P38a and Fuel Economy? Surely an Oxymoron?

Simon, what was your average and top speed of your 340 mile journey into my land? (ESSEX)

MC.

------------

I don't know what the overall average was, but when I got back in at Latchingdon after a fill-up and cycled the trip computer back to average m.p.g. I noticed 36 mph as the average speed. That's about 30 minutes from work and at the time the mpg was at about 19.8. It peaked at 20 before I got to work and, although it went down to about 18 during the week while I was on short trips to and from my digs, it was back up to 20 by the time I got home on the Friday. I tried to keep my cruising speed between 70 and 75 but did go as high as 90 when I needed to overtake quickly in heavy traffic. I know from experience that it is almost as uneconomical at 100+ as it is around town, so I was actually making an effort to get a reasonable figure out of it, although there's really no excuse for doing more than 70 anyway.

Simon U

|| At a guess I'd say less than 10, but it's certainly quick enough to || embarrass Golf GiTs that aren't in the right gear. Truth is, it's || not quick off a standing start but is surprisingly nimble at || overtaking, though all along you're aware that it's not got matching ||

You have to remember it's 225 bhp and about 2200 kg, so not far off 100 bhp/tonne - about the same as an average family saloon. ISTR the 0-60 time is about 10-11 seconds, which is not alarmingly fast, but it's the way it does it - like a charging rhino may not be as fast as a gazelle, but you sure get out of the way!

Simon's right - wind it on from about 50 and it just seems to pile on the speed forever. I gave a spotty herbert a moment's reflection this afternoon. Driving back down to W Wales from Sheffield, on the A449 between Ross and Newport, I was overtaking a line of cars at exactly 70 (thank you cruise control) when a young lad in a Jap hatchback came up behind and started flashing me to get out of his way. As soon as I could I made to return to lane 1 - good job I checked the LH mirror, because he was half-way through undertaking me. He started to pull away so I just eased some more power on and stayed with him until we started going uphill. He ran out of horsepower and I was still accelerating towards his oversized exhaust pipe. I stayed in his mirror long enough to let him feel the "presence", then backed off and let him go. I wonder what would have happened if I had just moved out of his way without checking the mirror first. I might have had a bit of panel damage, but he would have been head-first into the Armco at at least 90.

I did an experiment last night on the M180 - dry, flat and deserted. I reset the trip computer and then did exactly 3 miles at a steady 70, then reset and did the same distance at a steady 80 and again at a steady 60. Fuel consumption figures were:

60 - 21.2 mpg 70 - 18.5 mpg 80 - 15.5 mpg

It's hardly scientific, but it does tell a story: from a base speed of 70, increasing by 10mph means an increase in fuel consumption of nearly a fifth. Reducing by 10mph reduces consumption by about 16%. The figures seem to correspond to real life speeds and consumption quite well.

On or around Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:57:22 -0000, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

Previous owner of my 2.8 sierra did a similar thing on the motorway. Reckoned that at a steady 90 it does 19 mpg, but at a steady 110 it's down to 14.

driven tidily on normal roads it returns about 27, and it's been alleged that you can get more than 30, but I've not the patience for that.

Richard> Simon's right - wind it on from about 50 and it just Richard> seems to pile on the speed forever. I gave a spotty Richard> herbert a moment's reflection this afternoon. Richard> [ Tale of putting said herbert in his place deleted]

Tee Hee. I love doing that kind of stunt as well.

--

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Andy Cunningham aka AndyC the WB | andy -at- cunningham.me.uk | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | - Everything you wanted to know || about the P38A Range Rover but were afraid to ask. |+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+"And everything we want to get/We download from the InternetAll we hear is/Internet Ga-Ga/Cyberspace Goo-goo" -- from "Radio Ga Ga"/"We will rock you"

At 150 my Jag used to show 2-3mpg on the computer. I worked it out at a refuel every 18 minutes. If that takes ten minutes the effective speed is down to something that could be achieved by a Discovery TDi at a quarter of the price.

Any idea what the wind was like?

Though it was probably a crosswind, if it had been a substantial headwind, you'd have seen quite a difference on the return trip.

You're bringing out the worst in me. I beat a 3 Series away from the roundabout at Bracknell earlier and then outran a MG ZT a bit further down. All within the speed limit I hasten to add. I hope the MG driver wasn't putting his foot down, as there must be something wrong with it if he was.

David

It could have been a Diesel ZT you were against (yes - they do exist). The spec on them has 0-60 in somewhere around 10.5 vs 11 for the normal Rover

2. I actually quite like the 2.0 Diesel in the 75 (that's my daytime car). It's quite refined, doesn't have the snarl you'd expect from a diesel and on the whole handles like a petrol. Bit gutless though. I really preferred the TD5 engine in the Discovery, but the 75 is a much more comfortable car for long haul than the disco ever was, and gets 40+MPG vs 22 for the Disco.

P.

|| I did an experiment last night on the M180 - dry, flat and ||| deserted. I reset the trip computer and then did exactly 3 miles ||| at a steady 70, then reset and did the same distance at a steady 80 ||| and again at a steady 60. Fuel consumption figures were: ||| ||| 60 - 21.2 mpg ||| 70 - 18.5 mpg ||| 80 - 15.5 mpg ||| ||| It's hardly scientific, but it does tell a story: from a base speed ||| of 70, increasing by 10mph means an increase in fuel consumption of ||| nearly a fifth. Reducing by 10mph reduces consumption by about 16%. ||| The figures seem to correspond to real life speeds and consumption ||| quite well. || || Any idea what the wind was like? || || Though it was probably a crosswind, if it had been a substantial || headwind, you'd have seen quite a difference on the return trip. || ||

Slight headwind. I assume you know the section I mean, between the M181 and M18 junctions: pretty straight. The return journey (in fact it *was* a return journey IYSWIM*) may have produced different results, but it was a comparative exercise - I wanted to see what difference the speeds made relative to each other, rather than measure fuel consumption in absolute terms.

*Day out with 2 teenage daughters in Lincoln: Big Wok for lunch, King Billy for a pint, Return of the King at the Odeon, and dinner in a restaurant called Ask - all highly recommended.

|| Richard> [ Tale of putting said herbert in his place deleted] || || Tee Hee. I love doing that kind of stunt as well. || ||

Me too. I know I'm too old for road rage (and the RR encourages the exact opposite), but I wouldn't like to have to explain in a court of law the difference between road rage and a "stunt" designed to take a pillock down a peg or two. It's a fine line. Be safe out there, kids.

|| || || At 150 my Jag used to show 2-3mpg on the computer. I worked it out || at a refuel every 18 minutes. If that takes ten minutes the || effective speed is down to something that could be achieved by a || Discovery TDi at a quarter of the price. || || ||

I remember a road test report in Bike magazine a few years ago. They pitted (forgive me if I forget the details) some whiz-bang road rocket like a Z900 against a stodgy tourer like a BMW R600, and concluded that (once fuel stops were taken into account), the Beemer was by far the faster bike of the two over a long journey. Tortoise and hare, and all that.

Richard> Me too. I know I'm too old for road rage (and the RR Richard> encourages the exact opposite), but I wouldn't like to Richard> have to explain in a court of law the difference between Richard> road rage and a "stunt" designed to take a pillock down a Richard> peg or two. It's a fine line. Be safe out there, kids.

I don't think anyone's too old for road rage. But in the rangie I feel sufficiently superior to almost everyone else on the road (the exception being any L322s coming along) that I don't get "road-ragey" in the same way.

Pretty much reacting in any way would, technically, put you on the wrong side of the law, but then there's two obstacles to that being a problem: being caught, and the burden of proof. More important, of course, is being safe and avoiding an accident. If you're trying to intimidate some spotty oik in a Vauxhall Nova with go faster stripes and a loud exhaust, the last thing you want to do is to actually hit him. After all, it might scratch your bumper.

AndyC

--

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Andy Cunningham aka AndyC the WB | andy -at- cunningham.me.uk | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | - Everything you wanted to know || about the P38A Range Rover but were afraid to ask. |+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+"And everything we want to get/We download from the InternetAll we hear is/Internet Ga-Ga/Cyberspace Goo-goo" -- from "Radio Ga Ga"/"We will rock you"

Plus the lengthy hospital stops...

On or around Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:28:28 -0000, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

the BMs are pretty darn good bikes, especially the K-series ones. Serious long-distance machines.

I wondered what the hell you were on about, until I realised that I had read "series 3" for 3-series".

Rich