Technical Making your Panda very smoooooooth

Currently reading:
Technical Making your Panda very smoooooooth

There were over two million Pandas manufactured in the 169 range. They only went out of production less than 5 years ago so I think we're safe for parts for a good few years yet.
 
Sadly, his model is one that ended production in 1990, not the one that started production.

Though I do believe it looks identical to another model from the same era, wasn't sure if they sunroof was the same.


If it's a Mk1 Orion, everything forward of the C Pillar should be near (if not completely) compatible with a Mk3 Escort.

Because of Ford's general production methods (similar to Rover of that era), I'm also 90% sure that the sunroof was identical up to the end of the Escort production run.

I'm not a classic ford geek unfortunately, but I'm sure someone passionford would give you the answers
 
Out of interest, how much Mondeo was actually in the X-Type? And which Mondeo was it based on? Given that the mk3 Mondeo and the X-Type were launched at similar time, I'd always assumed that the 2 cars were developed together, and off the same basic floorpan and platform, but when I dared to compare the X-Type to most audis on a previous thread, another user claimed that the Jag was based on the old 1993-2000 Mondeo platform.

It was based on Fords CD132 platform, which it shared with the mk3 Mondeo, the Freelander and some Lincolns models.

But I believe the CD132 was a revised CDW27 (which dated from around 1993) and that was borrowed from Mazda's GE platform before that!

A car's platform is generally it's structural design, so things like floorpan, A, B and C pillars, seat belt mounts etc.

The CD132 wasn't a great starting point for Jaguar as they were really after a small RWD layout, not a FWD one, so they heavily modified it for the all wheel drive system.

The engines were all Ford, but again Jag fiddled with the heads of the V6's, but the two oil burners were straight off Fords production line they only fiddled with the upper and lower covers to quieten them down!

The money was spent on noise, vibration and harshness, that's why all the suspension is bespoke to the Jag.
Springs, shocks and bushes were all speced by Jag, even the links in the rear independent suspension and front wishbone and ball joints were different as are the steering racks.

The styling was pretty much a failure, though the estate looked reasonable to a blind man, but saying that, they all drove really well.
I've driven to and around Italy in a diesel one and Jags work on it really showed, particularly at the end of a 14 hour drive!
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the styling of the X-Type, at least they managed to thoroughly disguise the fact it was mondeo based.

With regards to the engines, I guessed that the 2.5, 3.0 and diesel engines were all heavily ford based, but out of interest, where did the 2.0 V6 come from? As far as I know, ford didn't make a 2.0 version of the mondeo V6 engine?
 
I don't mind the styling of the X-Type, at least they managed to thoroughly disguise the fact it was mondeo based.

With regards to the engines, I guessed that the 2.5, 3.0 and diesel engines were all heavily ford based, but out of interest, where did the 2.0 V6 come from? As far as I know, ford didn't make a 2.0 version of the mondeo V6 engine?


All of the V6 are of Duratec origin. Mazda and Jag added VVT to them, but the primary underpinnings of the engine were done by Porsche, then sold/licensed to ford.

The 2.0 is a 2.1, but badged as a 2.0. Like the opposite of Renault when they called the 1149cc Clio a 1.2 :D

Jag engine designations for the Duratec were the AJ20, AJ25 and the AJ30 I think.


The 2.0 Diesel is the exact same engine you get in a Transit of that area - wasn't until more recent that Ford started developing the DW10 with PSA.



I like the X-Type and S-Type when they have the Sport bodykit they added to certain trim levels. XS or something.
 
Last edited:
Chuff's correct, the V6's were Fords Duratec (known as Cleveland, the factory they were built) and the diesels were Duratorq (commonly referred to as Suradorq).

The 2.0 (2.1) and 2.5 shared the same bore, but the 2.0 had a shorter stroke.

The 2.5 and 3.0 were only available with the all wheel drive system (both diesels and 2.0 were FWD only) and due to the drive and packaging arrangement, they made slightly less hp as they did when fitted to other RWD vehicles like the S Type.

The gearing was a little shorter too, so a 3.0 X can just about out sprint a 3.0 S in a dash to 60 even with the weighty AWD system, despite their different sizes, there's only an anorexic flea's weight difference between the two models.

I remember reading about the styling a few years ago, they had real trouble with the front wheel position.

The AWD layout caused the front wheels to sit further toward the bulkhead than they liked, it caused a "cab forward" look with a long overhanging snout sitting ahead of the axle, it also caused the wheel base to shorten, so the X Type and Mondeo didn't even share the same wheel base (or track).

So sure, it all started with the CD132 like the Mondeo, but they both ended up completely different.

Just a shame the wrong one's became the best seller and dog's dinner!
 
All Pandas are smooth and cool.

Pandatoni could also drink most other cars under 4.5 litres under the table as well!

Hees smooth if not cool while drinking fuel at 27mpg!

I need snow and lots of it before the wife sets fire to him. He won't be so cool then I suppose.....
 
Back
Top