In reply to a message from Adrian Lane sent Tue 5 Oct 2004:
Adrian, thank you for the explanation! Perfect sense.
Cheers,
Sunny–
The original message included these comments:
225/175 = 1.2857
192bhp x 1.2857 = 247bhp
–
Sunny Garofalo, '97 XJ6 Anthracite/Charcoal, 111k miles
Burbank, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from Sunny Garofalo sent Wed 6 Oct 2004:
Well, I substituted the ‘‘front section’’ and the two resonators with
cross pipes using the Y in front straight back into the regular
mufflers and am very pleased with the performance but need to
change the exhaust note slightly.
Below 3,000rpm it has a very pleasant rumble, especially between
2,000rpm and 3,000rpm.
The 3,000-3,750rpm range has a tin sounding bellow more like an
import with a large single exhaust that goes away and turns raspy
until 4,250rpm where the exhaust kicks back in to a loud raspy
bellow. As things start breaking in (or breaking down in the rear
mufflers?), the tin sound is going away slowly.
When going under freeway underpasses, I have to step on it past
4,000rpm to hear the real changes besides the idle and low RPM
rumble. When the engine is turning past 4,000rpm, it sounds like a
miniature Ferrari 360 sound to it. While not considered the most
pleasant compared to other exotics, it makes the Jag sound way
better. Sounding like something is better in my book.
I’m going to change out the stock mufflers and the big question is
to what. Tim and I are thinking two magnaflow mufflers with the
same straight through section.
The gas mileage has improved, I’m putting around town with heavy
throttle with 1mph more than before and there is a clear
improvement on the highway.
Right now, putting around town I would bet 14.4 give or take a
little, now I’m getting 15.4 give or take a little with no change
in driving style except watching more carefully where I floor it
since now a Jaguar with an exhaust and intake is not ‘‘stealth’’
anymore.
I obtained 24.5mpg at a constant 70mph over a long trip and on
shorter trips I’m making 24.0-24.1mpg. When I could obtain 21mpg
at 80mph, I’m reeling in 22.3-22.4mpg at 80mph.
The exhaust tips on my car were always very warm, I could keep my
fingertips on them for 4 maybe 5 seconds. Now, I can’t keep them
on there for more than 1 second.
There is definitely more ‘‘flow.’’ Once I’m finished changing around
the two mufflers to obtain the sound I seek, I’ll schedule in
another dyno on the same dynojet and put together some other
figures.
I made the following comments to Mark off list last night:
With the JaguarXP intake and the ‘‘front section’’ and resonators
removed, when I stomp on it from a stop light, the rear struggles
for traction and then it gets up and goes. Its definitely
quicker. Hopefully there will be a magnaflow solution to the rear
mufflers to give it a deeper rumble without the tinny rattle and
I’ll be happy as a clam. Tim said the rear end was
shimming/scrabbling from side to side when I jumped on it from a
stop.
Turning onto the street from a stop sign like I usually do and
feeding the car 25% throttle resulted in overshooting the mark by a
foot or two with a bit of traction loss.
The car has a new attitude, I will say that much!
I feel very very confident its putting out more power to the rear
wheels.
Cheers!
Sunny–
Sunny Garofalo, '97 XJ6 Anthracite/Charcoal, 111k miles
Burbank, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from Sunny Garofalo sent Thu 7 Oct 2004:
Sunny, when you are happy with the exhaust, please post the
specific parts list and description of pipe mods. I will need to
replace mine reasonably soon and I might as well upgrade. Is there
a newer manifold/header that I missed somewhere in there -
something that still allows for the ALL the stock connections?
Thanx TSL–
97 XJ6L ’ I’ll be in in a minute dear . . . ’
Maple Valley, WA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from Adrian Lane sent Tue 5 Oct 2004:
Does this mean we manual trasmission purists lose less BHP than you
auto box people? Someone please advise.
Note in JEC Magazine UK, out today, a rare 1995 X300 Sapphire Blue
3.2 Manual box is going for �4,750 private sale - mileage not
mentioned–
The original message included these comments:
To put it simply:
‘‘22% of the flywheel horsepower of my car was lost in the transmission’’
and
‘‘The flywheel figure is 28.5% higher than the roadwheel figure’’
–
Ant
Kent, UK, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
Manual transmission equipped cars have LESS of a parasitic drivetrain loss
versus an automatic equipped vehicle.
XJRGUY
1995 XJR> From: Ant as@shepherdinternational.com
Reply-To: x300@jag-lovers.org
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:42:01 +0200
To: x300@jag-lovers.org
Subject: RE: [x300] Dyno test, Oct 1st,exhaust/intake mod then dyno test O
ct9thIn reply to a message from Adrian Lane sent Tue 5 Oct 2004:
Does this mean we manual trasmission purists lose less BHP than you
auto box people? Someone please advise.Note in JEC Magazine UK, out today, a rare 1995 X300 Sapphire Blue
3.2 Manual box is going for �4,750 private sale - mileage not
mentionedThe original message included these comments:
To put it simply:
‘‘22% of the flywheel horsepower of my car was lost in the transmission’’
and
‘‘The flywheel figure is 28.5% higher than the roadwheel figure’’–
Ant
Kent, UK, United Kingdom
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –