News : Jaguar XF 2.2D. 2884 miles. 62.9mpg

Carole Nash Classic Insurance Specialists

Keith Adams

Jaguar XF crosses America and averages over 60mpg
Jaguar XF crosses America and averages over 60mpg

For anyone in any doubt that the current state of the art when it comes to combining real-world usability with low fuel consumption lies with diesel, they only need to look at the incredible achievement racked up by the Jaguar XF 2.2D. A factory-backed team crossed the USA, from New York to Los Angeles, averaging 62.9mpg over 2884-miles.

Finishing in Los Angeles, California on Monday, 14 November, the journey – the equivalent of travelling from London to the Sahara – took in 11 states, three time zones and eight days. Yet the XF only required four stops for fuel – its peak economy of 67mpg being achieved on the penultimate day of the trip.

Driven by independent testers, David and Alexander Madgwick, the XF 2.2D was a standard UK registered, right-hand drive vehicle. In the course of the coast to coast adventure, the car maintained an average speed of 53mph incorporating a multitude of real-life scenarios including the busy roads exiting New York and, towards the end of the trip, entering Los Angeles, road works, high winds and a climb to 7275 feet above sea level.

The run is a clear demonstration of the four-cylinder XF’s long-legged prowess, and the efficiency of its powerplant on long runs in sometimes arduous conditions. Congratulations to Jaguar from AROnline.

 

Keith Adams

Keith Adams

Editor and creator AROnline at AROnline
Created www.austin-rover.co.uk in 2001 and built it up to become the world's foremost reference source for all things BMC, Leyland and Rover Group, before renaming it AROnline in 2007.

Is the Editor of the Parkers website and price guide, formerly editor of Classic Car Weekly, and launch editor/creator of Modern Classics magazine. Has contributed to various motoring titles including Octane, Practical Classics, Evo, Honest John, CAR magazine, Autocar, Pistonheads, Diesel Car, Practical Performance Car, Performance French Car, Car Mechanics, Jaguar World Monthly, MG Enthusiast, Modern MINI, Practical Classics, Fifth Gear Website, Radio 4, and the the Motoring Independent...

Likes 'conditionally challenged' motors and taking them on unfeasible adventures all across Europe.
Keith Adams

Latest posts by Keith Adams (see all)

73 Comments

  1. Nice one! 60mpg from such a big beast is outstanding!

    That should hopefully shift a few independent thinkers out of their Priuseses!

    How big is diesel in the states? As petrol is/was so cheap, I’d assumed that it was like diesel was in the UK/IRL about 20 years ago, with an HGV pump at the other end of the forecourt, with 305 XUD drivers queued up like fuel outcasts.
    VW seem to be pushing TDi over there.

    As an aside, and without stoking the MINI plate debate, I always love seeing pictures of UK-reg’d cars driving about in the states. This, and the Fiat 500 crossing by the NIIMC.
    Something to do with a dream of in the future, possibly after retirement, just loading what I’m driving at that point onto a boat, shipping it over and doing Route 66 in it as-is 🙂
    (Although I think certain Citroens are still illegal, the Xantia had a plate under the bonnet expressly forbidding driving in North America!)

  2. To be fair, with careful driving the old XJ could hit that sort of figure with the 2.7…

    Citroëns were illegal due to a move blocking cars with height-adjustable suspension, but that was lifted in ’81 – so I’m not sure why the Xantia specifically has such a plate unless it relates to the branding of the vehicle – as Xantia is also a tooth-whitening pharma product, and was current when the Xantia was new.

  3. “Although I think certain Citroens are still illegal, the Xantia had a plate under the bonnet expressly forbidding driving in North America!”

    It says they’re not type approved for use in the US, regarding emissions, safety regs etc etc. So you can’t import one for permanent use. However it shouldn’t apply as a temporary visitors car. I think there was an independent firm that tried importing Citroens into the US at one point, and the plate just absolves PSA group of any liability if someone did.

    I would imagine this XF isn’t type approved for the US with it’s Diesel engine either, so you probably wouldn’t be able to keep it in California permanently with their strict emissions regs. It doesn’t mean it isn’t clean enough, just that it hasn’t been put through the regulatory testing to confirm it is.

    It’s much like the Defender and Classic Mini can’t be registered in the US as they don’t comply with current regs. Unless they’re over 25 years old, at which point they become exempt as historic vehicles.

  4. I think the XF 2.2D would be ok even in California now. They have been selling the Golf, Jetta and Passat 1.9TDis for years over there, and you can now get the BMW & Mercedes 3.0 Diesels out there including the scorching 335d. The problem was always that you couldnt get the decent european grade diesel in the US that modern Common rail diesels need, hence why even the new shape gold used the old TDi engines until recently.

    Petrol is now about $4 a gallon there… diesel will become more common. I remember my colleagues out there complaining (not too many yers ago) when it hit the $1 /gallon mark 🙂

  5. It’s difficult to say, as it doesn’t break down their speeds, etc. An average of 53mph for the entire trip suggests they weren’t hanging around.

    And yes, an Audi A6 2.0TDI or BMW 520d would probably beat it. But it’s still a great run.

  6. I agree, you have to factor in the town driving, and the fact they did some serious climbing. Just because its running at little over tickover it still has to push 1800kgs through the air, up hills etc. Remember also its a slush box, not manual.

    My 320d has returned 58.8mpg on my 45 mile commute home (inc. some A roads, town, M25 (inc. J20 – 23 road works) and the A10. Normally I get about 48mpg, but I still think thats impressive, especially since its done nearly 200k miles, and my commute suffers from alot of stop start as well as high speed bursts.

  7. But its not real world is it? A red hot engine, maybe 5% of the trip at stop start, all from a blueprinted custom built engine and been driven using Hypermiling techniques. I wonder how much emissions kit is left the exhaust, strange a UK registered and not US one picked. If I can break 50mpg in an almost as heavy slushbox vectra wagon driving normally, its not a massive step Foward. What a misery eh?

  8. Rather than think of any obscure excuse to slate this article like some people???? – I shall say simply this:

    Well done Jaguar, your luxury car has achived a better MPG figure than many of the tiny eurobox citycars on UK roads claim to but don’t. For this you should be congratulated.

  9. James is dead right. This should mean far more to Americans than if it was a Kia Rio 1.1D.

    Perhaps BMW will try to do better in a 520d Auto.

  10. Shows how far we’ve come. Imagine what consumption you would get from a series 3, or an XJ40, on that trip. And I bet there’s little discernable difference in refinement, even though its a diesel with a sportier set-up.

  11. Well done Jaguar.
    Incidentally, when Cadillac built diesels, they made one standard equipment in the Seville; which, with a 5.7-litre engine, would do 83mph flat out.
    I think diesels have moved on a bit since then…

  12. “I think the XF 2.2D would be ok even in California now.”

    I Agree, but it would still need to be put through their validation and testing before it would be.

    “Don’t they drive on the other side?!”
    Not when over taking the camera car….

    “But its not real world is it? A red hot engine, maybe 5% of the trip at stop start, all from a blueprinted custom built engine and been driven using Hypermiling techniques. I wonder how much emissions kit is left the exhaust, strange a UK registered and not US one picked.”

    As Keith says, it’s UK registered because they don’t sell the 2.2 diesel in the US, taking it across as a visitors car means they don’t need to put it through all the US type approval just for a few days of driving. Doesn’t mean they wont in the future though. As for emissions kit being removed, it would have to keep the standard UK spec kit so none would have been removed. I don’t think there is a great deal of difference between EU and US emissions standards these days, emissions based taxation has done that. I expect a jag driving around on UK plates probably makes it stand out more than one on US plates from a publicity point of view too.

    As for being in the real world, i think it is, not many people are going to buy an XF for tootling around the city. I would imagine most of them will be used for out of town distance work.

    It was driven by independent drivers, so what evidence do you have that they were deliberately driving it to deliberately make the figures look good?

    You say your car manages 50mpg and 62 is no big deal. Well on that trip, based on UK diesel prices, you would have spent about £78 more. Not to be sniffed at, work that out across the course of a years driving…

    I agree with James, it looks like you’re just trying to concoct some obscure reason complaining. I’m surprised you didn’t complain about it being white.

  13. Ken: The Seville diesel was inherited from the Toronado (which also donated a platform to the FWD Seville), and 83 in those days wasn’t that bad – the 4.1 fuel injected V8 in my Eldorado mustered a whole 125bhp and I’m not sure how much faster than 85 it would go, but I doubt it was much!

    James: My C3 Airdream+ claims 85mpg best; driven sensibly but not aggressively from Leicester to Scotland, I got 72mpg. Some of those econoboxes can deliver; I doubt the XF will return anything like the same economy being driven down the M40 by an angry British commuter before crawling into London via stop-start A40 hell.

  14. An exceptional mpg figure from an exceptional car! Congratulations to Jag. My brother has an XF 2.7TD (or do I mean 2.9?). Anyway I know he gets good fuel economy from that aswell.

  15. I managed an average of 61 for the first leg of the trip to Paris in the S-Max other month, OK I was sat doing 55 for most of the trip to Dover thanks to a tyre being full of repair goo until a tyre dealer opened, and that dropped down to low 50s for the rest of the trip, but that was mostly Autoroutes down, but I did take the wife into Paris itself on the way back to see a few of the sights which didn’t help, but we still managed the 400 mile return trip on half a tank of diesel so I can’t complain.

    Give me a diesel any day of the week rather than these hybrid wannabes.

  16. @ Andrew Elphick – it is subjective I agree, but I tend to pay a fair amount of attention to cars and the new car market, and those results sound great to me for this sort of car. For the American market that still cannot seem to bother making cars anywhere near as efficient as European ones, this is an especially interesting result and great for Jaguar PR. In all respects I just cannot find a negative to Keith’s article? still, each to their own….

  17. I can’t speak for the driving techniques (however its unlikely that anyone going for an economy run is going to floor it everywhere) but it was real world, ie air-con etc.
    I can state categorically that the powertrain on that vehicle was not in any way blueprinted or specially prepared (that includes the exhaust).
    Saying that the figures arn’t amazing for a car that is effectively just idling is a fine compliment to the engineers who built a car that was capable of refined idling up America’s huge inclines and along their highways at a representative road speed.
    Taking for granted that the comparative Audi and BMW would do better may be, but ain’t necesarily so. The 520D performs more economically when subjected to the EEC cycle, which is exactly what it was designed to do. That test isn’t real world and it certainly isn’t representative of a transcontinental drive in the USA.
    Some people’s tanks are always half empty rather than half full.

  18. MPG will never be as interesting as 0-60, 30-50 and top speed. If the first thing you look at in a car is its MPG then you are definitely not an enthusiast.

  19. a very strong chain drive on them vw/audi TDI’s its normally the oil strainer that gets blocked by incorrect/poor oil/bad servicing.

  20. If you say so, francis. I’ve seen at 16k mile (perfectly serviced) 2.0PD lump destroy itself due to oil pump/balancer shaft sprocket failure, that took out the chain. The later gear drive isn’t much better, the drive hangs together, but the torsional stress takes out the hex oil pump drive.

    Don’t believe the hype – VAG do not make completely bombproof engines.

  21. Trouble with diesel is the lack of a linear power delivery, yes we all know about the sudden “ompth” of torque, but its never progressive. All this technology yet they still cant stop them sounding like a knackered Transit from the kerbside.

  22. @31 i know they are not bombproof and the worst ones seem to be normally aspirated caddys for letting go,ive only seen one such failure as you describe and i dare say there may be more @ comment 35 few manufactorers have adopted the twin turbo-merc bmw to name a few to a extent eradicate such concerns seem a bit better than variable geometry/nozzle turbos not that its anything new like…

  23. Andrew Elphick – What is your point? Part of the low fuel consumption diesel equation is the ability to pull high gearing through high torque. That results in low engine speeds. Yes the torque band is narrow, but its right where it needs to be in normal day to day driving. I now find petrol engined cars breathless and buzzy.

  24. “Trouble with diesel is the lack of a linear power delivery, yes we all know about the sudden “ompth” of torque, but its never progressive. All this technology yet they still cant stop them sounding like a knackered Transit from the kerbside.”

    It’s all about how you drive them and use the gears. If you try and drive them like a petrol car they’re rubbish. So if say when you want to over take you change down a gear like you would in a petrol engine, then you just hit the governor and it’s flat, leave it in gear an boot it and away you go. Part of the problem is some manufacturers use the same gearing on a diesel as they do on petrol models, so you can’t use the torque. Equally if you try driving a petrol car like a diesel it will feel gutless as it lacks the torque and you feel like you have to keep changing gear. I am of course comparing like for like here, obviously a 4ltr petrol V8 will make a 2ltr diesel seem underpowered. But a 2ltr Diesel vs a 2ltr petrol, there’s not a lot in it, just depends how you drive them. Diesel driven properly will normally give a higher MPG though.

    Nope not heard many modern Diesels that sound like a knackered old transit, well apart from knackered old transits. Even new Transits are smooth and quiet these days. The old Ford York based Di Diesel lump though, that ‘was’ a noisy beast. When we got our last batch of Sprinters at work, we got lots of comments from customers asking if it was still running, they were very quiet, rattled a bit after 150k though.

  25. I guess I’m just not a fan, I bought 2 oil burning AX’s new, I’m on a JTD powered Vectra now, and in between I had Transits, Ducatos, Dispatches,Transporters, Vitos, Sprinters. I spent years covered in red servicing bloody great Perkins and Cat lumps, so its not a knee jerk view. The most sensible car (with an un-approachable price tag alas) I have driven recently was a Nissan Leaf, not a Jag you could hear 3 streets away with a dirty black bootlid. I think Tata should be pushing factory LPG on petrol cats, not tax break specials. Opposing views always gracefully accepted!

  26. Although I think certain Citroens are still illegal, the Xantia had a plate under the bonnet expressly forbidding driving in North America!

    Brilliant! Should be banned here too.

    I’d rather the slightly lower mpg that comes with the luxury and kudos of the XF than the C3 thing. Please don’t encourage them to offload more of their stuff over here!

    20 years ago our roads were awash with Metro’s and Montego’s. Hardly motoring supremacy perhaps but with a certain appeal. Depressingly, now I see VW’s and Audi’s everywhere, and not it seems as reliable as their marketing claims. Das Auto? Das Kaput.

  27. “I guess I’m just not a fan, I bought 2 oil burning AX’s new, I’m on a JTD powered Vectra now, and in between I had Transits, Ducatos, Dispatches,Transporters, Vitos, Sprinters. I spent years covered in red servicing bloody great Perkins and Cat lumps, so its not a knee jerk view. The most sensible car (with an un-approachable price tag alas) I have driven recently was a Nissan Leaf, not a Jag you could hear 3 streets away with a dirty black bootlid. I think Tata should be pushing factory LPG on petrol cats, not tax break specials. Opposing views always gracefully accepted!”

    If i remember rightly the AX’s were normally aspirated diesels? No they weren’t the most sparkling of performers, very frugal though.
    The old VW vans were quite harsh, though went well in turbo form. Ducato/Dispatches, were pokey, but being FWD spun up far too easily when loaded. The old sprinters had that awful rev limited stuck on them, which was like hitting a brick wall at a certain point in the revs, then they fitted that over aggressive traction control. Newer 06onwards Sprinters are pretty good though.

    I think LPG is certainly an option for Jag, although it would need to be a decent installation, not the naf looking factory conversions you see on Vauxhalls etc. I think some people still worry about the amount of filling stations, although there are more than enough now. Only other drawback with it is places like eurotunnel wont allow you to travel with LPG cars, even if the tank is empty. I think it’s the same with the ferries too.

  28. I know both of the above! I wondered why Rover never went with the AX gearing in 115?

    I’d agree with all of Dennis observations on the PLG – spot on.

  29. Hang on lads.. Is that 62.9 miles per imperial gallon or 62.9 miles per US gallon?.. If it’s Imperial gallons then it’s modestly impressive.. If it’s US gallons, then, guys and gals, get down those Jag showrooms now! Grace, pace and instant economy… Good stuff.

  30. In June 1993, four diesel Rovers drove from Canley, Coventry to Milan in a properly observed economy challenge. The average speeds weren’t given, but the economy figures were: Metro 1.4D 79.10mpg, 218 and 418 both did 75.5 mpg, and, surprising everyone, the 825 with the 2.5 litre VM diesel clocked 82.66 mpg. Big torque and high gearing wins every time…

  31. “Big torque and high gearing wins every time” No it doesn’t. Put these same cars on a slower speed, stop/start cycle and the smaller cars will have the advatntage.

  32. According to Wikipedia (Though unreferenced!!)

    “In 1989 a naturally aspirated diesel AX, using the 1360 cc all aluminium alloy TUD engine, managed a figure of 2.7 litres per 100 kilometres (100 mpg-imp; 87 mpg-US), totalling over 1,000 miles (1,609 km) from Dover to Barcelona. This was the longest ever distance travelled on 10 imp gal (45.5 L; 12.0 US gal) of fuel and earned it a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the most economical production car.”

    Small, light car with a little diesel engine.
    Unfortunately crash standards, people’s demand for equipment and emissions regs (eg. Cats) mean the day of the small, light, cheap car are long gone.

    Had a couple of ZX XUDs, very economical and reliable. The NA one was very slow, but the XUDT estate was surprisingly swift.
    406 HDi unfortunately seemed to go through various sensors and engine mounts.

  33. Will M:

    The AX’s 1.4D was a relatively large engine for a car of that weight and class. 1.0 and below was fairly normal back then, particularly when economy was the aim.

  34. My mate had a Focus TDCi Estate. He achieved 65mpg on a run once, however the mpg didn’t make him feel any better as the car was on the back of an AA towing bar at the time, on the way to having a new dual mass flywheel installed at considerable cost!

    I have to say, I’m not sure about modern diesels. I know someone with a new VW Transporter surf-bus thing, twenty grand’s worth (for a van with two extra windows and alloys!). He does a 70 mile round trip to work and back every day, so it’s getting a decent run on a daily basis. A year in to owning the thing, it packed in on the motorway due to the particulate filter doodar needing changing, or whatever needs doing with them. Then there’s the high pressure common rail injection systems requiring better (and thus more expensive) fuel, turbos to go wrong, etc. Plus our old friend, the dual mass flywheel (assuming any manufacturers use this gift from Beelzebub himself any more). I’m sure loads of people more mechanically orientated than me will say that these are uncommon problems, but they’re certainly not cheap ones. In contrast, not much seems to go wrong with petrol engines nowadays, whether they be hybrid or normal.

    I have to say, I don’t think that I’d risk buying a secondhand modern turbo diesel these days, certainly not in the way that I used to buy diesels in the 90’s, like the four year old 165k Renault 19 1.9D that did 10,000 faultless miles in 6 months and sold for what I paid for it (which wasn’t very much!)

  35. “In 1989 a naturally aspirated diesel AX, using the 1360 cc all aluminium alloy TUD engine, managed a figure of 2.7 litres per 100 kilometres (100 mpg-imp; 87 mpg-US), totalling over 1,000 miles (1,609 km) from Dover to Barcelona. This was the longest ever distance travelled on 10 imp gal (45.5 L; 12.0 US gal) of fuel and earned it a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the most economical production car.”

    I seem to remember that.

    I also remember something about the Montego Perkins Turbo Diesel being the first TD to be able to hit 100mpg (by some journalists on some special economy run, on the downhill section I presume) and 100 mph?

  36. “Hang on lads.. Is that 62.9 miles per imperial gallon or 62.9 miles per US gallon?.. If it’s Imperial gallons then it’s modestly impressive.. If it’s US gallons, then, guys and gals, get down those Jag showrooms now! Grace, pace and instant economy… Good stuff.”

    You mean the other way around, US Gallons are bigger than Imperial Gallons. So 62mpg Imperial is better than 62mpg US.

    “I also remember something about the Montego Perkins Turbo Diesel being the first TD to be able to hit 100mpg (by some journalists on some special economy run, on the downhill section I presume) and 100 mph?”
    I seem to remember the figure bandied about for the 2.0 Perkins MDi Prima was about 70mpg in the Maestro, which was amazing at the time and still good now. Although the Prima was a bit of a noisy, harsh, smokey old thing it was quite pokey for the time and gave great MPG.
    The PSA TUD lump was far more refined!

    “Then there’s the high pressure common rail injection systems requiring better (and thus more expensive) fuel”
    Well it’s not super duper more expensive fuel, most of the cost of fuel is tax. You just go to a filling station and put diesel in it. The same systems are used in commercial vehicles which rack up a million miles or more. Turbo’s have been used on Diesels for decades, many petrol engines are using them to provide power and low emissions now.
    Dual Mass Flywheels, i personally think were introduced before their time, before the technology had been properly developed. Transits used to go through the things like Tyres, they seem to have been improved a lot of newer cars though.
    DPF’s are fine if you do a few longish trips, but if the engine is running slightly out of tune, say from a badly timed belt then the engine will generate more soot and clog the filter. Before DPF’s people would just drive the car around belching out crap for ever. Think about when petrol cars started getting Cat’s fitted, you were quite often told “you want to get rid of that thing, they’re more trouble than they’re worth” Then 1993 came along and you couldn’t just bin them any more.
    I certainly think older mechanical diesels were more robust and forgiving, much like old carbed engines verses EFi. But like Carbs they were no where near as refined, as clean or offer quite the same consistent fuel economy.

    Like any machine though, the more complex you make it the more there is to go wrong.

  37. I think it’s sad that Jaguar has to resort to MPG figures to sell its cars. It would have beeen unheard of 30 or even 20 years ago. Even when we we had a 3 day week and mass unemployment people still wanted a 4.2 Jag and ‘sod the lot of ’em!’

    Remember the old magazine ad of a schoolboy gazing through the showroom window at the XJ, with the words, some day, some day, underneath? What schoolboy is going to dream about owning a diesel Jag? Tragic, really.

  38. @Kev

    When did you turn into such a misery-guts? 🙂

    ‘MPG will never be as interesting as 0-60, 30-50 and top speed. If the first thing you look at in a car is its MPG then you are definitely not an enthusiast.’

    My friend and colleague Harry Metcalfe might disagree with that – seeing as he owns a Honda Insight, and enjoys hypermiling the little blighter…

    I’m into fuel consumption, too, and I do consider myself to be a bit of a car enthusiast. Maybe I’ve been wrong all these years…

  39. Well i have to agree, it’s all very well being enthusiastic about cars. But if you can only afford to leave the things sitting on the drive aside from the odd summer jaunt where’s the fun in that?

    Most of the enthusiasm is about driving them, and if you can get a great car with great MPG that can only be a good thing?

    “Remember the old magazine ad of a schoolboy gazing through the showroom window at the XJ, with the words, some day, some day, underneath? What schoolboy is going to dream about owning a diesel Jag? Tragic, really.”
    I think they’ll still dream about owning a jag and what colour pump nozzle you use to fill it will be irrelevant, so long as it’s smooth and goes well in the fast lane. Which modern diesels certainly are.

  40. I’m am a misery when it comes to diesels. I only do around 6000 miles a year so I don’t need one, and I am perfectly happy with my 30+ mpg MG ZT 1.8 Turbo petrol.

    But I can remember when diesels were the preserve of the entry level poverty spec models in the manufacturers range.

  41. Impressive for a large exec! I do like the Jag, different from the Germans with presence and class.

    I drive a Passat Bluemotion 1.9TDi. The best I have had was on a run from Bristol to Kent, 70mpg. I tend to travel at 76ish on the motorway (on my speedo, so it’s less). The average most of the time is 62mpg. However, I bet the Jag diesel is more refined than the VW lump. Also I have had two Passat TDi’s and each including this one has required a new Dual mass at approx 40,000.

  42. Kev, that’s you.

    But please don’t assume that your opinion counts for everyone else. I have a 25mpg Alfa Romeo quad-cam V6, with body styling to die for, that I love with all my heart. Owning a 55mpg VW Golf means that I can drive the Alfa when it truly matters.

    QED really…

  43. @comment 51,thats why petrols in the long run are cheaper to maintain,the dual mass(dmf)as manufactorers will have you believe are real boon for smooth take up of drive and isolating forces through the driveline(not my quote)well we seemed to manage prior to them!we have upwards of 25,000-yes really transits on our fleet and easily two thirds of them have had thier dmf’s replaced that being the rwd models,not all of them are pulling a mini diggers and things like that,then the vag models-euro car parts do a very good conversion kit and interestingly of the 20,000 sprinters on the fleet i bet not a third have been changed,ive gone off topic a bit here but in the scheme of things diesels are now costly to maintain once something goes wrong as opposed to petrol,anyway jag dont need to brag about mpg the xf can sell itself.

  44. Petrol cars have dual mass flywheels too. Our Subaru Outback when through two before 100,000 miles. Horrid noise when it went wrong, too.

  45. @61,yes i concur done enough petrol mondeos etc to consider suicide!i just dont see an advantage to them only as a money spinner for dealers and parts suppliers-its as if luk,sachs etc have said lets make something thats not really neede but can make us some money!

  46. “manufactorers will have you believe are real boon for smooth take up of drive and isolating forces through the driveline(not my quote)well we seemed to manage prior to them”

    Well that’s the sales pitch they give, the real reason is the DMF does soak up the shocks from the engine on take up (which is why they break), but the reason they need to do this is so they can get away with making the gearboxes out of lighter materials. If the gearbox is lighter then is reduces the cars overall weight, therefore increases MPG. Also if a gearbox doesn’t need to be so heavily engineered then it can be made more cheaply.
    Sprinters do seem to be pretty good on DMF’s, as do PSA cars. Mostly you hear of/see failed DMF’s on VAG and Ford for some reason, though that’s not to say they never fail on other makes.

  47. I would presume the MPG is miles per UK (Imperial) gallon, or about 5 liters vs. 3.9 L per US/Gal. Still, that would mean about 50 MPUSG, impressive for a relative large car. The Ford Fusion and some other hybrid mid-sized sedan with a gas (petrol) engine gets maybe 40 USMPG Highway.

    As to car diesels, they just done work in the USA economically. The costs of the engines and maintenace higher fuel costs per gallon vs. gasoline/petrol. Diesel has the same fuel taxes per gallon as gas/petrol in the USA and is more expensive than gas/petrol due to strict low suphur content rules, that it is close to home heating oil used mainly in the Northeast states, demand for long-haul trucks and trains.

    As to access to Diesel pumps in the USA. probably 60% of fuel stations offer diesel at the same fuel islands at a separate pump, or even with another hose set up at the same pumps as gasoline/petrol. Some may have them at a separate island due to the generally large trucks (lorrys) who almost always use diesel here.

    It is intersting they used a UK registered model. JLR has it’s NA HQ in Mahwah, New Jersey, about 30 miles from NY City, so probably used their US division’s insurance cover. I have seen M-B, BMW, BINI and various other foreign brand cars, who also have their NA/USA HQ here in the USA where vehicles under them have German plates. Sometimes they may have special New Jersey plates issued to and marked for manufacturers to allow them to do testing in the USA.

  48. Why are they still wasting resources on diesel? in the late 70’s they did prove that petrol can equal the MPG, however the tecnology was canned as it required very expensive at the time electronics to make work relaibly. Those elsctronics have become a lot cheaper yet only recently have straified charge petrol returned in a much cruder form than was tested in the late 70’s by ford and a few others (VAG’s FSI engine is such)

    And if you are going to comapre diesel with petrol in terms of performance please compare like with like.. If the tractor engine has a turbo, then comapre it with a similar sizes petrol with a turbo, CI just can’t compete

  49. In answer to Dennis, the rather bizarre truth is that Dual Mass Flywheels stemmed from the NCAP test! In order to achieve good one-corner impact absorption, you need bigger and bigger longitudinal ‘chassis’ sections at the front. These squeeze the space available for the transmission on transverse engine cars, so there’s pressure to make the gearbox more compact. One way of doing this is to have a three-shaft design. But these tend to have more backlash, and the dual mass flywheel helps to disguise this.
    This was certainly the case on the Rover 75, which shared its Italian-built Getrag manual transmission with other cars like the contemporary Opel/Vauxhall Vectra.
    Talk about the law of unintended consequences

  50. “And if you are going to comapre diesel with petrol in terms of performance please compare like with like.. If the tractor engine has a turbo, then comapre it with a similar sizes petrol with a turbo, CI just can’t compete”

    Depends on the turbo set up though, many petrol engines use low pressure turbos to give power but low emissions. Even looking at performance turbos, there isn’t a lot in it now between Petrol and Diesel in terms of performance. Say a 2.0 turbo charged Petrol engine will generate slightly more power than a 2.0 TD but on the other hand the diesel will give sightly better fuel economy, the diesel though will generally have more low down torque which is where you want it in real world driving.

    I mean look at Le-Mans cars, Audi were the first to switch over to Diesel and they were still winning against petrol powered competition. I think Diesel engines are competing rather well.

    “they did prove that petrol can equal the MPG, however the tecnology was canned as it required very expensive at the time electronics to make work relaibly.”

    The same has now applied to Diesels too though hasn’t it? Modern common rail systems use those electronics to improve them further, back in the 70’s diesels were almost totally mechanical, now they’re just as electronic as a petrol engine.

  51. DMFs were a common failure on the 2.0 HDi 406.
    The 2.2 HDi had an infamous ‘FAP’, a common mod for which was ‘defapping’.

    Regarding Le Mans, Is part of the appeal of racing a diesel the lack of fuel stops?

  52. @67 how does that impact on rwd vehicles?if bizzare or not.and @63 the six speed golf gearbox (one of sixteen variants in cast,flange size etc are very heavy and bulky.as are new galaxy,s maxx and nightmare of nightmares the new A4,there is just no good reson at all for a dmf.one way or another if the box is weak bearings,shafts etc the torque will still strain it.As is the case with the dmf-ive seen them break at the crank on the odd vw and six speed cdti(1.3)astras!solid flywheel=less hassle.

  53. @ Dennis

    have you deen the cncession allowed for a diesel to compete at Le-Mans, it’s not a fair comparison at all on a leel palying feild they would be nowehere, the ‘green’ lobby have forced it to be unfairly weighted to CI.

    And no the electronics have not really improved deisels much, they are still clattery noisey, and compared with a similarly blown petrol SLOW.

    Straified charge petrol engine have the potential for currnet CI engine economy, but for reasons I do not know they are still wasting time of diesel. Although the lovely oil companies will eventually destroy any MPG avantage tractor engines may have, to protect their bottom line, as can already be seen as there is no real reason diesel is more expensive than petrol, the petrol has a higher fuel duty than diesel, and deisel is cheaper to extract from crude, however desiel cost more at the pumps..

    why? oil companies are seeing a reduction in the fuel sold, as diesel takes over from petrol and so have raside the price of diesle to compesate for the lost petrol sales

  54. I`d love to buy one over here in Germany. Just to set a positive sign and show some style against the faceless myriards of 5 Series, A6es and E Classes.

    Unfortunately way above my budget. So I`ll stay with my poor-mans XF. A 2009 Mazda 6 2,2 Diesel (179 hp). At least it`s no Passat….:-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*