Anyone got any thoughts on Jaguar’s oil-system problems at Melbourne that apparently stopped Herbert and probably would have accounted for Irvine if he hadn’t fallen off first courtesy of Arrows?
Jaguar are using a single oil tank for engine and transmission, to save space and allow a larger fuel tank (last year’s was apparently too small and limited their race tactics). I know that we are using the same oils for engines and gearboxes nowadays, the days of Hypoid 90 in the ‘box are long gone. But Jaguar seem to be getting oil starvation in one or other unit because of the competing demands for oil flows. Are the two lubrication supply issues technically incompatible? Is this whole concept a dead-end or will everyone have to follow this lead by Jaguar (assuming they ever get it working properly)?
------------------
BRG
"all the time, maximum attack"
Is Jaguar well lubricated?
Started by
BRG
, Mar 21 2000 19:47
10 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Ray Bell
-
- 79,247 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 21 March 2000 - 21:51
Somebody in the team must have been an apprentice in the days of the Mini!
Without seeing the design of the thing you can't possibly say where they've gone wrong, but they have the budget to get it right within a race or two, then everyone else has to decide whether or not to copy them.
But, if it's such a potential gain, I don't see that there would be enough talk around about the setup for us to know about it. Surely it would be more secret than that.
------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...
Without seeing the design of the thing you can't possibly say where they've gone wrong, but they have the budget to get it right within a race or two, then everyone else has to decide whether or not to copy them.
But, if it's such a potential gain, I don't see that there would be enough talk around about the setup for us to know about it. Surely it would be more secret than that.
------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...
#3
Zoe
-
- 7,721 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 21 March 2000 - 23:34
My Austin Princess engine also has one common oil reservoir and circulation for engine and gear box. Didn't prevent it from blowing up, though.
Can I now claim that my broken hearses' engine has commonalities with todays F1 technology? I mean, Jaguar engines don't last too long either.....
Zoe
------------------
One of the important freedoms is the freedoms to continue to be unpopular (B. Mawhinney)
Can I now claim that my broken hearses' engine has commonalities with todays F1 technology? I mean, Jaguar engines don't last too long either.....
Zoe
------------------
One of the important freedoms is the freedoms to continue to be unpopular (B. Mawhinney)
#4
BRG
-
- 25,672 posts
- Joined: September 99
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 01:08
Zoe
You've got an Austin Princess - and you are prepared to admit it in public? Now I call that brave... of course, they didn't need oil in the gearbox, 'cos you could never get them to change gear.
Certainly the old ARG, or BL or whatever they were called then, pioneered using a common sump and therefore the same grade of oil for both engine and box on the Mini/1800/Maxi etc ranges at a time when every other manufacturer still apparently needed thicker oil for their cogs. And for all the faults of those BL cars, this particular technology worked fine and remained in production for over 40 years until about 7 weeks ago when the last Mini was produced.
But the dry sump technology on the Jaguar F1 is (at least I hope!) a bit more sophisticated, if so far less reliable. But are there any fundamental shortcomings to this way of packaging a F1 engine/gearbox.
------------------
BRG
"all the time, maximum attack"
You've got an Austin Princess - and you are prepared to admit it in public? Now I call that brave... of course, they didn't need oil in the gearbox, 'cos you could never get them to change gear.
Certainly the old ARG, or BL or whatever they were called then, pioneered using a common sump and therefore the same grade of oil for both engine and box on the Mini/1800/Maxi etc ranges at a time when every other manufacturer still apparently needed thicker oil for their cogs. And for all the faults of those BL cars, this particular technology worked fine and remained in production for over 40 years until about 7 weeks ago when the last Mini was produced.
But the dry sump technology on the Jaguar F1 is (at least I hope!) a bit more sophisticated, if so far less reliable. But are there any fundamental shortcomings to this way of packaging a F1 engine/gearbox.
------------------
BRG
"all the time, maximum attack"
#5
desmo
-
- 28,266 posts
- Joined: January 00
Tech Forum Host
Posted 22 March 2000 - 01:51
There's nothing dodgey about it at all. Motorcycles have used the concept in high performance applications for many years.
#6
DangerMouse
-
- 2,628 posts
- Joined: December 98
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 03:39
My Dads Princess, managed over 240,000Miles on the original engine and box before my Mum crashed it (brakes failed!) despite an unhealthy appetite for wheel bearings it was an incredibly reliable car.
#7
Ray Bell
-
- 79,247 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 07:58
Those Princess' power units were derived from the package put together in Australia for the 1800's successor, the Tasman and Kimberley. Never sold well here, sent them to England to amortise the tooling costs. The engine was, of course, the 6-cyl engine for the P76.
and there's something else - Jaguar used to be owned by the same group!
If there's anyone out there who knows the guts of it, please explain how engine oil is just as effective on gears as gear oils despite the lower numbers. I believe this is true...
------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...
and there's something else - Jaguar used to be owned by the same group!
If there's anyone out there who knows the guts of it, please explain how engine oil is just as effective on gears as gear oils despite the lower numbers. I believe this is true...
------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...
#8
Zoe
-
- 7,721 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 16:40
Good Morning everybody,
yes, I do have an Austin Princess, but I didn't buy it because its a Princess, but because its a hearse ;)
It was the first (and so far only) straight six slotted transversally into a car that I had ever seen! Incredible.
Btw, if anyone has a spare 2200 six cyl. Princess engine for me, I desperately need one! Mine only lasted about 90,000 miles before bang. sniff.
Zoe
------------------
One of the important freedoms is the freedoms to continue to be unpopular (B. Mawhinney)
yes, I do have an Austin Princess, but I didn't buy it because its a Princess, but because its a hearse ;)
It was the first (and so far only) straight six slotted transversally into a car that I had ever seen! Incredible.
Btw, if anyone has a spare 2200 six cyl. Princess engine for me, I desperately need one! Mine only lasted about 90,000 miles before bang. sniff.
Zoe
------------------
One of the important freedoms is the freedoms to continue to be unpopular (B. Mawhinney)
#9
Ray Bell
-
- 79,247 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 18:12
Ask an Australian wrecker for a P76 six or a Kimberley engine, you'll get one. Problem is that no doubt someone would call upon it to perform its best function on the trip to the old dart - to be a boat anchor!
Sorry - couldn't resist.
------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...
Sorry - couldn't resist.
------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...
#10
davo
-
- 87 posts
- Joined: January 00
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 19:13
Different designers/teams have looked at common oil systems over the years. Typically the engine manufacturer has been less than keen on the concept. Jag/Ford is now the engine manufacturer and the chassis designer! Maybe this is the necessary technical advantage that will keep the concept on the table long enough to be de-bugged?
#11
Zoe
-
- 7,721 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 22 March 2000 - 22:43
Ray,
apparently ALL those engines have been used as boat anchors; in the UK as well. Once those Princesses flooded the streets, today when I'm calling any breaker for an engine all I hear is a good laugh. What happened here?
Zoe
------------------
One of the important freedoms is the freedoms to continue to be unpopular (B. Mawhinney)
apparently ALL those engines have been used as boat anchors; in the UK as well. Once those Princesses flooded the streets, today when I'm calling any breaker for an engine all I hear is a good laugh. What happened here?
Zoe
------------------
One of the important freedoms is the freedoms to continue to be unpopular (B. Mawhinney)
