Thread: D3 V6 Petrol Fuel Economy

Originally Posted by af3556

2006+ and "as little as possible" :-)


I'd prefer an SE as I'm not interested in the "extras" - that's just more stuff to go wrong...

There isn't enough more to notice !
The Aussie HSE spec is a joke . Arm rests , a CD stacker and
another set of vents is just about it . As I remember saying at
the time they launched ; " I bet the factory are laughing at
why they're sticking HSE badges on empty bodyshells ! " .
There's a BIG difference in the Kms on these models , for
little difference in price . You can get a very low Kms example
for the same money ; some with rear air and CD stacker on SE.
I've seen several. Keep viewing the websites. You won't find
many with extended warranty . Most people don't view LR sites,
and are not aware of the advantage of such policies , which are
now becoming far more expensive too. The petrol engine won't
cause any grief. Be aware that low use does not guarantee
less rolling-gear failures ; they're NOT use-related in D3 !

Originally Posted by Neil P

... You can get a very low Kms example
for the same money ; some with rear air and CD stacker on SE.
I've seen several. Keep viewing the websites. ...

I've opened up my saved searches to not just the SE, so see how it goes.

"The websites" - I'm using carsales, carsguide, ebay and trading post (the latter two have bugger all). Of course, I check the aulro market every so often. Any recommendations for others?

Am with you on the lower-mileage-doesn't-necessarily-mean-fewer-troubles; I expect there's a sweet spot between a car that's done only short stop-start trips on one extreme (~10k p.a.) and one that's eaten up a lot of wear and tear at other end (40k-50k+ p.a.).

On a slight sidetrack. How accurate is the fuel usage display on the D3? I've got the '05 HSE TDV6 and urban driving shows me low 13s. I know when we drove it back from the eastern states it showed mid 11s.

We are running 265/70x17 Mickey Thompson MTZ so I would expect slightly higher consumption, +2L/100km, because of the higher rolling resistance but I would also expect normal figures to be lower.

Originally Posted by af3556

.... Any recommendations for others ?

http://cars.mitula.com.au/land+rover+discovery+3+new
That's about it .
I have noticed that the '06 model SE were the most
likely to have rear air , leather ( wasn't on SE spec early on ... ) and
upgrade ICE , especially if Sydney Dealer floor stock . It's as if they
knew that " basic '06 SE " was less desirable and the Sydney Moms
would wear the price hike especially since it was still way below X5.
All these examples that I've seen have Sydney original indications.
Hang in there for one of these if you can get it . Last one I saw
on Carsales ( this year ) was such a spec , low Kms and average
price. Bonetti and Alpaca too ! Ooooo !


Good luck

I have a 2005 V6 petrol. On a recent holiday - touring and about 100k of off road work - I achieved 12.2L / 100Km using 95 Octane.
Grumpa

My 07 SE petrol is sitting on 13L/100K's, I use Shell 98 and 95 octane.
I live in Pakenham and work in Clayton South, travel into CBD for business average 1 day a week.
Very happy with the economy for such a big heavy beast.

I have 2007 Se and i always get 11.5 o the highway 14 around town and 20 to22 towing a 3 tonne caravan. I have a Haltech power chip installed

Thanks for all the info guys; looks like the petrol is a little better than the official figures suggest.
Makes my diesel/petrol decision even harder :-)