I think it was more a case that 'The Powers That Be' within Jaguar didn't like the Daimler engines since they so outclassed the Jaguar "XK" engine. Apparently there were several Mk.X/420G Jaguars built as prototypes with the Daimler V8 - they were real fliers compared to the 4.2-litre XK-engined equivalents.
A Daimler Vee-powered XJ6 [preferably the original short-wheelbase Mk.1 model] would have been a rather interesting prospect too - the 2.5 as a "tax-break" car [for the likes of Italy/France who used to tax on the basis of engine-capacity] and the full-monty
I'm sure the Aurelia V6 was a 60-degree jobbie too?
formatting link
sort of supports myconjecture. The "narrow angle" Lancia Vee-enginestended to be little V4's with a cylinder-bank angleof only about 14 degrees. They were certainly a lotsmoother than the gruesome 1.7/2.0-litre Ford V4sthat spoiled countless Transits in the late-1960s.
Cost again, I'd say. The XK engine was rather cheap to make for its size and power.
Think *any* 2.5 would struggle with the weight of an XJ6. It was no ball of fire even with a 4.2, and Jaguar in any case had the V-12 in the pipeline. Also, Jaguar were very keen on keeping their own range of engines - having started out using bought in units. How the wheel comes full circle. ;-)
I think there was also a problem that the Daimler engines couldn't be enlarged - when you start using a different engine you need to plan for the future.
Thought the reason for the long snout of the MkIV was that they'd intended to use the Fergusson FF system in them (weren't there some prototypes and a couple of police examples built with 4wd?) - could be that if that was the way they were thinking a short engine would be useful - but hardly worth doing specially.
-- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales.... Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about alcoholic drinks."
There were, I believe, plans to make the MkIV Zephyr/Zodiac a FWD design - remember that Ford Germany had FWD Taunuses in the early-1960s. From memory it would have been a transverse V6 with an autobox stuck on the end; a straight-six for this configuration would have made the engine-bay just *too* wide.
[the only transverse straight-six I can think of from that era is the BL "Landcrab" 2200]
And you're right about the 4x4 Zodiacs - same basic setup was also used in a small number of Rallycross Capris.
I've also driven '80's and '90's tucks that handled better than a lot of modern cars ! I still think, / all / things considered, that my point is still valid.
Something like that - and given the height of the XK engine you'd either have to have a bonnet-bulge so large the driver would be unable to see past it, or the sump would be holed by the first grain of sand on the road.
Having stopped to engage brain I think you're right.
The British Ford V4 was indeed an offence against humanity. The German one was better, I think - certainly is was quite bearable in SAABs. Never travelled in a V-engine Taurus so can't comment on them (think they all rusted away a long time back).
Oh. My. God. Given the state of FWD technology at the time, the state of tyre technology at the time and the fact that it was Ford UK doing it, that really doesn't sound nice at all.
Which I've heard described as "a nice car until you need to change the clutch"
Wasn't there a firm that tried using that powertrain in a mid-engined car?
I'd thought I'd remembered right - long time since I read about them, though - it was in the days when CAR was worth reading, and that's a loooooooooooong time ago.
Yes, although IIRC this was due to the breathing being strangled with some strange Solex carbs - perhaps for overseas emission reasons given that 2.8 isn't a normal UK size. I'm told if you change the head and carbs for more normal XK fodder, it's rather a nice engine being quite short stroke.
/rant? rant forsooth? that was but quiet and polite :)/
In an early Sierra 2.0 it was a noisy, harsh, vibrating bag of spanners. The combination of a 2.0 Pinto, a 4-speed gearbox and the autobahn was not pleasant at all.
Quite correct - the 4.5 Daimler engine in the 420G was excellent and was indeed ditched for political reasons. The 420G was often used as a development mule - I recall in the early seventies tooling down the M1 at a (then) legal 130 or so and being surprised to be flashed by someone who wanted to overtake. Even more surprised as it went past that it was a
420G. And totally devastated when I ran out of steam at about 140 and watched him disappear. Pulled into a service station some miles later and there it was in the car park - no driver around to talk to so I looked underneath. Didn't appear to be much at the front, but looking under the boot showed a bloody great sump running transversly.
Clock forward to about 1990 and by chance I met Ron Beatty (development engineer at Jaguar) and got the whole story. Turned out it was being used for the unsuccessful version of the V12, i.e. the one which went into the XJ13 - a four cam 6 litre monster which produced over 400bhp on its first trial. Main reason the single cam 5.3 was preferred was that it could be de-tuned (don't forget it had to be used in hearses, tanks etc) whereas Ron's version was too much of a beast.
The thought of a 420G - about the size of the average stately home - with
400+ bhp in the boot does rather cause one's botty to pout a bit.
Geoff MacK
PS - thinking of the small 2.5 Daimler engine - chap I used to know put one in an MGB (why didn't BrileyMoCo do that - they owned all the bits - and call it the MGD?). Much better than the MGC. He also attached TWO 2.5 engines end to end and put the result in an E-Type - i.e. a 5 litre V16. Never did get it sorted, mainly due to balancing problems and attaching the cranks to each other. It's been done since in another way, Aston's V12 is basically a couple of Ford V6s, and it works incredibly well. Wish he'd got it right
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.