LR Defender 2.2 Diesel Engine Replacement

So owner TaTa of Land Rover has axed the Transit 2.4 diesel and opted for the Tried and tested Ford built Mondeo / Jaguar X type 2.2L, Duratorq turbodiesel I4 engine also found in the Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugoet and Citroen crossovers.

Performance figures are the same as the current 2.4 baby motor but comply to euro5 regs and return alot better fuel consumption.
It is a good engine, covering 100,000's miles reliably and efficiently in cars but a Land Rover?......

Tata / Land Rover are cutting costs in manufacturing and assembly by useing this proven engine, but should they still charge the £20,000 for a new 90 Defender?

2.2 Lump - Good or Bad???


TJ

Bad.

One day, land rover will realise that the people who buy defenders for work want a big, slow revving engine with at least 6 cylinders and loads of torque.

It could potentially finish the defender off. Especially @ 120bhp and 350nm of torque. Also I think this would drive up the prices of second hand td5's and 300/200 tdi's, like their not expensive enough any way.

Its a real shame they could not use a similar engine to the VW amorak pick up. That 2.2 unit produces 160bhp and 400nm of torque and still returns 40mpg. More useful for those needing the defender for work.

Still their is always the Shogun Commercial 4work 3.2did LWB @ £18,500

Dam this euro emission and their blasted regulations!

Jas

Can't see what's wrong with the 4.6 V8? Lower petrol prices to around the 50p a litre mark and I'd be quite content.

Bring back the V8 burble!!!

Jason:

Its not the Ford built unit being used, its the Jaguar built unit, they are both the same engine but one is built in a Ford Factory and the other built in a Jaguar factory, the Ford built unit is crap and the Jaguar built unit is very reliable, but still the same engine.

Chris:

People do not need big engines, we just like them, modern engines are much more efficient through technology, modern advances in materials and technology have ensured this, electronics are the key issue, this allows a much wider spectrum for fuel control over a much wider variance which gives both power and economy. Variable valve timing, twin cam engines, four valve per cylinder, turbo overboost, and variables controlled and altered to the conditions all play a part in this; we can have the low end torque, higher power up the rev range, and much flatter automatically controlled torque to give a higher and flat torque curve.

One example is my mates new tractor, his old one gave 110HP and 755Nm of torque from a 6.6L 6 cylinder engine and weighed in at around 8 tonnes before attachments, his new one has the 4.4L engine and produces 156HP in overboost, nominal power is 140HP, torque is 1010Nm and its a 4 cylinder unit which complies with the latest legislation. The advantage is when working heavily it only uses the power when necessary, and is so good it does not have low range for conditions such as ploughing or harrowing as it does not need it, the advantage is a fuel saving of around 35% over his old tractor. His new machine weighs in at around 5 Tonnes before attachments, so a massive weight saving as well.

Assassin wrote:

Chris:

People do not need big engines, we just like them, modern engines are much more efficient through technology, modern advances in materials and technology have ensured this, electronics are the key issue, this allows a much wider spectrum for fuel control over a much wider variance which gives both power and economy. Variable valve timing, twin cam engines, four valve per cylinder, turbo overboost, and variables controlled and altered to the conditions all play a part in this; we can have the low end torque, higher power up the rev range, and much flatter automatically controlled torque to give a higher and flat torque curve.

One example is my mates new tractor, his old one gave 110HP and 755Nm of torque from a 6.6L 6 cylinder engine and weighed in at around 8 tonnes before attachments, his new one has the 4.4L engine and produces 156HP in overboost, nominal power is 140HP, torque is 1010Nm and its a 4 cylinder unit which complies with the latest legislation. The advantage is when working heavily it only uses the power when necessary, and is so good it does not have low range for conditions such as ploughing or harrowing as it does not need it, the advantage is a fuel saving of around 35% over his old tractor. His new machine weighs in at around 5 Tonnes before attachments, so a massive weight saving as well.

I can see what you mean and do agree, up until somethign breaks and you need to call out a guy with a laptop to tell you what little electronic component broke and how long it's going to take to arrive and how much it will cost for the main dealer to fit. By that time I'd have hit my old dinosaur engine with a big hammer and lathered on some chemical metal and been back at work ages before

Not a problem Chris, many industrial or agricultural units have the OBD (on board diagnostics) systems to identify problems, often before they break, this gives the opportunity to shut the machine down or identify or rectify the fault if it is something like a switch or sensor.
Many have a default setting which is embeded within the software to override the faulty component to allow work to continue with the engine, although it may have slightly reduced power or torque.

I am slowly coming round to more modern ways of thinking - I reckon I could just about live with a TD5 now

I think as much as anything it's more my lack of understanding of the black art of ECUs and other eletrickery, whereas older engines with mechanical fuel pumps and no "brain" I can just about work out and usually keep running enough to get home/back to the yard etc.

A 2.2 tdi lump hauling around a 110 defender and possible loaded trailer is going to cause alot of stress on the engine. I just cant get the thought of "hard work" to drive out of my head, with foot to the floor and frequent gear changing just to get out of town.....

Terracan Jas wrote:

A 2.2 tdi lump hauling around a 110 defender and possible loaded trailer is going to cause alot of stress on the engine. I just cant get the thought of "hard work" to drive out of my head, with foot to the floor and frequent gear changing just to get out of town.....

I do still agree completely - without a doubt the best engine I've had in any of my vehicles was the 4ltr stright six non turbo'd diesle in my old landcruiser - essentially an ancient small truck engine but it would happily cruise all day on the motorway at 70mph at not much more than a fast tickover (and still have enough guts to pull out to overtake) but was also happy dragging 3.5tonne of trailer round small back roads all day without any drama. Used to get between 30-35mpg regularly and even heavy towing it wasn't particularly thirsty.

I'm hearing ya. Its a shame that these emission regs force manufacturers to fit equipment and engines that would not be their first choice.

Through our trade contacts they tell us even commercial pick ups are heading back to the 2.5 and lower cc engines. This time 2-3 years ago It was all about the 3.0L's etc.
Like you chris, I can not get my head around the smaller engines high pressure and electronics. As Assassin mentioned, engines and manufacturing has become more efficient and of a higher quality build and parts but still a 2.2 for a Defender is asking alot of it IMO.

TJ

What people have to remember is that technology moves on, engines have become more powerful, torquier and more fuel efficient.

Which would you rather have, an old 4 litre diesel producing 110BHP and 200N/m of torque, or a modern 2 litre diesel producing 150BHP and 300N/m of torque, less than half the fuel consumption, and much less servicing than the older engine.

If we put this into perspective and look at a modern diesel engine we can appreciate why this is, and why its beneficial not only to the environment but our pockets.

On an old diesel we find a very basic engine, mechanical fuel injection and low engine speeds, the torque curve will be progressive and it will respond to whatever throttle input it is provided with, and drink fuel accordingly.

With a modern diesel we get turbochargers, not just the basic turbo units, but variable vane systems which alter the vanes of the unit to allow extra power on demand, we have common rail fuel injection also, if we factor i the traction control and ABS we have an integrated system. If we have this power and do not use it regularly then whats the point of having it, a fair question, but we only have this power on demand and this is the issue.

Imagine we are driving off road on a relatively dry track and drive as normal, the additional power is not used as it is not needed so we get fuel economy, unlike with our old engine, if we encounter some deep cloying clay and need power several things will happen.
The engine will sense this as will the traction control and the ABS systems, these will automatically trigger the turbo variable vane system into operation and it will adjust the variable vanes to deliver more air into the engine, it will sense this additional air and automatically inject more fuel to give us a turbo overboost situation to deliver the power we need. In addition the traction control will sense any wheel losing traction and reduce the engine power and apply the brakes to this wheel and effectively give us a limited slip differential solely through electronics, and all at a speed of around 10,000 times per second as this is the speed of the electronics.
As we clamber back onto more solid ground the turbo will sense less power is needed and reduce the turbo overboost accordingly and reduce the fuel input to the engine accordingly and actually save fuel, it will do it faster than any human can react, and much more efficiently.

We now have a vehicle which shuffles power to one, two, three, or all four wheels, limited slip diffs on each axle even though they are not fitted, and all with the maximum fuel efficiency.

Hope this helps.

I suppose what I'm really gettign at is that by the time I can afford a current generation of modern vehicle, there's a good chance all the elcetronics willl be starting to suffer and whereas an older, mechanicla engine I can keep goign using limited tools, a current modern vehicle will require a lot more specialist equipment and knowledge.

What extra it costs on fuel, I more than save by not havign the repayments to make each month - maybe not suited for everyone but it works for me

There lies the misconception Chris, older mechanical engines were much more unreliable then newer electronically controlled engines, and it is a misconception shared by many.

Electronics are inherently reliable, much more reliable than mechanical components, as an example of this i will cite a case. Mitsubishi launched the 197BHP variant of their 3.2 Shogun and it had two airflow meters fail across all the European vehicles sold in its first year of production, Mitsubishi investigated as they were incensed by just two failures over many vehicles sold and it was two too many. Their conclusions were interesting, on both occasions the vehicles had been wading in deep water, one was sheer stupidity and the other was a genuine failure by an inexperienced owner trying to ford a flooded road and not check the depth of water.

One interesting conclusion was reached, both were caused by stupidity, and in both cases it shut down the engines before water ingress occured, thus saving the cost of new engines for both vehicles.

It is also a misconception thet you have to have a man with a laptop to diagnose faults, with a little understanding, two pieces or wire, and either a very low wattage bulb or LED you can access the flash codes yourself and interrogate the systems diagnostics using the dashboard light to give you the fault code. These codes are exactly the same codes the laptop diagnoses, you just do it a different way, you do need the sheet with the flash codes on so you know what the flash codes mean, and these are accessible online for free to print off.

I now have a better understanding. Thanks.

Been doing a bit more thinking on the whole modern vs old thing and can't help but throw in things like theall the recalls toyota have had over the last couple of years, the fact that Nissan D22 and D40 engines can't keep bottom ends in and the number of relatively new vehicles you see on ebay as spares/repair needing new engines. I realise things need to move with the times but I still feel that a big engine lightly worked is always IMO going to last longer than a small engine screaming it's bits off.

From my experience in the motor trade, I think that Modern vehicles are generally far more reliable than older engines. But when they do go wrong its major. There have been 2x reasons why from what I could tell. 1, faulty parts and 2, poor owner care including servicing.
Usually if the engine or trans has failed due to poor parts quality they have been replaced by the manufacture warranty.

Most discovery 3's & 4's that I've seen for sale at trade auctions have been on their last legs. 2-5 years old with 150,000 miles on the clock, sounding rough and spewing smoke. They are well engineered, using high quality parts and well assembled and built. But their owners have run these vehicles hard with only 1 or 2 services in the 100,000 miles of a short lifetime.

How people & businesses can spent £40,000 on a new Discovery or similar and then abuse it and run it in to the ground within 5 years bemuses me.

TJ