X type 2.2d and XF 2.2d
Discussion
From a quick google and a line from another forum thread "The 2.2d in the X Type is a totally different unit , it's a Duratorque ZSD-422. About the only thing it shares with the DW12 from the 2.2d XF is its displacement."
Google those engine names should give you further info if you need it
Google those engine names should give you further info if you need it
daemon said:
dme123 said:
They do share one thing in common - they are both as rough as a badgers arse 
Aye. Definitely the one in the X Type anyway. Noisy utilitarian thing.dme123 said:
daemon said:
dme123 said:
They do share one thing in common - they are both as rough as a badgers arse
Aye. Definitely the one in the X Type anyway. Noisy utilitarian thing.Yes, there seems to have been a big drive towards performance and economy, and the likes of Jag and BMW seem to have let refinement slip.
daemon said:
My BIL has a 2.2D XF, though i havent driven it.
Yes, there seems to have been a big drive towards performance and economy, and the likes of Jag and BMW seem to have let refinement slip.
I think they've done very well considering the inherent horribleness or a 4 cylinder of any sort, let alone a diesel. If customers are happy with the compromise they have to meet the demand. Yes, there seems to have been a big drive towards performance and economy, and the likes of Jag and BMW seem to have let refinement slip.
It does make me laugh when you read the various paid shills reviewing a car and they talk about how smooth the latest 2.0 diesel engine is and then when you drive it the thing is just as horrible as they always have been. Every single time they trot out the old crap about how wonderful these modern engines are compared to the ones they praised 5 years ago as being "impossible to tell what fuel is used".
The are either all deaf and have no sense of touch or they are all just kissing the manufacturers arses, I can't think which it is.
XJR500bhp said:
daemon said:
Aye. Definitely the one in the X Type anyway. Noisy utilitarian thing.
The Ford derived 2.2 is a great engine. 50mpg and brisk performance50mpg "maybe" on long steady runs but i'm getting sub 40mpg over the course of a fill of fuel when you drive with any level of enthusiasm.
Plus in Euro IV guise from 2006 onwards it had 143BHP, when BMW were getting 163BHP from a 2.0 diesel in their 320ds.
On the plus side, its chain driven and the injectors dont seem to give as much trouble or are as expensive in the Ford derived 2.0
dme123 said:
XJR500bhp said:
The Ford derived 2.2 is a great engine. 50mpg and brisk performance
I'd agree that it's a great engine for a van, or a utilitarian minicab type car, or even a Landrover Freelander. It is not a great engine for a Jaguar.Not so with the 2.2D, far too noisy, and too little sound insulation for a Jag. Ruins the car for me TBH.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff