2.2 fuel consumption

[c.h.i.e.f]

Just wondering what fuel economy people are getting out of there 2.2 pumas ?
I feel as though on an average the 2.2 is worse on fuel than the 2.4.
With my 2.4 I never ran out of fuel even after driving on the fuel light for a long time whereas in the 2.2 the fuel light comes on and then the a short time later I find myself completely out of fuel and sitting on side of the road :mad: this however is not an accurate measurement of course...on a recent trip out west I was getting up around 17.5L per 100km that's with a box trailer with 350kg in it,3people and 4 dogs but I do have 285/75/16's so I am considering going to 265/75/16's next see what happens...it often makes me wonder why I didn't buy a v8 duel cab toyota for a smoother ride and more power for I'd say around the same fuel economy.

[discojools]

Drove my mates landcruiser. Definitely not a smoother ride than Defender. Also engine runs at busy 2500 rpm at 100 kph, as opposed to Just over 2000 on the defender. Not a relaxed drive. Due to lack of power he has had to have it chipped and new exhaust.

[c.h.i.e.f]

Drove my mates landcruiser. Definitely not a smoother ride than Defender. Also engine runs at busy 2500 rpm at 100 kph, as opposed to Just over 2000 on the defender. Not a relaxed drive. Due to lack of power he has had to have it chipped and new exhaust.

Hmmm must just be my suspension...my partner has a 2006 efi cruiser ute when we use it out west it is noticably smoother on corrugations than the defender this is also been said by the blokes that ride on the tray of both vehicles that the defender is considerably bumpier compared to the toyotas...spending a lot of time driving a v8 cruiser ute on some cotton farms the suspension feels stiff and will not flex as good as a rover but once again hit corrugations and a rover cannot keep up...the v8 I personally don't think its that good power wise but the efi is a great motor and would own 1 over any rover motor...the fuel economy of the efi is fairly steady at around 12-14/100 but load it up and it still does it easy unlike the 2.2...

[JamesB71]

I just clocked 11K in my 90 and I am getting 10.4 on average since new. It has improved slightly, from the first few tanks, but that be as much me learning how to drive the truck smoothly as it is the engine loosening up. I commute daily from Katoomba to Penrith up and down the mountains and long trips into the scrub regularly. The worst that I got was 11.8 driving around the steep country on the farm in low range trying out the 4wd abilities. :-D

[c.h.i.e.f]

Thanks for your input...with towing the trailer I noticed I used at least quarter of a tank more fuel to do the same amount of k's as I usually do and lost around 30 km/h up inclines that I usually stay constant on...sometimes the main reason I get bad fuel economy is that I will be driving in say 2nd gear for 6-8 hours at a time but when I got the 17.5/100 was on the highway

[Dorian]

I have a 110 and have put 17K on it since May. Fuel usage has improved since about 6-7K, Now around town I get about 10.5-10.8 /100K, Hiway is down around 9.2-9.5/100K. Have a boat (16ft ~700Kg) that I tow a bit, just went to Forster and back with it with two Kayaks on top of the 110, stayed around 98K/hr regardless of the limit (60 in the 60 zones of course) and got around 10.5/100 on the way down, on the way back I held speed limit and maybe a bit more and did around 12.5/100. I find that if you push it above 100K/hr the usage goes thru the roof.
Only off road I have done enough to get a milage on was on the beach with just the car and that was less than 12L/100.

I put nulon in the diffs, transfer case and gearbox and recon that improved the economy by around 0.5-0.75L/100 did that at 8K. I run the stock tyres 235/85R16.

When I had the D2 I changed to 215/90R16 and my economy improved. Remember with the 285s your rolling circumference is 4% more than mine so your odometer will read 4% less than mine for the same distance traveled. Hope this gives you some figures to compare with.

[c.h.i.e.f]

Very helpful thank you...I will consider dropping tyre sizes once these ones are worn out...travelling the amount of k's I do a week doesn't really warrant the larger tyres

[TimNZ]

I've found them to be pretty similar:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/12/1015.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/12/1016.jpg

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

[c.h.i.e.f]

Very interesting... I am not sure how I am getting up in the high 17's:eek:

[GlennWA]

Around town just less than 10L/100km

Highway at 100 is about 11

Highway at 115 is about 12-13

All speeds are indicated and I have 235/85 MTRs with bullbar and roofrack and about 600kg on board

Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

[c.h.i.e.f]

Around town just less than 10L/100km

Highway at 100 is about 11

Highway at 115 is about 12-13

All speeds are indicated and I have 235/85 MTRs with bullbar and roofrack and about 600kg on board

Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

Thanks for that very helpful also...
I am trying to decide if a remap and smaller tyres will show some considerable savings...265/75/16's would be noticeable I would like to run 235/85/16's again but with 8" rims I don't think that will be possible

[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!

[noogie]

I've found them to be pretty similar:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/12/1015.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/12/1016.jpg

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.

[c.h.i.e.f]

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 :angel:

[GlennWA]

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 :D

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

Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

[c.h.i.e.f]

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

[TimNZ]

What app is this?
Looks pretty good.

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

Cheers,

Tim

[jools]

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.

[Orkney 90]

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!

[nugge t]

My 130 is about as stock as it could be at his stage, chees cutters and still no tray! So far I am very happy getting 10 to 11l/100.

The 110 on 285's with roof rack, bullbar, winch etc etc returned consistently in the 14's on 10,000kms trips predominantly on dirt. If you are consistently getting a genuine 17l/100 it doesn't sound right, but i would be very surprised it is tyres or suspension, unless you are running on flat tyres:D

[c.h.i.e.f]

My 130 is about as stock as it could be at his stage, chees cutters and still no tray! So far I am very happy getting 10 to 11l/100.

The 110 on 285's with roof rack, bullbar, winch etc etc returned consistently in the 14's on 10,000kms trips predominantly on dirt. If you are consistently getting a genuine 17l/100 it doesn't sound right, but i would be very surprised it is tyres or suspension, unless you are running on flat tyres:D

Thanks for the response...
On this short trip I've done 300km's and gauge is reading just above half but this is with 285's so what I'm going to need to do is get a GPS and accurately measure the distances compared to litres used...I run my tyres at 33psi

[nugge t]

On what basis have you calculated getting 17l/100? To accurately measure usage you have to fill the vehicle and then measure how many kms travelled until you fill again.

Driving for 6-8 hours in 2nd gear towing a trailer is not a reasonable measure of h/way economy, nor is driving 300kms and using the guage being a bit over half.

If you are serious about calculating your true economy, buy a Scanguage, not a GPS..just a suggestion.

[Witchdoctor]

The cheapest tool for working out fuel usage is a pen & paper.
Take note of K's traveled at each fill up & the volume of fuel installed in the tank each time.
Go to the below link, enter your data.
:: The Long Ranger :: (http://www.thelongranger.com.au/longrangefueltanktools.html)

Now you have accurate fuel usage.

Cheers
David

[n plus one]

If you are serious about calculating your true economy, buy a Scanguage, not a GPS..just a suggestion.

Once calibrated a ScanGuage pulls a lot of noise out your fuel consumption readings - I doing mind extremely useful for getting a set reliable consumption figures for different conditions: loaded in sand, towing, etc...

[c.h.i.e.f]

Just got home from a small trip.

554.2km (from speedo)
Highway driving
90-105km/h
No labouring and no high revs just letting it coast along and letting it slow down going up hills as it pleases so foot was never flat.
285/75/16 @ 33psi
No roof basket
Steel tray
Dog crate
2people

=67.95L

=12.26L/100

[nugge t]

so the problem is??? :D :D

[GlennWA]

Sounds about right.

I have MTRs which will add 1 litre or so which is probably the same effect as your larger tyres.

Add another 1 litre for the 130 and we are looking about the same.

I don't get 600 km range when on the highway - ever. Still chasing that tailwind I need:D


Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

[GlennWA]

Just got home from a small trip.

554.2km (from speedo)
Highway driving
90-105km/h
No labouring and no high revs just letting it coast along and letting it slow down going up hills as it pleases so foot was never flat.
285/75/16 @ 33psi
No roof basket
Steel tray
Dog crate
2people

=67.95L

=12.26L/100

I should add from my understanding you don't have to put your foot flat to be 100% throttle in high range. More like half way down as the throttle map is changed between high and low range.

If I put the foot down further and nothing happens I presume it is already at 100%.

May be my warped perspective but the 2.2 is probably pulling 100% more often than you think - no chance of glazing mine up and diesels like to work don't they:eek:

Sent from my GT-I9505 using AULRO mobile app

[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

[Drover]

I've found them to be pretty similar:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/12/1015.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/12/1016.jpg

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

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:

[c.h.i.e.f]

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

[n plus one]

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.

[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.




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

[c.h.i.e.f]

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...

[nugge t]

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.

[GlennWA]

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

[nugge t]

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.

[c.h.i.e.f]

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..

[nugge t]

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

[TimNZ]

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:

[c.h.i.e.f]

Yes me making a statement after selecting such mods is not a fair comparison however compare it to another modern diesel found on the road under the same conditions the landy does not compare evenly for the simple fact of mass vs capacity which is entirely an engineering downfall...
285's on neg25x8" rims sits how I like it looks wise however I have no need for wide tyres and if I could get for example 235's to sit where the 285's outside wall sits I'd be happy...285's were my mistake as I didn't expect to be doing as many k's as I have been doing which the old scale of capability vs reliability vs practicality comes in I obviously chose capability (to a certain degree) which impacted practicality...knowing a bit more now about the tyre choices I should have stuck with 235's like I was planning to do

[c.h.i.e.f]

Another few days of scouting around undulating country side in the upper hunter with:
2013 130
3 people
3 dogs (100kg)
Crate (35kg)
20L of water
285/75/16's
100kmh max

17-18L/100km

[komaterpillar]

My 2013 model currently has 1600km's on it first 3 tanks have gone like this

12.63L/100k's
12.06L/100k's
11.48L/100k's

Only things on it are a Rovacraft winch bar, and it's almost always just me in it

[jools]

Don't worry too much. Mine was the same near new. You will notice improved economy and smoother engine when you've covered more km's.

[ProjectDirector]

This is my 2013 110 after 7500km, includes city driving, open road and lots of low range work. I think 11.5 will be the norm for me.

69930

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[c.h.i.e.f]

Oh forgot to mention k's mine has 28,000....

[Lagerfan]

Our 2013 90 started out at 12.5/100km from new but steadily came down to 10.5/100km with about 7k on the clock.

Then we got a bull bar + roof rack and headed off touring fully loaded and were seeing 14+/100km! Back home again and it seems to be averaging just under 11/100km (with 18k on the clock) which is a little high for my liking but not bad I suppose considering our bar, rack and MTRs, folks around here put me wise to the effect of drag & weight too :)

Two tips I've learnt with ours:
1) The fuel gauge is pretty inaccurate on the pessimistic side - always check the number of litres you stick in. An "empty" tank can still be 20+% full
2) When filling you can usually fit quite a lot more after the initial click off, as much as 10+%

[Dave83]

Measured my fuel consumption on my new 110 on return trip to Melbourne from Wagga this weekend. 11.8l/100. Sat on 95-100 the entire way. Bit of head wind from Benalla onwards. Aircon was on entire trip. 2 adults, one baby and all the stuff that comes with one. Fridge and other basic weekend supplies.

Happy with that.

[voltron]

I nearly always get 550km out of a tank regardless of the type of driving.

17000km's on the clock.

Cheers.

[Defender13]

At the moment the most exact measurement I have is from daily use in peak traffic both ways - from and to work, and also weekend trips at this point not exceeding 200 km. Odometer is about 7700 km and my current average consumption fluctuates around 10 litres per 100 km - driving daily about 105 km. More precisely, (10 +/- 0.3) litres - depending on various trafic factors and weather conditions.
My Defender is btw HD (that is GVM 3500 kg!). I have already installed some add-ons on it. The main trip varies in speed limits between 40 and 90 km/h, however the average value is about 60 km/h. I am happy with that. Before it was about 0.5 of litre more, but since I installed EGT and drive by temperature, it improved nicely. We're going to Flinders soon to get some serious testing, so that will be interesting to see.

[tuesdayfox]

10l/100km for city driving (only with gramma shifting

9.6l/100km highway with 6th geat @2.2k rev most of the tiem

[ProjectDirector]

10l/100km for city driving (only with gramma shifting



9.6l/100km highway with 6th geat @2.2k rev most of the tiem


You are gentle with it, I can't get such a good consumption. As I said above I was averaging between 11 and 12 but I always take it to >3000rpm most of the time while changing gears. I now have just over 10000km and my overall average has been 12.23.

[c.h.i.e.f]

latest trip
5 people
150kg of dogs
swags
fridge
trialer with quad
285/75/16
could barely reach 100


395km , 62L

[Dougal]

You are gentle with it, I can't get such a good consumption. As I said above I was averaging between 11 and 12 but I always take it to >3000rpm most of the time while changing gears. I now have just over 10000km and my overall average has been 12.23.

High revs eat fuel. If you can run it in the 1500-2500rpm range you'll do better.
But I realise that often you can't.


latest trip
5 people
150kg of dogs
swags
fridge
trialer with quad
285/75/16
could barely reach 100


395km , 62L

How many dogs make 150kg?:eek: Is your ODO corrected for the 285/75R16's?

[c.h.i.e.f]

High revs eat fuel. If you can run it in the 1500-2500rpm range you'll do better.
But I realise that often you can't.



How many dogs make 150kg?:eek: Is your ODO corrected for the 285/75R16's?

4 dogs made up the team this trip...um nah thought id add the tyre size so if someone wishes to do the correction for the K's ;)

[ProjectDirector]

High revs eat fuel. If you can run it in the 1500-2500rpm range you'll do better.

But I realise that often you can't.







How many dogs make 150kg?:eek: Is your ODO corrected for the 285/75R16's?


Yeap very often I have to rev it hard to get this dinosaur moving :)

[Rickoz]

Just wondering what fuel economy people are getting out of there 2.2 pumas ?
I feel as though on an average the 2.2 is worse on fuel than the 2.4.
With my 2.4 I never ran out of fuel even after driving on the fuel light for a long time whereas in the 2.2 the fuel light comes on and then the a short time later I find myself completely out of fuel and sitting on side of the road :mad: this however is not an accurate measurement of course...on a recent trip out west I was getting up around 17.5L per 100km that's with a box trailer with 350kg in it,3people and 4 dogs but I do have 285/75/16's so I am considering going to 265/75/16's next see what happens...it often makes me wonder why I didn't buy a v8 duel cab toyota for a smoother ride and more power for I'd say around the same fuel economy.
STD 2014 Defender 90 with 235/85R16 Goodyear Wrangler MTR Tyres
As is, my fuel economy is -> 8.2Km/L
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=77446&stc=1&d=1400404385

[Toxic_Avenger]

STD 2014 Defender 90 with 235/85R16 Goodyear Wrangler MTR Tyres
As is, my fuel economy is -> 8.2Km/L


I can back this up with my results from the weekend.
My 2012 90 with bull bar and ARB roof rack, running the Goodyear wranglers towed myself and 3 other adults Tamworth to Newcastle.
Filled with 51.67 litres
Travelled 428.5km on the trip meter of the ODO
=8.3l/100km

I didn't believe it to begin with, but getting a good run. Mainly in 6th gear, down to 5th for the murrurundi range.

Going to do a few back to back tests to get more data. to get some repeatability.

[Cracka]

I can back this up with my results from the weekend.
My 2012 90 with bull bar and ARB roof rack, running the Goodyear wranglers towed myself and 3 other adults Tamworth to Newcastle.
Filled with 51.67 litres
Travelled 428.5km on the trip meter of the ODO
=8.3l/100km

I didn't believe it to begin with, but getting a good run. Mainly in 6th gear, down to 5th for the murrurundi range.

Going to do a few back to back tests to get more data. to get some repeatability.

I think your calculator is wrong, 428.5 kms using 51.67 litres is actually 12.05 litres per 100 kms.

I run a '12 90 with wranglers as well, full length Hannibal rack rear decked out with storage, dynamat through entire rear area and roof and also a fridge in the back and a 2nd battery, so its carrying a bit of weight. I consistently run 11.2 l/100km around town (very hilly and only short runs). On the Hwy gets down to about 10.5 l/100.

Mick

[Toxic_Avenger]

I think your calculator is wrong, 428.5 kms using 51.67 litres is actually 12.05 litres per 100 kms.

I run a '12 90 with wranglers as well, full length Hannibal rack rear decked out with storage, dynamat through entire rear area and roof and also a fridge in the back and a 2nd battery, so its carrying a bit of weight. I consistently run 11.2 l/100km around town (very hilly and only short runs). On the Hwy gets down to about 10.5 l/100.

Mick

The calculator was me.
So in this case, the problem exists between the keyboard and the mouse.
~12L/100km sounds more like it!

[Cracka]

The calculator was me.
So in this case, the problem exists between the keyboard and the mouse.
~12L/100km sounds more like it!

Whew, I saw your figures and nearly had a hearty.........thought I had a dud :D;)

[Toxic_Avenger]

And I thought I was on a good thing!

[Lagerfan]

.........thought I had a dud :D;)

I was thinking that for a long time after reading the LR spec's, they claim something like 9.1l/100km for a 90 but according to our Ultra-Gauge we get 11.4l/100km overall. Given we have a RR, RTT, front bar, MTRs etc on there, that's not so bad I've since discovered. I've also noticed cruising at 100kph (on the flat) the "instantaneous" reading does sit in the 9l/100km +/- 1l range which is bang on the money, so pretty happy with it now.

[ProjectDirector]

I've been doing some open road travel lately with my 110 and I get 10s which I am happy with.77467