Thread: 2.2 Puma vs 2.4 Puma

One thing about the puma i noticed is it doesnt have very high peak power but the power it does have is available across a very broad rev range by comparison to my prado which apparently had 114kw(i think) stock but the puma goes way better stock. But i would glady buy a 3.2TDCI motored puma over the 2.4 if it was an option, or even better a TDV6 or TDV8. I will be keeping an eye out for a 3.2 once i get the puma just in case i ever need a motor swap or want to get some more power out of it.

It is quite easy to increase the power and torque of a diesel with the right turbo and tuning. Turbos have improved over later years, hence why (IMHO) later engines of similar or smaller displacement to the TD5 give better performance.

Obviously when greater torque is needed at a time when conditions don't allow the boost to build enough, a small engine will be at a disadvantage compared to a larger displacement engine of similar technology.

Originally Posted by cal415

... But i would glady buy a 3.2TDCI motored puma over the 2.4 if it was an option, or even better a TDV6 or TDV8. I will be keeping an eye out for a 3.2 once i get the puma just in case i ever need a motor swap or want to get some more power out of it.

Does the 3.2 have the same bellhousing bolt pattern?

It must have a larger bore/stroke than the 2.4, as a 5cyl version of the 2.4 would be 3.0.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Does the 3.2 have the same bellhousing bolt pattern?

It must have a larger bore/stroke than the 2.4, as a 5cyl version of the 2.4 would be 3.0.

Im not sure, but i would love to find out, it would be good to find some diagrams showing dimensions etc to compare with the 2.4 to see if its even able to fit length wise without to much butchering. I havnt really found a good source of info on these motors, Wikipedia has a good bit of info, but lacks a lot of the details i am after.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratorq_engine"]Ford Duratorq engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

CodeYearsDisplacement (bore x stroke)/TypePower@rpmtorque@rpmZSD-4202000–20011,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)280 N·m (210 lb·ft)ZSD-420 (Duratorq TDDi)2001–20021,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4130 PS (96 kW; 130 hp)330 N·m (240 lb·ft)ZSD-420 (Duratorq TDCi)2002-1,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)285 N·m (210 lb·ft)ZSD-422?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?)155 PS (114 kW; 153 hp) I4355 N·m (262 lb·ft)ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I485 PS (63 kW; 84 hp)250 N·m (180 lb·ft)ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)300 N·m (220 lb·ft)ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4140 PS (100 kW; 140 hp)350 N·m (260 lb·ft)ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)285 N·m (210 lb·ft)ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)310 N·m (230 lb·ft)ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4140 PS (100 kW; 140 hp)375 N·m (277 lb·ft)2.5 (WLC) (Duratorq TDCi)2006-2,499 cc (2.499 L; 152.5 cu in) (93 mm (3.7 in)x92 mm (3.6 in)) I4143 PS (105 kW; 141 hp)@3500330 N·m (240 lb·ft)@18003.0 (WEC) (Duratorq TDCi)2006-2,953 cc (2.953 L; 180.2 cu in) (96 mm (3.8 in)x102 mm (4.0 in)) I4156 PS (115 kW; 154 hp)@3200380 N·m (280 lb·ft)@18003.2 (Duratorq TDCi)2006-3.2L (?x?) I5200 PS (150 kW; 200 hp)470 N·m (350 lb·ft)
ZSD ("Puma")CodeYearsDisplacement (bore x stroke)/TypePower@rpmtorque@rpmZSD-4202000–20011,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)280 N·m (210 lb·ft)ZSD-420 (Duratorq TDDi)2001–20021,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4130 PS (96 kW; 130 hp)330 N·m (240 lb·ft)ZSD-420 (Duratorq TDCi)2002-1,998 cc (1.998 L; 121.9 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)285 N·m (210 lb·ft)ZSD-422?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?)155 PS (114 kW; 153 hp) I4355 N·m (262 lb·ft)ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I485 PS (63 kW; 84 hp)250 N·m (180 lb·ft)ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)300 N·m (220 lb·ft)ZSD-422 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,184 cc (2.184 L; 133.3 cu in) (?x?) I4140 PS (100 kW; 140 hp)350 N·m (260 lb·ft)ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)285 N·m (210 lb·ft)ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)310 N·m (230 lb·ft)ZSD-424 (Duratorq TDCi)?2,402 cc (2.402 L; 146.6 cu in) (?x?) I4140 PS (100 kW; 140 hp)375 N·m (277 lb·ft)2.5 (WLC) (Duratorq TDCi)2006-2,499 cc (2.499 L; 152.5 cu in) (93 mm (3.7 in)x92 mm (3.6 in)) I4143 PS (105 kW; 141 hp)@3500330 N·m (240 lb·ft)@18003.0 (WEC) (Duratorq TDCi)2006-2,953 cc (2.953 L; 180.2 cu in) (96 mm (3.8 in)x102 mm (4.0 in)) I4156 PS (115 kW; 154 hp)@3200380 N·m (280 lb·ft)@18003.2 (Duratorq TDCi)2006-3.2L (?x?) I5200 PS (150 kW; 200 hp)470 N·m (350 lb·ft)
Codenamed Puma during development, these Ford 2.0 L, 2.2 L, and 2.4 L engines are called ZSD. They are produced at the company's [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Dagenham_assembly_plant[/ame] in east London.



Its interesting to see the broad range of stated power output figures for the 2.2 and 2.4, it would be nice to know the reason behind different the power outputs considering they are the same motor(displacement/bore/stroke) if its all in the tune or different turbo etc.

The 2.2 doesnt seem like such a bad motor either, just the DPF will likely be an issue.

bugger... it lost its formatting, check it out on wikipedia instead, i also found something interesting regarding the TDv8's while reading on wikipedia

Lion V8
See also Ford 4.4 Turbo DieselThe 3.6 L [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8"]V8 engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Aero4G11.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Aero4G11.jpg/220px-Aero4G11.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/42/Aero4G11.jpg/220px-Aero4G11.jpg[/ame] is built at Dagenham Engine Plant by [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_of_Europe"]Ford of Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ford_Motor_Company_Logo.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ford Motor Company Logo.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/Ford_Motor_Company_Logo.svg/220px-Ford_Motor_Company_Logo.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/a/a0/Ford_Motor_Company_Logo.svg/220px-Ford_Motor_Company_Logo.svg.png[/ame]. It is a twin-turbocharged Diesel V8 producing 272 PS (268 hp/200 kW) and 640 N·m (472 ft·lbf). Production began in April 2006.
Much speculation in the United States has focused on this engine as a possible Diesel entrant in the F-150 pickup truck and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Expedition"]Ford Expedition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Silver_Ford_Expedition_fl.jpg" class="image" title="2002 Ford Expedition"><img alt="2002 Ford Expedition" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Silver_Ford_Expedition_fl.jpg/250px-Silver_Ford_Expedition_fl.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/76/Silver_Ford_Expedition_fl.jpg/250px-Silver_Ford_Expedition_fl.jpg[/ame] SUV.[2] It was announced that the new F150 engine will be based on this engine and enlarged to 4.4L. The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Engine"]Cleveland Engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Sportcar_sergio_luiz_ara_01.svg" class="image"><img alt="Stub icon" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Sportcar_sergio_luiz_ara_01.svg/43px-Sportcar_sergio_luiz_ara_01.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@co mmons/thumb/1/18/Sportcar_sergio_luiz_ara_01.svg/43px-Sportcar_sergio_luiz_ara_01.svg.png[/ame] plant recently began small-scale production of the exotic [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compacted_graphite_iron[/ame] (CGI) used in the block's construction, leading many to expect production of the engine there

Originally Posted by cal415

One thing about the puma i noticed is it doesnt have very high peak power but the power it does have is available across a very broad rev range by comparison to my prado which apparently had 114kw(i think) stock but the puma goes way better stock. But i would glady buy a 3.2TDCI motored puma over the 2.4 if it was an option, or even better a TDV6 or TDV8. I will be keeping an eye out for a 3.2 once i get the puma just in case i ever need a motor swap or want to get some more power out of it.

Thats right,there's more to a vehicle than it's engine.My Prado has 25 more Kws and two of my friends have worked TD42 Nissans and they all feel sluggish considering there size advantage.The TDCi/Getrag is far and away the best package. Pat

Originally Posted by PAT303

Thats right,there's more to a vehicle than it's engine.My Prado has 25 more Kws and two of my friends have worked TD42 Nissans and they all feel sluggish considering there size advantage.The TDCi/Getrag is far and away the best package. Pat

If you take away the engine then you have a pedal car...

I think you mean: there is more to an engine than peak power/torque figures.

I was given a puma on loan while my D4 2.7 was being serviced.. I really thought it went pretty well.. I have a mate with Landcruiser 79 series TDV8 and he has had to put on aftermarket exhaust and has recently chipped it to give it reasonable power. I drove before he did this and I actually thought the puma went a lot better. I was pretty surprised at how sluggish the 4.5 V8 diesel was. He also can't seem to get better than 15ltr/100k out of it.. With a trailer in tow he used twice as much fuel as I did in my d4 also towing from Menindi to Broken Hill!!!