By on July 24, 2016

2013 BMW 750Li, Engine, N63B44TU, N63 4.4L Twin-Turbo V8, Picture Courtesy of Alex L. Dykes

After ridding itself of the limp carcass once known as Rover over 15 years ago, BMW — the former parent of Land Rover — looks like it might provide V8 motivation to future Land Rover and Jaguar models.

According to Automobile, BMW wants an engine partner in order to amortize development of an upcoming 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8, and Jaguar Land Rover could be that partner.

Jaguar Land Rover is doubling down on its new Ingenium family of inline, small-displacement engines. JLR will downsize the current crop of inline fours to create 1.5-liter three-cylinders and upsize them to spawn 3.0-liter inline sixes. Unfortunately, developing an inline-eight would be considerably difficult due to the amount of room needed for such an engine in an engine bay.

Enter BMW, which is currently developing a 500cc/cylinder 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8. The Bavarian automaker is itself downsizing engines to hit regulatory benchmarks, but it still needs a V8 for its upper-crust vehicles. Jaguar Land Rover, as it focuses more and more on developing its newly minted SVR sub-brand, could use BMW’s 4.0-liter V8 in place of its own AJ-V8-family supercharged 5.0 liter. The AJ-V8 engine family has existed in various guises since 1996.

Expect the new 4.0-liter V8 to develop between 450 and 600 horsepower, the same output as BMW’s current 4.4-liter V8, while drinking less dino juice.

[Image: © 2013 Alex Dykes/The Truth About Cars]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

63 Comments on “Jaguar Land Rover Eyeballing Bavarian V8s For Future Models...”


  • avatar

    Vast majority of buyers of these vehicles aren’t speeding.
    Jaguar XJ-L’s sales took off when they introduced the supercharged 6 with AWD. As long as they can create the torque necessary for the few models that go off-road, I see absolutely no need for this.

    They should go PHEV and E.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      bigtrucks,
      I’d say Rover’s off road SUVs are taken care of with diesels and even a blown 6 will offer enough. These vehicles are not huge, but just largish.

      A 4 litre blown V8 would more than suffice for any Range and Land Rover. I’d stick with a Lion V6 diesel. I nearly bought one, but couldn’t justify the price tag, so I bought a pickup that will do pretty much the same, with leather and all the bells and whistles for nearly half the price.

      Plus, I don’t feel so bad denting now $55k worth of vehicle as denting a Land Rover.

    • 0 avatar
      Chocolatedeath

      You are correct that most Jaguar owners don’t speed or should I say don’t speed excessively. However if I had the money one of my dream cars is an XJ with that 600 horsepower engine in it. And I would speed all the time. However I am an old Jaguar fan.

  • avatar
    derekson

    The upside of this situation is that we get Jags with petrol and diesel I6 engines.

    Supposedly Mercedes is going the same route with their next family of engines. More I6 engines is a win IMO.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I don’t really care about BMW throwing some new time-bomb V8 into a $130k Range Rover.

    However:

    “and upsize them to spawn 3.0-liter inline sixes.”

    Does this mean a RWD Jaguar XE with an ~290hp naturally-aspirated I6 is in the future?

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      No, I can assure you that is most certainly not what it means. I am pretty sure we have seen the last naturally aspirated Jag. Only way you could see such an engine is if Jag switched from boost to hybrid tech, which TATA doesn’t have the money to do.

      Plus even if it did, bleh. BMW & Infiniti’s blown 6s are better than all the NA 6s out. Jag’s would be no different, and all of their cars are way too heavy such low torque engines anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Expect something more like a 350-400 HP (with ~350-400 TQ) turbocharged 3.0L I6 for the gas version, and probably ~300 HP (w/~500 TQ) from a diesel version.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    Hopefully Jag’s talen for making glorious sounding engines will work and find hidden music in the rather dull and characterless BMW V8s.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    That engine bay reminds me of being told by a co-worker that before agreeing to do a vertical sleeve gastrectomy her surgeon had her follow a special diet to shrink her liver and make a little room to work in there.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Can we please stop turbo-ing everything?

    Really, what would be wrong with just a 4.0L N/A V8?

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      High emissions, low torque, weak gas mileage.

      Better course of action will be NA 4L + hybrid

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Other than the “low torque” complaint, I’m guessing that the Range Rover Goldleaf-Platium-Diamond HSV equipped with some 700hp BMW turbo V8 won’t be an emissions or fuel economy champion either.

        While I don’t think it would work with Land Rover, a naturally-aspirated 4.0L V8 should still make about 300 lb-ft of torque and would probably be a fun engine in something like the F-type or XE-R.

        I’m a *not* against torque or anything, but I don’t get why everyone is suddenly so obsessed with having the power curve of a Cummins Ram in any high-performance vehicle. Am I really one of the few people okay with winding the engine in my sports sedan/coupe or sports car past 4500 RPM?

        • 0 avatar
          derekson

          That would be a bit bizarre to have an XE-R that makes less power and torque than the V6 XE-S.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I think a naturally-aspirated 4.0L V8 should be able to make more than 340hp. 90-100 hp/L seems to be doable and Lexus was getting 310 lb-ft of torque from a 4.0L V8 in 1997.

            Admittedly, I have no idea how capable this future BMW engine would be.

            I just threw the name out randomly though. Maybe “XE8” something?

            Being down on torque to the forced-induction versions V6/I6 wouldn’t necessarily be unheard of. The latest Boss 302 Mustang had less torque than the standard Mustang GT and something like the 911 GT3 has never been a stump puller.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      The problem with a n/a 4.0 V8 is a turbo 3.0 six can do everything a N/A 4.0 V8 can with better mpg, especially on the EPA cycle. Compare BMW 535i numbers to the 545i, or the Volvo S80 T6 vs the V8. Figure these turbo 4.0s aren’t replacing n/a 4.0 V8s, but are replacing n/a V10s and V12s. 10 years ago, 400+ hp was usually province of at least 10 cylinders and 5.0 liters of displacement. It’s the same reason that, on the other end of the market, 2.0t I-4s are unfortunately replacing n/a sixes. The current BMW 4.4L TTV8 in the F10 550i makes 155 more hp than the N/A 4.4L in the E39 540i, 120 more than the 4.4L N/A in the E60 545i, and 85 more than the 4.8L N/A in the E60 550i, yet still manages to equal or exceed all of them in mpg.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Continuing with your Volvo example, their current Drive-E supercharged 4 makes more HP and torque than their V8 did, while using 2/3rds of the fuel. The smaller size also means that they can provide more interior space. That’s a compromise that almost every paying customer will want.

  • avatar
    kmoney

    I don’t know if this is better or worse than the current engine. My friend is the service manager at a local BMW dealer and his FB posts probably every 3 or 4th day are something along the lines of ‘Oh, another one’ and a picture of a 7 or an X5 with the engine and transmission being lowered out of the vehicle.

  • avatar
    pragmatist

    The thing that bugs me about this is when I compare to the Land Rovers when I was a kid (’60s). These vehicles explored far from ‘civilization’ and basically had to be kept running with a few spare parts and hand tools. No turbos, they’d run on the poorest grades of gasoline, no fragile unnecessary electronics. That was part of their beauty.

    For the past couple of decades, it’s gone further and further from that model. Look at these engines, with huge levels of power (how much horsepower do you need to crawl over terrain at 4 mph?). And ANY MALFUNCTION AT ALL throws an error, possibly into limp mode, and they can’t even be checked out except by a trained technician, with complex diagnostic equipment, special tools and a fully stocked parts bin … none of which you’ll find halfway up Kilimanjaro.

    These vehicles wouldn’t fare well in circumstances their ancestors encountered.

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    In a world of fracking and $50 oil, having a modern V-8 engine sounds like good sense for any car company. The GM efforts with their antique designs are increasingly becoming laughable.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Antique design? I guess throwing more valves and cams at an engine is progress? While GM cannot claim to be the HP/L king their engines are competitive in a number of areas from the bowtie fanboy favorite “power density” (horsepower per pound coupled with the compact dimensions) to typically good fuel mileage and excellent power under the curve.

      Where GM really gets its engine technology right is in the stuff you can’t see like the overall flowpath of the engine from throttle body to exhaust manifold collector to combustion chamber design and the pistons that work in harmony with those combustion chambers (speaking of the GDI LT engines here).

      Just really good engines that leverage their particular philosophy very well.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Jimbob – the LS and especially the LT family of engines are hardly antique. No doubt you say that because of the pushrod actuated valvetrain. However you may feel about pushrods, the LT1 is a superb,modern, efficient powerplant. I know that GM bashing flows freely here, and much of it may well be deserved. But in the interest of fairness, and correctness, the General deserves credit where credit is due, and there are zero apologies needed for these V8 engines. Spend a day with that rich, effortless, power, or a lazy hi MPG drive. Either way these engines deliver.

      • 0 avatar
        jimbob457

        Yup, a 6500 rpm antique engine design like the best GM can muster in a V-8 is not better than the 9000 rpm engine offered by Porsche. Not that I applaud rpm’s just for themselves, but GM is a massive old fashioned fail industry-wide. It does not help to be 50 years behind in basic engine design. Pushrods tend to bend at high rpm.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Well, GM did make a pushrod V8 that went to 7000RPM, which I think was only 100 less than the Panamera GTS.

          I think there is also something to be said that GM’s V8s are purchasable for under $100K. Can you say that about any 9000RPM Porsche?

          Anyway now that Porsche is jumping on the turbo wagon with the other Euro makes you can kiss those 8000+RPM engines goodbye.

        • 0 avatar
          CarnotCycle

          Everyone laughs at pushrods and their low specific displacement numbers, but GM LS series on both power-to-weight and thermal efficiency (the most important performance params for a heat engine) hang with comparable quad-cammers all day.

          OHV’ers do not breath anywhere near as well as OHC’ers, but four cams turning 32 valves is a lot more parasitic friction, aggregate spring resistance, and moving mass than 16 valves turned by one cam. If international regulations and taxes focused on mileage instead of engine displacement (looking at you, Europe and Japan), pushrod motors would be much more relevant today than they are.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            Europe also at one time issued insurance policies using bore & stroke as a factor – the thinking was an engine with a large bore and short stroke was for a performance variant and policies were priced accordingly. Manufacturers got around that by using multi-valve engines where the bore didn’t hinder the engine so much and could get away with square and under square bore/stroke ratios while offering a good performing engine.

            Anyways

            “OHV’ers do not breath anywhere near as well as OHC’ers, but four cams turning 32 valves is a lot more parasitic friction, aggregate spring resistance, and moving mass than 16 valves turned by one cam.”

            Springs on a multivalve OHC engine don’t have to be nearly as heavy as their OHV counterparts since the valves are smaller and the spring doesn’t have to contend with the added load imposed by the pushrod and lifter ( not necessarily the weight of those components by themselves but the spring has to keep the pushrod and lifter in contact and following the cam lobe).

            You are correct with airflow in at least the low and mid lift range. At the top of the flow map two valve engines generally flow and in some cases (LS7 heads for instance) can exceed the air flow of a good four valve head (even sometimes across the entire flow map – see LS7 vs. 5.8 Trinity in the GT500) but in order to take advantage of that the two valve engine needs to run an aggressive cam compounding the valve spring issue (aggressive ramp rates and high lift so that it can take advantage of that) which when run with reasonable spring pressure can limit RPM. Conversely multi valve engines can run a less aggressive set of cams with lower spring pressures and reach higher RPM. The added advantage here is that its easier to meet emissions since less overlap is needed as well on a multivalve engine (however I think this is somewhat offset by the lack of quench in the combustion chamber to keep things excited)

            Frankly each type of valvetrain configuration has its place and it all depends no how well the manufacturer leverages that technology.

            GM obviously does a helluva job with the OHV 2v design where say FCA plays second fiddle – on paper the hemi should have a greater advantage with its semi hemi head which unshrouds the valve as it lifts but GM heads are just that good plus they don’t have the quench issues of an open chamber head like the hemi.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        The funny thing is that overhead cam shafts pre-date pushrods by *decades.*

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          The first pushrod overhead valve engine was patented by Buick in 1902 and went into production in the Buick Model B in 1904. The first OHC engines are thought to have reached production in 1902, so decades is an exaggeration.

    • 0 avatar
      Spike_in_Brisbane

      Maybe it has something to do with homologation for racing. Both NASCAR and Supercar competitions prohibit the use of overhead cam shafts or multiple valve heads.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Spike in Brisbane,
        That’s all about to change with the demise of V8 SuperCars. I think it will be more exciting that the current formula ………. if a decent formula can be had.

        2017 will be the last year of the V8s alone.

        http://www.supercars.com/news/championship/v8-supercars-blueprint-for-2017-and-beyond/

    • 0 avatar
      meefer

      “modern” BMW M6 TT V8: 600 hp, 590 tq
      “antique” Chevy Vette Z06 SC V8: 650 hp, 650 tq

      Who’s laughing now?

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @meefer
        Would not be the people selling Corvettes,as they do not sell them here.Also the Corvette is a larger capacity engine

        • 0 avatar
          CarnotCycle

          If one looks at the installed weight of these respective engines, I would guess they are within 3-5% of each other.

          This is true for comparisons of similar naturally aspirated gadgets. I recall comparing BMW S65 and Chevy LS9 that way once, and though the BMW has twice the valves and 30% more RPM than the LS, and the LS has 50% more displacement (6L) than the S65, they are near dopplegangers of each other in installed weight and power output.

        • 0 avatar
          meefer

          LT4 weight, fully dressed, 529 lbs, mpg 13/23
          S63 weight, unspecified, 505 lbs, mpg 15/22

          hp/L isn’t nearly as important as curb weight/hp

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Hellcat! Oh, wait – that’s an antique pushrod design too. Maybe there”s more to it than valve actuation?

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        There is more to it than valve actuation… Pushrod OHV motors are not as tall as their OHC counterparts, so they are easier to fit under a low hood.

        In practice, OHV and OHC designs both have their pluses and minuses. I have been happy with both in previous vehicles.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Can’t they continue to improve upon the AJ V8? Which is currently in it’s 3rd generation and still being used in most models. Look at how many years they got out of the Buick aluminum 215 with many enhancements. If only GM had the sense to continue to use it.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    Waste of time and money for both companies.

    JLR would be smarter to partner with cousin Volvo on a family of inline 3-6 cylinder engines and electrification. Massively overpowered pure ICE passenger vehicles are fading. You did notice that sales of the top end BMWs are already shrinking, yes?

    Anyone developing a brand new V-8 passenger car/suv engine is wasting their time.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I like the idea of an small inline six in a British car. Its quite British. Why don’t Tata/Rover use that modular 1.5 and make a 6 litre blown V12?

    Now that would be an engine to have.

    On a more serious note, we will gradually watch the demise of the V8. They are just to heavy and thirsty. Nice to have, but 80% of the world just don’t need them as our societies have gotten used to. It really is almost irresponsible to have one nowadays.

    It’s sad, but p!ssy three cylinder, four cylinder engines will prevail, with a sprinkling of V6 turbo fuel thirsty engines. V8s will be for luxury vehicles.

    For that kind of weight in a V8 you can have a diesel with as much torque and much better FE and in some instance near on the same horse power.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      ” V8s will be for luxury vehicles.”

      This is already the case. V8s are in luxury vehicles and trucks. And even in the former, it’s basically only the performance editions of luxury vehicles, other than things like a Lexus LS or Mercedes S550.

      And in trucks, they’re already obsoleted in many ways by vehicles like the Ecoboost F150s and Ecodiesel RAMs.

  • avatar
    la834

    Is JLR really giving any consideration to building an Ingenium straight-8? I can’t think of any car or light truck that’s used that configuration since, what, the ’54 Packard? An inline 8 would certainly set any new car apart though. The old ones were renowned for their smoothness even compared to V8s, but not for their power. And given that inline sixes normally need to be mounted longitudally to fit, I think it would need either a long hood/bonnet or some intrusion into the passenger compartment.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      I8s are impractical today. the longer you make the crankshaft, the more problems you have with crankshaft torsion causing timing variations between cylinders.

      • 0 avatar
        la834

        Would that have not been a problem with the V16 engine Cadillac floated for a high-lux flagship a decade ago too? That would have had *two* long crankshafts. Anyhow, I don’t think practicality is the point of engines like these.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          yes, that would have been a problem. it had a single crankshaft.

          “Anyway, I don’t think practicality is the point of engines like these.”

          impractical or not it still has to meet emissions standards.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        That can be addressed by harnessing the power from the middle of the crankshaft instead of the end, making the engine two fours end-to-end.

        Some racing motorcycle engines have used that method, although not with 8 cylinders.

        It would still make for lousy packaging.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        That was the complaint about straight eights in the 1930s, when pistons were the size of 3-pound coffee cans (for those of you who remember when a 3-lb. can of coffee actually held 3-lb. of coffee). If they could make ’em work with coils, points and condensers, mechanical distributers, and downdraft carbs, they can make ’em work better with electronic ignition and direct fuel injection. With smaller pistons today, a 4.0L straight eight shouldn’t be much longer than a GM 270 cid truck I6 from the ’50s-’60s.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “JLR will downsize the current crop of inline fours to create 1.5-liter three-cylinders”

    There are zero JLR vehicles where this engine would be suitable, so I’m not sure what the point of this exercise is.

  • avatar

    I’m not sure this is such a good idea. The 2003-2005 Range Rover had the BMW-sourced 4.4 liter V8 engine and anyone who takes a walk through any Range Rover owner’s forum will quickly see what kind of problems this caused. Long story short, the splines on the output tube of the front differential were incredibly hard to line up properly with the splines on the input end of the driveshaft (or prop shaft if you’re in the UK). This combined with the movement of the driveline during everyday use caused the splines to slowly wear down until one day, with absolutely zero warning, the splines could no longer handle the stress and they would strip. This causes an instant and horrific grinding noise that sounds a bit like what I imagine gravel being fed through a wood chipper might sound like. In most cases you can get the vehicle off to the side of the road but once you do, it isn’t moving under its own power again. While in other cases, the front wheels actually lock up and this has caused rear-end crashes as would be understandable when the Range Rover in front of you goes from 75 mph to a dead stop almost instantly with no brake lights.

    Land Rover solved the issue for the 2006 model year with a new engine and a revised differential and driveshaft design using a more traditional U-joint coupling. I worked for a Land Rover dealership from late 06 through the middle of 07 and saw more RRs come in on tow trucks with this issue than I care to count. I also heard the grinding noise with my own ears and trust me, it was not pleasant. The parts department was packed with driveshafts and differentials that had their splines completely worn out and on many, you could see they had stripped completely.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lie2me: “God will protect us from the Coronavirus! ” How about speeding cars? Here’s a quarter to go play...
  • Lie2me: Not snide, if you’re opposed to government mandated safety precautions such as masks and seatbelts,...
  • Bart Wagner: I have no problem with wearing a mask when around others for sustained periods. Driving your car with a...
  • RHD: “God will protect us from the Coronavirus! And if you order the Silver Solution, you’ll be ready to...
  • RHD: Wearing a mask is the tiniest of inconveniences. We are all in this together, and CaddyDaddy, you are the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber