↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home > Technical > Puma "Airbrakes"....
Post Reply  Down to end
Page 2 of 3 <123>
Print this entire topic · 
pannawonica



Member Since: 21 Nov 2010
Location: Clackline Western Australia
Posts: 568
Australia 
I find it hard to beleive that removing the mud flaps makes that much difference to fuel economy. However I'm often wrong Laughing The big but to me is if you tow something a reflected stone could come through the back window. I must agree you don't by a Fender for economy, I fill her up and enjoy. Thumbs Up
Post #158914 31st Jul 2012 12:24pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
dgardel



Member Since: 30 Nov 2008
Location: Veneto (Heart & Head)
Posts: 3586
Italy 
At least in Italy there is no problem or dubt about the mudflap!!! they are mandatory by law!!!

also who is behind my car is thanking me (his/her front glass) Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition

IID Pro MV License
Post #158919 31st Jul 2012 12:46pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
ZeDefender



Member Since: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Munich
Posts: 4731
Germany 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SW Baltic Blue
I believe my front mudflaps protect my own underside - it would seem weird to have the front and not the back. Plus - even though lorries and SUV drivers spray crap all over me, I like to think I'm better than them Wink Tell someone you love them today because life is short.
But shout it at them in German because life is also terrifying and confusing...
Post #158921 31st Jul 2012 1:00pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
MK



Member Since: 28 Aug 2008
Location: Santiago
Posts: 2416
Chile 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SW Chawton White
I guess on a 90 the design is OK, but not on a 110. I removed mine as they were twisted and did not put them back again. Can a 90-type be fitted straight to a 110? or is there an issue with the tail pipe? Puma 110" SW

.............................................................
Earth first. Other planets later
Post #158933 31st Jul 2012 1:58pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
blackwolf



Member Since: 03 Nov 2009
Location: South West England
Posts: 17387
United Kingdom 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 DCPU Stornoway Grey
I have now processed my fuel figures and can confirm......

... that removing my rear mudflaps has made absolutely no discernable difference at all to my fuel consumption.


My vehicle is a 2007 Puma 2007 DC with IW canopy, 285/75 KM2s, usually running laden. Average consumption over the last two years (42000 miles) is 25.46mpg. The best I have ever achieved between fills is 29.28mpg, the worst 21.17mpg. For the last 8 months it has had a Patriot rack (with rails) fitted, which perhaps surprisingly hasn't made a discernable difference either. I guess that the aerodynamics are so bad anyway that a rack doesn't make an appreciable difference.

In two years that amounts to 1,652.56 gallons (7,580.54 litres) at a cost of £10,168.54 Big Cry


PS - If I do ever replace the rear flaps then they will be fitted to the rear crossmember, where they will be more secure, will work just as well, and it won't be possible to reverse over them and rip them off.
Post #158952 31st Jul 2012 3:38pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
K9F



Member Since: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 9610
United Kingdom 2008 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
blackwolf wrote:
I have now processed my fuel figures and can confirm......... that removing my rear mudflaps has made absolutely no discernable difference at all to my fuel consumption. .


Laughing I thought it was April Fool's when I saw this thread! I too have processed my fuel figures and if you replace the OEM telescopic radio aerial for a Mr Whippy one and wear nothing but underpants whilst driving the drag coefficiency and weight saving of the vehicle is such that you can get an extra 0.003 MPG. Sorry but couldn't resist....the possibilities are endless!

Rolling with laughter If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!
Post #158954 31st Jul 2012 3:57pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
blackwolf



Member Since: 03 Nov 2009
Location: South West England
Posts: 17387
United Kingdom 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 DCPU Stornoway Grey
K9F wrote:
blackwolf wrote:
I have now processed my fuel figures and can confirm......... that removing my rear mudflaps has made absolutely no discernable difference at all to my fuel consumption. .


Laughing I thought it was April Fool's when I saw this thread! I too have processed my fuel figures and if you replace the OEM telescopic radio aerial for a Mr Whippy one and wear nothing but underpants whilst driving the drag coefficiency and weight saving of the vehicle is such that you can get an extra 0.003 MPG. Sorry but couldn't resist....the possibilities are endless!

Rolling with laughter


Yup, and even better result can be obtained if you massage Sikaflex into your entire body and wax......





... the outside of the truck!
Post #158962 31st Jul 2012 4:55pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Shax



Member Since: 05 Oct 2010
Location: London
Posts: 391
England 2010 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
pannawonica wrote:
I find it hard to beleive that removing the mud flaps makes that much difference to fuel economy. However I'm often wrong Laughing The big but to me is if you tow something a reflected stone could come through the back window. I must agree you don't by a Fender for economy, I fill her up and enjoy. Thumbs Up


I agree, they aint bought for economy, but none of my cars have ever been particularly economical, my 90 is probably in the top three good ones!!
Maybe I am wrong, and if I am, sorry for starting the thread, but the numbers here do add up to a saving.. ... ,-------,
.. I [__][_]|__
.. I __ |"_|"__|
.. "(o)====(o)"
^^_-^-_^-^_^^^^^--^^^^
PAUL
G7ALW 14.200 USB
26FB458 / 27.275 SSB
Post #158987 31st Jul 2012 7:29pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
110SEB



Member Since: 29 Jan 2009
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 1444
United Kingdom 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Java Black
dgardel wrote:
106 MPG changing the external shape of my Defender.....


Click image to enlarge


I thought that was Zag's 110 for a minute there. Sorry Whistle
Post #158999 31st Jul 2012 8:35pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
K9F



Member Since: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 9610
United Kingdom 2008 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
Shax wrote:
Maybe I am wrong, and if I am, sorry for starting the thread, but the numbers here do add up to a saving..


Don't apologise, 10% fuel saving for removing two bits of rubber do indeed add up to a considerable saving. Maybe it should be me apologising for taking the mickey with the nosecone and aerial/underpant quip. But for me it has been an enlightening and entertaining thread. Sorry anyway.

Bow down If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!
Post #159031 1st Aug 2012 3:45am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
quentin



Member Since: 23 Jul 2012
Location: on tour
Posts: 119
Australia 2004 Defender 110 Td5 SW Alpine White
What do you mean, you dont buy a fender for economy. granted its a moot point but ....

my Td5 is the most economical car ive ever had, as far as fuel constipation goes.

The only one that came close was my 1.6 liter 80" but it only went 80kph flat out .... downhill.
The Td5 almost gets better economy at 110 kph towing a caravan.


As far as the removing the mudflaps for better economy.... problem I have with that is the two big solid chunks of rubber in front of them that disturbes the airflow. Meybe fitting some Mad fiber road clincher wheels, or Pitts Special wheel spats might convince me Rolling with laughter
Post #159037 1st Aug 2012 6:26am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Grockle



Member Since: 24 Nov 2008
Location: Peak District National Park
Posts: 2266
United Kingdom 2008 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Tonga Green
K9F wrote:
bpman wrote:
come on Mal - let's have a photo


Steve, it makes me laugh! Laughing If people are prepared to go to such lengths to eek out an extra couple of MPG maybe they're driving the wrong vehicle in the first place. I'd rather keep the mudflaps and give other road users an element of consideration and protection of the extra crud I'm likely to be throwing at them (as well as my own vehicle) without them.

Get a proper remap to gain noticeable increases in performance and fuel economy if you can keep your right foot from using the extra torque.


I took the keyring off (big metal one) 32.8 mpg now as 32.7 before,it all helps ya know Mal Thumbs Up 2.4 90 XS
1968 1/32 scale Britains 109 Pick up.
Post #159069 1st Aug 2012 9:31am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
ZeDefender



Member Since: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Munich
Posts: 4731
Germany 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SW Baltic Blue
Not carrying the wife and kids around improves fuel consumption and noise level Rolling Eyes Tell someone you love them today because life is short.
But shout it at them in German because life is also terrifying and confusing...
Post #159078 1st Aug 2012 10:24am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
ericvv



Member Since: 02 Jun 2011
Location: Near the Jet d'Eau
Posts: 5816
Switzerland 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SVX Station Wagon Santorini Black
Letting all the air out of the tires, that is 2x 2.5 KG from each front tire, plus 3X 3.3 KG from each rear tire plus the spare, so I am getting a total weight reduction of 14.9 KG by doing just that Exclamation You never actually own a Defender. You merely look after it for the next generation.
http://youtu.be/yVRlSsJwD0o
https://youtu.be/vmPr3oTHndg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GtzTT9Pdl0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqKPz28e6A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLZ49Jce_n0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsz_ilQYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8tMHiX9lSw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxwjPuHIV7I
https://vimeo.com/201482507
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSixqL0iyHw
Post #159080 1st Aug 2012 10:36am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
quentin



Member Since: 23 Jul 2012
Location: on tour
Posts: 119
Australia 2004 Defender 110 Td5 SW Alpine White
ericvv wrote:
Letting all the air out of the tires, that is 2x 2.5 KG from each front tire, plus 3X 3.3 KG from each rear tire plus the spare, so I am getting a total weight reduction of 14.9 KG by doing just that Exclamation


Nice idea,

I'm going to the Balloon shop tomorrow to get all my tires filled with helium.


.....

Holy Smoke Batman

I just did a google search for "Landrover Balloon' to try to find a cartoon of, well a ... Landrover Balloon to add to the post
and I found this instead

&feature=player_embedded#!

What about the poor sod who parked his beloved D1 where some rocket scientest crash landed his space ship.
talk about Freaky
Post #159085 1st Aug 2012 11:11am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Post Reply  Back to top
Page 2 of 3 <123>
All times are GMT

Jump to  
<  Previous Topic | Next Topic >
Posting Rules
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
DEFENDER2.NET RSS Feed - All Forums