DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - Enough of the 2.2 slagging!!

↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

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

Home > Puma (Tdci) > Enough of the 2.2 slagging!!

Page 5 of 6

Print this entire topic ·

ZeDefender

Member Since: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Munich
Posts: 4731

2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SW Baltic Blue

Have I been on the shrooms or do LR now make trains

Good to know you're taking care of us (and our silly DPFs) Pete

Tell someone you love them today because life is short.
But shout it at them in German because life is also terrifying and confusing...

21st Oct 2013 7:13pm

bell-auto-services

Member Since: 08 Jul 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2232

2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Orkney Grey

Hehe. No Landrover don't make trains just yet. This company takes a stock defender and converts it into a train with the capability of towing about 40 people in the carriages it tows behind.

Mainly used in theme parks and town centres etc etc

21st Oct 2013 8:24pm

ZeDefender

Member Since: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Munich
Posts: 4731

I have GOT to take one of them on the Autobahn

Tell someone you love them today because life is short.
But shout it at them in German because life is also terrifying and confusing...

21st Oct 2013 8:50pm

bell-auto-services

Member Since: 08 Jul 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2232

Hehe.

21st Oct 2013 9:39pm

Phil VM2.5

Member Since: 28 Mar 2012
Location: Limelette
Posts: 196

2012 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 SW Keswick Green

DPF

hello,
I am sure, you will have an answer !

if I have good understand, DPF isn't good for our Defender when there are used in a farm (!) or on a journey in Africa where diesel could not be so good.

for the farm, where I suppose it could be used for short distances, if you have a good dealer and money, the defender will survive.

but , if you are in Africa and stopped nowhere ....

so, what are the solution for people who have the 2.2 with DPF

is it not possible to have informations about the state of the DPF before the light is "on" with the OBD ?

it could be interesting to know when the cleaning will start or when it is running to not stop the engine at that time

hope you understand my poor english

thanks for answer

Philippe current : defender 110 sw 2.2 puma 2012 and 230.000km today and
again my Range Rover VM2.5 engine from 1992 and 528.000km today.

One ten 1988 to 1992
1987 BMW GS80
One Ten from 1984 to 1987
One Ten from 1983 to 1984
Serie 3 109 from 1980 to 1983
from 1974 Jeep CJ3B and CJ6

22nd Oct 2013 5:56am

RockJaw

Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 SW Santorini Black

Hey Phil, nothing wrong with your English Mate! ****CENSORED****

22nd Oct 2013 11:35am

robharvey

Member Since: 14 Dec 2009
Location: Durban
Posts: 86

2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SW Alpine White

Re: DPF

Phil VM2.5 wrote:
but , if you are in Africa and stopped nowhere ....

2.2's sold in South Africa don't have DPF's (and I would imagine that holds true of all the 2.2's sold in sub-Saharan Africa). Our fuel quality isn't good enough.

I assume Rockjaw's company imported them directly from the UK or Europe.

22nd Oct 2013 12:58pm

RockJaw

Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

BigWheels wrote:
The cause of RockJaws's rant.....

I'm amazed that a mining company operating in countries such as RockJaw named, with the knowledge of expertise available for vehicle maintenace, would have bought vehickes such as modern Defenders, rather than more basic mechanical ones. The original "old Landy" image-icon exists in its chassis, bodywork & looks. But that's where it really ends.

!

Hey BigWheels, a nice clean innocent fresh cut undergrad manager straight from a EU University was responsible for this stupid purchase. The little Dick Head thought it was a great idea. It's okay though, after our engineer was murdered we fitted an African model DPF to the little a-hole manager's azz and stuck an immobiliser on him to test his genuine views on these dummass bits of equipment demanded by Brussels - the results?

Well let's just say he failed the Brussels emissions tests

I was not slagging Land Rover. Defender is part of my DNA. I grew up on a farm with them back in the 1960's, fought a war in them during the late 1970's and 1980's, drove one as an Engineering student and graduate, and have lived in them and worked in them continuously through my 30 year mining career, and so I am pretty much an enthusiast.

That is not the same as saying I care much for the latest "developments" from Calcutta and Brussels, I think these changes are decidedly non-Land Rover and very definitely not what Defenders are all about.

And yes, like I said, our mining group does run loads of old Defenders, we especially buy loads of ex Australian army ones with the Isuzu 4 in them. This purchase of the latest 2.2 I spoke about would never have been made by one of our veterans, trust me. ****CENSORED****

Last edited by RockJaw on 22nd Oct 2013 1:15pm. Edited 1 time in total

22nd Oct 2013 1:12pm

RockJaw

Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

Re: DPF

robharvey wrote:
Phil VM2.5 wrote:
but , if you are in Africa and stopped nowhere ....

2.2's sold in South Africa don't have DPF's (and I would imagine that holds true of all the 2.2's sold in sub-Saharan Africa). Our fuel quality isn't good enough.

I assume Rockjaw's company imported them directly from the UK or Europe.

Hey Rob, yes, you're right, we have taken delivery of a few from Silverton, Pretoria for use in Namibia, but our London offices made this specific purchase. ****CENSORED****

22nd Oct 2013 1:13pm

spudfan

Member Since: 10 Sep 2007
Location: Co Donegal
Posts: 4677

From the Volvo car website.
The fitment of a particulate filter to diesel-engined cars is becoming increasingly commonplace in order to meet emissions legislation and to achieve cleaner exhaust gases. Nevertheless, driving constraints in such locations as inner-city and islands (e.g. Channel Islands, Isle of Man) are unlikely to facilitate passive regeneration. Please consider your driving style and normal driving conditions to determine whether a diesel- or petrol-engined car is best suited to meet your needs. Your Volvo dealer will be pleased to assist you 1982 88" 2.25 diesel
1992 110 200tdi csw -Zikali
2008 110 2.4 tdci csw-Zulu
2011 110 2.4 tdci csw-Masai

22nd Oct 2013 4:16pm

tookaphotoof

Member Since: 18 Mar 2013
Location: dordrecht
Posts: 1279

2013 Defender 130 Puma 2.2 HCPU Santorini Black

Absolutely love my POS toy for soccer moms.

It gets me where I want, never broke down on me and I'm not planning on entering a war zone or other places where there is a high risk of being killed. Too bad the poor guy got killed, but it's a matter of wrong time wrong place if you ask me. Could have happened even if he was trying to repair his tire within ten minutes or when he wanted to take a leak for just a minute.

Anyways, if using a Defender as a daily driver and just going on holidays / greenlaning / some fun offroading, make me a show off bloke, than that's fine by me. Don't need to be a farmer, soldier, whatever to justify my purchase. The best upside the car has for me is I haven't had a speeding ticket since I bought it.

23rd Oct 2013 9:59am

NT5224

Member Since: 10 Jul 2012
Location: Robin Falls
Posts: 50

2013 Defender 130 Puma 2.2 HCPU Alaska White

I too love my POS 2.2 Puma -so I suppose that also makes me a soccer mum

RockJaw, deepest sympathies on the tragic loss of your colleague.

Just awful for his mates and family, but I think its rather a stretch to attribute his death on the Puma. I myself drove a 'good old' TDI round Afghanistan for the best part of three years between 2005 and 2009 and I can say it was not above the odd inconvenient breakdown. Likewise the V8s, TDI and Series Land Rovers I have extensively driven in dodgy parts of the Sahara and Middle East.

My Puma Hi-cap is a working truck. When I'm not overseas for work I live 'out bush' in the Northern Territory of Australia and ordered the puma because my other vehicle (a cruiser 70 series pickup) struggled with the trails on my property. I work the Puma really hard, carrying loads of up to a ton through deep mud and across terrain which bust the Tojo's suspension. The Puma rarely gets to see bitumen. Of course I don't like the electrickery of the Puma and would rather be without it. I probably would have taken a TDI motor if they were still available new as an option. But the Puma has actually been more reliable from new than the TDI I took delivery of for work in 1995, and so far I’ve worked it harder than that TDI.

So in my personal experience, I really can’t fault the Puma. So far its been the best Land Rover I’ve driven both performance-wise and in terms of reliability. Mine doesn’t have DPF or traction control or swaybars, so is as basic as they still make ‘em.

OK, -off now to drop the kids at their sport...

Cheers

Alan

23rd Oct 2013 11:35am

RockJaw

Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

G'Day Digger!

I know the Defenders the Aussies used, and they are nothing like the 2.2 TDCi's i am talking about. We actually bought some ex Aussie Army Defenders last week from a mob called "Grey's Online"

Let's compare apples with apples.

I was not talking about Defenders, we all love Defenders, what I am talking about is SPECIFICALLY the 2.2 TDCi Defenders.

So the point is not whether or not Defenders break down mate - of course Defender's break down, that is not Land Rover's fault.

The actual point is that they should NOT be SPECIFICALLY ENGINEERED so that they DELIBERATELY become immobilised and DELIBERATELY break down in places which could be a risk to human life merely to cool some bureaucrat's ass in Brussels.

It is really not a difficult concept to understand guys, lemme try to paint a clearer picture:-

Defenders = we love them

2.2 TDCi engineered to become immobilised for BUREAUCRATIC reasons and NOT any PRACTICAL reason = we think this sucks ****CENSORED****

23rd Oct 2013 3:58pm

Supacat

Member Since: 16 Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 11018

2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 XS DCPU Keswick Green

[quote="Glynparry25"]

Defender-Stu wrote:
But your vehicle is certified as Euro 6 (is it 6? or 5?, whichever needs DPF). which means once your DPF is removed the vehicle isn't legally Euro 6 and therefore breaks European law.

Glyn

I think it's Euro 5 compliant and the legidslation applies to manufacturers making vehicles rather than end users operating them. I'm struggling to find any references to it actually being unlawful to modify or remove a DPF in the UK. Are there any words to this effect?

The MOT manual makes reference to vehicles fitted with CATs by the manufacturer having to have one fitted but with DPFs it is just a performance test for smoke.

Having worked in central London for a number of years, it never ceased to amaze me just how much air pollution there was. It was not visible to the eye just looking down the street but blow your nose or look at the collar of your shirt at the end of the day and the accumulated dirt was staggering.

A little Googling and I found this:

"In 1998 the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants estimated that up to 24,000 people die prematurely each year in the UK as a direct result of air pollution. Similar findings are emerging from international research. According to the World Health Organisation, up to 13,000 deaths per year among children (aged 0-4 years) across Europe are directly attributable to outdoor pollution. The organisation estimates that if pollution levels were returned to within EU limits, more than 5,000 or these lives could be saved each year."

Which might put into context any other adverse outtcomes of having a dpf.

To RockJaw - the incident you recount is very sad but I can't help feeling blaming dpf legislation is ignoring factors closer to home. Risk assessments and contingency planning should have taken into account any form of breakdown if the area was considered dangerous; if it wasn't deemed to be, then it was just a freak event.

My 2.2 with dpf is running fine. I don't consider it to be a liability but do understand that without it, I would have one less thing to break! I also found reference to this "In addition to complying with the emission limits mentioned above, vehicle manufacturers must also ensure that devices fitted to control pollution are able to last for a distance of 160 000 km." Not sure if you could use this to fight a warranty claim!

Regarding the towing ability of 2.2 vs 2.4, i recognise there are several people stating the 2.4 is preferred when towing 2.5 tonnes plus but I thought the power and torque graphs of both engines were supposed to be very similar which makes the difference harder to understand.

24th Oct 2013 8:46am

RockJaw

Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

So what you're actually saying Supacat is that adding technology to the vehicle at almost 5% extra cost, which has the SOLE purpose of IMMOBILISING the vehicle is a GOOD thing?

Really?

During 2001, the UK Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution surveyed their own data and concluded that healthier individuals would not experience problems from contemporary air pollution levels, nor was air pollution from vehicle "particulates" likely a cause of health issues. Pollutants and particulates from sources other than motor vehicles had a far greater effect in any event, and so the Defender "Threat" you allude to is non-existent.

The study you referred to is not credible in the first instance, and even if it was credible, how would the act of DELIBERATELY immobilising a vehicle help prevent the loss of one single life you complain about?

The Defender was designed primarily to achieve the singular objective of SAFELY transporting personnel into and out of remote areas.

Most Development and Research costs spent over the life of the Defender has been spent engineering a vehicle which is capable of 1- extended and reliable extreme off road travel and 2- simplicity of design and 3- ease of serviceability in remote areas.

According to your argument, introducing very expensive engineering to fulfill the singular purpose, not of IMPROVING the vehicle, but of IMMOBILISING the vehicle is a GOOD thing?

Seriously?

So the result is the 2.2 Defender is no longer capable of 1- extended reliable extreme off road travel and 2- simplicity of design 3- ease of serviceability in remote areas.

Tell us again, just so that we can all understand this a little better, how is a deliberately immobilised Defender BETTER than a Defender which is not immobilised?

[/b]

Also, how is a Defender, which has been immobilised by frustrated bureaucrat in Brussels going to save one single life? ****CENSORED****

25th Oct 2013 2:57pm

Page 5 of 6

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