2.2 fuel consumption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drover

Install the new BAS 2013 map on the 2.4l and feel the power..... 450nm 125kw, little too no black smoke, yeah baby :banana::banana::banana:

And 13.1l/100k's towing a camper over 4500k's on Fraser Island with return to the Central Coast NSW.

Gota be happy with that :cool:

---

Very nice...
I'm waiting to see how alive tuning go with there 2.2 there doing development work on hopefully they can sort out something similar to what you've just quoted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drover

Install the new BAS 2013 map on the 2.4l and feel the power..... 450nm 125kw, little too no black smoke, yeah baby :banana::banana::banana:

And 13.1l/100k's towing a camper over 4500k's on Fraser Island with return to the Central Coast NSW.

Gota be happy with that :cool:

---

PM sent.

Guess I am a grandpa as cruising at 100km/hr is generally doing the speed limit and also more fuel efficient. If you want to cruise at a higher speed, go for it, but I don't think it is then fair to complain about higher fuel usage...it goes with the territory.

I have been very impressed with the 2.2 compared to the 2.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by c.h.i.e.f

There isn't really a huge problem with that but that's driving like a grandpa so realistically who is gunna drive like that all the time ? I know with driving all the time be it to work or trips I prefer to get there in reasonable time which grandpa seed just don't cut it hence fuel usage goes up...makes you sad comparing it to say the economy of the ford rangers compare that to the power figures that makes you even more sad...
John will be able to inform us more about how the right foot and fuel usage on a common rail diesel is related however my understanding is that yes a diesel is more efficient when under load however there would be more to it.
I've noticed that by putting a set weight on the back of the ute compared to that same weight in a trailer towing the trailer uses considerably more fuel and drops at least 1 gear up the same hills.
I know with old mechanically injected diesels the right foot determines everything so the smoother and lighter you are the less fuel you use...if your right foot is fully down and speed is not increasing then it is working hard

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

Guess I am a grandpa as cruising at 100km/hr is generally doing the speed limit and also more fuel efficient. If you want to cruise at a higher speed, go for it, but I don't think it is then fair to complain about higher fuel usage...it goes with the territory.

I have been very impressed with the 2.2 compared to the 2.4.

---

What you say is true.. With the increased speed the fuel usage is of course going to increase however whilst driving like a grandpa it still isn't crash hot compared to other engines but I am running 285's which I think may be the leading cause I'd say...

I am getting pretty much exactly what the reported economy is supposed to be, as a stock vehicle.

When I put on larger tyres and more wieght, I would expect it to be worse and if I drive over the speed limit, I would expect it to be worse again. If I put on a roof rack, I would similarly expect it to be even worse again ( I reckon my 110 roof rack cost about 2l/100kms).

With all due respect, I think you are giving the 2.2 a bum rap without the hard evidence to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

Guess I am a grandpa as cruising at 100km/hr is generally doing the speed limit and also more fuel efficient. If you want to cruise at a higher speed, go for it, but I don't think it is then fair to complain about higher fuel usage...it goes with the territory.

I have been very impressed with the 2.2 compared to the 2.4.

---

G'day Nugget.

Having not had the 2.4 myself I wonder what has impressed you about the 2.2 when compared to your previous 110?

Cheers

Glenn

Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

I have found it easier to drive to be honest and more torque.

In the 110 I never used 6th around town but the 2.2 is comfortable going up exactly the same hills at 70km/h that the 2.4 died on at 80km/h. I now find myself driving more, not always, but more in 6th which is helping the economy.

Having said that, it is at least the equal of the 2.4 on the highway from a performance point of view. It seems quieter..always a very subjective thing but the wifes voice does seem louder!

The one narc is when changing from 4th to 5th it holds revs which is annoying but not a show stopper and has been commented on quiet a bit.

Did a Fraser trip a few weekends back and it really performed well. The big Patrol and Cruiser utes were taking the big run up and giving it everything over Indian Head and Nkgala and I putted through in locked High, 2nd gear just keeping the revs up with the cheese cutters on 18PSI.

Not giving the 2.2 a bum rap as I posted what accessories I do have but more so the rovers fuel economy being worse than expected compared to other modern engines however ill have to deal with it...I'd have to agree with nuggets points about the 2.2 as I find it has slightly more torque than the 2.4 and is smoother than the 2.4 however the computer isn't as nice to deal with as it's even more laggy and holds revs between gears :mad: try it in low range and the weird things the revs do will amaze you...
I will most likely be going to 265's (unless I can figure out how to get a 235 to sit in line with the guards),remove centre muffler,remove the cat,remap,bigger intercooler and free up the inlet system see how that impacts things..

Actually I did some headland crossings in low range as a comparison to locked high just to see how it would go and it worked fine. Didn't appear to do anything out of the ordinary at all.

Going to 265's is going to make it harder to keep tyres in line with the guards than 235's.Not wanting to tell you how to suck eggs but I would have thought
there were a number of things which you have control over that are going to improve fuel economy more than changing tyres without the major mods to list.

I would take issue with your comment about economy being "worse than expected". The economy figures quoted seem very accurate. It is how you chose to mod your truck and drive it that cause the variation. I would have thought it is then unreasonable to complain about it.

Probably just grandpa having a bad day though... cheers :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drover

Install the new BAS 2013 map on the 2.4l and feel the power..... 450nm 125kw, little too no black smoke, yeah baby :banana::banana::banana:

---

BAS Remap, absolutely no idea what you're talking about :whistling: