Rangie 4.6 Hse fuel economy

Whilst not having the 4.6, the word 'economy' & Rangies dont go together!

I would think ( a 3.5 does around 12-16) it would have to be less.

-- Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

__

mmm as I thought! I am looking for a V8 ES but people seem to be asking silly money for them or they are bad examples when I go and see them, the amount of people who list them on eBay as "perfect" and "all electrics work" and when you get there they are piles of sh**!! and travelling from Anglesey to anywhere is a pain.

There's a 4.6 Hse rangie on eBay at the moment ( lots of toys) but I'd be looking to gas convert it - but if it's barely into double figures anyway it's still going to be expensive.

The search for a Disco ES V8 goes on!!! what was someone saying on here about rocking horse sh** and hens teeth?

It affects all 3.9-4.6 engines from what I see! Yes, it is common & costs a packet!

The V8 is a nice engine, but from what i see has as many problems as any other!

Well, in theory yes, but practice is never like theory!

From what I read, a good test drive whilst keeping your eye on the actual water level in the tanks etc is a good way.

Have you tried

or maybe .com. A good (if a bit scaremongering) source of V8 info!

I'm sure one of the chaps in the know will be along shortly to blow my theory into the water!

Nige

-- Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

__

I'll get me coat!

So Nige was, like

You'd be wrong then :-)

Mine (1997 RR 4.6 HSE auto) averages 17mpg, mostly on 10-mile commutes with the odd longer trip and a fair bit of towing (1.2 tonne caravan and 2.2 tonne trialler/trailer combo) and some off-road. Best ever was 22mpg, on a fairly leisurely solo motorway trip; worst was about 14, towing in hilly country with a deadline to meet*. Driving style - well, I don't thrash my vehicles any more (except the wife's Focus, which is a hoot), but I don't hang around either. Keep it around 80 on the Mway and it'll return 18mpg.

Bigger engines aren't always less economical. The fuel management on the

4.6 is much better than on the 3.5/3.9 Efi, and way better than the 3.5's carbs.

HTH

• A lie. The actual real worst was 6.3mpg according to the trip computer, while checking that the woodland/quarry section of an event we had organised was actually driveable by a road vehicle. Total distance was about ¾ mile, so it probably wasn't representative.

Sounds OK to me, even better than the 3.9 Disco! are they a nightmare to gas convert do you know? I know the tank would have to go in the boot due to all the suspension "gubbins" going on underneath

This is the beastie - on it's second lump, but surely that's a good thing with only 44k an the new one?

90ltr "filled" torroidal with external multivalve will fit in wheel well in boot, done 3 of these now. Problem is the electronics on the vehicle, go gas injection if it's a later thor system with the "rams-horns" inlet manifold. If it has the single large plenum intake, then a cheaper closed-loop vapour system will work perfectly adequately if set up properly. These vehicles are known to have plenty of backfire issues, most are caused by ht leads breaking down or defective coil packs. Badger. B.H.Engineering, Rover V8 engine specialists.

What sort of age are you looking at ? We got a Disco ES 3.91996/7 (I forget!) with Gas conversion , twin belly tanks afford a fill of around 60 litres so I guess they are 40 litres each tank. Gives us around 120 miles on gas.

From my learning from the group the slipped linners seemed to effect the 4.2 and 4.6's. I've not heard of it being an isssue on the 3.9's and this along with the gas conversion was insrumental in my decission to purchase this one instead of a P38a which I like the look of but there reputation proceeds them.

On autoroutes we got 18 to 20 mpg towing a 1300 kg large caravan plus kids and lots of 3 week holiday stuff. Consider that along with the less than half the cost fuel and forgetting and difference in LPG / Petrol efficiency then your looking at equivelent to 40 mpg cost wise.

We purchased the car with the conversion already fitted.

Typically we get 14 mpg. Larger engines aren't always more thirsty because you don't have to go up and down the gears as often. Anything over 3.5 Litres and if economy is an issue then stick to diesel.

Lee D

It is an issue on 3.9/4.0/4.6 in the Range Rover, but not the 3.9 in the Discovery. This is, I am told, due to the Rangie having the ECU programmed to keep the mix quite lean. This makes it run hotter...

Our 3..9 Discovery has twin 35 litre tanks which gives us a filling capacity of 58-60 litres - depending on the time of year and where we go for it. We can manage (on a good day) 130miles which is 10mpg. Our old 3.9 Range Rover used to give 18-20mpg as does our 3.5 90.

So Tim Hobbs was, like

So the Rangie ECU keeps the engine mix lean. If I took it out and inserted it somewhere, would it do the same for me?

If you need to ask then you cant afford one !!!

Stu

Mmm! not true, just like to plan where my money goes, I don't believe in unnecessary wastage as I was not born to money but have to work for it (very hard)

I get 13 litres/100km on the highway and 18 litres/100km around town

Ron Beckett Emu Plains, Australia

1995 P38A Range Rover HSE 4.6 Litre V8

I make it about 21MPG

P.