Land Rover News: Land Rover Debuts New Inline-6 Engine

[Drew Dowdell]

Jaguar Land Rover unveiled a new Inline 6-cylinder engine, initially to be offered exclusively in the Range Rover Sport HST Special Edition. This all-new engine replaces the 335 hp V6 engine currently supplied by Ford in a deal that JLR says they will end in 2020.

The new Ingenium 6-cylinder produces 394 HP and 405 lb-ft of torque.  That power will launch the Range Rover Sport from 0 to 60 mph in 5.9 second.

Power is helped along by a 48 volt electric supercharger, able to spool to its maximum 65,000 rpm in less than half a second, the technology nearly eliminates turbo lag. There is also a traditional twin-scroll turbo charger for additional boost.  The new engine also has continuously variable valve lift to reduce pumping losses. 

The power train is set up with a 48 volt mild-hybrid system that provides torque assistance to the engine during start-stop functions and to feed the electric supercharger. 

JLR says that the new engine will reduce particulate emissions by 75% and improve CO2 emissions by 12% over the outgoing engine. 

The Range Rover Sport HST is available for order in the UK. No word yet on when it will be available in the US or other markets. 

View full article

[smk4565]

Riding Mercedes coat tails on this one.  But a good move for them.

[G. David Felt]

MEH, so complex, so expensive to maintain and repair. Give me an Electric power train over this mess.

[Suaviloquent]

Hmmm, yes first the electric will only control the spark... And then over time the engine lost control of propelling the car altogether.

The electric developed further, overtime taking over more and more functions of the engine.  

And then the electric motor achieved cost and technological parity. After that the engine died out. Eons later no one knows to this day why combustion was favoured over electric. 

[riviera74]

The I6 is a good idea and congrats to Land Rover for installing a very modern I6.  Too bad GM ditched the Atlas I6 after the Morain OH plant shuttered in 2008.  An I6 would be a great base engine for the trucks and RWD Cadillac/Camaro/Corvette.

[G. David Felt]

12 hours ago, riviera74 said:

The I6 is a good idea and congrats to Land Rover for installing a very modern I6.  Too bad GM ditched the Atlas I6 after the Morain OH plant shuttered in 2008.  An I6 would be a great base engine for the trucks and RWD Cadillac/Camaro/Corvette.

I6 had their day, V6 has their day now and Electric is the future. I see no reason to waste good money on building a new I6 when they will all be replaced with electric motors.

Land Rover is buying the I6 from another company either BMW or MB probably and will then help reduce that companies R&D expense. No reason at all for GM to waste millions if not billions to build one.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

I6 had their day, V6 has their day now and Electric is the future. I see no reason to waste good money on building a new I6 when they will all be replaced with electric motors.

Land Rover is buying the I6 from another company either BMW or MB probably and will then help reduce that companies R&D expense. No reason at all for GM to waste millions if not billions to build one.

This is JLR’s own engine not from anyone else.  It is based off their 2 liter 4 cylinder engine family.  That is where the cost savings is, a V6 and an in-line 4 have different parts, in-line 4 and in-line 6 can share almost all the parts so it is cheaper to manufacture.

Electric probably has 10 years before it replaces ICE, at least.  And an engine program should only last 10 years anyway, unless you are Toyota.   And some engine programs are like 5 years before they go to a new one.

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

This is JLR’s own engine not from anyone else.  It is based off their 2 liter 4 cylinder engine family.  That is where the cost savings is, a V6 and an in-line 4 have different parts, in-line 4 and in-line 6 can share almost all the parts so it is cheaper to manufacture.

Electric probably has 10 years before it replaces ICE, at least.  And an engine program should only last 10 years anyway, unless you are Toyota.   And some engine programs are like 5 years before they go to a new one.

Thanks, the story did not identify that they were building their own. Since they used Ford engines for so long and their own engines are not known to be reliable, I mad the assumption they were taking a German I6 which would make sense over building their own except as you stated. Thanks again for that info.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Thanks, the story did not identify that they were building their own. Since they used Ford engines for so long and their own engines are not known to be reliable, I mad the assumption they were taking a German I6 which would make sense over building their own except as you stated. Thanks again for that info.

No, SMK has it right.  This new 3.0 will share components and machining with the 2.0 that JLR already produces.  Their 4-cylinder isn't known for any unusual issues that I've heard of. 

[riviera74]

Q: Why won't GM build an I6 derived from one of their I4 engines? 

Seems to me that the current corporate V6 does not always pass muster like it should.

[Drew Dowdell]

23 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

Q: Why won't GM build an I6 derived from one of their I4 engines? 

Seems to me that the current corporate V6 does not always pass muster like it should.

A 3-liter I6 is probably too long to be used in transverse applications, thus the reliance on the 3.6.  However, the 2.7 liter 4-cylinder would probably fit in that same space as the V6. 

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

A 3-liter I6 is probably too long to be used in transverse applications, thus the reliance on the 3.6.  However, the 2.7 liter 4-cylinder would probably fit in that same space as the V6. 

Correct and GM has too many transverse engine products.  If they made the Traverse/Enclave/XT6 on a rear drive platform you could put an in-line 6 in all of them plus all the current rear drive cars and trucks they have.

A Turbo 4 is enough for any mid-size crossover or sedan from Chevy or Buick.  I could make a strong case to kill the 3.6 V6 and that is for the USA, not even getting into It being over China’s 3 liter displacement tax which makes it useless there.

1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

Q: Why won't GM build an I6 derived from one of their I4 engines? 

Seems to me that the current corporate V6 does not always pass muster like it should.

Answered in response to Drew’s post.