Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Td5 Vs Puma Economy (Gav)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    In my D2a Ripping It Up
    Posts
    8,233

    Td5 Vs Puma Economy (Gav)

    Having just done a few ks in my Td5 D2a manual towing my camper with a Puma 110 D/cab following what would you think would use more fuel.
    My car over a weigh bridge weighed in at with trailer connected and full of fuel water and two passengers
    Not taking into ball weight .
    Car 2880
    Trailer 980

    The Puma
    I think from Memory was 1980
    Hopefully Gav will chime in and help with the weight of the puma .
    The story goes like this for a maybe 1200 k trip with the lard ass Td5 towing only once did it use more fuel over the Puma and that was only 3 litres .
    Every other time the Td5 matched the Puma on economy one time that was down to 9l/100 ks and i was towing.
    I did think the Puma would have done better than the Td5 as i was towing and heavier .
    I know the Puma has the aerodynamics of a block of flat`s The D2 is not streamlined either
    Any way im still loving my Td5 manual even if it did get dirty and had to add fuel every now and then
    cheers chris


    My Toy 04 D2a Td5 Manual With Lots of Goodie Goodness
    S111 Swb a work in progress
    Two Wheel Fun Factor
    Triumph Sprint St 955i

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Tamworth NSW
    Posts
    3,240
    Keeping in mind I am doing EVERYTHING possible to negatively impact my fuel economy (roof rack, bigger tyres, all the extra weight and less than ideal cruising speed), the tdci 90 managed the following:


    Most was 6th gear cruising at 100-110(ish). Most was on the flat, but some was across some dirt / corrugated and bulldust tracks. I agree re aerodynamics of a block of flats.
    Could it be better... yes.
    Does it bother me... not really.
    Biggest issue is my fuel storage... 60L tank in the 90 equates to a range of about 400km. Bump that out to approx 550 with a jerry can on the rear bar.
    -Mitch
    'El Burro' 2012 Defender 90.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Logan
    Posts
    11,296
    I just did over 2000 ks in our heavily loaded Puma 110 with four people on board, towing our 1100kg camper trailer, often travelling at 110 km/h on the motorway sections of the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane, and averaged 13.6 l/100 kmh. I thought that was pretty good good. If I had slowed down to 100 km/h I reckon that would have dropped into the 12s. Unladen, pottering about, it averages about 10.5-11 l/100 kmh. I also think that's pretty good.
    2009 Defender 110 2.4. ARB bulbar, Ironman winch, Safari snorkel, Steinbauer chip, Lightforce spots, Long Ranger tank, Off Road Systems drawer, Traxide 160 controller, Tekonsha brakes, Mulgo seat runners, Uniden UHF, Nuggetstuff seat corners, breathers.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Brisbane Area
    Posts
    765
    Some good info for my future decision...... Td5 vs Puma.

    I think the sound proofing and better ability to have a conversation with the missus will have me eventually getting a Puma though
    Cheers.....
    Rob M

    =============
    Car-1: 1996 Discovery Tdi Auto
    Car-2: 1995 Defender Tdi Wgn
    Car-3: 2010 Toyota Prado 150's
    My completed TRIPS: Rob's WikiLoc Trips or Rob's AllTrails Trips

  5. #5

    Td5 Vs Puma Economy (Gav)

    Quote Originally Posted by Robmacca View Post
    Some good info for my future decision...... Td5 vs Puma.

    I think the sound proofing and better ability to have a conversation with the missus will have me eventually getting a Puma though
    But maybe the lack of soundproofing and nice exhaust note of a five cylinder may bring more aural pleasure than said conversation with missus.
    On a more serious note we did 30,000 k's towing a camper trailer over some of the harshest tracks and desert sands with tyres down to single digits at times, and averaged 12.5 lt per 100 in a td5

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Logan
    Posts
    11,296
    I think the six gears in the Puma are a major advantage. On the highway it is only ticking over at about 2100 revs at 100 kmh in 6th. Off road low first is really slow, and I sometimes have to accelerate while going downhill, plus the anti-stall keeps it going by raising the revs to about 900.
    Note that mine has a Steinbauer chip, which gives up to 20 percent boost.
    2009 Defender 110 2.4. ARB bulbar, Ironman winch, Safari snorkel, Steinbauer chip, Lightforce spots, Long Ranger tank, Off Road Systems drawer, Traxide 160 controller, Tekonsha brakes, Mulgo seat runners, Uniden UHF, Nuggetstuff seat corners, breathers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    --
    Posts
    14,446
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoMick View Post
    I think the six gears in the Puma are a major advantage. On the highway it is only ticking over at about 2100 revs at 100 kmh in 6th. Off road low first is really slow, and I sometimes have to accelerate while going downhill, plus the anti-stall keeps it going by raising the revs to about 900.
    Note that mine has a Steinbauer chip, which gives up to 20 percent boost.
    Lets clarify...

    TD5 in 5th at 100km/h is also revving at 2100 rpm..

    And Anti-Stall is also a standard feature in a TD5
    5.... 4.... 3.... 2.... 1....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    St Helena,Melbourne
    Posts
    10,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombie View Post
    Lets clarify...

    TD5 in 5th at 100km/h is also revving at 2100 rpm..

    And Anti-Stall is also a standard feature in a TD5

    Isnt it more like 2300+ in a Defender with 1.4 TC, in a disco its about 2150@100kph ?
    98 TDI AUTO SE DISCO - 3" toughdogs, koni's, M8000 and bar, 265 MT's and still adding !
    2003 Dingo offroad camper trailer
    1998 Triumph Daytona T595
    1974 VW Kombi bus
    1958 Holden FC special sedan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Williamstown, Barossa, SA
    Posts
    3,404
    The Td5 would be my choice by a long shot, as they sound magic with the right exhaust on them. Dare I say it, but a Ford Ranger 5 cyl and 6 speed box against an LT230 would be a nice setup if a little technical to do.. I hear more negative than positive about the Puma engines.. and they sound as tho they lack the get up and go even if they do.. Hard choice! Buy what you like and want and love it!
    1995 Mercedes 1222 4x4
    1969 (Now know! Thanks Diana!!) Ser 2 Tdi SWB
    1990 Case IH 1455xl
    2012 VW Golf Mk 6 GTD
    1993 Range Rover 3.9 V8 Classic

    'When there's smoke, there's plenty of poke!!'
    'The more the smoke, the more the poke!!'

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Logan
    Posts
    11,296
    I haven't heard of any major problems with Puma engines, they are in widespread use in Fords and seem rugged and reliable.
    Pumas can be remapped to 170
    bhp with a larger intercooler and have plenty of torque, useful for towing.

    So I filled up today and I can report averaging 10.9 l/100 km over 787 km. About half that was towing the camper, not at 110 km/h, but at normal speeds. So without the camper I'd expect that to drop to maybe 10.5 l/100 kms. Hope that helps.
    2009 Defender 110 2.4. ARB bulbar, Ironman winch, Safari snorkel, Steinbauer chip, Lightforce spots, Long Ranger tank, Off Road Systems drawer, Traxide 160 controller, Tekonsha brakes, Mulgo seat runners, Uniden UHF, Nuggetstuff seat corners, breathers.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!