Diesel Jaguar Conversions

Not by anyone with any decency.

Pete M ( snipped-for-privacy@bogoffwithzepressedmeatblueyonder.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Ford, in the main.

Yah, but then they are not Jaguars, just badge engineered Fords.... :~(

Put it on a steady diet of LPG.

-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

Why? You can buy diesel Jags new.

As regards converting an older one it's the classic way to ruin a car and any value it might have had.

Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's not often Jerry's right - but he is on this one - with the possible exception of the AllyXJ.

I've no doubt it will follow. Of course Ford are on record saying there'd never be a diesel Jag. Foolish considering just how good some modern diesels are. I lust after a BMW 535d. ;-)

Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Umm, the diesel XJ's already here - I was meaning it could be considered a "Jag" rather than a poshFord.

Not in the States you can't. Plus they are electronic engines.

Round here old Jags have little value to begin with. Even the street rodders don't want the XJ rearends anymore.

May years ago I worked for CAV part of Lucas we did development work on diesel injection equipment. One of the engines we had for evaluation was a GM V8 not sure of capacity but fitted to Oldsmobile Delta88? when the tests were finished a fitter bought the engine and installed it in a XJ which I then bought and resold. It was a very good conversion and went like a bomb - no it didnt blow up!

PhilC

PhilC ( snipped-for-privacy@talktalk.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

"Despite the fact that these engines looked in large part like their gasoline cousins, they were indeed quite different. The castings were much thicker and heavier, and a higher quality alloy was used for the block and heads. The main bearing journals were also increased to 3.000 inches in size to compensate for the higher operating stresses and pressures that diesels exert on their reciprocating parts. The primary problem with GM's Diesel engines of the 1970s was due in large part to poor fuel quality (diesel fuel was notoriously filthy and contaminated with water in the late 1970's), which caused corrosion in the fuel injection pump. This corrosion could (and often did) cause an incorrect injection cycle, which would produce abnormally high cylinder pressures. This in turn would cause the cylinder head to "lift" up off of the block, and stretch (or even break) the head bolts. Once the head gasket was compromised, the gasket would leak coolant into the cylinder. At 22.5:1 compression, there was little volume left in the cylinder at TDC. The uncompressible quality of liquids means that the engine would hydro lock, breaking pistons, crankshafts, connecting rods, and other parts, resulting in complete and catastrophic engine damage. Why then, did other Diesel engines, from GM and other companies, not have these problems? The answer lies in the lack of an effective water separating system, such as can be found on other diesel applications. Overall, the main ingredients of disaster that affected this engine lie in: 1) A poorly designed fuel system, which was fostered by a desire to insulate the consumer from the unpleasant aspects of Diesel ownership. 2) A misguided attempt to market the diesel engine as if it was as convenient to operate and maintain as a gasoline engine. 3) A poorly trained service staff which often used the incorrect oils and service procedures for this (and any, for that matter) Diesel engine. These factors combined to create the ultimate downfall of this engine. In the hands of an experienced diesel operator, these engines can (and often do) travel for hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles. However, for a society of people who just "gas and go", this engine was particularly ill suited to the task."

Observations:

1. The last iterations of this engine were actually very reliable if you fitted real fuel filters and suchlike and maintained it properly.
2. The block was only about ten pounds heavier than the gas block.
3. You can build a very excellent gas Olds engine on the diesel block and crank.
4. GM should have used an outside engine on its first diesels so as to test the market and get the dealers familiar with them.

Very possibly - but whose?

Ron Robinson

Should have went with Isuzu in the cars and offered a vehicleized 3-53 in the pickups-with quieter gears, a quieter and more efficient blower, etc. Or made the underhood 6" longer and offered the 4-53.

Over here, they did.

SteveH ( snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I can't see the 1.7 they used in the Astra going down too well in an Oldsmobile roughly the size of a small town.

Oh, I don't know.... the V8 petrols in Merkin cars tend to put out similar power ;-)

Apart from that, aren't we talking 1970's here? I remain to be convinced that a truck engine of that period would have done a lot for the sales of diesel cars. ISTR Perkins performing a similar dissservice over here.

Ron Robinson

they

Not sure to which engine you are referring but have had 4.108 and 4.154's fitted in cars both performed OK but had to stretch the RPM a little. The biggest problem is getting an set of gearbox ratios to match the engine speed and torque. A few early pre-production Golf's had gearbox problems. Seem to remember driving from Doncaster to London via A1 in a Vauxhall VX490 fitted with 4.154 80-100 mph most of the way had on overdrive box just flicked it out at roundabouts. Oh happy days no cameras etc.

Perkins also supposedly developed the Iceberg V8 diesel but never saw a running example - still got the press release somewhere

PhilC