 | Home > Tdi > MPG |
 
|
|
|
| g-mack Member Since: 07 Jan 2014 Location: northumberland Posts: 1967  
|
what app you using? cheers My 109 thread my youtube channel |
||
30th Jan 2014 4:17pm |
|
| Diablo Member Since: 26 Oct 2011 Location: Basingstoke Posts: 335 
|
FuelLog
I use the same, it's pretty good |
||
|
30th Jan 2014 5:11pm |
|
| Spookytooth Member Since: 19 Jan 2014 Location: Lincolnshire Posts: 202 
|
No, not just mine, any 110 2.2 110 SW Aintree Green
|
||
|
30th Jan 2014 5:35pm |
|
| lambert.the.farmer Member Since: 11 Apr 2012 Location: harrogate Posts: 2006  
|
Mine is a 98 and on an empty run up the motorway I get about 31 or 32 with gnarly tyres or 32 or 33 with roadies. In town about 26 or 27 regardless of tyres or load. With the loaded big trailer 18 to 20 is fine. Rhubarb and custard let fly with their secret weapon.
|
||
|
31st Jan 2014 5:50am |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6298 
|
spookytooth - not saying you're wrong but lets just say I wouldn't be suprised if you're not right
as mentioned elsewhere (500 is possible) I can get well over 30mpg. Not sure who else on there has exceeded 30 or if they're running a 2.4 or 2.2....I'll go have a look. but your statement raises the question of why the 2.2 is less economical as I thought it was supposed to be more economical? just found this from Phil..... hi, just read this post today if I am not wrong, 9.72 l/100 km is 31 mpg this is the mean value for my defender 2012 with the 2.2 engine I have always be interested with this kind of sport but I see that I have a lot to learn when I read your performance ! and I have to say that I am driving slowly at a speed approx. between 90km/h and 95 km/h on highway what should be 56 to 59 mph he goes on to mention 33mpg (if I remember right). |
||
|
31st Jan 2014 7:58am |
|
| Spookytooth Member Since: 19 Jan 2014 Location: Lincolnshire Posts: 202
|
Hi, take it all back, big apologies, misread the post and didn't realise the discussion was reference the 'sport' of driving for high mpg, my comments were aimed at everyday driving. Even I can easily exceed 30mpg on my night drives to Ashington deliberately going slowly because I don't want to get there before family wake up, however, still no way I can claim my Defender does more than 30mpg
In the real world no one will exceed 30mpg in a 2.2 over an extended period of time and although each to his own, it seems a strange thing to want to do more than once, far better to buy a Prius. High 20's is wonderful for me after my Series Land Rover and even after my Discovery Anyway, each to his own and apologies for jumping in without understanding the direction of the thread. Will continue to read with interest and good luck on continuing to break the record Out of interest is everyones fuel gauge the same as mine. Doesn't move for the first 100 miles, still showing half full towards the 280 mark and then only does 120 or so for the last half (not exact, however, sure you get my drift) 110 SW Aintree Green |
||
|
31st Jan 2014 9:09am |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6298
|
no offence taken what so ever.
I had meant to ask / put a general note up for those that are getting what I refer to as poor economy to see if perhaps they had a fault MAF sensor as my understanding is it isn't uncommon for user to have faulty MAF sensors that only really show (from what I've interpretted) by reduced MPG? as you say the 'sport' of economy......just hoping I'll be able to crack 600 miles on one tank soon.  |
||
|
31st Jan 2014 9:30am |
|
| cornish rattler Member Since: 31 Aug 2013 Location: Manchester Posts: 642 
|
Would a snorkel help with mpg as with a snorkel fitted the engine would be drawing in cold air that's being rammed in as appose to drawing in air from the side of the wing as at high speeds I don't think the original air filter system would draw enough air in making the engine struggle for air giving low mpg ? Graham
1988 Defender 90 county 200tdi ( Beast ) Paul Walker 1973-2013 ( I Almost Had You ) |
||
|
1st Feb 2014 5:36pm |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6298
|
If I remember rightly bas did some tests with and without snorkel and the power was down with the snorkel,.....
If the power is down I would expect the mpg to be down too. |
||
|
1st Feb 2014 10:14pm |
|
| Interlet Member Since: 10 Oct 2011 Location: Norwich Posts: 461 
|
As above, a snorkel reduces MPG a bit, but you probably won't notice it very often. 1998 110 300Tdi White Hard Top
|
||
|
1st Feb 2014 11:02pm |
|
| cornish rattler Member Since: 31 Aug 2013 Location: Manchester Posts: 642
|
200tdi defender owners is there much difference mpg wise if fitted with a defender 200tdi engine or a disco 200tdi engine, the defender I am going to look at on Friday is a 2.5 td county converted to a defender 200tdi any ideas what mpg I should expect from this
 Graham
1988 Defender 90 county 200tdi ( Beast ) Paul Walker 1973-2013 ( I Almost Had You ) |
||
|
6th Feb 2014 12:46am |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317  
|
According to our engineers who have been monitoring our fleet of 2.2s, apparently one of the big culprits is the additional diesel fuel used to clear the DPF through the regeneration cycle. Apparently there is evidence of diesel contamination in the engine oils due to the technology associated with the DPF technology. Another DPF problem is that traditional engine oils traditionally known to produce superior results in our previous diesel engines are now suddenly showing less desirable performance because of the presence of diesel in the crank oil. The Engine oils previously specified, including high end Mobil 1 and Amsoil products, are failing at lower mileages. The manufacturer's specified oils are even worse, despite the fact LR filters are in use (and which are the best according to our experience) Seemingly the first engine oils to fail the manufacturer's oil sheer tests have been those samples sourced from our 2.2 units. The solution, apparently, is to use a superior diesel (like the BP range already discussed in these blogs) and to install a good filtration system like the German Provent 200. Seemingly, these rather simple differences has improved diesel fuel consumption in our stock standard 2.2 units by anything between 5-7.5% depending on how the vehicles are deployed. These 2.2 units achieve over 30 plus MPG quite easily at constant revs and work loads. These units TEND to have a similar fuel efficiency as our 2.4 units, but we are far from an ideal situation quite just yet. I am told that what we are waiting for, in order to improve both fuel consumption as well as contamination of engine oils, is new locally developed technology which prevents the injection of fuel during the exhaust/regeneration cycle. I am hoping Pete from BAS might come up with a solution for my own personal 2.2. We have certainly seen a whole new series of technological changes in these new 2.2 units, and not all of them are improvements over prior technology. ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
6th Feb 2014 4:08am |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6298
|
rockjaw,
how would the dpf enable diesel contamination of the engine oil? I understand one of the issues of using bio diesel is engine oil contamination however I understand that to be via the piston rings? you mention the bp ultimate which I believe has no or little bio content? |
||
|
6th Feb 2014 7:39am |
|
| Retroanaconda Member Since: 04 Jan 2012 Location: Scotland Posts: 2638 
|
Depends on your driving. Mine averages 31 miles per gallon, though it's been a bit down lately for some reason I haven't yet worked out. Doubt there would be a huge difference between the two types of 200Tdi engines. I can't see the attraction of the "sport" of economy, hypermileing or whatever it's called, I just drive my Defender sensibly and the MPG is what it is. I like to keep track of it though, mostly out of morbid curiosity. |
||
|
6th Feb 2014 10:12pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
