Thread: 2.2 fuel consumption

c.h.i.e.f.
How many of those others getting 10 litres/100 km are 130's? I would expect to see some difference between a 90 and 130.

Also a lift, whether that be tyres, suspension or both and roof racks, increase frontal area and drag, contributing to poorer fuel consumption.

We are not always seeing apples compared to apples, just saying!

Originally Posted by TimNZ

I've found them to be pretty similar:





For my 2c worth the 2.2 is a better engine, more drivable, better power range. However the only place I miss the 2.4 is on the highway, put your foot down in 6th anywhere above 80km/h and it would go, the 2.2 you are back to 5th, (I know its lazy driving and I deserve a kicking for it, but hey).

However I do find the 2.2 is more happy at 100/110km/h than the 2.4. The 2.2 loves to rev, and I've had a few passengers think it's a petrol.

Cheers,

Tim

What app is this?
Looks pretty good.

Originally Posted by Bush65

c.h.i.e.f.
How many of those others getting 10 litres/100 km are 130's? I would expect to see some difference between a 90 and 130.

Also a lift, whether that be tyres, suspension or both and roof racks, increase frontal area and drag, contributing to poorer fuel consumption.

We are not always seeing apples compared to apples, just saying!

Yeah this is true john I left it as a fairly open statement really...so I better add

Mine is a 130
Steel tray back
285/75/16's
Steel sunnies
Alloy roof basket
Dog cage usually bolted on

I can see that with the way emission laws are these days for car manufacturers the little **** fart 2.2 on paper looks economical however real world situations turn the tables in my opinion...I believe these small revy diesels are not as suited to Australian climates as the larger displacement motors simply because the long distances,hot temperatures and heavy loads combined are not friendly towards the little engines...beats me as to why the 3.2 wasn't put into the defenders

I am fairly happy with the 2.2 and have found it can lug it with the best of them with nice torque down low.

The so called larger motors still rev more than the 2.2 at highway speed too

Will find out how it tows in the heat in three weeks.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

That is a point the cruisers do sit on around 2800rpm at around 100km/h which does seem like there revving quite hard however there's always compromises as I find the puma 6 speed good for lowering revs on highway cruising but not much chop in the first 3 gears compared to the cruiser being good in the lower gears and not so good up high...then again the type of driving I do may suit a Toyota more I'm not sure

Originally Posted by noogie

What app is this?
Looks pretty good.

it's called "Road Trip". You do have to enter the data manually.

Cheers,

Tim

My 2.2 2012 Defender 90 returned 10.9 L/100 on recent 8,000km outback trip through Gulf and NT. Off bitumen where possible. Now have 16,000km on clock and running beautifully. Do not tow trailer but have rooftop impi camper. Ran parallel with Pajero towing camping trailer who used exactly twice the amount of fuel as my shorty over the same distance....they could not believe what they saw at the bowser. Around town find shorty uses 12 L/100 which is very acceptable.

At the moment I'm averaging 9.5L / 100km on my 2013 Defender 90 with just 3600 km's on the clock. It is however stock standard with the only genuine accessories being a tow bar, side steps and dual finish alloys. It also has partial leather and sun hatch, but these wouldn't contribute to weight or fuel consumption.

I thought I could do better fuel efficiency, but after reading the posts here I think I'm doing okay. But at the end of the day, who cares? I'm just happy to own and drive a Defender!