↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home > Puma (Tdci) > 2.2 poor fuel economy
Post Reply  Down to end
Page 1 of 11 123 ... 91011>
Print this entire topic · 
keith



Member Since: 15 Aug 2012
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2152

Scotland 
2.2 poor fuel economy
The new 2.2 is very poor on fuel economy . The vehicle has gone through dozens of changes to enable it to comply with new 2012 EU regulations . To comply with emissions they have had to make the vehicle lighter . I have noticed a thinner chassis with more holes in it , a thinner bonnet which i have dented by just closing it , thinner less weight rubber , interior carpet now thinner with less soundproofing felt and many others all to save weight . Its marketed as being more fuel efficient as a result of these changes ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yet with its 6 speed gearbox and low revs its economy is very dissapointing. My last new 2006 TD5 gave me 420 miles for my 75 litre tank , constantly for 5 years . Now my new 2.2 which is suposed to be the best ever is giving me ONLY 340 miles for my 70 litre tank . Why is this ? even the fuel tank is smaller to save weight . The TD5 used to get 75litres into it , now from empty it holds exactly 70 litres . My first trip out in my new 2.2 i ran out of diesel on the M8 . EH ! TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK .

Last edited by keith on 7th Feb 2014 10:22pm. Edited 1 time in total
Post #162224 15th Aug 2012 9:31pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
T1G UP



Member Since: 08 Dec 2009
Location: Bath
Posts: 3101

England 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Orkney Grey
there Censored ....and my 2.4's worth 5k more than when i bought it Whistle
Post #162225 15th Aug 2012 9:32pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
bpman



Member Since: 21 May 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 8069

2008 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SVX Station Wagon Santorini Black
Shame to hear about the problems you are having Keith. Have you done more than 10k miles yet?
Diesels need a bit of loosening up

The clutch/ gear change issue does not sound right though, have you tried another at a dealers?

Keep us posted
Post #162229 15th Aug 2012 9:39pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
DarrenJ



Member Since: 07 May 2012
Location: North Beds
Posts: 312

United Kingdom 2011 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
That economy doesn't sound right at all, I get about 28-31 mpg out of my 2.4 with having a roof rack always fitted and often carrying a kayak or 2.
Best to mention it / complain to the dealer at the same time as our carpets. Darren
Post #162230 15th Aug 2012 9:43pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
keith



Member Since: 15 Aug 2012
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2152

Scotland 
[quote="bpman"]Shame to hear about the problems you are having Keith. Have you done more than 10k miles yet?
Diesels need a bit of loosening up

The clutch/ gear change issue does not sound right though, have you tried another at a dealers?

Keep us posted[/quote I never test drove the 2.2 i just expected it to be supersonic . im very dissapointed after driving so many other landrovers for 25 yrs . im sure landrover think that because they gave it cumffy seats and a new dash that this would make everyone love it .
Post #162232 15th Aug 2012 9:47pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
RobKeay



Member Since: 19 Jul 2009
Location: Stafford
Posts: 1561

United Kingdom 2014 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Corris Grey
I am not a fan of the 2.2. I find it difficult to drive smoothly at low speed. On a full tank on my 90 I am
Getting about 300 miles out of a tank.

I have more sound proofing in my current 90 than any other I've owned.

The bonnet is now steel not alloy like a td5 one.
Post #162241 15th Aug 2012 10:21pm
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
jst



Member Since: 14 Jan 2008
Location: Taunton
Posts: 7664

2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Stornoway Grey
all 110s have the same size tank 75L plus what you can fit in the filler neck.

2.2s i have driven seem to be heavier on fuel than the 2.4

they burn alot cleaner though, well less crap comes out the back. exhuast is clean after a day around idle on a 2.2. not so on a 2.4 Cheers

James
110 XS Utility
130 Puma Station wagon/camper (in the making)
90 Puma Hardtop
Post #162257 16th Aug 2012 6:11am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
WWA



Member Since: 12 Aug 2012
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 197

United Kingdom 2012 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 DCPU Orkney Grey
I have had both a 2.4 90 and now a 2.2 90. On average driving, dotting about the back roads no long distant cruising, I am getting near enough EXACTLY the same economy from the 2.2 as I did the 2.4.

The 2.2 has only done 6500 miles and while I do not expect the economy to get any better really, it's certainly not going to get worse. I am yet to take it on a long distant, 70mph+ motorway run, but when I do I expect it will be the same, if not slightly better than the 2.4.

2.4 used to get a realistic 300miles a tank, on a high speed motorway run.

The 2.2 isn't run in yet and it's already as good as the 2.4 so I doubt it will get worse.

That's my opinion on the fuel economy of the two puma engines, but as we all know, every Defender and every defender driver is different

Sorry to hear youre disappointed Kieth.
Post #162261 16th Aug 2012 6:44am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
K9F



Member Since: 12 Nov 2009
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 9610

United Kingdom 2008 Defender 90 Puma 2.4 XS CSW Stornoway Grey
Re: 2.2 poor fuel economy
keith wrote:
EH ! TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK .


You must have had 'some idea' what you were getting yourself into? Either that or you didn't carry out your research well enough. Zag a fellow forum member ran up several hundred posts prior to committing to buy his Defender.

If fuel economy (and many people do 'bang on' about it) is such an issue the question must be... "Why buy a new Defender in the first place?"

340 miles per tank! What's the fuss all about? I don't get that out of my 2.4 and I don't really care as I too knew very well what to (or rather not to) expect and duly placed fuel consumption way way down on my priority list.

Sell it and buy a decent TD5!
You're not related to my old Mucker Red Dot are you? You could be his alter ego! Rolling with laughter

(Joke! Red Dot no offence meant or implied! Bow down ).

YOU DID ASK! Whistle If you go through life with your head in the sand....all people will see is an ar5e!!

Treat every day as if it is your last....one day you will be right!!
Post #162272 16th Aug 2012 7:31am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
MartinK



Member Since: 02 Mar 2011
Location: Silverdale (Lancashire/Cumbria Border)
Posts: 2663

United Kingdom 2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Orkney Grey
Hmmm quite suprising. I normally get around (or just over) 400 miles to a tank on the 2.4, and that's just under 30mpg. It has been getting steadily better as I approach 8000 miles, so maybe yours will improve...

Quote:
they burn alot cleaner though, well less crap comes out the back. exhuast is clean after a day around idle on a 2.2. not so on a 2.4


...that'll be the CAT i assume - seems to be like this on most modern diesels with Cats... Defender "Puma" 2.4 110 County Utility (possibly the last of the 2.4's)
Post #162279 16th Aug 2012 7:57am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
MartinK wrote:
Hmmm quite suprising. I normally get around (or just over) 400 miles to a tank on the 2.4, and that's just under 30mpg. It has been getting steadily better as I approach 8000 miles, so maybe yours will improve...

Quote:
they burn alot cleaner though, well less crap comes out the back. exhuast is clean after a day around idle on a 2.2. not so on a 2.4


...that'll be the CAT i assume - seems to be like this on most modern diesels with Cats...


I also get about 400 miles when the light comes on- now on about 34k miles.

I think you mean DPF for cleaner running (2.4 has a cat). DPF collects the soot which the diesel engine normally throws out the rear- it then burns it off at such a hight temp it turns the soot into ash..... which then just flys out the rear.

Glyn Dog Sheep
Post #162286 16th Aug 2012 8:40am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
BigRuss



Member Since: 15 May 2010
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 2785

United Kingdom 2010 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Santorini Black
But interestingly one of the south African members said they don't fit the DPF to the defenders bound for his next of the woods! Russell
2011MY 110 XS USW Black
Post #162288 16th Aug 2012 8:55am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Send e-mail Reply with quote
NinetyTD4



Member Since: 22 Apr 2011
Location: North
Posts: 397

Wales 2012 Defender 90 Other SW Keswick Green
Almost impossible to answer such a thread w/o getting personal? The Defender is quite a tricky beast and has to allign to the driver as well as the opposite. Some former-TD5's complain on fuel usage when they start driving a TD4, but it becomes better over time.

My 90/2.4 Puma gives me constantly above 450 miles on a tank and I am happy /w it - BUT, I had a 2.2 as a tmpry and it was eating significantly more diesel, so there might be something at the engine. Never forget: cars have owner, Landrover have field service personnel.
Post #162291 16th Aug 2012 9:10am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
mrandmrsh



Member Since: 31 May 2010
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 692

United Kingdom 2015 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Santorini Black
BigRuss wrote:
But interestingly one of the south African members said they don't fit the DPF to the defenders bound for his next of the woods!

I would expect the main reason for that is because LR don't HAVE to fit them there so they save the cost of the DPF crap on cars bound outside of the EU. They are only fitted here to get the stupid EU5 ticket. 2015 110 USW XS in Santorini with premium contrast leather seats in tan/black, black headlining and with Dual Finish alloys (in the garage, now on Wolf rims with Goodyear MT/Rs)

2012 '62' 2.2 X-Tech 110 USW now gone ...
1984 90 soft top with full roll cage, 200 tdi engine etc now sold
2012 USW XS 2.2 "FUU" now gone....
Post #162293 16th Aug 2012 9:33am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Glynparry25



Member Since: 16 Feb 2009
Location: Miserable Midlands
Posts: 3015

Wales 2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 XS DCPU Tonga Green
NinetyTD4 wrote:
My 90/2.4 Puma gives me constantly above 450 miles on a tank and I am happy /w it


Have to ask what mods you have done?..... If you get over 450 miles to a 60 litre tank means you are constantly getting over 35mpg. Even Land Rover quote Extra Urban at 31 and combined of 28mpg

I have sometimes on really good runs got low 30s but average 28-30 (26-28 without Alive map). I don't think anyone else on the forum gets much above 28-32....... Many averaging 26- which means a massive 10mpg down on you.

Glyn Dog Sheep
Post #162294 16th Aug 2012 9:41am
View user's profile Send private message View poster's gallery Reply with quote
Post Reply  Back to top
Page 1 of 11 123 ... 91011>
All times are GMT

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