XF 2.2D - Any Good
Discussion
Seeker UK said:
fatboy b said:
Nice looking Jag. And let's face it, all Mercs are either dull or ugly, or even both 
Enjoy the Jag, but if you can change to a 3.0, it'll be a load more fun.
I did look at 3.0s but I think the pre-facelift models don't look so good. Perhaps in 12-18 months a facelift 3.0D portfolio will be down to £20kEnjoy the Jag, but if you can change to a 3.0, it'll be a load more fun.
You could probably get a facelift 240 in prem lux for a good price
fatboy b said:
Seeker UK said:
fatboy b said:
Nice looking Jag. And let's face it, all Mercs are either dull or ugly, or even both
Enjoy the Jag, but if you can change to a 3.0, it'll be a load more fun.
I did look at 3.0s but I think the pre-facelift models don't look so good. Perhaps in 12-18 months a facelift 3.0D portfolio will be down to £20kEnjoy the Jag, but if you can change to a 3.0, it'll be a load more fun.
You could probably get a facelift 240 in prem lux for a good price
I've recently had the use of both v6 diesel cars ,the 240 & 270 bhp . ( these numbers may not be exact as both were new hire cars) the lower powered car drove much better. If it's just straight line acceleration the 270 was faster but in every day driving the slightly lowered powered car was best. When pulling out junctions the lowered power car had the initial faster pick up. This may have been down to better gearbox mapping. The thing was so quiet it was hard to tell which gear was engaged. Both great driving cars with red . The consumption was mid to high 30's .the higher powered car used slightly more fuel. Hope this helps.
Well, I've had the car for a week and for the few times I've driven it, I've been very impressed with the smoothness and power from the 2.2d lump - I've test-driven a 3.0 (non 's') and traded in an E350CDI and don't feel short changed by the smaller engine at all. The only (minor) gripe is that the auto box doesn't drop a gear when slowing down from 70-60 but then I can flick the paddle...
Seeker UK said:
Well, I've had the car for a week and for the few times I've driven it, I've been very impressed with the smoothness and power from the 2.2d lump - I've test-driven a 3.0 (non 's') and traded in an E350CDI and don't feel short changed by the smaller engine at all. The only (minor) gripe is that the auto box doesn't drop a gear when slowing down from 70-60 but then I can flick the paddle...
Good stuff!If you haven't already, come on over to www.jaginfo.org for some like-minded chat and banter about XFs.
Also there's a bunch of us meeting up at Donnington today if you want to take the new car out for a run.
Well all I can say is in just short of 100 thousand miles in my 2.2d estate I average around 47 mpg, best just over 50 if I keep below 70, but on fast M/A road journeys as above. Had a 2.0d before and that was around 3-4 mpg worse over 90 thousand miles I did in that one. With 121k on the clock now would replace it if there was a suitable car - but at present nothing fits the bill as far as I am concerned so it is here to stay for now at least!
After 4 weks of ownership, an update. a 160 mile round trip (90% motorway) I managed to get the OBC to reach 48 in one direction and 50 in the other. Good.
Doing a brim-to-brim after 210 miles of which 160 was a motorway journey at 70 most of the way I got 39mpg. Rubbish.
It seems that the complaints in the reviews about this (along with the gearbox being unable to change down when required) are well founded.
Frankly, I am extremely disappointed with this car. As soon as I can, I am getting shot of it and get a fast car for my 39 mpg.
If anyone is considering buying an XF, buy anything other than the 2.2d.
Doing a brim-to-brim after 210 miles of which 160 was a motorway journey at 70 most of the way I got 39mpg. Rubbish.
It seems that the complaints in the reviews about this (along with the gearbox being unable to change down when required) are well founded.
Frankly, I am extremely disappointed with this car. As soon as I can, I am getting shot of it and get a fast car for my 39 mpg.
If anyone is considering buying an XF, buy anything other than the 2.2d.
Seeker UK said:
fatboy b said:
Sorry to hear it's not worked out. That's the sort of mpg I get from my 3.0 on a run.
Maybe when I can get a facelift portfolio 's' with the same spec, I'll look at one of them again.You may just want to check you're calculating mpg correctly too. The computer can be as much as 6mpg out, so the error you have is a lot.
Edited by fatboy b on Sunday 28th December 14:35
I ran a 2009 XFS for 18 months and thoroughly enjoyed it. Fast, comfortable and felt like a premium product.
When it went in for service I was loaned a 2.2 XF. After the XFS it felt rough, really rough.
The 3.0 diesel engine really is a peach.
Using my phone app the fuel stats over 30,139 miles were min 30.37, Max 40.53 and wverage 34.28.
The XFS is the best car I have ever owned and I only sold it as the liles were piling on and I needed an estate.
I could have gone for a 2.2 Sportbrake but I just couldn't have lived with that engine on such a premium car.
When it went in for service I was loaned a 2.2 XF. After the XFS it felt rough, really rough.
The 3.0 diesel engine really is a peach.
Using my phone app the fuel stats over 30,139 miles were min 30.37, Max 40.53 and wverage 34.28.
The XFS is the best car I have ever owned and I only sold it as the liles were piling on and I needed an estate.
I could have gone for a 2.2 Sportbrake but I just couldn't have lived with that engine on such a premium car.
I have had the use of a 2.2 XF for a week or so through work, having previously used 3.0 and 3.0s models, and even the old 2.7 in both an XF and an S-Type. That 2.2 is, quite frankly, f
king awful. You'd have to be desperate to have an XF to drive it and still want it, frankly, and like the OP doing a brim to brim fuel economy calculation shows it to be pretty thirsty too. The sheer, staggering roughness and horrible power delivery of the thing shatters any illusion that you're driving something other than an econo-special model. The old 2.7d was slow but at least it was lovely and refined - you really could forget it was a diesel most of the time.
God help them if the new 4 banger diesels they've launching the XE with aren't a huge leap forward over this hopeless donkey.
king awful. You'd have to be desperate to have an XF to drive it and still want it, frankly, and like the OP doing a brim to brim fuel economy calculation shows it to be pretty thirsty too. The sheer, staggering roughness and horrible power delivery of the thing shatters any illusion that you're driving something other than an econo-special model. The old 2.7d was slow but at least it was lovely and refined - you really could forget it was a diesel most of the time.God help them if the new 4 banger diesels they've launching the XE with aren't a huge leap forward over this hopeless donkey.
Edited by dme123 on Monday 19th January 19:56
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff