How we source data, verify claims, handle corrections, and maintain editorial independence from Jaguar Land Rover, our commercial partners, and anyone else who might prefer we didn't tell you the full picture.
We are an independent editorial resource, not a garage, not a dealership, and not affiliated with Jaguar Land Rover Limited. We research Jaguar engines, publish what we find, and route enquiries to a vetted network of specialists who do the actual work.
Full standards, our commercial model, and how we handle corrections, below.
Every piece of content on this site is held to these six standards. They are published, not internal. If you think we've breached one, we want to hear about it.
| # | Standard | What It Means In Practice |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Independence | No commercial partner - including the specialists who pay us for enquiries - has editorial approval over anything we publish. We do not run copy past them. |
| 2 | Data provenance | Every number on this site carries a tag identifying its source: [EM-VERIFIED], [EM-QUOTE], [EM-SURVEY], [EM-INTERVIEW], [PATTERN DATA], [THIRD-PARTY], or [PLACEHOLDER]. Untagged numbers are a build failure. |
| 3 | No invented individuals | We never publish named or anonymised individual customer stories. Our case studies are aggregate analyses of real data, not fabricated testimonials. |
| 4 | Corrections are public | When we make a factual error, we correct it and log the correction publicly. The corrections log is linked from every page on the site. |
| 5 | State a position | Every page on this site ends with a verdict. We never hedge our way out of an answer. If the data says "scrap it", we say "scrap it". |
| 6 | Cite, don't assert | Claims are sourced. Where we make a claim that isn't directly sourced to our own data, we cite the external source and the date. |
We are not affiliated with Jaguar Land Rover Limited. We are not a dealership. We are not a garage. We are an independent editorial resource that researches Jaguar engines, publishes what we find, and routes enquiries to a vetted specialist network.
No commercial partner - including the specialists who pay us for enquiries - has editorial approval over anything we publish. They see the same page you do, at the same time you do, when it goes live. We do not run copy past them, we do not let them review drafts, and we do not change a verdict because they'd prefer we didn't say it. Our expert panel reviews our technical accuracy, not our editorial stance - and their role is disclosed, not hidden.
Our primary data source is EnginesMarket.co.uk - the UK's largest engine enquiry platform - which supplied 24,650 unique quote requests in 2025 across all brands, including 9,000+ Jaguar-specific enquiries. That data is tagged [EM-VERIFIED] and is the backbone of every failure rate, cost range, and decision split we publish.
We supplement this with three other channels: direct interviews with 100+ UK engine specialists [EM-INTERVIEW], post-sale customer surveys conducted 3-6 months after replacement [EM-SURVEY], and external sources such as manufacturer TSBs, Auto Trader, and Parkers [THIRD-PARTY]. Our full data methodology is published in full, including what we count as a failure and what we don't.
Verification is a three-stage process. First, every number is tagged to its source at the point of writing - no untagged claims are allowed to ship. Second, every page is reviewed for factual accuracy by a member of our expert panel before publication; their role is to catch technical errors, not to approve editorial stance. Third, we maintain a public corrections log of any factual errors we've made and corrected, with the date and the corrected text.
We do not publish anything we cannot source. Where a claim requires a number that isn't in our primary data, we mark it [ESTIMATED] and use relative language - "typically", "many owners", "a common pattern" - rather than presenting it as a verified fact. Our data verification page sets out the full process, including how we handle data that doesn't meet our threshold for publication.
When we make a factual error, we correct it. That sounds obvious, but the bar is higher than most sites set: we log every correction publicly in our corrections log, with the date, the page affected, the error, and the corrected text. We do not silently fix errors without acknowledgement.
We distinguish between factual errors (wrong numbers, misattributed claims, incorrect dates) and updates (new data that supersedes older figures). Factual errors go in the corrections log with a clear acknowledgement of the mistake. Updates are noted on the page itself, but do not require a correction log entry unless the update changes a previously published claim in a materially significant way.
This site is free to use because specialists pay us for the enquiries we send them. You pay us nothing, and we take no commission on the work itself. We'd rather explain that openly than let you assume the site runs on goodwill.
And it's precisely why our editorial independence matters: if we only ever told people to replace their engine, we'd generate more enquiries in the short term and destroy the reason anyone trusts us in the long term. That's why our repair vs replace framework is published in full - including the 60% threshold above which we tell people not to replace - and why pages like is it worth replacing an X-Type engine and when should you scrap a Jaguar exist at all. We lose an enquiry every time we tell someone to scrap their car. We publish the framework anyway.
Standards, Not SlogansSix published editorial standards, not a vague "we're independent" claim.
Data Tags on Every NumberNo untagged claims. Every figure traces to a source.
Public Corrections LogWe log our mistakes openly, not silently correct them.
Commercial Model DisclosedSuppliers pay for enquiries. You pay nothing. Stated plainly.
Our full methodology and vetting criteria are published on the pages below.
HOW WE VET SPECIALISTS DATA METHODOLOGY