 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2 poor fuel economy |
 
|
|
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2214  
|
The new 2.2 is very poor on fuel economy . The vehicle has gone through dozens of changes to enable it to comply with new 2012 EU regulations . To comply with emissions they have had to make the vehicle lighter . I have noticed a thinner chassis with more holes in it , a thinner bonnet which i have dented by just closing it , thinner less weight rubber , interior carpet now thinner with less soundproofing felt and many others all to save weight . Its marketed as being more fuel efficient as a result of these changes ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yet with its 6 speed gearbox and low revs its economy is very dissapointing. My last new 2006 TD5 gave me 420 miles for my 75 litre tank , constantly for 5 years . Now my new 2.2 which is suposed to be the best ever is giving me ONLY 340 miles for my 70 litre tank . Why is this ? even the fuel tank is smaller to save weight . The TD5 used to get 75litres into it , now from empty it holds exactly 70 litres . My first trip out in my new 2.2 i ran out of diesel on the M8 . EH ! TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK .
Last edited by keith on 7th Feb 2014 10:22pm. Edited 1 time in total |
||
15th Aug 2012 9:31pm |
|
| T1G UP Member Since: 08 Dec 2009 Location: Bath Posts: 3101  
|
there
 ....and my 2.4's worth 5k more than when i bought it  |
||
|
15th Aug 2012 9:32pm |
|
| DarrenJ Member Since: 07 May 2012 Location: North Beds Posts: 312  
|
That economy doesn't sound right at all, I get about 28-31 mpg out of my 2.4 with having a roof rack always fitted and often carrying a kayak or 2.
Best to mention it / complain to the dealer at the same time as our carpets. Darren |
||
|
15th Aug 2012 9:43pm |
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2214
|
[quote="bpman"]Shame to hear about the problems you are having Keith. Have you done more than 10k miles yet?
Diesels need a bit of loosening up The clutch/ gear change issue does not sound right though, have you tried another at a dealers? Keep us posted[/quote I never test drove the 2.2 i just expected it to be supersonic . im very dissapointed after driving so many other landrovers for 25 yrs . im sure landrover think that because they gave it cumffy seats and a new dash that this would make everyone love it . |
||
|
15th Aug 2012 9:47pm |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1583 
|
I am not a fan of the 2.2. I find it difficult to drive smoothly at low speed. On a full tank on my 90 I am
Getting about 300 miles out of a tank. I have more sound proofing in my current 90 than any other I've owned. The bonnet is now steel not alloy like a td5 one. |
||
|
15th Aug 2012 10:21pm |
|
| jst Member Since: 14 Jan 2008 Location: Taunton Posts: 8051  
|
all 110s have the same size tank 75L plus what you can fit in the filler neck.
2.2s i have driven seem to be heavier on fuel than the 2.4 they burn alot cleaner though, well less crap comes out the back. exhuast is clean after a day around idle on a 2.2. not so on a 2.4 Cheers James 110 2012 XS Utility 130 2011 M57 bespoke Camper 90 2010 Hardtop 90 M57 1988 Hardtop |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 6:11am |
|
| WWA Member Since: 12 Aug 2012 Location: Northumberland Posts: 197 
|
I have had both a 2.4 90 and now a 2.2 90. On average driving, dotting about the back roads no long distant cruising, I am getting near enough EXACTLY the same economy from the 2.2 as I did the 2.4.
The 2.2 has only done 6500 miles and while I do not expect the economy to get any better really, it's certainly not going to get worse. I am yet to take it on a long distant, 70mph+ motorway run, but when I do I expect it will be the same, if not slightly better than the 2.4. 2.4 used to get a realistic 300miles a tank, on a high speed motorway run. The 2.2 isn't run in yet and it's already as good as the 2.4 so I doubt it will get worse. That's my opinion on the fuel economy of the two puma engines, but as we all know, every Defender and every defender driver is different Sorry to hear youre disappointed Kieth. |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 6:44am |
|
| K9F Member Since: 12 Nov 2009 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 9610
|
You must have had 'some idea' what you were getting yourself into? Either that or you didn't carry out your research well enough. Zag a fellow forum member ran up several hundred posts prior to committing to buy his Defender. If fuel economy (and many people do 'bang on' about it) is such an issue the question must be... "Why buy a new Defender in the first place?" 340 miles per tank! What's the fuss all about? I don't get that out of my 2.4 and I don't really care as I too knew very well what to (or rather not to) expect and duly placed fuel consumption way way down on my priority list. Sell it and buy a decent TD5! You're not related to my old Mucker Red Dot are you? You could be his alter ego! 
(Joke! Red Dot no offence meant or implied!  ).
YOU DID ASK! 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!! |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 7:31am |
|
| MartinK Member Since: 02 Mar 2011 Location: Silverdale (Lancashire/Cumbria Border) Posts: 2665 
|
Hmmm quite suprising. I normally get around (or just over) 400 miles to a tank on the 2.4, and that's just under 30mpg. It has been getting steadily better as I approach 8000 miles, so maybe yours will improve...
...that'll be the CAT i assume - seems to be like this on most modern diesels with Cats... Defender "Puma" 2.4 110 County Utility (possibly the last of the 2.4's) |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 7:57am |
|
| Glynparry25 Member Since: 16 Feb 2009 Location: Miserable Midlands Posts: 3015  
|
I also get about 400 miles when the light comes on- now on about 34k miles. I think you mean DPF for cleaner running (2.4 has a cat). DPF collects the soot which the diesel engine normally throws out the rear- it then burns it off at such a hight temp it turns the soot into ash..... which then just flys out the rear. Glyn   |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 8:40am |
|
| BigRuss Member Since: 15 May 2010 Location: Norfolk Posts: 2785 
|
But interestingly one of the south African members said they don't fit the DPF to the defenders bound for his next of the woods! Russell
2011MY 110 XS USW Black |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 8:55am |
|
| NinetyTD4 Member Since: 22 Apr 2011 Location: North Posts: 397 
|
Almost impossible to answer such a thread w/o getting personal? The Defender is quite a tricky beast and has to allign to the driver as well as the opposite. Some former-TD5's complain on fuel usage when they start driving a TD4, but it becomes better over time.
My 90/2.4 Puma gives me constantly above 450 miles on a tank and I am happy /w it - BUT, I had a 2.2 as a tmpry and it was eating significantly more diesel, so there might be something at the engine. Never forget: cars have owner, Landrover have field service personnel. |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 9:10am |
|
| mrandmrsh Member Since: 31 May 2010 Location: Huddersfield Posts: 692
|
I would expect the main reason for that is because LR don't HAVE to fit them there so they save the cost of the DPF crap on cars bound outside of the EU. They are only fitted here to get the stupid EU5 ticket. 2015 110 USW XS in Santorini with premium contrast leather seats in tan/black, black headlining and with Dual Finish alloys (in the garage, now on Wolf rims with Goodyear MT/Rs) 2012 '62' 2.2 X-Tech 110 USW now gone ... 1984 90 soft top with full roll cage, 200 tdi engine etc now sold 2012 USW XS 2.2 "FUU" now gone.... |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 9:33am |
|
| Glynparry25 Member Since: 16 Feb 2009 Location: Miserable Midlands Posts: 3015
|
Have to ask what mods you have done?..... If you get over 450 miles to a 60 litre tank means you are constantly getting over 35mpg. Even Land Rover quote Extra Urban at 31 and combined of 28mpg I have sometimes on really good runs got low 30s but average 28-30 (26-28 without Alive map). I don't think anyone else on the forum gets much above 28-32....... Many averaging 26- which means a massive 10mpg down on you. Glyn |
||
|
16th Aug 2012 9:41am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
