rover wrote:

I have a 2.2 110 sw, done 2500 miles so far, mix of motorway, a road and country roads, worked out the mpg every fill up and the average is 26.5mpg. Slightly worse then my previous Td5 at 28mpg but I suppose it may get better after a few thousand miles. I would not have the Td5 back though, 2.2 more powerfull, faster, less noisey, far better seating for pasengers, better at cruising at 70 mph better at towing the caravan.

I agree with Rover here. I was really disappointed with the MPG of my 2.2 from new but now its 5,000 miles in my visits to the gas station are much less. I am now getting to really appreciate the 2.2. Its bordering refined (especially at motorway cruising) build quality is much better than previous experiences and whilst i am not a vicious off road user (and therefor respectfully defer to those comments from those who express expert opinions on such matters) i used and enjoyed quite a good off road session today where Landy performance was very accomplished. In all happy with the 2.2, especially now i have some milage behind me

Glynparry25 wrote:

NinetyTD4 wrote:

My 90/2.4 Puma gives me constantly above 450 miles on a tank and I am happy /w it

Have to ask what mods you have done?..... If you get over 450 miles to a 60 litre tank means you are constantly getting over 35mpg. Even Land Rover quote Extra Urban at 31 and combined of 28mpg

I have sometimes on really good runs got low 30s but average 28-30 (26-28 without Alive map). I don't think anyone else on the forum gets much above 28-32....... Many averaging 26- which means a massive 10mpg down on you.

Glyn

x-isle wrote:

This is all due to the variable turbo (which is a nifty bit of kit) fitted to the 2.2.

Also the 2.4 has the variable geometry turbo............. Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition

IID Pro MV License

x-isle wrote:

Can someone explain to me why the 2.2 isn't towing as good as the 2.4?

I thought that both bhp and torque output was exactly the same and the powerband was pretty similar.

Our brothers across the pond have the best answer to this: There is no replacement for displacement

Simple law when it comes to an engine.... you can have a 6.7 litre V8 with the same 'figures' and a tuned up 1.6 straight 4. Fact of life is that they will feel so much different to drive- especially when you start adding loads etc.

Glyn

Glynparry25 wrote:

x-isle wrote:

Can someone explain to me why the 2.2 isn't towing as good as the 2.4?

I thought that both bhp and torque output was exactly the same and the powerband was pretty similar.

Our brothers across the pond have the best answer to this: There is no replacement for displacement

Simple law when it comes to an engine.... you can have a 6.7 litre V8 with the same 'figures' and a tuned up 1.6 straight 4. Fact of life is that they will feel so much different to drive- especially when you start adding loads etc.

Glyn

120% well said Glyn!!!! (look on my sign ) Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition

IID Pro MV License

x-isle wrote:

Still not convinced, torque is torque and delivery should be similar. Not saying it's not correct, but if someone has a scientific reason.....

I agree that bigger cc can produce more torque and have a better delivery of it (power band), however, if there are 2 engines with the same torque and the same powerband then they will be equal no matter what cc they are.

Does anyone know if the powerband is that much different between the 2 engines which will give the differences tow'ers are noticing?

As for the 2.4 having the variable tubby, every day's a school day!

Odin wrote:

But then does the dpf increase back pressure from the exhaust?

Anything in the system will increase back pressure......... not good .

Glyn