(15-02-2012 11:32pm)PhilSkill Wrote:  JLR claiming in big adverts 52.3mpg from the 2.2D in the Jag XF, as is in the Evoque. So what's the chance of that getting any nearer... ?

The engine itself is the 2.2-litre, single turbo, four-cylinder diesel that will soon debut in the Range Rover Evoque. Only here it’s been installed in a north-south configuration for the first time, necessitating a whole host of ancillary changes, including new engine mounts, a new oil pan and different sound deadening. On that note, the 2.2 D benefits from a new twin-layer bulkhead to further reduce noise, additional sound deadening moulded around the turbocharger, alternator and starter, and all new diesel XFs feature active engine mounts too.

So what are the official figures like?
No match for Audi’s A6 2.0 TDI or BMW’s 520d unfortunately. Even with the stop/start system, the headline figures are 149g/km CO2 (both the Germans manage 129g/km) and 52.3mpg (again a little behind).

The power output is par for this class, but the torque figure is class leading, a chunky 332lb ft. That’s also 12lb ft more than the original XF 2.7 D in a car that weighs 26kg less; the 2.2 D is a few tenths slower to 62mph, but it’s nearly 15mpg better.

(15-02-2012 11:45pm)XFullFatTim Wrote:  Also all the press reports I have read say it is the best XF to have as well, which I find a bit odd as they all also rant about the XF-R

(16-02-2012 10:42pm)XFullFatTim Wrote:  Interesting because today I read in one of the motoring magazines who have one on a long term test exactly those comments! The same gearbox is used in several other marques - all having smallish engines and they too have the same comments yet the 4.4ltr TDv8 FFRR has the same gear box and it really is fantastic, so maybe it needs a whacking great lump of torquey engine behind (or in front) of it to make it work

(16-02-2012 11:18pm)Straydox Wrote:  According to Fleet News the reality is nearer 38mpg on their own long-term test car Fleet News 2.2XF long term test