By on September 19, 2016

2013 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, Exterior, Front 3/4, Picture Courtesy of Alex L. Dykes

Ford Motor Company stuck a “for sale” sign on Jaguar Land Rover as the world spiraled into the 2008 financial crisis, but its engines still beat within many of the British automaker’s models.

That will soon change, as the Tata Motors-owned company continues its rollout of in-house engines designed to reduce its dependence on other companies.

Automotive News Europe reports that the next Ford engine to disappear from Jaguar Land Rover’s inventory is the 2.0-liter Ecoboost four-cylinder, found in the Range Rover Evoque, as well as some Jaguar XE and Land Rover Discovery Sport models.

Jaguar will finally ditch the Spanish-built Ford engine in favor of its own Ingenium 2.0-liter gasoline-powered four. Offered in three guises, the 2.0-liter offers up to 300 horsepower, with the company claiming it achieves 15 percent better fuel economy than the Ford engine. Key to the boosted power and efficiency is an electrohydraulic valvetrain, integrated exhaust manifold and twin scroll turbocharger with ceramic ball bearing technology.

The latest version of the creatively named Ingenium engine shares its bore, stroke and cylinder spacing with an existing diesel variant. To save costs, both engine blocks can be produced on the same casting line at JLR’s Wolverhampton, UK factory. The diesel engine replaced a 2.2-liter Ford unit.

Expect to hear new applications for the gas-powered mill at the upcoming Paris Motor Show.

Displacing 500 cubic centimeters per cylinder, export models fitted with Ingenium engines will avoid the punitive taxation China places on cars with engines greater than 2.0 liters. A Chinese Ingenium engine plant should start production next year.

More Ford powerplants should fall away as JLR brings its 3.0-liter six-cylinder Ingenium engines to market in the near future. That would leave just the supercharged Ford V8 as the only American engine in the company’s lineup.

There’s a chance JLR might partner with BMW on a new 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8. If it does, that erases the last of the historical Ford taint from the company’s engine bays.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “Ford is Quickly Disappearing from Jaguar Land Rover Engine Bays...”


  • avatar
    Tstag

    I believe a 3 cylinder is also on the way. Ford engines have been fine but are just getting a bit long tooth now

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    Didnt Ford have a contract to provide JLR engines for several years? I guess it would be over by now anyway.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    The Land Rovers puke out the Ford engine by 60k miles anyway, they haven’t ever really worked in those vehicles.

  • avatar
    Marcus36

    If Ford hadn’t sold it’s PAG and instead joined GM and Chrysler for government loans, do you think it would still own all or parts of PAG today?

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    The supercharged 5.0-liter V8 (looks like the naturally-aspirated version went away awhile ago) is NOT a Ford engine, despite it having the same displacement as the Ford 5.0-liter Coyote V8. The Jaguar / Land Rover supercharged V8 is part of the AJV8 series. Meanwhile, the Ford Coyote V8 is the latest in the Modular (Mod) series. So they’re two completely different families of engine.

    The current 3.0-liter supercharged V6 is essentially an AJV8 with two cylinders lopped off and some balancing-shaft magic since the banks are at 90 degrees, which isn’t ideal for a V6.

    I’m not sure where the new Td6 diesel—which *just* arrived in the U.S.—in the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport comes from. I think it’s also a Jaguar / Land Rover original engine. Ironically, there are rumors that JLR will supply this engine to Ford for a diesel-V6 version of the F-150.

    The only one that’s truly a Ford engine is the 2.0-liter EcoBoost, which like you said, is going away for the Ingenium 2.0-liter gas and 2.0-liter diesel engines.

    Also, I hear the Ingenium six-cylinder will actually be an I6, not a V6. That’s a pleasant surprise, since I think I6 engines are superior…and also because Jaguar’s history is full of I6, not V6, blocks

    • 0 avatar
      Jagboi

      The V6 diesel was a joint venture between Ford and PSA Peugeot Citreon.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AJD-V6/PSA_DT17

      There is also a 4.4 V8 version used in Range Rover products (but not in Jaguar).

      Yes, the new 6 will be an I6.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Thanks! I was wondering where the Td6 came from.

        As far as the 4.4-liter, wasn’t it (and the equivalent supercharged engine, which was the 4.2) replaced by the 5.0-liter and 5.0-liter supercharged variants?

        • 0 avatar
          Jagboi

          You’re getting gas and diesel mixed up. There is a 4.4 v8 Diesel as part of the Lion family which includes the 3.0 V6D used in Jaguar as well.

          When BMW owned Rover, they used their 4.4 gas V8 in the Ranger Rover. After Ford bought LR, they switched to the Jaguar V8’s in the AJV8 family, AJ34 and AJ133. Those were the 4.2, 4.2 SC and then 5.0 and 5.0 SC, almost the same as used in Jaguar’s. I said almost, because the LR application had tweaks to bring the torque curve lower down the RPM band, but it’s basically the same engine.

          Wikipedia says there is a 4.4 version of the Jaguar V8 used in LR, but I’m not enough of a LR expert to know if that’s true. If it is, that’s the first time I have heard of that variant. Jags, not LR, are my passion!

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            I think we’re on the same page.

            Yeah, I remember the 4.4-liter BMW V8, which was only used in the Range Rover, and not in any other Land Rover models. Really, most of the early L322 Range Rover (2003-2005 here in the U.S.) had its full electronics architecture derived from BMW. Even the HVAC controls, instrument cluster, seat controls and satnav system were obviously BMW.

            I suppose Ford must have wondered why it needed to import BMW engines to England when it already had Jaguar, which was also English. So it started using Jaguar components. Some of the electronics (sat nav, instrument panel) were also switched over, but not everything. That’s where the 4.4-liter AJV8 came in. The naturally-aspirated Range Rover and Range Rover Sport, as well as the LR3 had the 4.4-liter AJV8. The Supercharged versions of the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport used the supercharged 4.2-liter AJV8.

            Meanwhile, the V8 version of the then-current X350 / X358 Jaguar XJ never got the 4.4-liter N/A V8, instead using the 4.2-liter for both its naturally-aspirated and supercharged versions.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      If the engine was designed and built while Ford owned Jag, doesn’t that make it a Ford engine?

      Ford bought Jag in 1989. The AJ-V8 went into production in 1996. Ford didn’t just buy Jag, they took them over.

      • 0 avatar
        Jagboi

        Yes, Ford bought Jaguar, but gave them considerable Engineering independence. The AJ-V8 was designed under Ford’s ownership, but done at Jaguar’s Engineering center in Coventry. Certainly they tapped into Ford’s knowledge, but it wasn’t designed by Ford Engineers.

        At the time there was a lot of discussion within Ford about what engines to use in the next generation of Jaguars, and they had to get the Ford Board’s approval to design a Jaguar V8 instead of using the Ford Modular V8. The AJV8 is quite a bit more advanced (at the time) than the Ford 4.6.

        So does that make it a Ford engine? I don’t think so, since it wasn’t designed by Ford by Ford Engineers. You could argue it was used in Fords (Lincoln LS), but the Lincoln was a reskinned Jaguar S Type, rather than the Jaguar being a badge engineered Ford. The origin was Coventry, not Dearborn.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “So does that make it a Ford engine?”

          I lean more towards brn’s point here. If Ford owned Jaguar at the time of development and production then the AJ-V8 is a “Ford” engine and the people at the Jaguar engineering center in Coventry were Ford employees.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    *If it does, that erases the last of the historical Ford taint from the company’s engine bays.*

    yeah, because the crap they had before Ford owned them was soooo good.

    • 0 avatar
      Jagboi

      In Jaguar’s case, their last straight 6 engines were bulletproof. Originally designed to accommodate a diesel version that never happened the (alloy) blocks are very strong. No Lucas either, the engine management is Nippondenso. Engine and trans wise, virtually nothing goes wrong with them.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I was talking about the *cars,* not the engines themselves. Jaguar was making garbage *cars* before Ford came along, so to act like current Jags are “tainted” by Ford engines is dumb.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Not to mention Ford’s cash having saved Jaguar from closing. Who knows what BMW would’ve done with Land Rover.

      What if they sold them to GM instead? They would’ve bastardized them like they did Hummer (and Saab) and drove them into the ground. Another grave stone in GM’s brand graveyard.

      At least Ford’s only contains two, lol.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Honestly, GM may not have done its *best* with Saab, but—much as with Ford and Jaguar—GM essentially preserved Saab’s existence for another two decades. Saab wasn’t doing so hot when GM purchased it, remember?

        And as far as Hummer being bastardized, what was there to bastardize? It’s not like the Hummer brand was a storied nameplate whose heritage GM threw aside in order to churn out high-profit-margin blingmobiles. Hummer as it existed from jump…simply could not have survived the recession. If the cars had been a little more chic, like Land Rover or Hummer, they might have lasted past 2009. But the basic idea of Hummer had an expiration date from the beginning. Even if you excuse the horrible fuel-economy and large footprint, the idea of a Hummer became so taboo that not many people who had such money were willing to be seen in one and the brand image was irreparably tainted. It’s like—if I may use such a morbid example—a child born with a fatal heart condition, destined to perish at an early age. The very qualities that made Hummer a sales success in the beginning…were also its downfall in the end. It was doomed.

        You seem to be sort of biased toward Ford products, but it’s not hard to see that, at least since the sixties, Ford has traditionally had better product planners and has made better business decisions than has GM. And before long, Ford started generally making better products, too.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          as usual, Kyree is the voice of reason. SAAB was doomed regardless, GM just delayed the inevitable. They had two cars, a midsizer and a full-size. Those were to become the most hotly competitive segment with the Camry and Accord owning it, the Fusion and Sonata up and coming, and all SAAB would have had was some niche appeal to people who cared where the ignition switch was. That’s not a recipe for survival. They would have had to expand their lineup eventually, but had no money to do it. When GM tried, the SNAABs turned their noses up at the vehicles.

          GM didn’t kill SAAB. GM kept SAAB on life support as long as they could.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Thanks!

            I assume when you talk about GM’s efforts to liven up the brand, you aren’t talking about the 9-2X (a rebadged Impreza) or the 9-7X (which, coupled with the Rainier, was a thinly-veiled effort to utilize the discontinued Bravada body stampings on a new product). Those were both silly products, although the 9-2X could have gone somewhere if the body had looked appreciably different from the Subaru version.

            The only other products, then, were the final Super-Epsilon-based 9-5 and the 9-4X. Both seemed to be well-regarded (the 9-4X actually wearing better styling than the SRX with which it shared its Theta Premium platform); they just came too little, too late. By the time both those products came out, GM had basically sold Saab to another company and were building the then-current Saab cars under contract. The company that owned Saab soon found it as unprofitable as GM had, and tried to sell it. The interested party was Chinese, and GM refused to continue building cars for Saab if it sold to the Chinese…probably because the cars would eat Buick sales there.

            And so that was that. Saab-by-Spyker defaulted on its agreements with GM, and GM stopped making the cars. I believe fewer than 400 9-4X units were ever sold.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Saab was doomed when GM bought them? Maybe, but do you remember who was even more doomed at the time (1990)? Audi. Jaguar. Land Rover.

            JimZ, I agree with you that GM did the best that they could.
            I disagree that GM’s best was anywhere near as good as what any other group would have done.

            GM’s mis-management of the brand (and of Opel) was epic. They clearly had no clue about the whole European market, or the premium market. It’s one of the ironies of this whole saga that the Cadillac brand was carried through the post-2009 era by two Saab-designed products: SRX, XTS. Without those two volume models they would have had no reason not to close every dealership and sell the ‘Lade as a GMC trim package.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Opel was the design lead on Epsilon II, not SAAB.

            man, some of you really want to have your own versions of history.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Saab is one of those brands where people will make things up to suit them. They’ll use a trim level or particular option package to justify an entire car, and state it’s “better” than so and so for this reason.

            The 9-7X is superior to the Bravada because…
            The 9-2X isn’t a Subaru because…
            You need the Viggen, it has a…

            The bias is ridiculous. I also see this happen with Volvo apologists to a lesser extent. People tend to do it about Cadillac engines as well, at least online.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Corey,

            The 9-2x and 9-7x aren’t discussed much in Saab circles anymore, now that the initial sting has dissipated.

            They do seem popular in Subaru and Tahoe circles, I suppose because they look a different and have up-spec interiors. certainly everyone I’ve met who has one considers it to be either a Subaru or a Chevy.

            JimZ, source? At the time it was generally acknowledged that Opel and Saab were both involved, with the lead engineering role on several systems being held by people with very Swedish-sounding names (surely a coincidence?). Did word come down the company chute later-on that it was all Opel?
            GM would say that, wouldn’t they. What choice did they have; admitting that their only modern large car (at the time) wasn’t their own, even as they were frantically bolting-on Buick/Chevy/Cadillac sheetmetal and calling it “all new?”

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      *If it does, that erases the last of the historical Ford taint from the company’s engine bays.*

      Have to agree with Jim. I expect that kind of writing from a commenter, but it seems like an inappropriate statement for the article itself.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        Even if SAAB was still around today, it wouldn’t be for long unless they had some killer SUVs/Crossovers. Today, $30k gets one a V6 Accord with all the bells and whistles- another few grand gets a decently equipped 3-Series. There is no way SAAB could survive between that rock and that hard place.

  • avatar
    Tosh

    Ingenium?! Must be an ingenious blend of ‘export quality’ meconium?

  • avatar
    Tstag

    JLR engines only ever really suffered reliability issues in the past due to lack of investment. The new engines don’t seem to have any issues

  • avatar
    Trucky McTruckface

    So can I still swap the new Jag powertrains for a Chevy 350 and Turbo-Hydramatic when they inevitably blow, or will I have to go Ford?

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Ford V8 engines are pretty big. This became a point of contention on the DEW98 platform (Lincoln LS, Jaguar S-Type, Ford Thunderbird) when people wanted to swap the 3.9 / 4.0-liter Jag V8 in those cars with a Ford 4.6-liter Modular engine…and found that the Mod didn’t fit. I’m not so sure the new Ford Coyote V8, also part of the Modular family, would fit in any of the Land Rovers, and especially not the Jaguar. You might have to go with one of the GM LS blocks.

      But actually, the current crop of Jaguar / Land Rover engines doesn’t seem to have too many issue problems. They scare me less than BMW and Audi, in particular.

    • 0 avatar
      Jagboi

      I find it amusing that people swapped V12 Jag engines for Chev 350’s because the 350 was “more reliable”. The single biggest failure point on a V12 Jaguar is the ignition module – which is a GM 4 pin HEI module, exactly the same as in a 350.

      I had a lovely 1992 Jaguar Vanden Plas V12. The final edition of the Series III body, I had #53 of the last 100 made. Jaguar used GM components for the transmission (TH400), ignition (HEI), AC (A6 compressor), Cruise control switches (Delco) and steering pump.

      Guess what failed? Every single GM sourced component! Guess what I never had any trouble with? Anything made by Jaguar or Lucas! I put 220,000 km on that car, I could have done without the GM parts. It would have been perfectly reliable if it didn’t have GM parts.

      • 0 avatar
        Trucky McTruckface

        “It would have been perfectly reliable if it didn’t have GM parts.”

        In other words, it was unreliable. I’m sure Jaguar, then under Ford ownership, desperately wanted to put in better components, but GM put a gun to their head…

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Volvo used GM hvac and I believe steering racks in the period. GM also had one of the better automatic transmissions at the time.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            The early-2000s Volvo XC90 and S80 equipped with the 2.9-liter turbo I6 and GM 4-speed (4T60?) transmission…tended to need multiple transmission transplants. I wouldn’t dare touch one.

            But, yeah, GM transmissions are typically quite smooth and robust, enough that I would almost questions Volvo’s application of the unit more than GM’s ability to build and engineer it correctly.

            Heck, even Bentley and Rolls-Royce used GM transmissions (and tried to build them under license) prior to their VW / BMW days.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            From what I can read Volvo used the 4T65E, which is what GM installed on the naturally-aspirated FWD V6 cars.

            Considering that the turbo Volvo had output comparable with the supercharged 3800, they must have done something to beef it up. Otherwise that is a major oversight by someone.

            The later supercharged 3800 and LS4s all came with the 4T65E-HD. It works okay with the S/C V6 but the V8 shreds it to ribbons in under 50K.

            GM actually had a fairly robust FWD transmission with the 4T80E, but that was only attached to the Northstars. I wonder why Volvo didn’t go for that one?

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            ajla,

            Volvo used that GM transmission because it was the only automatic that fit with the transverse straight 6.

            Ironically, GM-owned Saab wasn’t using a GM transmission in their own cars. They used an Aisin 5 speed, which has proven to be trouble-free, provided you flush it every 100,000 miles.

            Current Volvos use an Aisin 8 speed. Lesson learned.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Guess what I never had any trouble with? Anything made by Jaguar or Lucas!”

        good for you. a single data point doesn’t prove/disprove anything. and given you have “Jagboi” as your username, I’m not going to discount the possibility that you may be looking back at that car through rose-tinted specs.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Fact is withing about 2 years of Ford’s take over of Jag the dealers were hurting and they had to figure out how to make money on selling the car, not in the service dept on warranty repairs.

      • 0 avatar
        BuzzDog

        “I find it amusing that people swapped V12 Jag engines for Chev 350’s…”

        Actually, 20 to 30 years ago I recalled it was more often that the Jaguar inline six was replaced with a GM 350 V8; it may have been swapped in for a V12, but the XJ6 kits were what you saw advertised.

        I also don’t recall reliability being the sole (or perhaps even primary) motivator for such a swap. The cost of a rebuild on the Jaguar six exceeded the cost of a GM engine, the GM engine is lighter, and is also reportedly more fuel efficient. The fact that it’s ubiquitous no doubt helped drive sales of the conversion kits, as GM engine parts are much more available, particularly in the “flyover states.”

  • avatar
    A4kev

    Kyree
    Reading your opinions and observations in this era of obnoxious replies is truly a breath of fresh air,You know your stuff !
    I will/must challenge you on one of your comments:
    “They scare me less than BMW and Audi, in particular.”
    I will agree somewhat with you in regards to BM’s I’ll take issue with you re. Audi.They have had a brilliant track record with their engines with very few exceptions of course.But if you treat them the way the design engineers intended they are rock solid.My last A4 V6 ran 450K km.like a top-no oil consumption plenty of grunt-I’m sure it’s still running strong today 3 years later.My previous 2.8L was the same way.Currently rolling a 3.0L Diesel and am confident in stating that this is one really fine,likely very durable engine.Greenies won’t agree but it’s the best powerplant power/torque-fuel economy I’ve experienced- and I’m an old guy who’s more than “broken in”.
    Cheers

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Thanks for the kudos.

      Audi’s current wares may not be as bad, but their mid-aughts 3.2-liter V6, 4.2-liter V8 and 5.2-liter V10 were problematic, especially with timing chain guides. It’s hard to tell whether those were Audi engines or VW Group engines. Currently, it seems like Audi no longer really makes its own engines, if it ever did, and everything is corporate…save for the flat engines in the Porsches and maybe the 6.75-liter V8 in the Bentley Mulsanne.

      All signs point to your 3.0-liter diesel V6 lasting for the long-haul. At one point, I’d considered a newer (2011-present) Touareg with that engine.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        The 4.2 has a timing belt! Must clarify there.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        and in their infinite wisdom, they put the timing chainset on the back of the engine between it and the transmission.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          I don’t know how many late-90s, mid-2000s VW Group products require not only the service position (front clip removed), but for you to drop the entire engine out of the bay for maintenance procedures.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            “The service position is easy and makes sense, and any trained tech can do a timing belt change in about 40 minutes.”

            “Dropping the engine is a good way to make sure you have access to perform maintenance, and makes good sense.”

            Someone says this or similar every time I talk about the ridiculous VAG service position.

          • 0 avatar
            ExPatBrit

            “The service position is easy and makes sense, and any trained tech can do a timing belt change in about 40 minutes.”

            Except that you should also replace the tensioner, water pump and thermostat at the same time. Otherwise it’s a do-over within 10,000 miles.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “There’s a chance JLR might partner with BMW on a new 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8. If it does, that erases the last of the historical Ford taint”

    Erase the Ford taint and replace it with BMW’s? Winning!

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    Chinese made engines in your next Jaguar? Can’t wait to see the JD Power results when these babies roll out.

  • avatar
    BrunoT

    If they have the same transmission it doesn’t really matter what engine is in it, does it?

  • avatar
    jthorner

    “If it does, that erases the last of the historical Ford taint from the company’s engine bays.”

    “Taint” ? Really ?

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Electrohydraulic valvetrain? Tell me more.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Why isn’t Rover using the Tata brand?

    I mean what red blooded American guy wouldn’t want an SUV powered by bodacious Tata’s?

  • avatar
    Importamation

    The 5.0 V8 is a JLR design, over 20 years old but updated several times. It has been built for years in a Ford UK plant. But it is a JLR engine built by JLR employees, in the Ford building. It shares no design or parts with Ford engines as is predates the Ford ownership period. It DOES thankfully use many Denso and Ford electrical parts, belts, hoses, etc. which contributes to reliability I’m sure. My 2011 LR4 I bought new is nearing 100K miles and has had zero engine issues. Just oil and filter changes. The JLR design and Ford production facility would appear to have been a good marriage IMO.

  • avatar
    bartelbe

    The reason that Ford is a “taint” on Jaguar has nothing to do with engineering quality and everything to do with the brand. You have to be very careful when mixing components from premium and mass market brands. Once the X-type was seen as a rebadged Mondeo, it was in trouble. Audi gets away with it with VW, but it never worked for Jaguar.

    As for all the non-sense about lucas and the engines blowing up. A modern Jaguar has virtually nothing in common with the dire stuff that was produced in the 70’s. In the same way that American cars no long have drum brakes all round and the same suspension you found on a farm cart. Things have moved on.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Corey Lewis: I am a VERY careful eater in the car. Took my time, had all the time I needed to eat slowly and with no...
  • Corey Lewis: I believe so. I am sorta unsure with the engine being in the Camry and all.
  • Secret Hi5: Premium >91 octane is required, correct? i.e. Not just a recommendation, but a requirement.
  • MoparRocker74: McDonalds and Taco Bell seated in white leather on a 1000 mile roadtrip…we have ourselves a...
  • redgolf: so it’s also a “smart” car too!

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States