Same block and heads but the internal parts have been replaced with new parts according to Jaguar.

 

Bore/stroke of 2.7 is 81mm/88mm, of 3.0 is 84mm/90mm, so the construction is very similar, but the actual parts are different. For example, the injectors in the 3.0 are a later generation with much higher pressure limits.

 

I'm no expert, but isn't the whole turbo arrangement different? I thought the 2.7 was matched 'twin turbos' whereas the 3.0 is unmatched dual-sequential turbos. I'm probably talking rubbish, but it sounds good...

 

I'm no expert, but isn't the whole turbo arrangement different? I thought the 2.7 was matched 'twin turbos' whereas the 3.0 is unmatched dual-sequential turbos. I'm probably talking rubbish, but it sounds good...

Correct, as introduced in 2004 for the S-Type, the 2.7 had a variable vane turbocharger per bank, ie each three cylinders have their own turbo. On the 3.0, the turbos are sequential, one small one big, with a complicated interaction to smooth out the power delivery, as they hand over/share boost duties. The latter approach, when optimised, can produce more power over a wider rev range, and significantly improves fuel consumption.

 

Readers of this thread will be interested in this one : http://www.xfforum.co.uk/threads/652

 

Ooh, I've impressed myself!

 

OK so the turbo system is obviously different, but is the engine basically the same one with different dimensions and uprated parts?

 

Richmond, I've been having a quick check and the 2 engines are basically the same overall design. The 2.7 is the ford designed AJ-V6D code PSA DT17 whereas the 3.0 is AJ-V6D GEN3. Clearly as others have stated the crank and bore are different as are the injectors and it wouldn't surprise me if the heads were different too.
cheers

 

Wasn't this a JV project with Peugeot Citroen group?

Wikipedia thinks so, hence the PSA designation.

 

Jagular you are quite right for the 2.7 engine but I am not sure that ford didn't go their own way with the Gen3 mods. I couldn't find any ref to Peugeot/Citroen for this one.

 

Well, Wikipedia still thinks so. Does PSA group currently fit a 3.0 diesel? If so then likely the JV continues.

The current level of automotive inbreeding is getting to alarming levels. Just for example, FIAT builds a version of their delectable Giulietta in the US: calling it the Dodge Dart for reasons not clear to me since its namesake was a truly awful economy car. In addition to ruining the styling by fattening it up and fitting a truly hideous grille Chrysler also fits their inferior engines. What's left of the poor little Giulietta? It reminds me of a beautiful actress wearing a fat suit and hiking boots.

 

Well, Wikipedia still thinks so. Does PSA group currently fit a 3.0 diesel? If so then likely the JV continues.

My understanding is that the PSA group involvement was considerably less than Wikipedia would have you believe. My understanding is that it's a little bit of a sore point with the people who were at Ford Dunton and Jaguar Whitley, considering how much work they put into the development, and who seems to get the credits. Morgan use BMW engines, but I'm not sure how much their engineering input is on next-Gen development in Munich .

 

I'm quite sure I read in Autocar that Citroen use the single turbo 3.0 V6 in the C5. At my age this could of course be my imagination

 

Yes, you are right and it is also used in the Peugeot 407 coupe, so in short PSA Jaguar and Ford all use this engine

 

So, would Jaguar have much input then?

 

As far as i can ascertain the input to Ford was largely from LR but Jaguar had a passing mention, mainly around the turbos. Anyway, this is now way off topic so I'll not post anymore on this before pekem bans me .

 

We're ok, still bang on topic. How different are these two engines is the topic.

 

I think we've decided that they're identical, apart from the bore, stroke, crankshaft, combustion chambers, cylinder heads, induction, injectors, turbos, Gen 3 mods, and other parts...

 

After all this I understand that the engines are the same but different, which is fine. That's what I wanted to confirm in the first place.