DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - 2.2. and 2.4 power difference.

↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home · FAQ · New Posts · My Posts · PMs · Search · Members · Map · Calendar · Profile · Donate · Register · Log In

Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2. and 2.4 power difference.

Page 3 of 3

Print this entire topic ·

X4SKP

Member Since: 29 Nov 2013
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 2295

2010 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 SW Stornoway Grey

Hello All

Can anyone confirm possibly ‘exactly’ the cross over date in 2011 when Land Rover
changed from the 2.4 to the 2.2 Puma engine…

Another approach (maybe) is to ask: Who believes they have a late 2.4 Puma…

and when was it first registered…

Reason for asking… I’m looking at a late May 2011 2.4 is that near the end…

Thanks…

SKIP
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html

5th Apr 2022 8:55pm

LandRoverAnorak

Member Since: 17 Jul 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 11324

Didn't the 2.2 come in with the change of model year, so around August? Darren

110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak

"You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia

5th Apr 2022 9:06pm

MartinK

Member Since: 02 Mar 2011
Location: Silverdale (Lancashire/Cumbria Border)
Posts: 2665

2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Orkney Grey

I bought one of the very last 2,4's. I even contacted LR at the time, who kindly told me where the last 6 had been shipped. I phoned all 6 dealers, 4 were sold, 2 for sale. I travelled all the way from Scotland to Mid-Wales to collect my 2.4.

It was "born" in September 2011. Defender "Puma" 2.4 110 County Utility (possibly the last of the 2.4's)

6th Apr 2022 4:20am

Chicken Drumstick

Member Since: 17 Aug 2020
Location: Near MK
Posts: 717

ericvv wrote:
As per all my Defender brochures from 2008 until 2015 model years, the 2.4 and 2.2 are clearly identical power and torque. That was also always communicated like that by JLR at the change from the 2.4 to the 2.2 Puma engine.
Both are 90 kW/122 HP with 90% of that available between 2200 and 4350 rpm.
Both have a max torque of 360 Nm at 2000 rpm.
The main difference is the engine compression which is lower for the 2.2. (15.5:1 for the 2.2 versus 17.5:1 for the 2.4)
You clearly notice that difference when using engine brake to slow down going downhill. The 2.4 has distinctly better engine brake power than the 2.2. The 2.4 has an electronic speed limiter to 132 kph, the 2.2 saw that increased to 145 kph.
Eric

Published figures are just that.... it doesn't mean they are 100% truthful.

Also physics would suggest more displacement and higher CR will give different results on what is otherwise the same engine.

Also let's not forget the 2.2 existed before the 2.4 and the 2.4 was a bespoke designed and built for the Defender. If it made no difference, why would they have gone to all the effort? They only dropped the 2.4 because it was bespoke and cost more after JLR split from Ford.

6th Apr 2022 8:54am

Chicken Drumstick

Member Since: 17 Aug 2020
Location: Near MK
Posts: 717

Supacat wrote:

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Interesting images. As they appear 100% identical I can only assume they are a copy & paste for marketing reasons. And that one of the graphs does not actually belong to the engine it claims.

6th Apr 2022 8:57am

Chicken Drumstick

Member Since: 17 Aug 2020
Location: Near MK
Posts: 717

Dinnu wrote:
I loved diesels that had a flat torque curve.
The tdci has the peak torque for a brief rpm range 😟
Personally, it feel like it needs a lot of gear changes to stay in the power band.

Interesting that the 2.2 and 2.4 have exact same characteristics. How is it possible with quite some physical differences between the two. I am not sure if I trust those charts.

No turbo diesel engine will have a natural flat torque curve.

Several factors firstly, the scale on the graph will change ho flat or not the curve looks. The scale here makes it look very sharp, but it probably isn't.

"Modern" engines with really flat curves are just using electronics to restrict the engine. i.e. the top of the curve is chopped off to make it flatter. But likely results in less PEAK numbers.

6th Apr 2022 8:59am

X4SKP

Member Since: 29 Nov 2013
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 2295

Hello LRA and MartinK

Thank you... and very helpful...

I'd partly remembered MartinK mentioning previously he had a late 2.4 so thanks for confirming.

You may wish to skip the rest as I'm just expanding on my thinking
as we're now looking for a second Defender.

2.2 Vs 2.4

I've read most posts on this subject... and currently my reasoning is as follows.

Both are a good option, and more or less the only option post 2007.

I've got 100K experience driving a 300tdi and loved it...
but 'hated' the poor heater and demisting also long distance driving was somewhat
tiresome (I mitigated this to some degree but not totally or even enough).

I've now got 50K in a 2.4 Puma and again love it... for the way we use our Defender
it's just all round a better experience.

I've got 150miles driving in a 2.2 Puma and again had no issues
as they (2.4 > 2.2) feel very similar (although I acknowledge this is just one example against another)
the one issue I did notice was that (my) 2.4 has 'better' engine breaking than the 2.2 and as I was thought to drive in this style the 2.4 feels a better fit for me the 2.2 felt like an automatic to some degree when you easy off the accelerator it 'runs on' more freely than the 2.4... which some may like and may possible help marginally with MPG.

Anyway I guess I'm a victim to some extent with being inclined to go with what I know in looking to acquire a second Defender (its for my wife who put on 50% of the miles in the 300tdi) but only rarely
drives the Puma! but wants too!!

I do like the 'apparent' simplicity of the 2.4 over the 2.2 with a more straight forward Oil choice
I believe because of no DPF fitted, the omission of the Oil warning / Service interval light also
helps with this 'less is more'... 'rational' I've got going on.

I've looked after our Defender ownership now (for just over 30 years

) and a second 2.4 would be easier in as far as everything (more or less) is just X2.

Anyway thanks as usual for the D2N input...

SKIP
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html

6th Apr 2022 9:13am

BrickBox

Member Since: 05 Oct 2021
Location: Wales
Posts: 809

2008 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Zermatt Silver

2.4 is my preference also. 2008 2.4 110 Utility Station Wagon XS.

6th Apr 2022 9:18am

LandRoverAnorak

Member Since: 17 Jul 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 11324

I'd agree with the assessment of engine braking - definitely less in a 2.2 - but like most things it's easy enough to get used to. Beyond that though, I think that they're incredibly similar and that concerns over the added complexity of the 2.2 are overstated. If I were choosing between one or the other then I'd buy on condition rather than be wedded to one particular engine type. Darren

110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak

"You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia

6th Apr 2022 11:08am

Sussex110

Member Since: 18 Jun 2021
Location: Sussex
Posts: 21

2010 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Corris Grey

X4SKP wrote:
Hello All

Can anyone confirm possibly ‘exactly’ the cross over date in 2011 when Land Rover
changed from the 2.4 to the 2.2 Puma engine…

Another approach (maybe) is to ask: Who believes they have a late 2.4 Puma…
and when was it first registered…

Reason for asking… I’m looking at a late May 2011 2.4 is that near the end…

Thanks…

Afternoon, mine is an October 2011 2.4 so I guess counts as a late one. Not sure when it was actually built though

6th Apr 2022 11:43am

X4SKP

Member Since: 29 Nov 2013
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 2295

LandRoverAnorak wrote:
I'd agree with the assessment of engine braking - definitely less in a 2.2 - but like most things it's easy enough to get used to. Beyond that though, I think that they're incredibly similar and that concerns over the added complexity of the 2.2 are overstated. If I were choosing between one or the other then I'd buy on condition rather than be wedded to one particular engine type.

The voice of reason (which we have come to expect...

) and I agree Condition* wins out.

*appearance, quality and working order... +
(I'd add) ownership / servicing / mileage history. SKIP
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html

6th Apr 2022 12:28pm

X4SKP

Member Since: 29 Nov 2013
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 2295

Sussex110 wrote:
Afternoon, mine is an October 2011 2.4 so I guess counts as a late one. Not sure when it was actually built though

Hello Sussex110... I'd agree you have what looks like a very late one...

Slightly

From what I think I know there is a time-line of a few dates for each Vehicle that are ultimately 'key'
(well of interest to us

)

LR Internal Build Date
I don't know mine.

Dispatched Date
My 2.4 was Despatched from Land Rover on 18th August 2010.

Sold / Registered Date
Mine was 'held back' then Sold on 10th December 2010.

This ensured the Classification changed from M1 to N1 with the VED (Road Tax)
advantage that Land Rover 'gained via the DVLA which then came into place for ALL
Defenders... therefore ensuring they equalled the then Utility Specifications Vehicles
and the resulting VED payable.

It's still amazing (to me anyway) that that this change went through...

I believe this crossover date (M1 to N1) was during either October or November 2010
(but don't know exactly).

I know for sure that it wasn't in place on 30 September 2010. SKIP
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html

6th Apr 2022 1:04pm

BrickBox

Member Since: 05 Oct 2021
Location: Wales
Posts: 809

The tax/category system I find strange.

M1 is more on tax but much cheaper on insurance.
N1 is much less on tax but then get stung with higher insurance for commercial. 2008 2.4 110 Utility Station Wagon XS.

6th Apr 2022 1:34pm

LandRoverAnorak

Member Since: 17 Jul 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 11324

I think the latter very much depends on your individual circumstances. The insurance for my N1 USW is as cheap as it's ever been for M1 station wagons, even including business use. Darren

110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak

"You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia

6th Apr 2022 2:27pm

custom90

Member Since: 21 Jan 2010
Location: South West, England.
Posts: 20339

Mines N1 2.4 90HT and the insurance has halved this renewal.

So I’m pleased with that!

$W33T $0U7H3RN $UG4R
🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇮🇪🇺🇸⛽️🛢️⚙️🧰💪

6th Apr 2022 4:01pm

Page 3 of 3

All times are GMT

Jump to

< Previous Topic | Next Topic >

Posting Rules

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum