jon_the_limey

Yes but just not in Powertrain engineering, eh! Also most of the engineer's over there are Brit ex-pats.

Show me the evidence that FNA are probabilistically more reliable! It is possible to counter what TStag says without attacking FoE. Please try that in future. Anyway Ford's reputation still really sucks in Europe but it is improving, and are probably ahead of the curve in the perception vs reality stakes than FNA.

Just because they're Brits don't think they represent FoE, they're silver tongued career ladder climbers from purchasing. It is a failing of all Anglo-American companies that non-engineers are allowed to climb to such heights in what are fundamentally engineering companies, this would never happen in German and Japanese car companies.

Oh they would make damned sure they didn't have an engine bay big enough to put it in, they made sure the Lion V6 wouldn't fit without some serious re-engineering to EUCD!

Sorry chap, but I have an MTZ article by Ford's senior engineers/management (in German only unfortunately) from 1999 that disagrees with you! The Rocam is based off the old Valencia block, which itself was a shortened version of the Kent. They shortened it by reducing the bore centre distance and therefore eliminating the water jacket between the bores making them Siamese. Not to say that it shares a lot of the with the old Valencia/Kent because it only shares a few major machining dimensions and the castings were all new and all the various bits bolted to it were made up-to-date. It makes a lot of sense to do it this way instead of "cheapening" the Sigma, first of all there was a very usuable block machining transfer line which they didn't have to throw away and secondly it would take a horrific amount of engineering and tooling investment to convert the Sigma to an iron-block with SOHC and replacing the belt with the chain (means sealing up the front of the engine completely differently). In fact so much effort you may as well start from scratch, which obviously in this case they didn't need to. Going onto the Sigma (concept designed in conjuction with Yamaha), you have to remember it debuted in the Fiesta in ~95 and the Mazda/Ford MZR about 5 years later. The Sigma has bore-centres of 87mm and the MZR has bore centres of 96mm, therefore the MZR is a bigger engine allowing it to go to larger displacements with upto 89mm bore & 2.5 litre (with appropriate deckheight increase). From the pics I've seen Mazda has not changed the bore-centres for the 1.3/1.5/1.6 and it is my opinion that the engine will have been far too compromised in terms of size, weight & other potential factors in the process of making a one-size fits all engine for what is two engine classes. The Sigma now with the TI-VCT version is really starting to show this particular engines potential and a DI turbo version of the Sigma would make the naturally aspirated versions of the MZR obsolete. Oh I may as well mention I was an engineer for Ford of Europe for quite a few years as well!

Now come on! It's not like those several thousand people employed in Dunton and Merkenich were doing fuck-all when C1 and EUCD were being developed. Volvo may have led the design of EUCD (they didn't on C1) but it was FoE who did most of the work! I've heard a few FNA engineers blowing sunshine up Volvo's arse (and bitching about FoE & JLR) is this quite common over there?

Trust me, the novelty would soon wear off!

I know, I was responding more generally to some of the other posts here. I'm guessing that with the Powershift DCT in NA it is going to be calibrated as a fuel-efficent alternative to a "true" slushbox automatic rather than a flappy-paddle/throttle-blipping/pseudo-sports-car setup. A torquey little engine like this might suit this style better.

The same could be said for level of speculation JLR has had to suffer, nobody really knows, but people like to believe they've lost QUADRILLIONS and will need even more in the future and thats why no-one else other than the Indians want to buy them! Anyway, anything that has happened to Volvo in recent years and will happen to them in the next few years (good or bad) is their own doing. When Ford bought them they were profitable and were standalone as an operation, because of this Ford allowed them autonomy and off they went designing (rather expensive) new engines for themselves, full involvement in the C1 platform and gave them leadership of the EUCD platform. It is not like they've been lacking for investment. It's been very good for Ford of Europe sharing all this investment, time will tell if it has been good for Volvo.

The venerable Kent lives on! (Albeit without the pushrods and with an aluminium head) Actually the Rocam isn't such a bad engine, yes it is SOHC with 2 valve per cylinder but that means it has more charge motion and higher inlet gas velocities meaning potentially better volumetric efficiency at lower engine speeds (i.e. more torque). Also having a single-camshaft acting on two valves (esp. acting on roller-finger followers) has less friction than two camshafts acting on 4-valves with mechanical buckets. If they put EGR on it (unlike they did with the SportKa in Europe) there is little reason to for this engine not to be very economical. I guess some reasons that the Sigma 1.6 may not be used is because the only source for them is the "expensive" UK, FoE is making full use of the production numbers available, and that the Sigma engine with it's 11:1 compression ratio will need re-engineering to make better use of US regular gasoline. BTW: Lincolnfan there is very little wrong with the 1.6 Sigma engine in your car in terms of power or torque, what sucks is the weight of the car and the gearbox it is attached to.

Would be nice but I don't think it was straightforward! The little I understand about it was there was a significantly different design of inlet manifold, new cams, a re-evaluation of reciprocating components and totally different exhaust system for the new vehicle. Also peak power would have been above 7000rpm. Cosworth did a light reworking of the Jag V6 in the Palmersport JP1, but I know very little about that either, here is a link for it though: http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarrevi...jaguar_jp1.html

Vague was a word I deliberately put in, I would not want to take away too much credit away from FNA because it is their engine. However there is a Jag connection there, like it or not! They did work on the "outdated" 4.2, it's called the Aston Martin 4.3. Anyway apart from a few cc's and some gadgets there is very little wrong with the 4.2. Achieving 12.5Bar BMEP with just intake-side VCT with the inherent issues of charge mal-distribution on a balanced crank 90deg V8 is excellent in itself. At the time the 6000rpm peak power limit was almost certainly deliberate for NVH and the fact they are always connected to an auto-box. Plus thanks to LR connection there are larger & more technologically advanced engines on the way. In your twisted little mind, you'll be glad to know that work on the existing V8 was almost certainly curtailed due to funding, like a hell of a lot other things at Jag over the past 7 years. On a wider note, you're hatred of Jaguar is so utterly irrational and misplaced, I probably shouldn't bother trying explain anything to you. However you (and pretty much all on here) know absolutely fuck all about the circumstances about Jag, their real losses, or their wider impact on Ford or Lincoln. I don't really know that much and I'm very much in the industry! So apply some objectivity, accept that you know far less than you think you do, and give it a fucking rest!

Ahh! But the Lincoln LS had the Jaguar redesigned D30 with the narrower valve angle (38 vs 50), direct acting valvetrain and compact combustion chamber with the higher compression ratio. They were in fact very different engines. That was a low tune too, Jaguar I heard were looking at a 270bhp version of this engine in the ill-fated X600 F-type, alas it never saw the light of day!

Driven with restraint it might, but when the exhaust temps go up and they start richening the mixture to protect the catalysts it will hurt.

Probably don't want to sell that many in the US anyway with the current exchange rate as it is.

Irony of ironies, the D37 has a vague architectural lineage from the Jaguar V8 with its direct-acting valvetrain, narrow valve angles, inlet port design and compact combustion chamber. All overseen by the former Jaguar V8 Chief Engineer David Szczupak.

It is maybe possible but if a combustion system has been optimised for regular then it will derive less benefit from the ignition timing being advanced from using premium, than a combustion system purposely optimised for premium. If you see what I mean! The D35 is a great engine and as you say it has bags of potential. Although I believe a few might be getting carried away about the "TwinForce" version. No doubt it will make lots of power and torque but the fuel economy maybe less than people hoped.

There is a small (perhaps even niche) market for American cars in Europe and Chrysler has it stitched up. Never under-estimate European snobbery, the effort building the Lincoln brand would better spent else where and it appears this Farley chap understands that.

Well TStag doesn't speak for J/LR and neither do I. However I'm certain that most Jaguar will be grateful to Ford for rescuing them from certain oblivion in the early 90's, installing Sir Bill Hayden & Sir Jim Padilla et al to sort out the ancient production facilities, quality processes, and championing investment in new products like the V8 engine and the previous XJ & XK. They will also be grateful to FNA for co-developing the excellent DEW98 platform which was the basis of the not just the S type, but developments from that, the aluminium XJ/XK (with Ford R&A assistance) and latterly the XF. They will also be grateful to Ford for developing the (in many ways) class-leading V6 & V8 diesel engines. I'm also certain that most in Land Rover will be grateful to Ford for allowing them to continue designing the T5 platform to create the hugely profitable Discovery and Range Rover Sport, and for co-developing the Freelander on the exceptional EUCD platform with access to several excellent powertrains. Unfortunately Ford asked far too much of Jaguar when given the task of filling (a-plant-too-far) in Halewood with the X-type, which for even the slightest glimmer of viability had to be built on the transverse-engined Mondeo platform (an excellent platform based on it's own merits). Cheapening the Jaguar brand to perhaps unrecoverable depths made worse by cannibalising sales from more expensive Jags. Ford also asked too much of Jaguar by giving them the abortive F1 programme to fund (when Jaguar was always about Le Mans anyway). All of which aided the cancellation of the potentially astonishing X600 'F' type which could have returned the Jaguar brand to aspirational status to those below 40: http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/ftype.html Amongst many others there were perhaps two people most responsible for these decisions. I must concede one was a Brit, but he was still a Ford man through-and-through, recruited from a time when an RP accent & a Classics Degree got you onto the executive fast-track, Sir Nicholas Scheele. And Grandpa Nick was the right hand-man of a certain Jaques Nasser who, when in charge Ford Automotive Ops, did the most to force the redundant FoE plant Halewood on Jaguar. The moral of the story? Entirely blaming Jaguar (or rather their workers) for the current predicament is as retarded as blaming Ford's north american workers for the problems in FNA, because the leadership that fucked up Jag is the same leadership that fucked up Ford.

Doubt it will be that much of an increase by 91octane alone, maybe 5 bhp at most. It will improve torque where it is knock-limited though but on Ford's that is usually around lower engine speeds (maybe peak torque). To get that kind of power increase they would probably need to up the compression ratio, change cam-timing, and up the peak-power engine speed to 6500rpm (if 11Bar BMEP at peak power). Achieving 265 lbft from a 3.7 (12.1Bar BMEP) on regular is bloody impressive though. It will be interesting to see what they get on the DI version.

Ford of Europe making a profit in Q3 is a big one, they haven't done that for years! Most of Europe goes on holiday in August so it always far harder to make a profit in Q3. The only Q3 respite comes from the UK registration change in September.

Now play nicely children or Mother England will come over and make you sit on the naughty step!

The 3.0 V6 diesel is too "premium" for this vehicle. The I5 3.2 Puma (in the Transit) is a better bet, along with the other more workaday Puma I4 variants.

Indeed! Company car sales in the UK still rule the roost because of (vaguely) beneficial tax breaks. It's why the likes of BMW, VW/Audi, Merc are so willing to sell to fleet buyers in the UK.

They have these extra masses on Land Rover Disco/LR3 at the rear (can't remember what frame they were attached to though). They were an NVH additions to reduce the natural frequency out of some resonance ranges of operation (and/or to reduce the amplitude). It's very common practice in the industry but it is a band-aid as it much always easier to add mass than to change stiffness. Of course on a 2.5+ ton SUV, weight really wasn't a prime concern!