
1990 Series III V12 Vanden Plas
1990 XJ-S Classic Collection convertible
1987 XJ6 Vanden Plas
1984 XJ6 Vanden Plas
1969 E-Type FHC
1957 MK VIII Saloon
Ramona, CA
P.M.Novak7@gmail.com-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v12-engine@jag-lovers.org
[mailto:owner-v12-engine@jag-lovers.org] On Behalf Of PeterCrespin
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:40 AM
To: v12-engine@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [v12-engine] 5.3 versus 6 litre
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
The roughest V12 I had was a 6.0L in a 96 XJ. It was lovely to drive and
wasn’t the kind of car you redlined anyway, but when I did the occasional
bit of hard work with it then it dud sound and feel a bit rougher like a
long stroke does past its sweet spot. The smoothest V12 I ever had was a
carbed non-emissions E-type which would red line through the gears with no
fuss all day if you wanted.
Next smoothest was an 84 XJ12 and a 93 XJ12 6.0L
A couple of years after I sold the 96 to Dave Collishaw it blew up
apparently. Not sure how that ended up but maybe that was a rough engine?
1E75339 66 D, 1R27190 70 FHC, 1E18090 68 OTS Gaithersburg, Maryland
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from Paul M. Novak sent Thu 22 May 2014:
Paul it is interesting regarding the smooth idle on your
1990 wit Lucas CEI ignition. I have owed quite a few V12
Jags although never one with carbs although I have driven
those. I have never felt that any of these had the
smoothest idle but my 76 XJS (Pre HE) probably was the
smoothest. I currently have a 94 XJS 6 liter Marelli and an
85 XJS Lucas CEI and I do not feel either is that smooth at
idle. I also had a 96 XJ12 with Nippon Denso ignition and
it was not any smoother at idle.
I must say that there is a much bigger difference between a
6L and 5.3L than most suggest. I do realize that a good
part of this is the transmission (4 spd vs 3 spd) and the
final drive.–
Mike Blair 94 & 85 XJS Coupes, 2X 60 MkIX, XJ13replica
powhatan/Va, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
In reply to a message from denchan sent Sun 20 Apr 2014:
If you were talking about bolting a 6.0L into a car with the
old 3 speed transmission and prehistoric electronic ignition
I’d say the 6.0L would still be a better engine as it has a
little more torque which the tall diff (especially the 2.88)
dulls the performance.
However if you mean a 6.0L with a 4 speed gearbox and a
dramatically advanced electronic ignition give me the 6.0L
any day - it is a 20 odd year gap in technology.
BUT! take either of the engines, hook them up with 5 or 6
speed gearbox of your choice and year 2014 electronics
package and I’d say either engine will perform more than
well enough - perhaps the 6.0L might leak less…
Idle smoothness is pretty much down to maintenance and
regular ‘‘Italian Tuneups’’ - although I think there is some
documented ‘‘stumbles’’ at idle in the early 16CU? computers?
Vacuum leaks, stuck valves, poor earths and carbon deposits
in the engine are a problem for idle smoothness.–
The original message included these comments:
Hi all What is your opinion on the running of a 5.3
against a 6 litre V12 I saw somewhere although the 6 has
more performance it is not so sweet and smooth as the 5.3
–
1985 XJS V12 HE TWR (Black Betty) - www.bryansplace.net
Gold Coast Qld, Australia
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !
Thanks for your contribution Paul. I have a S3 DD6 and am thinking of also buying a XJS 6.0. What I appreciate most about the S3 is the way the car carries itself on the motor way and in bends. It is magnificent. I have not had the chance to drive an XJSC yet. I wondered if there is a difference in the driving experience of the S3 and the XJS-C given the difference in wheelbase between the two? Thank you