 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Buying advice 2.4 v 2.2 |
 
|
|
|
| CFB Member Since: 13 Sep 2007 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire Posts: 803  
|
Apologies if this has been covered before but I'm lining up to buy myself a 110 XS station wagon in the next few months.
My wish list is basically a 7 seat TDCi with a/c, preferably in Keswick Green but Ive been out of the loop for a while and am not sure if there any pitfalls to avoid with the 2.4? I last owned one in 2008 and had no issues but didnt keep it long as switched to a D3 due to high daily mileage. There are a few around in my budget now (circa £16-18k) but should I be saving harder for the 2,2 or is there no real difference in overall build quality/longevity? Many thanks in advance for any tips or links to helpful posts etc Andy |
||
10th May 2015 6:43pm |
|
| T1G UP Member Since: 08 Dec 2009 Location: Bath Posts: 3101  
|
no DPF on 2.4, after 2011 cheaper tax on utility
|
||
|
10th May 2015 7:05pm |
|
| zone30 Member Since: 07 Sep 2012 Location: Gent Posts: 669  
|
I hear the 2.2 is more refined. 2.4 basically has no DPF and the later once seem quite trouble free, barring the obvious non engine related issues all models seem to have versions of.
Engine break on 2.2 is less, so I hear. Maybe an issue offroad... Personally I'm glad of my 2011 2.4. No real issues except self-inflicted. No experience with a 2.2 but seems ok as well. DPF seem to work fine. Oil pump seems to have a sollution. Guess you need to drive a few and compare. |
||
|
10th May 2015 7:10pm |
|
| walfy Member Since: 29 Aug 2007 Location: Frome Posts: 2658 
|
I don't notice my DPF, it just does it's thing. As for the oil pump, mine was changed without question. Only issue I had that was reoccuring was bad electrics in the doors. 2 trips later to the dealers, all the locks in all 5 doors were changed along with the servo's and a new ign switch.
Apart from that it runs fine. 110 D250 SE HT 110 USW SOLD RRE HSE Dynamic Gone, wife killed it VOLVO XC60 R Dynamic with some toys Polaris RZR 900XP SOLD |
||
|
10th May 2015 7:25pm |
|
| bob neville Member Since: 30 Apr 2009 Location: Marbella Posts: 3248  
|
Hi Andy
I have owned a 2.4 and currently have a 2.2. Choosing which is better is a difficult, and more importantly, a personal choice. Both suffer from the same basic problems, transfer box output shaft failure, dodgy clutch (yes the 2,2 does still suffer from this - just had mine replaced at 16K for the same reason as 2.4's fail !). Both have the same water ingress problem. 2.2 has oil pump issues but that is now being done as a recall. DPF - seems to be a lot of armchair theory but no issues that I have seen or heard of. The other common 'issue' with the 2.2 is the rev hang between gears. I hated it at first but was told that if I adapted my driving style very slightly it would work in my favour - the person who told me that was right and I hardly notice it now. 2.2 seems more refined to drive, little bit quieter and a tad faster but having had my 2.2 remapped by BAS it does shift ! I had to change it back to the standard ECU for a service recently and I was amazed how bad it was ! If I were looking for a Defender now I would just go with the one I wanted, I think the 2.2 is slightly better than the 2.4 but I think it just boils down to personal choice. Bob 2015 Jaguar XE240 R Sport - goes like ....... !! 2013 Defender 90 CSW - sold 2009 Defender 110 Double Cab - sold 2001 TD5 90 CSW - offroad project - sold to a forum member 2011 Porsche Boxster - for the sunny days ! |
||
|
10th May 2015 7:28pm |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1579 
|
2.2 is a great engine and really like mine. I'd say it's a little better than 2.4 but that is also a great engine.
I go on condition rather than age or engine. Just look for one that's been looked after. |
||
|
10th May 2015 7:54pm |
|
| Clemmo Member Since: 03 Aug 2012 Location: Mile Oak Posts: 1217 
|
I've had both...enjoyed both.
No problems with my 2.4. No problems with my 2.2... DPF...Not noticeable. Given choice I would take current 2.2. Quieter, smoother and a little more refined. But would be happy with 2.4 too Clemmo Make today a little better than yesterday but not so good as tomorrow.... Defender 90 HT............Pangea Green BMW X3 Msport............Carbon Black Mini Electric................Grey. (wow!) MGB Roadster……..........Vermillion 17k miles Honda Benly CD200....Maroon --------McLouis Fusio........7.4m of fun |
||
|
11th May 2015 6:26am |
|
| zone30 Member Since: 07 Sep 2012 Location: Gent Posts: 669
|
Re-read my post: small correction => Engine brake (instead of engine break)  |
||
|
11th May 2015 10:20am |
|
| RED-DOT Member Since: 29 Jun 2009 Location: stirling Posts: 2363 
|
Only in Scotland is a "baw hair" a unit of measurement which can be levelled at the difference between the 2.4 & 2.2. 2008 RS4 gone, 123d M Sport, and a Puma 90 XS..
|
||
|
11th May 2015 1:18pm |
|
| mrandmrsh Member Since: 31 May 2010 Location: Huddersfield Posts: 692 
|
I hired at 2.4 and have owned 3 x 2.2 utilities. The most noticeable difference with the hired 2.4 over the 2.2 was
1) the 2.4 hire car stank, and I mean eye wateringly so, of the owner's wet dogs 2) the 2.4 had an 82mph limiter. I don't make a habit of caning my cars but if I need to get home then I need to get home and I hit 82 for it to be enjoying for me (YMMMV, don't tell me the limit is 70, blah blah - anyone with those views go and buy a Prius and really save the world). I hardly ever hit the 90 limit on the 2.2 The rest of the difference is down to trim and stuff like soundproofing and carpets vs mats etc. If you are still round God's own county and want to swap cars for a day let me know. Cheers C 2015 110 USW XS in Santorini with premium contrast leather seats in tan/black, black headlining and with Dual Finish alloys (in the garage, now on Wolf rims with Goodyear MT/Rs) 2012 '62' 2.2 X-Tech 110 USW now gone ... 1984 90 soft top with full roll cage, 200 tdi engine etc now sold 2012 USW XS 2.2 "FUU" now gone.... |
||
|
11th May 2015 9:31pm |
|
| Jukathy Member Since: 25 Jan 2015 Location: Berlin Posts: 170 
|
Professional use: I'd go for the 2.2 because there's less DIY pimping - like ECU flashing or EGR blanking.
|
||
|
11th May 2015 10:20pm |
|
| myonehere Member Since: 03 Mar 2009 Location: Worcester uk Posts: 153 
|
Compared to the 2.4, the 2.2 does rather sound a bit ''weedy'' or even ''odd'' at times [& often off-road] -but yes - otherwise I agree with above as regards performance -- and it is certainly quieter [even before fitting sound reducing measures]
|
||
|
11th May 2015 10:56pm |
|
| lohr500 Member Since: 14 Sep 2014 Location: Skipton Posts: 1316 
|
As others have said, I think the 2.2 engine is a lot quieter.
I had a 2.4 110 XS Station Wagon with full carpets which was unfortunately stolen. I replaced it with a similar 2.2 again with full carpets. The 2.2 is much quieter. Didn't get chance to do a lot of miles in the 2.4 but on three full tanks of fuel I got 29 to the gallon. In the 2.2 on similar routes I am getting 26. Perhaps I am driving faster because of the reduced noise, or perhaps the regen has something to do with the consumption. The transmission clunk is much, much worse on the 2.2 even though it has a third of the miles of the old 2.4. I have mentioned this to the dealer as it is currently in for warranty work on the oil pump recall and leaks into the passenger and now drivers footwells. They have given me a 64 plate 90 XS Station Wagon as a loan vehicle whilst mine is in and there is hardly any transmission slop on that car at all. It doesn't have any carpets, just rubber flooring and is very noisy, particularly with water spray under the rear wheel arches. Perhaps the fact that the rear wheels are closer to the driver and there isn't an extra row of seats to dampen the noise has something to do with it. My choice of 2.4 or 2.2 would come down to vehicle condition, mileage and if I wanted any of the remaining warranty on the vehicle for peace of mind if buying used. |
||
|
12th May 2015 5:29am |
|
| tatra805 Member Since: 16 Aug 2011 Location: Dolany Posts: 436  
|
driving 2.4, 2.2 and TD5 on a regular base i differ and prefer the 2.4 over both others
2.4: More DIY, no PDF, no rev hanging. Not really that more noisy. you have the "interior refinement" over the TD5. Maintenance costs a tad higher than the TD5, a lot of things give up around the 100k km mark whereas the TD5 keeps going. Preferred choice for travelling and daily use 2.2: horrible gear change with the revs hanging , yes you have to adapt your driving style and all that but if you switch between these 3 on a regular base it's frustrating the 2.2 is not behaving "standard". MPG worse than the 2.4 and TD5 if pushed or trailering, or on short runs / offroad. DPF-life a big question in short-runs and offroad we have now done 13K on it and had to replace the oil twice  (diesel contamination) Preferred choice for... nothing really as there no other engine choice when purchased.
TD5: Spartan but less $$$, never gave us a problem, reliable and ever ready. Driving/mechanically as good as the 2.4 and still out preferred choice as workhorse on the estate. Personally if i wanted to have an overland vehicle i would go for this one, lower purchase price and invest the difference in upgrading it to 2.4 comfort level.  |
||
|
12th May 2015 7:20am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
