Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: X250 vs X260 3.0d engine differences

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    X250 vs X260 3.0d engine differences

    Hi all. I own a 2010 (X250) XF S 3.0d V6 and I’ve always thought the 3.0d in the newer X260 was essentially the same engine (AJD-V6) with maybe an improved map and a couple of revisions but I’ve noticed the X260s remap to produce more BHP than an X250 will, so... obvious question, what’s the difference and can the differences be applied to an X250 engine?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm guessing that there will be mechanical differences between these two engines as one is Euro 6 and the other isn't.
    The old X250 had the 3 litre in two states of tune, 260 and 300bhp. There seems to be no mechanical differences between those two engines and yet the tuners always seem to offer different tuned results for the engines.
    This will be down to one of two things;
    - The tune simply adds 10% to everything. Or some other nominal gain that is considered safe.
    - The gains specified on the website are predictions.

    The proper way to do things is to tune on a rolling road or apply a map that was done on the same vehicle as yours whilst on a rolling road.
    2007 S type R, Radiance Red/ Champagne

  3. Likes Ian D liked this post
  4. #3
    Senior Member jberks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    2,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    This may well be the case. It would explain why the same supposed engine seems to be tunable to different levels depending on its starting point.

    It's rather like a £500,000 computer server I once bought (for a client obviously). We normally just specced what we thought appropriate but the client wanted something fixed on paper so a colleague and I came up with some numbers that we thought were appropriate.
    We spent 3 days sat with supplier engineers designing a server that could (on paper) hit those numbers. It was delivered and installed and we tested it. It couldn't get close. They ended up giving us an additional £75,000 of free hardware to make it work. As the engineer said, "Nobody ever actually tests them!"
    I suspect the same is true of remapping. It feels faster and probably is. Few ever go as far as putting it on a rolling road.
    2012 XF 3.0D S Premium Luxury
    2019 Discovery Sport 180 HSE Lux

  5. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guys, thanks for the replies.

    I think we've got slightly bogged down in the murky waters of power figures, claimed or otherwise and that is really not the question I was trying to get answered, which is my fault for the way I asked it, but I'll repose the question if thats okay.

    For the X250, there were two versions of the 3.0d V6 the 'normal' version and the 'S' version and from test drive experience I believe there was a real, genuine and noticeable difference in performance. If memory serves and if what I read at the time was indeed correct, the difference between the two engine versions was a difference in the injectors (and presumably a difference in the software map to take advantage of the difference).

    Now, the question I'm really trying to get an answer to is.... with the X260 is there a third version of the 3.0d V6? Is there a technical/mechanical difference to the version found in the X250 'S' - as there was with the 'normal' and 'S' X250 versions.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Billy2Jags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    5,235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevelagoe23@gmail,com View Post
    Guys, thanks for the replies.

    I think we've got slightly bogged down in the murky waters of power figures, claimed or otherwise and that is really not the question I was trying to get answered, which is my fault for the way I asked it, but I'll repose the question if thats okay.

    For the X250, there were two versions of the 3.0d V6 the 'normal' version and the 'S' version and from test drive experience I believe there was a real, genuine and noticeable difference in performance. If memory serves and if what I read at the time was indeed correct, the difference between the two engine versions was a difference in the injectors (and presumably a difference in the software map to take advantage of the difference).

    Now, the question I'm really trying to get an answer to is.... with the X260 is there a third version of the 3.0d V6? Is there a technical/mechanical difference to the version found in the X250 'S' - as there was with the 'normal' and 'S' X250 versions.
    I doubt anyone here will know.
    There has been loads of speculation regarding the differences between the X250 versions so the X260 differences will just be subject to more guesswork.......
    Current. 2011 XFS Portfolio. Lunar Grey (LJZ) / Black (LEG).
    Previous. 2012 XF Premium Luxury. Remapped 307 BHP / 449 lb/ft. Italian Racing Red (CAH) / Barley
    Previous. 2005 55 reg 06MY 2.0D Sovereign. Jaguar Racing Green - HGZ.
    In storage.1988 Daimler XJ40. Bordeaux Red / Doeskin.

  7. Likes Stevelagoe23@gmail,com, Robinus liked this post
  8. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevelagoe23@gmail,com View Post
    If memory serves and if what I read at the time was indeed correct, the difference between the two engine versions was a difference in the injectors
    The injectors are the same on the X250 3.0D regardless of power output. There doesn't appear to be any mechanical differences. Check the parts catalogue and compare.

    As for the later X260, no idea. It's too new for my parts catalogue.
    2007 S type R, Radiance Red/ Champagne

  9. #7
    Senior Member Robinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SE London/Kent
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like
    As Billy said, no-one here knows why the std 240 bhp car can't match the std. 275 bhp car's torque when tuned. They come out at about the same bhp but can't reach their 442 lb/ft. When I remapped my XF S it made 312 bhp but 548 lb/ft.

    I imagine it's the same situation for what you're asking. There is a difference but we don't know. If you find out, please post it.

  10. #8
    Super Moderator Ian D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    8,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MrKis View Post
    The injectors are the same on the X250 3.0D regardless of power output. There doesn't appear to be any mechanical differences. Check the parts catalogue and compare.

    As for the later X260, no idea. It's too new for my parts catalogue.
    I have a recent parts catalogue, I’ll do some checking tomorrow.
    Current Car:
    2016 XF 3.0d S, 17MY - 35k miles, Ultimate Black and loads of extras.

    Previous Cars:
    2000 S-Type 3.0L SE Auto
    2004 X-Type 3.0L AWD SE Auto estate.
    2007 XK x150 4.2L Coupe
    2017 XE R-Sport 25t 250Ps 18MY

    Resident Super Moderator.
    My 2016 x260 XF 3.0d S ownership thread

  11. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks guys, all really interesting stuff (for me anyway!)

    Robinus, if its consistent that an ‘S’ spec will produce more torque than a normal spec when both are remapped then to me that strongly suggests that there is a difference somewhere.
    Let me qualify this by saying this is purely conjecture at this point…

    But…. The results suggests there is a difference either mechanically between the two engines or a supporting component like the turbos, fuel pump, inter-cooler, induction piping or exhaust to consistently see that difference after remapping. I suppose, although I’d have thought it less likely that they could be a bit like computer processors, that once built are subjected to some testing and then depending on how successfully they have been manufactured are designated either ‘normal’ or ‘S’ spec and when remapped those difference become apparent in their abilities to create torque.

    The ‘S’ spec creating more torque implies better combustion (bigger bangs) and there are many, many reasons that could cause that. You could see the same sort of BHP figures if there is an overarching component limiting power at the higher end of the rev range, for example the fuel pump is at maximum capacity to supply fuel fast enough.

    TBF we’ve gone slightly off topic again as I really wanted to explorer the difference in the X250 ‘S’ engine to that of the X260, but as stated above it’s interesting to see there is a post re-map difference in the two X250 engine variants.
    What would be really interesting is the figures from a remapped X260 3.0d V6 remapped and how does it compare to Robinus’s remapped X250 S.

  12. #10
    Senior Member Robinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SE London/Kent
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevelagoe23@gmail,com View Post
    Thanks guys, all really interesting stuff (for me anyway!)

    Robinus, if its consistent that an ‘S’ spec will produce more torque than a normal spec when both are remapped then to me that strongly suggests that there is a difference somewhere.
    Let me qualify this by saying this is purely conjecture at this point…

    But…. The results suggests there is a difference either mechanically between the two engines or a supporting component like the turbos, fuel pump, inter-cooler, induction piping or exhaust to consistently see that difference after remapping. I suppose, although I’d have thought it less likely that they could be a bit like computer processors, that once built are subjected to some testing and then depending on how successfully they have been manufactured are designated either ‘normal’ or ‘S’ spec and when remapped those difference become apparent in their abilities to create torque.

    The ‘S’ spec creating more torque implies better combustion (bigger bangs) and there are many, many reasons that could cause that. You could see the same sort of BHP figures if there is an overarching component limiting power at the higher end of the rev range, for example the fuel pump is at maximum capacity to supply fuel fast enough.
    We've had this out in threads before & just like you, we're all guessing. The people checking the part No's. say there are no differences but the tuners can't get the same figures (unlike the F-type).

    As a point of interest, I had my XFS put back to a std. map a while ago. It's fine as it is.

  13. Likes Stevelagoe23@gmail,com liked this post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •