Puma 90 fuel consumption figures

[Lagerfan]

Hi All,

For a bit of background we've had our MY13 90 LE since Feb 2013, starting at around 13l/100km it settled in after about 8000km on the clock and we were getting about 10.5l/100km or 550km out of a tank, it appeared to be improving all the time.

We then planned and headed off on our first quick outback adventure, a couple of weeks up to the NT and back via the Oodnadatta. In the lead up we had a number of accessories fitted: Hannibal Roof Rack, Safari Snorkel and one of the new LR bull bars. Now we didn't get much time to run them in but loaded up and off we went. Shock horror we were getting as high as 15l/100km or only 400km out of a tank! Maybe 450km if we sat around 85km/h. On the trip we put it down to load (around 650kg) and the aerodynamics of the roof rack with second spare, jerry's, swag etc up top, bikes on the back etc. We were disappointed in our fuel bill but didn't really care, we were having too good a time!

Anyway, now we're home, and we head up to Echuca this weekend for a quick overnight camp, minimal load and nothing up top but the rack itself (+ a small roof top bag)... shock horror again, still only getting 400km out of a tank cruising at 100km/h most of the way.

So could these accessories really cause that much of a difference? Or are we looking at a problem? If the latter then the snorkel (or its installation) is the obvious culprit I guess? Anything on our Ultra Gauge that would give us any clues? I'm thinking the MAF sensor numbers etc?

Thanks in advance for any pointers.
Heinz

[debruiser]

I got a puma 90 in April. Got similar numbers to you up until recently. Did a 400km trip the other day and got about 13L/100km, running empty. I have a steel mantec snorkel, 3 roof bars, terriferma winch bar (no winch). I was very disappointed with the economy.... barely made it home on a tank of fuel!

I'd like to know if this is normal as well. And how can I improve it?

[frantic]

As far as I know a puma is supposed to be more efficient than my td5 110 and we used 12.5l per 100ks on our 3 day stay in batemans bay, full det(7_2adults 5 kids) their loose Gear and towing the ex army trailer 400 out of the 600k's(it was only carrying about 150-200kg of Gear+350 trailer weight). The 90 should be way more economical than my 110 as it has 300kg less to carry!

[Hoges]

Weight and aerodynamic drag are the enemies of fuel consumption. As a rule of thumb, once you drive in excess of about 80kmh the issue of drag becomes quite significant...e.g. for a 25% increase in speed say from 80kmh ->100kmh, the drag increases by 50%. If you then increase your speed to 110kmh, the drag is 90% higher than at 80kmh!

Loading up a roof rack, adding a bull bar just increases the drag.

The other enemy is weight...bull bar, dual battery, full size spare wheel(s) and sundry camping gear we tend to lug around... pretty soon the numbers add up.

If you want to test this, remove all the added stuff and do a couple of hundred km at a steady 80kmh...I would not be surprised to see the fuel consumption reduce to below 10L/100km.

[Greyfox]

I have a 2000 TD5 110 , city driving no load I get about 550k to the tank, on a freeway no load trip I get about 580-600K to the tank.

I usually fill up just as it hits the orange line on the fuel gauge, so I do have at least 15 plus litres left in the tank.
My unit has a full length roof rack , bull bar, no winch, spot and fog lights

I am really happy with the fuel usage

I have noticed but, if I have a load on the roof racks the fuel economy drops, but a load inside does not make any noticeable difference to the economy.

[debruiser]

The new 90's only have a pathetic 60L tank, so the moment you start losing fuel economy your up the creek. My previous post I did not have anything on the roof bars, and only 2 people and a bag of clothes on board cruising along at 100kms/hr.

A different trip I towed roughly between 2.5 and 3 tonnes 350kms and burnt 55L, drove a steady 100kms/hr not pushing up any hills. Got back to town and it was so low on fuel that it was starting to surge... NOT fun. I know I could just shove in a long range tank, but I would prefer not to drag even more weight around.

I guess in comparison though, I used to have a Ranger 3L Turbo diesel and it used to get roughly 9L/100 on the highway, throw a load in it and you were looking at more like 15L/100. It had a 70+L tank so didnt' worry me as much. Dad has a 4.2L patrol diesel, does 9L/100km on the highway, doesn't seem to matter how fast you go (under 100kms/hr) and doesnt' seem to matter what you put in it or behind it - it still gets 9/100!

I would have thought that running empty the 90 would do better than it currently is.

A: Have others experienced this?
B: Have others got any solutions? (other than striping all the toys from my car or driving at 80km/hr)


Now i think about it again, for about a month I drove around (to and from work is all highway) at 90km/hr, I didnt' see a significant difference in fuel consumption. I thought that was odd.

Just as a thought... and i'm thinking out loud here. I'm up to about 15000km, so only 5000km short of the first service. Would this be affecting my consumption significantly? Maybe dirty filters, 'old' oil? I think I'll check the water catch in the morning, see that that isn't full.

[Cracka]

G'day guys. In my '12 90 around town, which is pretty hilly, I usually run around 11 - 11.5/100km. I have just returned this afternoon from a trip around Victoria covering 3921.4 kms (I kept fuel receipts to check consumption).

A few days into the trip I bought a Track Tvan which I towed for 2855 kms of the holiday. Towing the Tvan I averaged 12.08 litres per 100 kms. All towing was at 95kph mostly (GPS) up to 105kph on the freeway from Albury to Canberra. All other travel was regional areas, Grampians, Great Ocena Road etc. Total kms travelled average was 11.89 L/100.

The car was loaded up as well and the whole rig went like a dream, no problems whatsoever, I'm extremely happy with those figures.

The car is fitted with a full length Hannibal rack, this alone added 1L/100 to my normal consumption when I fitted it without anything even on it.

And I'll add that the worst roads were when I got back into the bloody Bega Shire ggggrrrrrrrrr.

[scarry]

My sons Puma generally gets around 10 to 11L/100 on most trips.It has a rack,snorkel,bar,etc.
Loaded with the roof rack loaded as well,often12 to 13l/100

my D2 definitely used more fuel once i had a snorkle fitted.

[debruiser]

My sons Puma generally gets around 10 to 11L/100 on most trips.It has a rack,snorkel,bar,etc.
Loaded with the roof rack loaded as well,often12 to 13l/100

my D2 definitely used more fuel once i had a snorkle fitted.

Interesting.... thanks. I wasn't aware that snorkels consume fuel.

Would a bigger intercooler compensate for that?

[Leroy_Riding]

i used to get a steady 10l/100 before my first big fuel issue, after that i only drove a few hundred km's so couldnt tell you the consumption there. after the second repair on it, ive only gone through 2 tanks but im getting around 440kms to the tank which is taking about 52lts that is with just a slim line roof cage and empty car (did tow a trailer for about 50kms on one of those tanks but still both tanks 440kms till the light came on)

Leroy

[beefy]

my 2.2 110 2013 , will bull bar winch snorkel etc sits at around 10.5-11.5lt all day every day. with the camper on 12.5lt.

[debruiser]

my 2.2 110 2013 , will bull bar winch snorkel etc sits at around 10.5-11.5lt all day every day. with the camper on 12.5lt.

Give me those figures and I'll be a very happy camper! I could live with that :D

But 13 empty is not good IMO.

[debruiser]

Sorry heinz, I seemed to have jumped on your thread and stolen it :p Hope you don't mind, but it seems that we are in the same position.

[BilboBoggles]

As far as I know a puma is supposed to be more efficient than my td5 110 and we used 12.5l per 100ks on our 3 day stay in batemans bay, full det(7_2adults 5 kids) their loose Gear and towing the ex army trailer 400 out of the 600k's(it was only carrying about 150-200kg of Gear+350 trailer weight). The 90 should be way more economical than my 110 as it has 300kg less to carry!

Actually the puma engine is less efficient than the TD5, but is more environmentally friendly.I get better fuel economy out of my TD5 than I've ever got out of the two PUMA's Iv'e owned. But the power of the PUMA is more enjoyable than the TD5, which might also explain the fuel economy.

One thing I've found is that I get better economy out of the PUMA by avoiding 6th gear on anything but complete flat. IF I favour 5th gear (which is direct 1:1 int he PUMA) then I do get a very slight improvement. But it could also be placebo effect....


The other way I get better economy - significantly better - is to let my wife drive - for some reason she gets about 10-20% better economy out of either Defender.

[Lagerfan]

Sorry heinz, I seemed to have jumped on your thread and stolen it :p Hope you don't mind, but it seems that we are in the same position.

No worries, this is all good stuff!

I understand drag and the effect it has on economy, I'm just not convinced it would add 3l+/100km to a 90, especially when people are posting figures of 11/100 for fully loaded touring/towing in Puma 110/130's.

The jump in ours from 10.5l/100km (and steadily dropping) to 14l+/100 is quite dramatic.

[debruiser]

No worries, this is all good stuff!

I understand drag and the effect it has on economy, I'm just not convinced it would add 3l+/100km to a 90, especially when people are posting figures of 11/100 for fully loaded touring/towing in Puma 110/130's.

The jump in ours from 10.5l/100km (and steadily dropping) to 14l+/100 is quite dramatic.

Agreed. It would be good to hear from people who have tried to solve the problem, with performance upgrades etc.

[Loubrey]

That drop in economy doesn't sound right at all and it might be worth having your dealer check it. If even your best effort doesn't improve the consumption there is definitely something wrong.

I never had consumption issues, but since my remap my 2.4's (BAS) fuel use is directly related to my right foot.

Driving with D4's and RR Sports (110 and a bit :twisted:) uphill and down hill will return as high as 12.2l/100km or 8.2km/l, mostly I suppose due to the garden shed aerodynamics. Daily driving around town just cruising with short shifts (lots of reserve power and no flat spots with the map loaded) I can get it as low as 9.3l/100km or 10.8km/l.

Combinations of the two (OK, less of the first one...:D) have the car averaging 10l/100km or 10km/l like clockwork.

Cheers,

Lou

[debruiser]

That drop in economy doesn't sound right at all and it might be worth having your dealer check it. If even your best effort doesn't improve the consumption there is definitely something wrong.

I never had consumption issues, but since my remap my 2.4's (BAS) fuel use is directly related to my right foot.

Driving with D4's and RR Sports (110 and a bit :twisted:) uphill and down hill will return as high as 12.2l/100km or 8.2km/l, mostly I suppose due to the garden shed aerodynamics. Daily driving around town just cruising with short shifts (lots of reserve power and no flat spots with the map loaded) I can get it as low as 9.3l/100km or 10.8km/l.

Combinations of the two (OK, less of the first one...:D) have the car averaging 10l/100km or 10km/l like clockwork.

Cheers,

Lou

Arn't remaps on the 2.2 Pumas still in developmental stages and only in UK or something like that :(

[Loubrey]

Arn't remaps on the 2.2 Pumas still in developmental stages and only in UK or something like that :(

I'm not sure... I know it used to be the case.

BAS does have shipping options on the 2.2 map which might indicate international options with the tuning device. All we need is a 2.2 owner putting an inquiry in.

https://secure.bellautoservices.co.uk/store/'model_number=def22remap

Cheers,

Lou

[n plus one]

Hi All,

For a bit of background we've had our MY13 90 LE since Feb 2013, starting at around 13l/100km it settled in after about 8000km on the clock and we were getting about 10.5l/100km or 550km out of a tank, it appeared to be improving all the time.

We then planned and headed off on our first quick outback adventure, a couple of weeks up to the NT and back via the Oodnadatta. In the lead up we had a number of accessories fitted: Hannibal Roof Rack, Safari Snorkel and one of the new LR bull bars. Now we didn't get much time to run them in but loaded up and off we went. Shock horror we were getting as high as 15l/100km or only 400km out of a tank! Maybe 450km if we sat around 85km/h. On the trip we put it down to load (around 650kg) and the aerodynamics of the roof rack with second spare, jerry's, swag etc up top, bikes on the back etc. We were disappointed in our fuel bill but didn't really care, we were having too good a time!

Anyway, now we're home, and we head up to Echuca this weekend for a quick overnight camp, minimal load and nothing up top but the rack itself (+ a small roof top bag)... shock horror again, still only getting 400km out of a tank cruising at 100km/h most of the way.

So could these accessories really cause that much of a difference? Or are we looking at a problem? If the latter then the snorkel (or its installation) is the obvious culprit I guess? Anything on our Ultra Gauge that would give us any clues? I'm thinking the MAF sensor numbers etc?

Thanks in advance for any pointers.
Heinz

In my experience (2.4, 110) your accessories (roof rack and mud tyres in particular) load and driving style (and this is a biggee) can greatly affect your economy. Unless your snorkel is jammed up its unlikely to be the culprit (though maybe check the state of your air filter).

One thing you might want to consider is your servicing - I had my 110 serviced once and it's fuel consumption jumped around 2-3l/100km. After the next service (at a different dealer) things returned to normal - possibly it was just in the fuel mapping?

15l/100km in a 90 seams pretty high - I can get my 110 down to this on rad, but only if loaded to gvm and driven hard in difficult conditions (hills n' head winds).

[debruiser]

In my experience (2.4, 110) your accessories (roof rack and mud tyres in particular) load and driving style (and this is a biggee) can greatly affect your economy. Unless your snorkel is jammed up its unlikely to be the culprit (though maybe check the state of your air filter).

One thing you might want to consider is your servicing - I had my 110 serviced once and it's fuel consumption jumped around 2-3l/100km. After the next service (at a different dealer) things returned to normal - possibly it was just in the fuel mapping?

15l/100km in a 90 seams pretty high - I can get my 110 down to this on rad, but only if loaded to gvm and driven hard in difficult conditions (hills n' head winds).

Maybe you've hit the nail on the head with this one. Lagerfan are we not both at the 15000ish Km mark? maybe 20000km servicing is just too far, maybe it's time for a service.... or at least an oil change. I think I'm going to email my dealer and ask him what he thinks. I'll let you know what he says

[Lagerfan]

are we not both at the 15000ish Km mark?...I think I'm going to email my dealer and ask him what he thinks. I'll let you know what he says

Yeah spot on, we're right on 15k now, was going to call and book it in soon, not sure I want to wait for the full 20k for the very first service. Be interested in what your guy has to say.

[TimNZ]

Not a 90 sorry, but my 2.4 110 fuel consumption, (with ARB bar):

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/10/951.jpg

and my current 2.2 110 fuel consumption, no external accessories:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/10/952.jpg

Cheers,

Tim

[debruiser]

Got a reply from LR. They said that I would not see any improvement after a service and that those sorts of variation are within the normal operating range.

I did slide under mine the other day to find that there is diesel under the right rear! :o I think it was the fuel filter leaking. Spoke to the local LR service (private company) and they said that they sometimes leak, the plastic doover to get the water out strips etc. Might be something to check.

I like your fuel readout TimNZ, is that linked to the car? or you just input the data manual?

[TimNZ]

It's a manual input, (road trip app on iOS), debruiser.

I'm on my 3rd "Puma" now, they all improved after the first few thousand k's, but no change after that. The 2.4's both had the EGR programmed shut via a BAS remap, this, (and the remap), made a considerable improvement to fuel consumption.

All 3 vehicles have been worse on the open road, (110 km/h), than around town by about 1l/100km. Having the roof bars on costs roughly another 1l/100lm.

Cheers,

Tim

Edit: To look on the bright side, my offsider at work who does almost the exact amount of km/year I do owns a 4.8l petrol Patrol. Is fuel costs are practically double mine, and the Patrol is slower!

[scarry]

Off topic a bit,but my D4 i could not get under 10.5l/100 at all,no matter how carefully i drove it,even on a long run.My old TD5 D2 was way better.

Now it has just clocked over 26K,has just done a long trip of 7K,and on the last couple of tanks of the trip started to get 9.5l/100.The first few tanks on the trip were around 11.5l/100.Same weight,same gear on roof,similar speeds.

Two recent trips to Grafton and back,600km each,did 9.2l/100.

Got me stuffed what has happened,either the vehicle needed to get to around 26K to get the engine running correctly,which i doubt,or something to do with the electronics,engine ECU,etc has changed?

Hasn't had a service since 12k,so that is not the reason either.

[n plus one]

Just to clarify, I don't think a service will change the economy in itself - its whether the ECU map is updated during a service. When I took mine in for the service which improved the economy I raised concern around the fuel consumption and the map was updated.

The difference in consumption was stark and reliably different - as I was mid trip when it occurred so load, driving conditions, usage and roof rack equip didn't change and I had 14,000k worth of data to base my calcs on.

FWIW, I found my economy (and engine 'feel') continued to improve up to the 40k mark - and then went rapidly downhill as the number of accessories increased :twisted: A BAS remap has since greatly improved power and (to a lessor extent) economy.

PS Tim is correct re speed - touring at 95kmh will save you a lot of fuel!

[Loubrey]

PS Tim is correct re speed - touring at 95kmh will save you a lot of fuel!

Agree 100% - They seem to have a "sweet spot" for cruising in the window between 95km/h and 105km/h.

If anything like a head wind make you work harder to maintain, just back off a bit...

Cheers,

Lou

[PAT303]

With defenders your speed makes a difference,I've driven between Kal and Perth three times in the last 5 days and empty at 130 mine uses the same amount of fuel as towing at 100,mine doesn't seem to get more than 450-470k's out of a tank. Pat

[Dougal]

No worries, this is all good stuff!

I understand drag and the effect it has on economy, I'm just not convinced it would add 3l+/100km to a 90, especially when people are posting figures of 11/100 for fully loaded touring/towing in Puma 110/130's.

The jump in ours from 10.5l/100km (and steadily dropping) to 14l+/100 is quite dramatic.

I am surprised you're only losing 3 litres per hundred with a roof rack. They are quite simply the worst thing you can do for wind resistance and fuel economy.

A light trailer can use less fuel than a roof rack. I can still get 10km per litre towing an 8x4 with my diesel rangie. But towing here is 90km/h speed limit.

[debruiser]

Filled up today, had roughly 360kms on the clock since last fill, took 36L. So back to 10L/100! the fuel filter doesn't seem to be leaking anymore. Maybe I just had a couple tanks of not so good fuel, mixed with roof bars etc. dragging me down to the 14L/100.... who knows. I will keep an eye on it though.

[Lagerfan]

So back to 10L/100!

Nice work! Is that still with the roof bars on?

[debruiser]

Nice work! Is that still with the roof bars on?

I've taken off the front most one, still got 2 at the back though.

[Naks]

It is amazing what a lack of open-road driving will do to the Puma's consumption.

When I lived in Gordon's Bay, I had a 25km commute to work which included 15km of open road driving @ 100kmh. My fuel consumption was around 9.1-9.5L/100km.

After I moved to Stellenbosch, my commute is now 7km of town driving, so the landy barely even gets up to operating temp. My fuel consumption is now 11.5L/100km

:(

[debruiser]

It is amazing what a lack of open-road driving will do to the Puma's consumption.

When I lived in Gordon's Bay, I had a 25km commute to work which included 15km of open road driving @ 100kmh. My fuel consumption was around 9.1-9.5L/100km.

After I moved to Stellenbosch, my commute is now 7km of town driving, so the landy barely even gets up to operating temp. My fuel consumption is now 11.5L/100km

:(


I do a minimum of 25km highway commute everyday for work, that's EACH way.... so probably 90% of my driving is highway work. You can feel when they get warmed up they like to go better.