Re: Wish it had a 12

Discussion in '1993 Jaguar XJ220' started by NEEDFRSPD, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Wish it had a 12

    If only this car had a 12 cylinder. A twin turbo V6 isn't acceptable in this kind of a car. The Lotus Esprit has Turbo V8 and it's cheaper!(I'll admit it doesn't look quite as good as this though) And don't forget the Nissan 300ZX twin turbo, Nissan Skyline R34, Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4, Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VII. Not to mention these cars cost hundreds of thousands less!!! But it sure does look good.
     
  2. Well, im not sure what i like better, because with the turbo-6, turbo-lag issues arose. Whereas, with the german V-12, it was way too heavy, and it wouldn't fit without the car being over two meters wide.
    But in the long-run, I think the V-6 was overall a better choice. Plus, it shows jaguars creative ingenuvity too!<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. 4 seconds 0-60 while not great is still pretty good... i mean turbo-lag perhaps but not much. If you can afford this car you can probably aford to mod it to your liking as well!<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. a v-12 who the hell needs one did you see the horsepower ratings when you made this post? the v-12 would add another 400lbs to the weight atleast. in the origional design a v-12 was concidered but they took it out to save weight
     
  5. #5 GimmeaJaguar, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  6. 150 bhp/l is not bad. jaguar didn't build this engine but it derived from a group b rally car (from the early 80's). the mg6r4 (450 bhp in road-going version) now that's a gti killer or not?

    here's the photograph.
     
  7. This car is perfect with a V6, The engine is light, powerful, compact and unique. Not too many car manufacturers can brag that at one time we had the worlds fastest production road car, And it was powered by a V6. Plus with light modding, ECU, Exhaust, cold air, a lil more boost, this thing would make 600hp easily and still be as driveable as it was when it was stock. These performance figures are also a little understated, I think the best 0 to 60 time anyone got was 3.6, Now while not Mclaren F1 type acceleration, But still very awesome. You can bring this thing right up to the 220mph range I believe. If I had 1 serious gripe about this car, I would say it needs a 6 speed transmission and maybe a little lighter and AWD!!!
     
  8. GTBugatti, I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. I wish this car had a six-speed as well, but I personally believe that a six-speed is not all that necessary even in a car like this one. I drive a five-speed and I notice that I NEVER use fifth gear in the city. I also go to college where there are many hills, so fifth is practically useless unless on the open road. Back at my home on the Georgia coast I would only use a sixth-gear if I was on the open highway. I have to argue that a six-speed is more of a novelty than a necessity.
    Jaguar did attempt to build this car with AWD, but they realized that it added too much weight and would slow the car down more than the AWD would improving the handling. And I would prefer AWD too since I don't plan on taking the car over 150 anyway when I finally own one. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
     
  9. Gimme, Yeah i guess, Except that for this car to have the acceleration it does and top speed, for a 5 speed the gears would have to be really TALL and thats more annoying than anything. With 6 you could spread out the gear a little more and get better drivability.
     
  10. I thought that the V12 was scrapped when Ford took over?

    I thought it was basically a turbocharged Ford V6?<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. Bugatti, that is true. I can only speculate why they didn't put in a 6-speed: perhaps a weight issue, or because of the turbos needing a higher rpm to kick in. I would believe the latter for the obvious reasons of a turbo.
    This engine is NOT a Ford V6, it's a Jaguar V6 w/ (JaguarSport?) turbochargers made specifically for the XJ220. Have a glance at pic below taken from a Maroon on Tan XJ220.
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from GimmeaJaguar</i>
    <b>Bugatti, that is true. I can only speculate why they didn't put in a 6-speed: perhaps a weight issue, or because of the turbos needing a higher rpm to kick in. I would believe the latter for the obvious reasons of a turbo.
    This engine is NOT a Ford V6, it's a Jaguar V6 w/ (JaguarSport?) turbochargers made specifically for the XJ220. Have a glance at pic below taken from a Maroon on Tan XJ220.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Woah, Where'd you get that picture?
    -I want some...<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. #13 GimmeaJaguar, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Most of the pics I've just gotten from different websites. go to www.google.com and search for them in the "images" tab. try www.jag-lovers.com too.

    These cats will eat your children...<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Cool, thanks! and about the children remark - well I dont have kids
    but if I had one of those cats, Id run over the neigbors kids...<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. from '92 xj220 is still the fastest car about 6 cyl.five minutes for reflection<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. You idiot! Cylinders aren't everything, a smaller engine = less weight
    Have you ever heard of the Dauer 962 LM? 3.0L TT flat 6, 0-60 in 2.6, top speed 250mph!
     

Share This Page