New 4.4 Diesel Economy

[Laurie]

Reading Carguide in the Sun-Herald today and found this quote on a test drive of the new 8 speed-auto Rangie.

" A Range Rover this week cruised the Princess Highway for 82 km at a average speed of 110km/h and averaged a stunning 5.3 ltr/100km "

That's 53.3 mpg for people of my vintage !!! :D


It's a pity I'll have to wait a few years to get my hands on one, those figures will upset the small greenie brigade as that's better than most small vehicles :twisted:

[robbotd5]

For me, one is only a lotto win away.....
Regards
Robbo

[stig0000]

wate till you dirive one,, all i can say is :D:D:D:D and even more:D:D:D

idk if im to keen on the 8 speed box tho,,, seems to hunt a lil tomuch,

[100inch]

Makes Prius owners even look more stupid:D

[harlie]

While it’s good to see the marque getting some good press this is rubbish. How was this 5.3 measured? Does the Princess highway have an 82km section that is all down hill??

I'm the biggest Range Rover fan, but that figure is utter crap. If someone had stated 75-80km/h without air con and ambient temp of 4 - then maybe a believable claim, but at 110 - do a calculation on the energy required to overcome aero alone.

To claim fuel figures that are 35% better than the manufacturer’s claim is just absurd. Just shows some journalists will say anything without a moment of thought. We all know the manufacturer’s claim is from a test environment and the extra urban figure is what can be achieved on an oval track at a constant 50mph, with a few more conditions.

I know the new euro diesels are good, our Golf (they claim 4.7) will return low 4s on a cool night or even QLD winters day (summers day forget it), but it’s less than half the weight and quite slippery through the air. I have seen 3.7, but that was travelling as support with an oversize boat on a cold night maxing at about 80km/h. On the return run with the same conditions at 105/110 it used 4.4… Those figures are from the trip computer which I know is optimistic as well, actual calculations (fuel in and km travelled) when we first got the car showed 7-8% error in the trip computer, factor that in and guess what? It’s back near the manufacturers claim. 4.4 x 1.08 = 4.752 at 105 on a cool night. Computer shows about 5 on a summers day at 100-110 for the same run.

If a Range Rover is capable of 5.3 as claimed, LR would have found a way for test figures to show much better than 8.2.

[PhilipA]

No its entirely achievable if a Hiclone is fitted.

Regards Philip A

[BigJon]

No its entirely achievable if a Hiclone is fitted.

Regards Philip A


:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

[stig0000]

hiclone :D gold,

wel after a good long drive inone today, in 8th gear at 100kph it dose just over 1000rpm, so as youd expect the econ was prity good, i maniged to get 5.6avg and that included abit of driving around in noosa witch is the home of roundabouts:p,

alltho you cant let that 4.4 stay tamed for to long, foot down a few times and it moves prity well i must say:D

took awile to get used to the new gear leaver, witch it dosent have one, has a nob like the TR used to have,

as for the drive its still a big:D:D

[harlie]

Be interesting to know what it is really using - the fuel consumption read out in my Range Rover is incorrect by more than 20%.

I do agree, they are an awesome drive, anyone that claims there’s no difference between the D4 and RR Vogue really has their head where it’s not shining.

[PhilipA]

Interesting.
The territory 2WD 2.7 is listed in a dealer ad (which I do not dispute) as having an extra urban consumption of 6.2 L per 100Km.

Of course it is about 1000Kg lighter than a D4 or RR, but maybe the extra urban is on flat ground, which would tend to negate the weight.
Regards Philip A

[LOVEMYRANGIE]

Interesting.
The territory 2WD 2.7 is listed in a dealer ad (which I do not dispute) as having an extra urban consumption of 6.2 L per 100Km.

Of course it is about 1000Kg lighter than a D4 or RR, but maybe the extra urban is on flat ground, which would tend to negate the weight.
Regards Philip A

Different diff ratios and different gearbox???
Can't see the territory being released with an 8spd box....


Sent from my backyard TeePee using smoke signals.

[stig0000]

Be interesting to know what it is really using - the fuel consumption read out in my Range Rover is incorrect by more than 20%.

I do agree, they are an awesome drive, anyone that claims there’s no difference between the D4 and RR Vogue really has their head where it’s not shining.

very very tru,

tho the car i was driving was a LRA car and was used up the beach the last few days,, and as youd imagin was driven hard and come into the shop with a avg of 18.4, :p so it gose like a v8 and can allso drink it like a v8 if driven hard:cool:,, tho i guess 18 from lotsa very soft sand driving isent to bad realy;)

[PhilipA]

Pity that to have the benefits of this fantastic performance that the buyer of a new one would have to pay $100 per day or more in depreciation.
Sort of negates the fuel economy.

Don't mind me I am just jealous.

Lovemyrangie, I was just commenting that it is possible maybe to achieve the 5.6 average on flat ground.
I can recall saying when D3 was released , what a missed opportunity it was that it weighed up to 2800kg. It just shows that 1000Kg or whatever can make an enormous difference in economy if the Territory can get 6.2 while the D4TDV6 gets 8.4. The AWD vs RWD in Territory petrol is worth 0.5. Its still 8.4 vs 6.7 est.( figures are not yet on the green cars site)
Regards Philip A