↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2 poor fuel economy
Post Reply  Down to end
Page 8 of 11 <123 ... 78 91011>
Print this entire topic · 
borderterrier



Member Since: 09 Dec 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1677

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 XS CSW Aintree Green
They are yes, although they need a little calibrating to get the fuel left in tank display accurate. It's very accurate too when compared to the manual method of measuring fuel used when you fill up against miles driven.
Post #306135 8th Feb 2014 12:52pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
RobKeay



Member Since: 19 Jul 2009
Location: Stafford
Posts: 1567

United Kingdom 2014 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Corris Grey
Someone needs to drive until it runs out. I've gone below the red and not run out.
Post #306144 8th Feb 2014 1:31pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Caterham



Member Since: 06 Nov 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 6264

England 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
I guess it would b stupid to assume empty would indicated by the needle being in same position as when ignition is off off ?
Post #306147 8th Feb 2014 1:40pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
bell-auto-services



Member Since: 08 Jul 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2232

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Orkney Grey
On the 2.2 you will at some point get the low fuel PCM induced surging before it does run out. Not sure how long this will last before the engine stops but ive been very close.

Pete
Post #306148 8th Feb 2014 1:41pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
borderterrier



Member Since: 09 Dec 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1677

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 XS CSW Aintree Green
Yep, done that a couple of times too. Not sure how much is left. 35 miles has been the limit of my nerve thus far once the fuel light has come on.
Post #306151 8th Feb 2014 1:43pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
RockJaw



Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

United States 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 SW Santorini Black
LR90XS2011 wrote:
rockjaw
what is your view on the 2.4?


I might not be the right person to ask mate, but I actually love the 2.4 AND the 2.2

In fact I don't think there is a Land Rover Defender ever produced which I somehow don't love like crazy.

If you have children you will know what I mean. They drive you absolutely nuts and you want to kill them most of the time, but you never stop loving them anyway!

Each kid figures out their own very unique and special way of convincing you to tear your own hair out. Well, Defenders are exactly like that!

In my view, and in a nutshell, the more of a blank canvas the Defender, the more attractive the product.

The standard 2.4 models, without mods, were all fairly decent utilities, no serious complaints, they are very practical, not exhilarating but adequately powered and will likely turn out to last longer than those newer 2.2 models which include the technology of introducing fuel into the engine during the exhaust cycle.

Just think about how ridiculous that actually is.

We have found that this technology has absolutely destroyed any hopes of ensuring efficient oil management in the long term and the contamination of the crankshaft oils by this process is, in my view, going to become a fatal flaw of the 2.2 as time progresses.

If you can get a 2.2 without these dumb "improvements", like the "military specs" for example, I would choose the 2.2 above the latest 2.4 any day of the week.

If I was offered the 2.2 new vs a good 2.4, and, if forced to comply with present MoT legislation, I would even pay more for the 2.4 and might reject the 2.2 entirely out of hand. If the 2.2 had none of the kak EU compliance stuff, well the 2.2 would probably be my choice.

But that is just me, and trust me, I am no typical Defender owner so please don't let my views influence you too much!

Everyone will probably disagree with me on this one, but we can raise this topic again in 5 years time. ****CENSORED****
Post #306154 8th Feb 2014 1:50pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
bell-auto-services



Member Since: 08 Jul 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2232

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Orkney Grey
It is an odd feeling when it happens as you know Sad , im also scared to take it further as it may not do the electronic pump tank any good to run dry.
Post #306155 8th Feb 2014 1:50pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
RockJaw



Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

United States 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 SW Santorini Black
bell-auto-services wrote:
On the 2.2 you will at some point get the low fuel PCM induced surging before it does run out. Not sure how long this will last before the engine stops but ive been very close.

Pete


Got to keep that Nato 5l jerry can handy Pete, and remember, only 4l of that fuel will be used for propulsion, the rest is used to drive the DPF! Rolling with laughter ****CENSORED****
Post #306158 8th Feb 2014 1:54pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
bell-auto-services



Member Since: 08 Jul 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2232

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Orkney Grey
RockJaw wrote:



Just think about how ridiculous that actually is.

We have found that this technology has absolutely destroyed any hopes of ensuring efficient oil management in the long term and the contamination of the crankshaft oils by this process is, in my view, going to become a fatal flaw of the 2.2 as time progresses.


but we can raise this topic again in 5 years time.



+1 from what we have all seen and read of it so far and the problems raised already with cars, oils and dpf lights in its low age of a 2 or 3 year production life its had.

We should date this page and look back as you say in a few years time on how many cars are still running without any crankshafts barings knocking the heads of due to them being warn from diesel contaminates oils that were changed exactley as per the LR service recomendations and or following the MIL light that comes on at 7% contaminated.

May be I should change the 7% warning light at remap time to give people a early warning system to change their oil and prolong engine life by servicing it more regular than LR state is good.

Pete
Post #306160 8th Feb 2014 1:59pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
bell-auto-services



Member Since: 08 Jul 2007
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2232

United Kingdom 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Orkney Grey
RockJaw wrote:
bell-auto-services wrote:
On the 2.2 you will at some point get the low fuel PCM induced surging before it does run out. Not sure how long this will last before the engine stops but ive been very close.

Pete


Got to keep that Nato 5l jerry can handy Pete, and remember, only 4l of that fuel will be used for propulsion, the rest is used to drive the DPF! Rolling with laughter


Rolling with laughter
Post #306163 8th Feb 2014 2:01pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
RockJaw



Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

United States 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 SW Santorini Black
[quote="bell-auto-services"]
RockJaw wrote:



May be I should change the 7% warning light at remap time to give people a early warning system to change their oil and prolong engine life by servicing it more regular than LR state is good.

Pete


No kidding Pete!

Listen, with Amsoil, Mobil 1 and another brand I prefer not to mention, we achieved amazing results from all our diesel motors. Simple common sense management and you would be amazed at the life expectancy of almost any diesel engine.

The 2.2 ? Mobil has lost a Motza paying out on guarantees to us even though we all know the problem has nothing to do with their product.

Given the diesel contaminants we regularly find in only 3000 miles use of a 2.2 with EGR I am willing to guarantee that Land Rover is in for some pretty nasty claims not too long from now.

Does anyone have any idea how destructive a diesel contaminated crank is for a high performance motor like the 2.2?

Not only that, but there is literally NO OIL in all of creation which can function with the high levels of diesel contamination we are experiencing in these new motors.

You could ask all the angels in heaven to descend to the Mobil R&D offices to produce the perfect oil and you would still be effed many thousands of miles before the 20k recommended by LR. ****CENSORED****
Post #306177 8th Feb 2014 2:38pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Fish



Member Since: 21 Jan 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 58

United Kingdom 2014 Defender 90 Puma 2.2 XS CSW Corris Grey
Look on the bright side my wife has a Mazda CX5... perfect for her needs. The sump actually fills with diesel and has three marks on the dipstick all about the same distance appart...min max and an X the oil will rise towards the x as it gets contaminated.

Apparently they have put bigger bearing in and special oil, still not convinced. I shall be getting rid before end of warranty.

My defender is a new 2.2 I shall be looking at chipping and getting EGR off and maybe accidentally losing the dpf innards. Just wan to see where the MOT goes...
Post #306263 8th Feb 2014 7:18pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
LR90XS2011



Member Since: 05 Apr 2011
Location: bickenhill
Posts: 3613

United Kingdom 2011 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Galway Green
RockJaw wrote:
LR90XS2011 wrote:
rockjaw
what is your view on the 2.4?


I might not be the right person to ask mate, but I actually love the 2.4 AND the 2.2

In fact I don't think there is a Land Rover Defender ever produced which I somehow don't love like crazy.

If you have children you will know what I mean. They drive you absolutely nuts and you want to kill them most of the time, but you never stop loving them anyway!

Each kid figures out their own very unique and special way of convincing you to tear your own hair out. Well, Defenders are exactly like that!

In my view, and in a nutshell, the more of a blank canvas the Defender, the more attractive the product.

The standard 2.4 models, without mods, were all fairly decent utilities, no serious complaints, they are very practical, not exhilarating but adequately powered and will likely turn out to last longer than those newer 2.2 models which include the technology of introducing fuel into the engine during the exhaust cycle.

Just think about how ridiculous that actually is.

We have found that this technology has absolutely destroyed any hopes of ensuring efficient oil management in the long term and the contamination of the crankshaft oils by this process is, in my view, going to become a fatal flaw of the 2.2 as time progresses.

If you can get a 2.2 without these dumb "improvements", like the "military specs" for example, I would choose the 2.2 above the latest 2.4 any day of the week.

If I was offered the 2.2 new vs a good 2.4, and, if forced to comply with present MoT legislation, I would even pay more for the 2.4 and might reject the 2.2 entirely out of hand. If the 2.2 had none of the kak EU compliance stuff, well the 2.2 would probably be my choice.

But that is just me, and trust me, I am no typical Defender owner so please don't let my views influence you too much!

Everyone will probably disagree with me on this one, but we can raise this topic again in 5 years time.



Glad Ive got a 2.4 without the DPF , oh poo my BM has a DPF and 18000 mile service intervals, never used a drop of oil nor noticable gone up, jolly glad Ive given it intermediate oil changes to protect it until the cam chain fails. re fuel in the oil I run a fleet of Cummins NT855s if fuel leaks into the sump you can guarantee bearing damage DEFENDER 90 TDCI XS,

I hope everyone is well and your land rovers make you happy
Post #306346 8th Feb 2014 9:45pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
munch90



Member Since: 26 Oct 2013
Location: guildford
Posts: 3558

England 
the diesel in the engine oil problem was really bad for the some vans. we fitted lots of engines for a hire firm near us . all nearly new vans , blamed on short start stop trips , regen started then engine stop ,engine started regen started again and so on filling sumps with diesel
Post #306357 8th Feb 2014 10:08pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
RockJaw



Member Since: 15 Oct 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 317

United States 2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 SW Santorini Black
LR90XS2011 wrote:
RockJaw wrote:
LR90XS2011 wrote:
rockjaw
what is your view on the 2.4?


I might not be the right person to ask mate, but I actually love the 2.4 AND the 2.2

In fact I don't think there is a Land Rover Defender ever produced which I somehow don't love like crazy.




Glad Ive got a 2.4 without the DPF , oh poo my BM has a DPF and 18000 mile service intervals, never used a drop of oil nor noticable gone up, jolly glad Ive given it intermediate oil changes to protect it until the cam chain fails. re fuel in the oil I run a fleet of Cummins NT855s if fuel leaks into the sump you can guarantee bearing damage


No kidding!!

Introducing fuel into the combustion chamber during the exhaust stroke as a cure for high emissions is like shoving a plate of fish & chips up your butt once a week as cure for the indigestion!!

To a politician that advice would result in legislation on how to perform the procedure.

Actually, I don't think BMW or VW has that problem though, their DPF runs hot enough to work without introducing additional fuel for regeneration, at least as far as I am aware.

If I am right you can pull your pants up Sir, your meal will be served in your usual newspaper wrappers!!!!

Bon apetite!!! ****CENSORED****
Post #307357 12th Feb 2014 7:04am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Post Reply  Back to top
Page 8 of 11 <123 ... 78 91011>
All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Jump to  
Previous Topic | Next Topic >
Posting Rules
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
DEFENDER2.NET RSS Feed - All Forums