 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2 poor fuel economy |
 
|
|
|
| dgardel Member Since: 30 Nov 2008 Location: Veneto (Heart & Head) Posts: 3586  
|
yes off course, 2my" Transit is a 2011 reg. Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition 
IID Pro MV License |
||
30th Aug 2012 3:42pm |
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2188 
|
Not that I'm watching the pennies but still rubbish mpg .
Now with 20000 on the clock still only 320 mls to a full 70L tank . Caterham reckons 600 mls is possible . I will eat my hat ..... |
||
|
1st Feb 2014 11:46pm |
|
| borderterrier Member Since: 09 Dec 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 1677  
|
I manage 400 regularly and that's driven realistically. 600 miles on a standard tank is not possible, even siting on the rear of an artic for 600 miles on the motorway!
|
||
|
2nd Feb 2014 12:00am |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6276  
|
Hi
I'm on the phone without wi-fi so I can't be bothered to try and search but from memory I did 560 miles on a tank that equated to 37 mpg. It took 70 Ltrs to refill so doing the maths if I run it dry (ie 75 ltrs) 610 miles should be possible. After various issues along the way i've recently replaced map and MAF sensors and the pump vcv. She’s running really well at the moment so as long as I keep my speed down I would hope to see a slight Improvement. It might be a few weeks till I get some decent long back to back journeys but I will be aiming to hit 600 miles  |
||
|
3rd Feb 2014 8:36pm |
|
| DavidITGuru Member Since: 16 Aug 2011 Location: London Posts: 99 
|
I've never done more than 576KM (yes KMs, not miles!) which is 24.08 mpg so how you guys are breaking 600 miles I'll never know.
|
||
|
3rd Feb 2014 8:44pm |
|
| tookaphotoof Member Since: 18 Mar 2013 Location: dordrecht Posts: 1279  
|
Last tank calculated as 9.35 km/l. Mostly motorways and didn't go faster than 100 km/h.
|
||
|
3rd Feb 2014 8:46pm |
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2188
|
. I reckon my hat and teeth are still pretty safe mate  |
||
|
3rd Feb 2014 8:53pm |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6276
|
You're probably right but I do like a challenge
 |
||
|
3rd Feb 2014 8:56pm |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317  
|
Could not agree more, these new 2.2 Defenders are hands down the worst, period, underperforming, period, lightweight, period, under specc'd, thinnest bodied, boringly frustrating ride, period, than ANY Landrover I have ever been exposed to in over 40 years.
They could not be worse if they were produced in a Chinese sweat shop and called the "Great Fail of China". The 2.2 feels like you're driving a tin foil covered balsa wood framed toy, powered by a tired old scalectrix motor with panels so thin they look dented, buckled and bashed within the first few months of use. And yes, they are rubbish on fuel consumption and no, they don't improve with age, they get considerably worse and more and more costly to own as they start hitting the 120k-150k mileage. Anyone who claims they can get a range of more than 300-350 miles per tank is either lying or they have somehow managed to install a spare fuel tank. The range of these things suck big time. Probably the first "disposable" Defenders ever produced and that appears to be what they were designed for, dispose and replace after a use-by mileage of around the 120k - 150k mark. With all the stupid EU regulations built into the vehicle it also never feels like you actually own these pieces of chite, that it is just yours to borrow temporarily until the bureaucrats decide you have to give it back to them. Any good old TD5 properly stripped and rebuilt would be far greater value, far longer lasting, far more versatile and economical, exciting, useful, practical and much better use of anybody's hard earned money than a dozen of these disposable catastrophes they palm off as "Landrover". If you are not buying these as a fully tax deductable cost against a business income you're throwing good money down the John Crapper. ****CENSORED**** |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 5:58am |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11318
|
Do I detect a hint of dissatisfaction with the 2.2 there, Rockjaw
 Darren
110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 8:02am |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6276
|
I think RockJaw is 'sitting on the fence'
I hear where you're coming from and don't disagree with many of your comments (albeit I think you may be exaggerating with many of the comments and certainly in terms of the lying and fuel range. there's several on here who exceed 400 miles on a tank (and far more is possible) but granted those not trying to obtain good economy etc are perhaps closer to the 350 miles. the idea of the EU probably sounded great at conception but 5 mins later they and after a trip to Amsterdam for afternoon tea and CAKES its all gotten very silly.  |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 8:18am |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1577 
|
Blimey the 2.2 is full of eu regs you can hardly move for all the airbags.
There's nothing really wrong with the TD5 but I wouldn't go back to one. The forum seems to becoming just a place to moan and how we are allowed to modify our own land rovers. I am on my second 2.2 well it's comes sometime this month. Sold my 90 because it was too small. The only problem I had was the turbo pipe falling off. There was an issue with the ecu but that was sorted with an update. |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 9:28am |
|
| RockJaw Member Since: 15 Oct 2013 Location: United States Posts: 317
|
Sitting on the fence?
If you are "new" to Landrover I guess the 2.2 is fantastic, especially for those who have recently upgraded from their tricycles and on to bicycles and now to their first Defender, but when you have been driving these things for 40 years, struggled with them, beat your head in frustration over all their silly quirks, loved them, hated them, torn your hair out of your head over them and blessed them when they got you through difficult spots, in and back out of the worst places, well then I guess the 2.2 simply won't cut the mustard for us. Still, in all sincerity, I would rather have one of these krappy things if it comes from a less regulated country like South Africa than some of the other rubbish the EU has been peddling as an excuse for a utility truck. Somebody said my post was just a whinge and a moan - it might sound like a whinge but really, I simply agreed with the original OP who appears to have been one of the first victims to have noticed the "changes" (specifically avoiding the term "improvements" or "upgrades") to this new range. Somebody said they experience no problem towing a horse trailer, and sure, of course you can tow a horse trailer, just so long as you don't stick a bloody horse in it! ****CENSORED**** Last edited by RockJaw on 4th Feb 2014 11:25am. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 10:21am |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1577
|
Not really new to land rover. Have owned everything from series 3, 200tdi which I have been rebuilding for years. 300tdi loads of td5. A few 2.4 and a couple of 2.2.
My 2.4 110 was the best id had because of its size not because of its engine. My new one will be 2.2 110. I don't spend hours repairing the new ones like I did with 300 and series. We use the land rover all the time and really have no issues. The dpf you just don't know it's there. The 2.2 I had was standard and without doubt the fastest one I'd had. |
||
|
4th Feb 2014 10:39am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
