↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2 poor fuel economy
Post Reply  Down to end
Page 3 of 11 <123 4 ... 91011>
Print this entire topic · 
nidge n



Member Since: 04 Feb 2012
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 719

 
rover wrote:
I have a 2.2 110 sw, done 2500 miles so far, mix of motorway, a road and country roads, worked out the mpg every fill up and the average is 26.5mpg. Slightly worse then my previous Td5 at 28mpg but I suppose it may get better after a few thousand miles. I would not have the Td5 back though, 2.2 more powerfull, faster, less noisey, far better seating for pasengers, better at cruising at 70 mph better at towing the caravan.


I agree with Rover here. I was really disappointed with the MPG of my 2.2 from new but now its 5,000 miles in my visits to the gas station are much less. Thumbs Up I am now getting to really appreciate the 2.2. Its bordering refined (especially at motorway cruising) build quality is much better than previous experiences and whilst i am not a vicious off road user (and therefor respectfully defer to those comments from those who express expert opinions on such matters) i used and enjoyed quite a good off road session today where Landy performance was very accomplished. In all happy with the 2.2, especially now i have some milage behind me Mr. Green
Post #162959 18th Aug 2012 7:32pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
NinetyTD4



Member Since: 22 Apr 2011
Location: North
Posts: 397

Wales 2012 Defender 90 Other SW Keswick Green
Glynparry25 wrote:
NinetyTD4 wrote:
My 90/2.4 Puma gives me constantly above 450 miles on a tank and I am happy /w it


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 Dog Sheep


No mods at all, plain factory delivered status of the 90 - on average for the last 17.000 miles I am now at 35.3 mpg - about 20 percent less then LR quotes. And yes, I do check mileage with my GPS tracker log and the speedo is almost equal to miles travelled by GPS. 55 mph is my travel speed ... Never forget: cars have owner, Landrover have field service personnel.
Post #162993 18th Aug 2012 10:19pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
x-isle



Member Since: 26 May 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1327

Wales 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Santorini Black
Can someone explain to me why the 2.2 isn't towing as good as the 2.4?

I thought that both bhp and torque output was exactly the same and the powerband was pretty similar.

This is all due to the variable turbo (which is a nifty bit of kit) fitted to the 2.2.

So, how does an engine with the same power output matter if it's 2.2 or even 0.8? Albeit not in a Land Rover, I do have a motor with the 2.2 engine and it's pretty awsome. What you have to remember, this is the heart of the worlds most popular and versitile machine, the Transit. Yes, ok it's tuned differently for the Landy, but come on, if it didn't have the capabilities of the existing engine, the Transit wouldn't continue to be a success. Craig Rogers

2007 Puma 110 XS
2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux
www.craigrogers.photography
Post #163189 20th Aug 2012 7:41am
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 
x-isle wrote:


This is all due to the variable turbo (which is a nifty bit of kit) fitted to the 2.2.



Also the 2.4 has the variable geometry turbo............. Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition

IID Pro MV License
Post #163290 20th Aug 2012 4:54pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
x-isle wrote:
Can someone explain to me why the 2.2 isn't towing as good as the 2.4?

I thought that both bhp and torque output was exactly the same and the powerband was pretty similar.


Our brothers across the pond have the best answer to this: There is no replacement for displacement

Simple law when it comes to an engine.... you can have a 6.7 litre V8 with the same 'figures' and a tuned up 1.6 straight 4. Fact of life is that they will feel so much different to drive- especially when you start adding loads etc.

Glyn Dog Sheep
Post #163293 20th Aug 2012 4:58pm
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 
Glynparry25 wrote:
x-isle wrote:
Can someone explain to me why the 2.2 isn't towing as good as the 2.4?

I thought that both bhp and torque output was exactly the same and the powerband was pretty similar.


Our brothers across the pond have the best answer to this: There is no replacement for displacement

Simple law when it comes to an engine.... you can have a 6.7 litre V8 with the same 'figures' and a tuned up 1.6 straight 4. Fact of life is that they will feel so much different to drive- especially when you start adding loads etc.

Glyn Dog Sheep


120% well said Glyn!!!! (look on my sign Rolling with laughter ) Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition

IID Pro MV License
Post #163294 20th Aug 2012 4:59pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
You are a man after my own heart Thumbs Up Thumbs Up

Glyn Dog Sheep
Post #163295 20th Aug 2012 5:00pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
x-isle



Member Since: 26 May 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1327

Wales 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Santorini Black
Still not convinced, torque is torque and delivery should be similar. Not saying it's not correct, but if someone has a scientific reason.....

I agree that bigger cc can produce more torque and have a better delivery of it (power band), however, if there are 2 engines with the same torque and the same powerband then they will be equal no matter what cc they are.

Does anyone know if the powerband is that much different between the 2 engines which will give the differences tow'ers are noticing?

As for the 2.4 having the variable tubby, every day's a school day! Thumbs Up Craig Rogers

2007 Puma 110 XS
2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux
www.craigrogers.photography
Post #163390 21st Aug 2012 5:40am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
spudfan



Member Since: 10 Sep 2007
Location: Co Donegal
Posts: 4704

Ireland 
Wonder if the dpf is acting as a restriction in getting rid of the exhaust and perhaps that might account for it? 1982 88" 2.25 diesel
1992 110 200tdi csw -Zikali
2008 110 2.4 tdci csw-Zulu
2011 110 2.4 tdci csw-Masai
Post #163455 21st Aug 2012 11:14am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
x-isle



Member Since: 26 May 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1327

Wales 2007 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Santorini Black
All maybe, but then the power output would be reduced.

Either LR are telling us porkies that the output is the same, or the 2.2 gets it's (same) torque output higher up the rev range. Which would be noticed when tugging. Craig Rogers

2007 Puma 110 XS
2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux
www.craigrogers.photography
Post #163459 21st Aug 2012 11:25am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Odin



Member Since: 29 Apr 2011
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 237

Scotland 2012 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Santorini Black
x-isle wrote:
Still not convinced, torque is torque and delivery should be similar. Not saying it's not correct, but if someone has a scientific reason.....

I agree that bigger cc can produce more torque and have a better delivery of it (power band), however, if there are 2 engines with the same torque and the same powerband then they will be equal no matter what cc they are.

Does anyone know if the powerband is that much different between the 2 engines which will give the differences tow'ers are noticing?

As for the 2.4 having the variable tubby, every day's a school day! Thumbs Up


Good point. Similar performance curves of torque and power vs rpm must equal similar steady state performance albeit no consideration of mass amd acceleration If anything could the smaller unit accelerate faster due to lower inertia? But then does the dpf increase back pressure from the exhaust?

I'm always reluctant to default to American rule of thumb without robust explanation of the physics. I can see how larger displacement with more cylinders changes the engine's response, and I can see how a heavier unit of equivalent material may last longer due to being over-engineered, but in reality I can't see how more displacement for similar power curves changes the day-to-day performance? I'd love to hear otherwise.
Post #163575 21st Aug 2012 8:27pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
If power and torque is all that matters, why haven't Land Rover down scaled it to either the 2.0 puma (can easily produce more power than 120/350 or even the 1.8 Audi lump which can also produce about 150/330? My 3.5 V8 EFI Discovery had a little more HP and less tourque but was an awesome car to tow- had upto 2 ton behind it and not even a sniff of power loss.

Land Rover want to keep as big an engine as possible but are still having to follow Europeal legislations (same reason why they went from 2.5 to 2.4). To get EU5 certified it has to have a DPF- that means in many European countries you have a sticker in the windscreen with a 5 on it. If you then remove the DPF you have just broke the law as a DPF reduces the soot output by about 85-100% over a non-DPF engine.... therefore dropping it down to EU4.

Odin wrote:

But then does the dpf increase back pressure from the exhaust?


Anything in the system will increase back pressure......... not good Sad .

Glyn Dog Sheep
Post #163635 22nd Aug 2012 8:00am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Odin



Member Since: 29 Apr 2011
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 237

Scotland 2012 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Santorini Black
I don't know - that was our/my question!
Post #163797 22nd Aug 2012 7:11pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
NinetyTD4



Member Since: 22 Apr 2011
Location: North
Posts: 397

Wales 2012 Defender 90 Other SW Keswick Green
As LR is no longer building engines, they had to take what they can get without breaking their EU-typrating - and that binds them to Ford and its Transit engines. As Ford decided to only bring the 2.2 Puma to EU5 emission, there was no choice at all. Never forget: cars have owner, Landrover have field service personnel.
Post #163892 23rd Aug 2012 6:49am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
BigWheels



Member Since: 21 Mar 2010
Location: Somerset
Posts: 1405

United Kingdom 2008 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Tonga Green
300 miles per 3/4 tank for my 90 Puma, say 350 to light & bell alarm at best. Tyres do matter, as more road-friendly will help. Air conditioning switched on will use fuel up.

The seeming less sturdy parts 2.2s have been said to have above, would worry me more than mpg. Land Rover Defenders. 67 years heritage, minimal appearance changes, still going strong all over the world. Not a fashion vehicle, but fashionable to own. Made for the needy, not the greedy. Ta ta Defender
Post #164195 24th Aug 2012 6:10pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Post Reply  Back to top
Page 3 of 11 <123 4 ... 91011>
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