 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2 poor fuel economy |
 
|
|
|
| Phil VM2.5 Member Since: 28 Mar 2012 Location: Limelette Posts: 196   
|
hi,
I am driving landrover from 1980, some one tens, a range rover classic and now a defender 2.2 ... . I agree a little with RockJaw even if I am from who are making good result with consummation. (30Mpg) but, I am married with now, so .... Philippe current : defender 110 sw 2.2 puma 2012 and 230.000km today and again my Range Rover VM2.5 engine from 1992 and 528.000km today. One ten 1988 to 1992 1987 BMW GS80 One Ten from 1984 to 1987 One Ten from 1983 to 1984 Serie 3 109 from 1980 to 1983 from 1974 Jeep CJ3B and CJ6 Last edited by Phil VM2.5 on 4th Feb 2014 9:58am. Edited 1 time in total |
||
4th Feb 2014 9:40am |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1585  
|
They have noticeable more torque than a td5. A lower first gear to help with heavy loads.
It's my company and my land rover so I look after it. I hear that eon have a lot of crashes because the lads really give the 110's a hard time. Be interesting to see what the higher costs are, my running costs are cheaper apart from fuel. Do about 25k a year in mine and average 27 mpg. |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 10:02am |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317  
|
Rob, what do you guys use them for mainly? ****CENSORED****
|
||
|
4th Feb 2014 10:19am |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1585
|
Tree surgeon. Towing, access to any site. Carrying the lads and kit. I use it for quoting so had a reasonable hard life. Then go green laning at weekends.
But I do look after it. I make the lads clean their boots of etc. I am pretty good at changing gear smoothly. I care about my land rovers. I normally swap them at 50k because I find it best for finance. I most be fairly careful getting 27 mpg. I don't tow above 50 mph maybe 55 on motorway. I stay with the lorries and save the fuel. But again that's because I pay the fuel bill at nearly 400 pounds a week. The lads I employ really see their vehicles as there own. I don't have to tell them to wash them or get any problems checked and fixed. Sounds like you have been having some big bills and your getting fed up with them. I do really disagree about the power. But the build some buts are better like rear doors and some worse, like mud flaps, window seals and anything with powder coating. |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 11:01am |
|
| Spookytooth Member Since: 19 Jan 2014 Location: Lincolnshire Posts: 202 
|
Retired highway adventurer here and not embarrassed to have got to this stage in the life cycle. Love the 2.2, far better for my use than any of my Series Land Rover or Discovery's I have owned, as much as I liked all of them. I occasionally get over 400 between fill ups however fun in low ratio soon puts an end to any fuel monitoring and I did not buy it for that reason (Was never a toss up between a Defender or a Prius).
I was Sorry to hear they are not up to heavy duty site work any more, my only question is why did you, or your company, go and buy so many when you have such a disgust and loathing for them, the fact you are on this forum leaves me to believe you secretly like them, a lot! 110 SW Aintree Green |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 11:18am |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
I hear ya Rob,
if it is any consolation I own two myself, both 2013 and both are mothered like little bitches - spotless, both of them and very well used. In the final analysis you have to ask "what the heck choice do we have?" Count our blessings ye? ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 1:08pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
@ Spookytooth
New kids in management responsible for most of the problems in that department. These young management graduates do everything according to paper logic, and on paper the new 2.2 units make sense, in practice? Meh, I don't think so. The older guys understand the value of a proper work tool and we buy as many ex army units as we can get our hands on. Australia's Grey's Online" sold us nearly a dozen two months ago and they are being redone now as we speak. All the paper logic in the world won't beat experience. ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 1:12pm |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1585
|
One of our subbies has an l200 does 22mpg and takes about an hour to start. 57 reg and worth about 8 grand so I really think it costs him slot more to run.
Your comments do show it's time for a new defender. I really hope they get one out soon as I will be buying them. |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 1:15pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
Upgrade from 1957? Darned thing has barely run in! Give it some time, it will improve!!!  ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
5th Feb 2014 9:15am |
|
| jumbo Member Since: 21 Jan 2014 Location: Dublin Posts: 29  
|
Got 517km on 67litres of fuel. Equivalent of 21.5 mpg. Cant believe it. Did nearly 400km of that tank on motorway at 110kmh.
2013 2.2 litre. |
||
|
5th Feb 2014 9:33pm |
|
| forest172 Member Since: 01 Nov 2012 Location: derbyshire Posts: 355 
|
my 90xs 2.2 does 260ish miles before the light comes on. Worked out that is 25/26mpg. But I only ever knock about and drive it hard.
|
||
|
5th Feb 2014 10:05pm |
|
| psimpson7 Member Since: 20 Nov 2013 Location: Gold Coast, Qld. Posts: 221  
|
On the ex Aus army Perentie LR's, One issue with them at least for public use over here if road registered seems to be a very low specified tow capacity. 1200kgs rings a bell? Will be interesting for me to see the differences in how the new ones perform in the real world. Currently have a 2001 TD5 90 Hardtop and have a 2014 2.2 90 station wagon on order for delivery at the end of March. (decided I didnt want to wait and see what the new version is like!) Will be keeping both. In terms of fuel consumption. I have had the TD5 since 2003 when it had done 11k miles. It has now done about 85k miles. In that time I don't think it has ever done better than 12.5l/100 (22.5mpg) so some of the figures people are getting for the 2.2 sound ok to me. |
||
|
5th Feb 2014 11:03pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
G'Day mate, yes, you are correct, but those Aussie ex Military units are actually 113 and not 110. Many differences between standard civilian stock and the military units delivered by Land Rover to Aussie Defence Force. These differences are a very big plus for us.
Most of the units we take are repowered anyway. We pretty much do the industrial version of a "Twisted Performance" rebuild, only minus all the luxuries and that pretty bling bling stuff we see on Khan and Twisted's defenders These ex Aussie army units make fantastic recovery vehicles. A trip across the Namib would be considerably safer in a 20 year old one of these than in a brand spanking new 2.2 lemme tell you that for free. By the way, Aussie Army engineers must really love their landies because they know how to care for them, South African army and British army units are never as well maintained as the Anzac units. ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
6th Feb 2014 3:13pm |
|
| borderterrier Member Since: 09 Dec 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 1677
|
We don't use LR that frequently these days. Snatch was the undoing of Defender in the army. We still have a fleet of utility vehicles, but they are not used for operations.
|
||
|
6th Feb 2014 9:33pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
