GWO wrote:

Once a week I travel to Lincoln and when car is started have to press the radio preset to get the station back. As this does not happen at home I just assumed it was something like a weak signal, never considered it might be a fault perhaps I should look in to it.

Hi gents
I as you all have been looking at the miles you get to a tank of fuel. I do get concerned about fuel consumtion especially at the prices of today. But bottom line is you bought the car for what it is capable of and although i know it runs more miles with the AC off if i wanted a high milage veichal for fuel i would of bought one. My point is if you cant afford to run the AC and give the car some gun then why buy it

ronniddrie wrote:

Hi gents
I as you all have been looking at the miles you get to a tank of fuel. I do get concerned about fuel consumtion especially at the prices of today. But bottom line is you bought the car for what it is capable of and although i know it runs more miles with the AC off if i wanted a high milage veichal for fuel i would of bought one. My point is if you cant afford to run the AC and give the car some gun then why buy it

The point isn't whether anyone can or can't afford to run their car ronniddrie it's that no one expects mpg to be 20% less than that quoted by the manufacturer. Having owned a couple of BMWs in the past the mpgs have been pretty much spot on both worked out manually and by the computer. I have a new car with 900 miles on he clock and I'm lucky to get 30 mpg at best (long motorway journey). A quick trip down to town delivers 15-18 mpg, which in a TD4 manual is pretty poor. I'd certainly have thought twice if I'd knew I'd get an average mpg less than my old 2.5ltr petrol BMW. Love the car, disappointed about the mpg so far. 08 Santorini Black HSE manual with DAB and privacy glass

Well I'm not really disappointed with the mpg I get, currently averaging at 31 - 32 mpg in a TD4 auto, even when including town driving and long motorway snarl-ups. This mpg is remarkably close to that claimed by LR in the official figures.

I agree with the comments about driving the FL2 properly and enjoying its power and acceleration when you feel like it. It would be good if the mpg of the automatic was a tad closer to that of the manual, but hey.

I'm hoping that by the time I want to trade-in and replace, LR will have strengthened their eco credentials with some tasty and innovative hybrid engines, allowing us to pay neglible Road Tax and get 800+ miles per tankful! Ok, I know the last bit is a fantasy, where would any UK Government be if it couldn't bash 4x4s and their owners!  Life is not a dress rehearsal!

Hi folks,

Another busy week, another 600 miles tankful !!! Well 603 miles (with 20 miles remaining on the computer) and 67 litres to fill so 41 mpg (OK 40.96) for the tank.

Now that Mrs G has gone on maternity leave instead of doing a 70 miles a day, four times a week commute I couldn't care less about mpg, but the trip computer still shows us some pretty good mpg results so thats a nice bonus.

edh wrote:

ronniddrie wrote:

Hi gents
I as you all have been looking at the miles you get to a tank of fuel. I do get concerned about fuel consumtion especially at the prices of today. But bottom line is you bought the car for what it is capable of and although i know it runs more miles with the AC off if i wanted a high milage veichal for fuel i would of bought one. My point is if you cant afford to run the AC and give the car some gun then why buy it

The point isn't whether anyone can or can't afford to run their car ronniddrie it's that no one expects mpg to be 20% less than that quoted by the manufacturer. Having owned a couple of BMWs in the past the mpgs have been pretty much spot on both worked out manually and by the computer. I have a new car with 900 miles on he clock and I'm lucky to get 30 mpg at best (long motorway journey). A quick trip down to town delivers 15-18 mpg, which in a TD4 manual is pretty poor. I'd certainly have thought twice if I'd knew I'd get an average mpg less than my old 2.5ltr petrol BMW. Love the car, disappointed about the mpg so far.

I have been away this week for the first proper run since I got mine - I got 37 mpg fully loaded - 2 adults, 2 teens an 11 year old, a big lab and a roof box so I am well chuffed. This is the combined figure quoted. Getting 35 normal running.

In contrast my last car - a Jag X type Diesel Estate - managed 34 mpg doing long trip - well short of the 47 combined they quote. Used to get 38 normal.

To be honest, we will never get the acclaimed MPG figure from LR unless we drive our vehiles in the same manner they do when testing them.

So lets all start driving at 56mph in 6th gear and quit complaining.................NOT  ______________________
2011 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8
2012 FL2 SD4 Auto HSE
2013 Kawasaki Versys 650

UKdave104 wrote:

To be honest, we will never get the acclaimed MPG figure from LR unless we drive our vehiles in the same manner they do when testing them.

So lets all start driving at 56mph in 6th gear and quit complaining.................NOT

The thing is UKdave104 that loads of people do get the quoted mpg with normal driving - I think the issue here is that some cars are delivering significantly less mpg than others which doesn't really make sense. A small variation makes sense with different driving styles etc but not my computer showing 12mpg on a short trip into town as it did yesterday. Dreaming of a few 600 mile tanks  08 Santorini Black HSE manual with DAB and privacy glass

edh wrote:

UKdave104 wrote:

To be honest, we will never get the acclaimed MPG figure from LR unless we drive our vehiles in the same manner they do when testing them.

So lets all start driving at 56mph in 6th gear and quit complaining.................NOT

The thing is UKdave104 that loads of people do get the quoted mpg with normal driving - I think the issue here is that some cars are delivering significantly less mpg than others which doesn't really make sense. A small variation makes sense with different driving styles etc but not my computer showing 12mpg on a short trip into town as it did yesterday. Dreaming of a few 600 mile tanks

Quote:

edh, I think you are looking at this slightly wrong. A vehicle uses a lot of fuel on start up and whilst the engine is cold so it is understandable that a short trip would have high fuel consumption. The real test is during a long distance drive as this is where you see the ture average consumption, not spiked for multiple starts plus stop start driving.

A diesel engine takes significantly longer to warm up than a petrol engine, so fuel consumption suffers on short trips.

What would you consider a long distance

My long distance trips are 451 miles down to see my family and the best I can get from that is 33mpg, well short of what LR quote, hence when the time comes for change I will be looking at a Jeep as a replacement. ______________________
2011 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8
2012 FL2 SD4 Auto HSE
2013 Kawasaki Versys 650

Quote:

edh, ...... hence when the time comes for change I will be looking at a Jeep as a replacement.

It would take more than a few mpg to persuade me to buy a Jeep instead of a LR!  Life is not a dress rehearsal!

Gambba wrote:

edh wrote:

UKdave104 wrote:

To be honest, we will never get the acclaimed MPG figure from LR unless we drive our vehiles in the same manner they do when testing them.

So lets all start driving at 56mph in 6th gear and quit complaining.................NOT

The thing is UKdave104 that loads of people do get the quoted mpg with normal driving - I think the issue here is that some cars are delivering significantly less mpg than others which doesn't really make sense. A small variation makes sense with different driving styles etc but not my computer showing 12mpg on a short trip into town as it did yesterday. Dreaming of a few 600 mile tanks

edh, I think you are looking at this slightly wrong. A vehicle uses a lot of fuel on start up and whilst the engine is cold so it is understandable that a short trip would have high fuel consumption. The real test is during a long distance drive as this is where you see the ture average consumption, not spiked for multiple starts plus stop start driving.

A diesel engine takes significantly longer to warm up than a petrol engine, so fuel consumption suffers on short trips.

Hi Gambba - I know it was a little unfair quoting a short journey, I suppose I was just comparing it to my previous big engined petrol car which didn't seem to suffer so much over short distances. Still, on a 200 mile motorway/A road trip we're still looking a max of 31/32 mpg. The current Mrs H only got 30 or so on a trip from Surrey to Swansea. Neither of us drive aggressively so I'm still a little confused as to how we get such low figures Over 1000 miles on the clock now. 08 Santorini Black HSE manual with DAB and privacy glass

We should not mention an american 4 wheel drive 'creep' on a FL2 site, I might report this to CG! How many gallons to the mile are they anyway? Freelander 2 - SE
Sumatra Black - TD4 -4X4 Jack Russel in boot.

Well, to give some comparison, my old Jeep Cherokee 4.0L auto used to return 24 - 26mpg on a long run. My FL2 will only return 32 - 33mpg for the same journey.

Hence all the questions about fuel economy  ______________________
2011 Full Fat RR 4.4 TDV8
2012 FL2 SD4 Auto HSE
2013 Kawasaki Versys 650