xf 2.2 any views

[its hot]

been thinking about an xf the 2.2 seems to give great economy any real negatives ?? many thanks

[jamieduff1981]

Yes, it's a 4-pot rattler which lacks the refinement and ease of progress of its bigger siblings.

[ChasW]

My mate has one. Quite nippy but as previous poster commented, not very refined. I have driven a 3.0 diesel and the XFR on a Jaguar track day and they are streets ahead as you would expect.

[Sixpackpert]

I had one, I liked it, yes a 3.0 would have been nicer but the 2.2 is okay if you don't expect refinement.

The fuel ecenomy was okay, not anything like the official figures quoted though.

[anonymous-user]

We have a couple in work. They are bloody awful, the engine is an absolute donkey with all the characteristics that make 4 pot diesels so ill suited to a car with pretensions of luxury. The fuel economy is miles off spec too, and little better than the 240bp 3.0 V6 diesel cars we have. If you're going to settle for 4 cylinder unpleasantness then you might as well save some money and buy something that's honest about being white goods like a Mondeo. It totally undermines all of the cars very many positive aspects for me.

It's cheap for a reason, it's a fleet special.

[fatboy b]

I actually refused a 2.2 courtesy car a few weeks back. They are a tad agricultural, but if you must have an XF, and that's all the budget will stretch to, then sell a kidney and get a V6.

[The Leaper]

I've run two Jaguar S-Types and an XF in succession since 2001. In more recent years I have had several XFs as loan cars from the JMD I use. A couple of months ago I had a 2.2 XF Sportsbrake for two days, a very nice car completely let down by its engine..what a load of crap! Really disappointed to find that a supposedly premium brand has resorted to what is a basic company rep mobile. I think if I was offered another as a loan car I'd ask for the JMD's Ford Focus loan car instead.

This is not influenced by my XF being a 5.0 V8......honestly!

R.

[anonymous-user]

fatboy b said:

I actually refused a 2.2 courtesy car a few weeks back. They are a tad agricultural, but if you must have an XF, and that's all the budget will stretch to, then sell a kidney and get a V6.

I'd far rather have an older 3.0d than the 2.2, or if it came to it even the rather limp wristed 2.7d was a much nicer car to drive. As I've said in another thread I sincerely hope the new Ingenium diesel engines aren't so st.

[Triple7]

JAGUAR 2.0 LITRE i4 180PS TURBOCHARGED DIESEL
This version of Jaguar's new generation Ingenium engine produces 180PS delivering outstanding performance with flexibility and power over a wide range of engine speeds. Precision engineered for today’s driving demands, this state-of-the-art powerhouse with stop/start capability delivers impressive CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. Available with either 6-speed manual transmission or 8-speed electronic automatic transmission with Jaguar Sequential Shift and All Surface Progress Control.

0-60mph in 7.4 seconds (Automatic); 7.4 seconds (Manual)

Fuel Economy (Combined):TBC* (Manual); 67.3mpg (Automatic)

CO2 Emissions: 109g/km* (Manual); 109g/km† (Automatic)

• Subject to official tests and certification

† 109g/km applies to 17" wheels
Engine Performance

[anonymous-user]

It's not the stats that let it down. It wasn't slow at all it was just amazingly unrefined with a really stty power delivery that meant the autobox was jumping around all over the place. Probably the only experience I've had of a car where that ZF 8 speed doesn't flatter it completely.

That said I'm yet to be convinced by any 4 pot diesel that it has a place in anything other than a utilitarian car. Considering how much nicer 5 pots seem to be than 4 I'm disappointed we haven't seen more of them as a compromise. These days anything that can move the car at all seems to be considered acceptable even in a £35k car.

Edited by dme123 on Thursday 22 January 22:15

[its hot]

seems I wont be getting one then thanks for the inputs

[fatboy b]

Go and drive one. Everyone's opinion is different based on what they're used to.

[cardigankid]

I assume that the 2.2d is the old 4-cylinder diesel as used in the X-Type, not the new 'Ingenium' article, which I thought was only going on the XE for the time being.

[Sixpackpert]

cardigankid said:

I assume that the 2.2d is the old 4-cylinder diesel as used in the X-Type, not the new 'Ingenium' article, which I thought was only going on the XE for the time being.

Correct.

[Seeker UK]

Leave well alone. (pse read my '2.2d - Any Good' thread.

Slow, thirsty, the 8 speed box doesn't work with that ghastly lump - it's always in the wrong and rumbles along at 70mph.

Buy a 3 litre; quicker, more refined, more Jag-like and not going to drink much more diesel per mile.

[its hot]

just had a test drive at a main dealer no where near as bad as I was expecting !!! having been using a 3.0 s type not much in it showed an average of 41mpg in sport mode quite a good response for a daily driver would be more than happy so may think seriously on getting one at the right price ...

[mph]

its hot said:

just had a test drive at a main dealer no where near as bad as I was expecting !!! having been using a 3.0 s type not much in it showed an average of 41mpg in sport mode quite a good response for a daily driver would be more than happy so may think seriously on getting one at the right price ...

Until recently I had the 3.0 diesel S, my second one. I've driven a friends 2.2 and yes, it's a bit less refined at lower revs, but overall a decent car.

Certainly a better bet than an early 2.7 in my opinion.

[oop north]

I wonder if the various different iterations of the 2.2 have been very different economy wise - if I remember correctly, the earlier ones had much worse official figures than later ones. There have been some people on here saying the 2.2 is economical and others saying it most certainly isn't so later models might be better. I think the F30 BMW 320d engines are shockingly unrefined awful lumps but some people like them