1. Home
  2. Land Rover 4WD vehicles
  3. FUEL CONSUMPTION ???

FUEL CONSUMPTION ???

Can someone enlighten me here ?

I just checked some statistics on fuel consumption : Freelander wagon i (

1.8lt ) vs Freelander wangon V6 (2.5lt)

According to this site :

formatting link
They say the 2.5lt V6 uses less fuel than the 1.8 manual in general...!!!

ie 1.8 wagon : city = 13/100, hwy = 8.5/100 ( lt / km)

V6 2.5 wagon : city = 11/100, hwy = 6.5/100

Anyone know if this is right? Since all this time, I've never considered upgrading from my 1.8lt to the V6 since I always heard that fuel consumtion was woeful on them...and almost better off going up to a Discovery ... considering the extra bennifits of space, seating etc..!!!!

If anyone is in the know.. what i'd like to know is fuel figures for the following ( mainly city driving )

Freelander ( 1998 ) man. wangon 1.8lt :

Freelander ( 2001-2003 ) auto wagon V6 2.5lt :

Discovery S2 ( 2000-2002 Auto 4.0lt :

cheers, Brian C

Reply to
Hi-Soft
Loading thread data ...

In the Freelander Range I understand the most economical (re fuel consumption) is the TD4. These are available from late '00 when they switched to the BMW common rail diesel engine. My 5Dr TD4 returns close to

40mpg overall (without any towing) but I chose the TD4 option for different reasons.

Richard

Reply to
Richard
2002 Disco V8 Auto - 16L/100Km on daily Blue Mountians/North Ryde run. Combination of slow-ish motorway and W.Sydney.

Boz

Reply to
Ian Boswell

wow...that's not nearly as bad as I thought it may have been !

We really have our heart set of upgrading to a newer 4 lt auto Disco...but were concerned about the fuel... we did own one years ago...but didn't remember it being all that bad...though that was a manual 3.5 lt..

I guess we are also tossing around the idea of an LPG conversion...but with the limited anual kms we travel ( approx 10,000 ), it is a fine line as to if it's worth it or not..

Apparently the LPG kit for the Series 2 is around $3500-$4000... So you can see it would take a few years to recoupe such an out lay....

Anyone else got thoughts on this ?

cheers, Brian C

Reply to
Hi-Soft

On or around Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:20:49 GMT, "Hi-Soft" enlightened us thusly:

The 1.8 petrol engine is crap, and the vehicle is a bit heavy for it.

either of the diesels is a better choice, the TD4 is best, the original diesel is not too bad but not as good as the TD4.

the 2.5 V6 is fast but drinks juice if you use all the power, by most accounts.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

Hi....

I have the V6 Freelander ES, 2.5 litre (X reg 2000) ........ around town, fairly flat roads, I usually get 15 mpg, on a motorway run, nice and steady, I get 25 mpg.

Whether this is normal, I'm not sure, but seems to correspond to the figures in the Freelander handbook..

Had I known it was this thirsty, I'd have probably thought twice. I actually 'upgraded' from a 3 litre Supra 220bhp, tons faster, but was getting far far better mileage from that, is the Freelanders poor mpg something to do with permanent 4 wheel drive maybe?

Brian (Huddersfield, West York's)

Reply to
Horse.trader

Snip

No ......... not at all the BMW TD4 proves that ......... the V6 has always been crap in this respect.

Richard

Reply to
Richard

Yes, Richard, but one is diesel, one is petrol..........

Reply to
Horse.trader

Not only do I not understand what a freelander is all this metric stuff is sending my crazy miles per imperial gallon please..

Reply to
Larry

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.