By on September 30, 2014

XE_Powertrain

 

Before we get into the details of Jaguar’s new lineup of modular 4-cylinder engines, let us rejoice. There will be a manual transmission available.

In addition to an 8-speed automatic, the new turbocharged 2.0L gasoline and diesel I4 engines will be available with a 6-speed manual gearbox, marking the first stick-shift Jag since the X-Type.

The gasoline engines will come in two trims, producing 197 horsepower and 206 lb-ft of torque, or 236 horsepower and 250 lb-ft. The diesels will offer 161 horsepower and 280 lb-ft of torque, or 177 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque. The “lower end” diesel will also output under 100 grams of CO2 and return 75 mpg on the European cycle, which should help it be an attractive choice in the all-important company car market, while also dodging CO2-based taxes in certain world markets. Aside from the recently revealed Jaguar XE, these new engines will also appear in other Jaguar Land Rover products in the near future.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

52 Comments on “Jaguar’s New 4-Cylinder Engines Revealed...”


  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    “displacing 197 horsepower”… displacement would be your engine size (calculated from the bore and stroke of the cylinder). In this case 2000 cubic centimeters, or 2 liters.
    Perhaps a coffee short this am? ;-)

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Sweet! A 2.0T, just like in a Hyundai Sonata. Just what I always wanted in a $70K car

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      You don’t have to wait for the Jag – just visit your local BMW dealer…

      • 0 avatar
        tedward

        VoGo

        And it’s not as if there’s a guaranteed power or refinement difference to distinguish them from their low rent counterparts. A turbo I-4 is a turbo I-4, the potential differences in design that could lend improvements aren’t prohibitively expensive for a mainstream brand to employ. Belt vs. Chain; belts are improving fast and are already re-emerging at mainstream price points (continentals lifetime belt for instance). Longitudinal vs. Transverse; it’s not like this guarantees better isolation from engine vibration and it makes platform sharing impossible. Fluid filled mounts vs. rubber mounts; a maintenance cost nightmare even for luxury brands, and not that telling in any case. Dual injection strategies; simply improves power to emissions relationship and hopefully improves reliability, not a refinement edge or a power edge when even without reintroducing port injection these motors can output more than a FWD car can use well. Dual scroll or twin turbo vs. single scroll; turbos are leaping ahead right now and other supporting technologies can be employed to spread the torque delivery around to near equal effect. Sandbagging the mainstream engine power outputs; this is what most are doing, but tuning is becoming more widespread and this only works for as long as your competitors don’t raise the bar, so not very long at all.

        Good luck guys.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        Difference is… well, the XF 2.0T hits 60 in just under 7 seconds, whereas the 528i hits it in just under 6. And the BMW’s throttle response isn’t soggy, nor is the general refinement level below what’s appropriate for the car. Mind you, the XF 2.0T has 240 HP and 258 lb-ft of torque. Hopefully these engines will be much better than that 2.0T. If not, if Jag is betting the house on an XE 2.0T, when the 328i will be faster, more refined, more reliable and most likely cheaper (at least before the banzai rebates come out), Jag is screwed with a capital F….

    • 0 avatar
      ...m...

      …is it turbocharged?..one hundred to one hundred twenty horsepower per litre are within reach of a very nicely-tuned naturally-aspirated engine; nothing in the article nor image mentions turbos…

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        Go all the way down to the 3rd sentence and it’s clear the engines are turbocharged.

        • 0 avatar
          ...m...

          …funny, i re-read the article and promotional sheet three times looking for mention of a turbocharger and somehow skimmed past that note every time…

          …a small-displacement turbo makes sense for the kind of lazy driveability jaguar customers expect, but those are pretty weak power figures for a two-litre turbocharged engine nonetheless…

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            What naturally aspirated engine ever made ~130lb-ft/L?

            And ~240/260 HP/tq is right in line with the competition. At least on paper. These are not high strung Mitsubishi Lancers; specific output records are not the name of the game here.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        A 120hp/l n/a motor will have the torque output of a hummingbird, and make it’s power at 8000rpm. Of course this will be turbocharged.

        • 0 avatar
          duffman13

          hey, I resemble that remark!

          And it was 9000rpm by the way. It took an extra .2L to get it down to 8k. Granted a completely different type of car, but still.

          Also to be fair, the V8 from the E9x M3 essentially had the same numbers as 2 K20s welded at the crank, and few people whined about the torque deficit there even though it had a significant compared to similarly powered domestic V8s.

          And as a former owner, the K-series motors really aren’t all that bad torque-wise for as far as NA high-revving motors go.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    My cynical side tells me prospective buyers should wait 3-5 years to see if they can get the bugs worked out.

    My other cynical side says that 197 or 236 hp isn’t really enough for anything Jag makes at present. Their cars are too large and heavy.

    But my positive side says you could take two of these, glue them together, and you’d have a 4.0L I8, and Jag used to be good at making 4.0L engines.

    • 0 avatar

      I’d bet on a twin-turbo V8…

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      “you could take two of these, glue them together, and you’d have a 4.0L I8…”

      This is what Aston Martin did with two pedestrian Ford Taurus 3.0 liter motors; they bolted them together, and voila! The magnificent, bespoke Aston Martin 12 cylinder was born.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I wonder what the mood was at the AM offices when they were told what they had to work with on the engine development. I’m sure they had never seen an American Taurus engine before.

        I picture a bunch of tweedy engineers going, “Oh REALLY” in that special British way.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          I say, old chap! Nip down to the aluminium shed for me, would you, and also pick up some packets of crisps, as I’m feeling a mite peckish!

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          No particular problem.

          The V6 was designed by Cosworth, and more specifically designed to be cast by Cosworth’s patented aluminum casting system.

          The line was installed at Ford’s Windsor Ontario plant, and initially was a 2.5 l V6. Since it was sand cast, not the cheapy die cast blocks we get today with wobbly unsupported cylinders, it was a strong unit as well.

          Just not designed to be particularly sporty. In fact, one irony at the time of introduction was that the British Touring Car Championship Ford Mondeo had to use the 2.5l V6 Mazda engine from the MX6 GT, instead of their new V6, which was not particularly tunable.

          That’s what cheesed off Aston when they made the V12 under their owner Ford’s edict. The V6 was never designed to be a screamer, just a high quality sedan engine.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Bugs? This is dead conventional technology in 2014. And basically what Saab was doing 25-30 years ago.

      I find it funny that you think you NEED this much hp in this size car. It’s fun to drive a car with 250hp that weighs 3500lbs, but you don’t need it. A zillion company car drivers in Europe put a crap load of miles on this size car with 120hp n/a 2.0l engines for decades. It takes very little hp to move a car at highway speed. You just don’t get as big a shove in the back off the line.

  • avatar
    tedward

    What I’m becoming interested in with these engines is evaluating their execution across various price points. Hyundai, VW and Ford are offering similar to identical displacement and layout drivetrains as Mercedes, BMW (longitudinal so far so only sort of), Audi and now Volvo. It will be interesting times for the press fleet managers when car reviews pan a luxury brand drivetrain by saying things like, “that Mercedes would be truly great if only it had Hyundai’s turbo 4 instead.”

    • 0 avatar
      Nedmundo

      The turbo fours are already comparable across a wide price range IMO. I’ve driven a couple of recent BMW 328i’s and two Ford Focus ST’s, and the Ford engine reminded me of BMW’s. The BMW’s is probably more powerful, because they are usually underrated, but I thought their linear power delivery and overall feel were similar. (I actually preferred the more aggressive sound of the Ford, but I’m sure BMW’s more luxury-oriented customers want less NVH.) The BMW engine is more efficient, but Ford might get there with the upcoming replacement for the 2.0T.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      I don’t think it will be an issue. They didn’t with 3.0/3.5L V6s. Plus there are a lot of things outside of the engine that aid in engine refinement. Engine mounts, sound deadening, tuning, etc. etc. The same V6 in an ES350 feels totally different in a Lotus Evora.

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    Are these based on the 2.0 Ecoboost that JLR was using before (in the Evoque, amongst others)?

  • avatar
    eamiller

    236hp and 250 ft-lb of torque is all they could get out of this 2.0L turbocharged engine? I guess they are using Tata engine technology in this instead of, you know, Ford or GM technology (I can’t believe I’m saying this).

    Epic fail Jaguar.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      Jaguar could most definitely squeeze more power out of that engine, but just because they can doesn’t necessarily mean they should.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      Except that’s roughly the same HP as the 2.0 turbo Fusion…

      Which I personally think is a bit too little for a proper V6 replacement. My kingdom for a 2.3T 275hp Fusion.

      • 0 avatar
        eamiller

        HP is easy to make (just spin the engine faster), but they are off by 20 ft-lb of torque. The Ford 2.0T engine is going to feel more powerful because of the big torque number. That’s why the Escape and Fusion feel so much quicker than the V6 competition, and will likely feel quicker than Jags with this engine.

        The only way Jag could redeem themselves with this engine is if it has a Texas sized area under the torque curve. It better peak around 1500rpm and stay there to the redline.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    All this teeth knashing over a 4-cyl. Jag engine… Pull your heads out of the sand… its reality, and Jag and others are facing it.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Do you mean building more complex, FI, higher compression, less refined, less reliable/durable 4 cylinder engines to try and keep up with the competition, when a less complex, more refined, 6 cylinder will not only likely be more reliable/durable, but get better real world fuel economy additionally?

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I can really only think of one full-line brand which currently offers V6 or V8 standard, on all models.

      • 0 avatar
        koshchei

        I’d be happy with an under-stressed 3.xL V6 over what’s being foisted on us nowadays, but you know, the Chinese market’s ripe for the taking, or so European and American manufacturers think.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Except in the real world of not just driving down the highway with the cruise control on 65mph, the turbo 4 WILL be more efficient. It will also be smaller and lighter, which pays big dividends in cars that are not designed to have to accommodate anything bigger.

        Even though the 3.0l I6 in my BMW is a higher tech engine overall, the 2.0T dating all the way back to 2002 in my Saab 9-3 beat it by a good 10% in overall economy in a car that was identical in size and wieght. Give the Saab motor fully variable valve timing like the BMW and what would the difference be? The 2.0T was also the more usable engine in the real world, with noticeably more torque and flexibility. Yeah, the BMW sounds better. Big whoop. Neither of them makes much noise.

        And on the Saab, if 210hp was not enough, 300hp was but a chiptune away for $500-600. At best, I can add 35hp to the BMW by adding the intake manifold from a 330i for almost $2K.

    • 0 avatar
      PJmacgee

      The Mustang gets 300+hp from its I4, and doesn’t Volvo offer an I4 making 400+ hp? BMW’s 2.0 at least makes great torque (260-300 lb-ft, although a little rough feeling below 1800rpm). So 236/250 from this seems pretty lame, unless it’s silky smooth and has zero turbo lag or something…

      • 0 avatar
        Nedmundo

        I agree those ratings seem low, especially for a premium marque with sporting pretensions, but maybe Jaguar rates its engines like BMW, which apparently determines power ratings based on worst case scenarios for fuel, humidity, etc. This is why BMW’s often deliver considerably more power than their published ratings.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Why don’t manufacturers start buying their 2.0Ts from other manufacturers, save tons by having minimal engine developemt costs, easy access for customer parts in a low volume case as this, and again 2.0T, your obviously not going for excitement, but rather building the cheapest design that can be charged the largest premium.

    No ones not going to buy a 2.0T in a jag because its made by Hyundai, those people aren’t buying the car because its a 4 cylinder luxury car. BMW plain well owns those badge buyers.

    • 0 avatar
      mik101

      It’s done frequently between cars of similar level. Hyundai, Chrysler and Mitsubishi had a joint engine development program. Sadly the results seemed to be lackluster all around, with Hyundai making the most of it.

      The South Korean companies in particular used to buy a lot of their engines/designs from other manufacturers (Mitsubishi, and I’m thinking they had Mazda engines in some Kias, but the memory is a little fuzzy).

      A lot of it is probably pride, not wanting to give money to another manufacturer (competitor) and at the end of the day they want your part/repair money. Now companies that have their luxury brands in house experience this anyway where there is engine sharing and whatnot, but at the end of the day, the parent company still gets the money unless you go aftermarket.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        You’re correct.

        Not only did the South Koreans use engines, but the entire car platform, and sometimes body panels with minimal changes to suit market desire.

        Hyundai Galloper = Montero
        Ssangyong (Korando, I think) Family = Trooper
        Kia Enterprise = Mazda 929
        Daewoo Statesman = Holden Statesman
        Samsung SM5 (gen1) = Infiniti I30

        Speaking of Pride, Kia Pride = Ford Fiesta.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Jaguar will sell far more of the diesel Ingenium engines worldwide than the gas ones. All the new diesel has to do is to be more refined than the Mercedes 2.1 liter diesel gasper they shove in the C and E class, the one Nissan churns out in Smyrna TN for them.

    Thr opposition BMW four cylinder diesel is not well regarded in the UK forums. It’s an unreliable dud.

    The picture in the post is the diesel engine, btw.

  • avatar
    Pan

    And will the cylinders be lined with Nikasil?

  • avatar
    pragmatic

    For the XE this will be fine. If the rear seat room is better than the ATS and the pricing is less than the 3-series it should do fine. If it suffers typical Jaguar depreciation I’ll be looking for a used 6 speed in 2018.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: I enjoyed the one finger steering as well.
  • Arthur Dailey: I know that it is dangerous and downright moronic but one finger steering was one of my favourite...
  • Inside Looking Out: “Why would the British join the French Revolution? ” To replace unelected King with...
  • ToolGuy: With the caveat that I know nothing about this, the first drawing doesn’t suggest...
  • Jeff S: And steer that battleship with your Pinky.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber