 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Fuel Range - 2.2 110 |
 
|
|
|
| The Zee Member Since: 26 May 2019 Location: Salisbury Posts: 288   
|
I concur with the 400 miles to a tank.
Getting average 28 mpg on a standatd unmaped, EGR & DPF'ed 2.2 110 Utility, sitting on OEM Coni Cross Contact 235/85/R16's and Boost Alloy wheels. Zaid-M www.DefencePhotos.com 2014 Defender 110 Utility, 2.2 Puma, Indus Silver Not just transport more like a religion |
||
9th Aug 2022 1:45pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 16923 
|
On the 110 the tanks are identical.
|
||
|
9th Aug 2022 6:31pm |
|
| jpboost Member Since: 13 Apr 2021 Location: Gatwick Posts: 375 
|
I get around 420 to a tank. A bit less if I've done motorway work at anything more than 65ish.
2.2 2014 110, with 18" wheels (on 265/65/18 BFG KO2) , larger intercooler and a remap (empire). |
||
|
9th Aug 2022 6:52pm |
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2164 
|
Nope, both the same. As BW mentioned. Who mentioned TD5 as 90L  |
||
|
9th Aug 2022 6:56pm |
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2164
|
My very first ever message on this very forum was a huge big “I’m so unhappy with this new 2.2” rant. I’d come from years of TD5 ownership. One of many noticeable changes was the immediate difference in “miles I got to a full tank” I was raging. How the eck does a brand new 6 gear car do 100 miles less than a 150k 10 yr old 5 gear car, don’t get me started
Oh I wish I could find that very first message on Defender2.net. Seems all Iv ever done for 10 years is be a whining, moaning old git. 
I get better mpg on my 2.25 petrol 78 LWT.  Last edited by keith on 9th Aug 2022 7:37pm. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
9th Aug 2022 7:12pm |
|
| Jerry Member Since: 13 Nov 2015 Location: Cardiff Posts: 174 
|
Mines pretty woeful. 2.2 110 adventure edition (muds, roof rack and loads of fairly pointless heavy underbody guards). I got 370 miles from brim to 10 miles after red light - equating to 24mpg on trip to Cornwall and back mainly motorway cruising at low 60’s. Roof rack was loaded with tents and whole boot was full. Best I have ever got is 26mpg. Urban 21-23 mpg! I always get a bit depressed reading how much better others are but I think 2.2vs2.4/dpf etc/tyres/rack make a big difference even on a brick.
|
||
|
9th Aug 2022 7:16pm |
|
| steveww Member Since: 05 Jan 2022 Location: Uppingham Posts: 539 
|
My 2015 110 returns 27 MPG so that’s about 450 miles per tank. I start thinking about go to the petrol station at around 350 miles.
|
||
|
10th Aug 2022 8:12am |
|
| kevin-h Member Since: 24 Mar 2020 Location: Huddersfield Posts: 22 
|
I have a 2015 110 with a roof rack and get over 400, probably 400-450 on a tank unless I have been 'giving it some' on the motorway.
|
||
|
10th Aug 2022 8:41am |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11240 
|
I found reference on another forum of folks filling their 110 tanks with 80l and 85l and had a vague memory of 90l being talked about some years ago. Did the TD5 always have the plastic tank or were they one of the changes introduced at facelift in 2002? I rarely let my tanks get down to the yellow light but I do keep meticulous fuel records. Over nearly three years of TD5 110 ownership, my cumulative average MPG was 24.7 and the cumulative figure for my 2.2 110 is currently 25.4, so there are clearly other factors at play than just the Puma engines being worse. Those figures are long term averages and include everything from towing and commuting to long motorway stints, etc, but what's really noticeable is that the spread of individual tankful records is much narrower with the Puma than the TD5. The latter had a low of 21.9 and a high of 28 whilst the former is currently between 22.8 and 26.9. I find that where you're driving makes a massive difference: for the last few years, my route to work has been about 11 miles over mainly twisty back roads followed by traffic as I get nearer to town. More recently, I've changed my route to something slightly longer but that allows me to sit on a dual carriageway for most of the distance, which I do at 55-60mph. This has improved my fuel economy by between 10 and 15%. That improvement hasn't impacted my average yet either, as I haven't yet added the more recent fuel records. Darren 110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
10th Aug 2022 9:07am |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11240
|
Here you go, Keith. You might be right 
https://www.defender2.net/forum/post162140.html#162140 Darren 110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
10th Aug 2022 9:11am |
|
| keith Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2164
|
^ LRAnorak.
Incredible, how the eck did you dig that one up 
I’m sure there was a huge message somewhere, perhaps it was to the CEO at Solihull  |
||
|
11th Aug 2022 9:19pm |
|
| glpinxit Member Since: 31 Jul 2010 Location: rural Somerset Posts: 152
|
OK, the biggest influence on our LR's consumption is aerodynamics. More specifically their lack. I was astounded to find that a hired LWB hi-line 2.2 Transit returned nearly 50 MPG on a route that I know my 2.2 Puma gives 27 on.
I don't know why I was surprised as I used to be a serious swimmer and am now a serious cyclist. In both sports I have an engine (me) with a fixed power output (declining actually as I get older). In both sports training focuses on maximising how effectively that output can be deployed for economy (ie go further) or speed. Training for both sports obviously focuses on reliable production of as much power as possible but I'm not re-mappable and nor can I install bigger lungs or heart so it is broadly fixed. Instead my training focuses in incredible detail on maximising how easily I can slip through the water or air as appropriate. For example, I know from wind-tunnel tests that the difference between shaved and not-shaved legs is up to a minute over a 40Km cycling time-trial. Every aspect of equipment and body position can be similarly optimised. It follows that the basic two-box shape of Defenders means relatively high fuel consumption. Adding a roof rack is bound to make it worse. 110s will be better than 90s because long things have inherently less drag. The flat rear of the body makes it all even worse. Then, going slower makes a huge difference. Drag increases in proportion to the square of the increase in speed so going a little faster (or slower) will make quite a big difference. I've mused over whether an accessory aero 'peak' extending the roof by 100mm over the rear door would make any difference (think VW van) but never taken it any further. At the end of the day its a Land Rover and it is my transport of choice. I accept the fuel consumption and I'm not trying to make it into a sports car either. edited to correct the spelling mistake that caused 'bigger' to become 'censored' Cheers, Guy. Last edited by glpinxit on 12th Aug 2022 10:20am. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
12th Aug 2022 6:46am |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11240
|
Yeah, this is why people often report no change to fuel consumption despite being 'heavily loaded'. By far the biggest factor is lack of aerodynamics, which can be mitigated by driving slower. ISTR that 50mph is something of a magic number in these circumstances and if you can keep below that then the results can be impressive. The reality, of course, is that driving at that speed all of the time in modern traffic is pretty tedious, which is why I'd settled on 55-60, conveniently matching the HGV's.
Following my earlier post, I plugged in my latest fuel records last night and over the last four fill ups, since I've changed my commute route, the average is 27.9 - a 10% improvement over the average for the previous four years. Darren 110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
12th Aug 2022 7:15am |
|
| The Zee Member Since: 26 May 2019 Location: Salisbury Posts: 288
|
Additional loss in consumption is due to a 4WD system vs 2WD on the Transit. Think about losses in the drive train, transfer box, and other locations that are additional to a pure aerodynamic cause. Yes, the aerodynamic do play a significant factor at higher speeds, but at all speeds the drivetrain impact is a constant draw. Zaid-M www.DefencePhotos.com 2014 Defender 110 Utility, 2.2 Puma, Indus Silver Not just transport more like a religion |
||
|
12th Aug 2022 7:39pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
