Double Cabs......

[Jono Garton]

Picked the new caravan up today (2.2tonne and 27ft long) 22mpg arghhhhh

[paul holder]

as stated befor i have a nissan pathfinder i have just returned from my dealer ..
the catalist has been changed by nissan so reducing the mpg
the resisters ect on each fuel injector have a differant value if these are not entered seperatly into the computer it makes a considerable differance to the mpg

[doggypaddle]

still getting just about 40MPG out of my landrover at 56-60mph
2.8 isuzu engine, Free wheeling hubs, and 1.222 transfer case.

averaging 34 overall commuting 60 miles a day (dont go over 60)

Managed under 20 MPG recently when in a bit of a rush on a 200 mile round trip.

speed is the secret, or rather lack of it

[Simon B]

40MPG - !

So that's what I can look forward to? Excellent!

[Rogue Wave]

DP did you do the conversion yourself?

[prairie tuber]

Why such tiny engines in all of those 4x4s? I realize that a well tuned 2 1/2 liter turbodiesel (esp. if intercooled) will put out at least as much, if not more grunt than the average 4 liter NA diesel, and it may be a little more fuel efficient than the larger NA diesel. However that smaller turbodiesel needs to be tweaked to the nuts to do that and is pushed to it's design limits leaving little room for error.

I'm not sure about the record on LR's smaller TDs, but Toyota's 2.4 liter TDs, & Nissan's 2.8 liter TDs are notorious for cracking heads (it's almost a certainty that they will within 130,000 km), whereas both Toyota's & especially Nissan's 4.2 liter I6 diesels (whether NA or turbo'd) are considered to be virtually bombproof. In fact there are a number of Nissan Patrols in Australia that have over 3 million Km on their original (and unrebuilt) TD42 engines.

Having said all that, Isuzu's 2.8 sounds like it might be great IF it proves itself to be highly durable. In other words if it is capable of doing millions of Kms without needing a rebuild.

[Simon B]

The Isuzu has a lot of anecdotal evidence to support it as an engine that is hard to kill, hence my interest and choice of it to re-engine my LR.

[doggypaddle]

Originally Posted by Simon B

40MPG - !

So that's what I can look forward to? Excellent!

Hee hee not with your transfer ratio and constant 4 wheel drive

[doggypaddle]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

DP did you do the conversion yourself?

yep, the landrover isnt exactly standard.

[doggypaddle]

Originally Posted by prairie tuber

Why such tiny engines in all of those 4x4s? I realize that a well tuned 2 1/2 liter turbodiesel (esp. if intercooled) will put out at least as much, if not more grunt than the average 4 liter NA diesel, and it may be a little more fuel efficient than the larger NA diesel. However that smaller turbodiesel needs to be tweaked to the nuts to do that and is pushed to it's design limits leaving little room for error.

I'm not sure about the record on LR's smaller TDs, but Toyota's 2.4 liter TDs, & Nissan's 2.8 liter TDs are notorious for cracking heads (it's almost a certainty that they will within 130,000 km), whereas both Toyota's & especially Nissan's 4.2 liter I6 diesels (whether NA or turbo'd) are considered to be virtually bombproof. In fact there are a number of Nissan Patrols in Australia that have over 3 million Km on their original (and unrebuilt) TD42 engines.

Having said all that, Isuzu's 2.8 sounds like it might be great IF it proves itself to be highly durable. In other words if it is capable of doing millions of Kms without needing a rebuild.

The 4Jb1 already has a track record of being one of the most durable diesels. they are fitted in everything from gensets, boats, to slew diggers. They are even copied in india and china wherever that size engine is needed.

[Rogue Wave]

Originally Posted by doggypaddle

yep, the landrover isnt exactly standard.

Hi mate

[Simon B]

Originally Posted by doggypaddle

Hee hee not with your transfer ratio and constant 4 wheel drive

So should I be planning a disco ratio change and fit some s.winch freewheelers?

[doggypaddle]

Originally Posted by Simon B

So should I be planning a disco ratio change and fit some s.winch freewheelers?

You need to modify the transfer case to be part time 4x4 too, Bearmach did do a kit which was sold as "defender 110/90 free wheel hub kit" which included a splined spider to replace the guts of the centre diff.
With a standard 2.8 i would run a 1.410 transfer case until i had upgraded the engine, its plenty long legged enough if you run 235/85/16 or larger tyres, unless you spend hours every day at 70+ on the Mway as i do.
the 1.410 is best all round, which is why its the std ratio for 110, there is a lower 1.666 which is hideously low.
the free wheel hubs and part time 4x4 do make a small difference to economy and performance, but i wouldnt bother, the only reason i did it is because the series 2 front axle has no CV joints and isnt suited to constant 4X4, i drove a 110 with selectable 4X4 and the handling in the bends wasnt good, loads of undeersteer, quite unstable really, especially once youre used to keeping it planted in the carpet around bends and letting the front axle pull you round.
you should get low 30s MPG driven sensibly, maybe even 35 with an intercooler.

[paul holder]

after the pathfinder was tuned by nissan the consumption is the same 26/29mpg

[doggypaddle]

Originally Posted by paul holder

after the pathfinder was tuned by nissan the consumption is the same 26/29mpg

Most people rekon slightly better MPG with a remap. i think its probably because peak torque is higher, so you can change up sooner keeping the engine nearer to the rpm that coincides with max torque, this is where volumetric effeciency is highest. However whenever i have driven anything remaped its worse on fuel .....at least until the novelty wears off and i stop driving like a knob

[Simon B]

Originally Posted by doggypaddle

Most people rekon slightly better MPG with a remap. i think its probably because peak torque is higher, so you can change up sooner keeping the engine nearer to the rpm that coincides with max torque, this is where volumetric effeciency is highest. However whenever i have driven anything remaped its worse on fuel .....at least until the novelty wears off and i stop driving like a knob

Yes but think of the poor range rover sport owners who dont even realise.....

[bedajim]

Originally Posted by paul holder

after the pathfinder was tuned by nissan the consumption is the same 26/29mpg

Tuned or just reset the ecu ?

[humper]

Originally Posted by Richard Selman

P.S. The figures I quoted are pretty exact since the BFGs are about 7% larger in circumference and now my speedo is bang on against the GPS. First thing I noticed on putting on the BFGs was a drop in mpg. Thought it was down to the rougher tread but then realised with the standard tires the computer must be overestimating mpg since it is overreading speed/distance.

Richard

That`s interesting because I have big Cooper Zeon LTZs on mine and I know that when I worked out my mileage on a recent long haul to Scotland the mileage virtually matched what my sat nav said the distance was going to be,and I expected with the larger rolling circumference it would understate the actual miles. so the original wheel/tyre size must be wrong.
On another point there is a significant difference in economy between Euro3 engined Navaras and the later Euro4 engine.

[Simon B]

I had a simialr difference with GPS and speedo, the total mileages indicated were interesting, if the GPS was to be believed my fuel consumption was even worse than thought as speedo over read and mileage appeared to similarly over read.

[Richard Selman]

Every vehicle I have checked has an over reading speedo. They probably do this as a matter of course so that all the errors/uncertainty factors (from type wear, inflation pressure, load etc.) are all one way and you never accidentally go over the speed limit.

The effective diameter of the tyre must try to increase at speed as it is centrifuged out. Or perhaps the downforce on the car cancels it out.

Richard