I'm bewildered to say the least by the difference in fuel consumtion between my two Range Rover V8 Classics.
My auto 3.5 V8 does, on average, between 12 and 17 mpg, no matter what treatment it gets. If it's used on the motorway extensively, cruising at around 70ish it returns somewhere in the region of 17 mpg. Used in town it's around 12. It normally does between 50 and 75 miles for £20.
My manual 3.5 V8 is stupidly good on fuel for a Range Rover; so good that today I filled the tank to the brim this morning, and then brimmed it again this evening. It did 89 miles for £15.12. Which by my reckoning is 26.5 mpg near enough. (98.9 a litre). About 40 miles were on the motorway though, but the urban stuff I was in a proper hurry - fuel consumption was the least of my worries..
The Auto runs cleanly, the emissions are 0.75 co, 200 ppm HC, and something like 10% Co2, it's got a K&N filter (which is about to come off) and a standard exhaust pipe. It's a fair bit slower than the manual, but that's to be expected.
The manual runs virtually identical emissions, pinks a touch more if on cheap fuel, is very slightly tappety, has a standard air filter but has a stainless exhaust (standard manifolds, not a sporty system).
They both appear to run the same injection set up, but the previous keeper of the blue one said something about it having the airflow meter from a 3.9.
Surely it can't be as simple as putting a 3.9 AFM on to get this kind of economy??? I thought the 3.9 used a different injection setup.