I'm after a bit of advice/opinions as I'm unsure what to change my X-type for.

I've had my Jaguar X-Type 2.0d for about 5 years, and the car has covered 175k now, and things are starting to go wrong, and I just want a change. I loved the car, I know its not a 'Proper' Jag, but I had it with all the toys, Piano Black dash and it looked and felt very Jaguarish; kind of like a baby XJ. I also managed to 50MPG when kept within speed limits. I now no longer need to commute so much for work (work from home now) but MPG is a consideration as my folks live 100 miles away.

I love the 159, and have always fancied one, but I can't decide which engine to go for. My heart says go for 2.4 as the extra power will useful, and make the car much more enjoyable, MPG will be quite considerably less circa 30MPG realistically, compared to 45ish for the 1.9. I've also heard that the 2.4 can have other problems and can a few things that go wrong. The 1.9 on the other hand is supposed to have a tried and tested engine, and more reliable.

Once I've decided on the engine, I am steering towards the 2.4, I need to decide whether to go for the Qtronic or manual.

Any thoughts would be great, and if you have one of the variants above would love to hear from you.

I have also been told by a specialist that tuning these can be problematic, as other components can/will need replacing updating ie clutch.

Thanks

Sal

Bro just got rid of his 159 1.9 150bhp. Great car,quick enough,smooth and engine reliable as was on 180kish still going.
Same engine in our 147 at 140bhp at 164k.

One weak point my brother is the 6 speed box can start whining in 5 and 6th gear with a big bill for rebuild. £1000+
Later 6 speed are suppossed to be better.

I've a late 156 2.4 and my old man has a 159 1.9 with a remap.

Though the 2.4 does sound better in every day driving there really is little difference. 2.4 is a touch smoother and feels a bit torqueier (if thats a word!), 1.9 with a remap goes equally as well and does better mpg...

Go drive both of them, see what you think.

As stated, noise and out the box power the later 2.4 20v would be the one. But i understand the drive shafts are the weak point especially if tuned. I hear the pre face lift 10v 2.4 is bullet proof in 140-150 think the 136 is a different turbo.
Sure i've heard reports on clearance issues as the engine sits low?

I have the 1.9 16v 150 with a cheap tuning box it goes well, smooth and torquey and pulls almost to 5k. I was over taken by a bug eye wrx, from 40mph he did not fly by.. in fact he needed some road, he was a little shocked!! As was I. (must get a proper tuning box)
the car handles well mine is the (Ti) and covers ground very well soaking up the bumpy b roads, still returns excellent mpg.

Just make sure with the 16v and 20v that belts and clutch have plenty of life in them including the water pump which if worn out siezes and melts the belt.
Also ensure the upper and lower wishbones and drop links are ok otherwise its clonk clonk clonk

I have the Gt with the 1.9 engine.

Started out at 150bhp, but I took it to gus at alfatune and he mapped it with no other mods to 210bhp. Goes really well now and pulls much better in every gear.

I really wanted the 2.4 lump, but they didn't put it in the gt. When I read up on it the 2.4 is very thirsty. People are getting mid 30s mpg on a run which is appalling for a modern diesel engine. Prior to mapping the gt was doing 40-45 mpg, now I get average 48 and I've had as high as 54 on a decent run.

Given the choice I'd go for the 1.9 and a remap every time. Similar power, cheaper running costs.

Heard a few horror stories about some of the people remapping them, but have heard nothing but good about Alfatune and I would recommend them to anyone.

I love it when people mention Alfatune. i live half a mile away and still can't find the place

From 180 on, the lack of a wastegate would be a problem on medium revs with constant full throttle as the car builds up boost and limo mode can interrupt play. I'm talking about going uphill at full throttle 110 mph or so for 2-3 minutes. Stay below 180 brake and it's fine. That said, while tuning I had 225 bhp from the 1.9 at a certain point, and Pearle Alfa team had tested that setup (but with improved breathing) but stopped as the engine 'only' lasted 7000 miles.

I don't think the 2.4 got on as well in the 159 for some reason, maybe due to the extra weight but the MPG is awful for a modern diesel as Bridges says.

If I was buying a 156 I'd get the 2.4 again no question, I average around 45 mpg spirited A/B road driving. If I was buying a 159 I'd go for the 1.9.

Thanks for the advice guys - Soo many people have said go for the 1.9 and get it mapped, may end up doing that.

Are the rest of the components able to bear the extra power and torque?

Also has anyone experience with the Qtronic box? I've never had an Auto - always hated them, but with so much traffic nowadays it would make sense to have auto in my 'economical' car.

I have a Fiat Stilo with Selespeed box a few years ago which I believe is the same system. I wouldn't buy one again, very expensive when it goes wrong.

The components said to be most stressed by the extra power are the drive shafts and the clutch. Mine had those replaced shortly before I bought it, so should be Ok for a while.

Out of interest, are you after a SW or a saloon? I know of a nice 1.9 SW already mapped for sale...

As per this thread from a while ago - I could not put up with the din my 159 1.9 made.......... Still nice cars though especially now the prices have crashed.

I'm after a saloon actually - but I may be persuaded have you got a link?

There seem to be plenty around, hoping to find a black one with red leather

Thanks for that Nello, I think I'm going to have to go and test drive the different variants.

I certainly don't want it to be any noisier than my Xtype, which was only really a little noisy on a cold startup.

Every other day, the idea of the 3.2 Q4 jumps into my head and start looking at them on autotrader! Would love to but just can't justify the MPG for the second car!

I spoke to a 159 2.4 JTD owner a couple of years ago who reckoned he'd got it up to about 300BHP.

Not sure on the longevity of it though and it was perhaps telling that he was driving a 156 that day

Re the 2.4 - I recently traded my 166 Super in against a 2.4 Croma (6 speed auto), which has I believe the same engine as fitted to the 159. 197bhp/295lb torque standard.

Reading on what others owners have done (and there aren't many as they only ever sold 35 2.4 Cromas sold in the UK), DPF gutted and flashed out as part of a remap = 250bhp/360lb torque for not a lot of money and improved mpg.

In standard form I've been getting average of 34mpg and saw 44 on a run - compared with the 166's 24/31 I'm happy with that.