| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2059.1 | Poor to very poor ..... | CHEFS::OSBORNEC | | Fri Apr 02 1993 15:40 | 11 |
|
Varies. 25-28 mpg with a light foot on the 80, down to 22-24 mpg on the
105/110. Overdrive gives extra 3-5 mpg.
I had 110's & 80's, & found that the consumption didn't vary a great
deal on the 110. The 80 was working harder, & was poor around town when
accelerating frequently (& leisurely....)
Colin
(who has a whole garage full of P4 spares available very cheaply...)
|
| 2059.2 | | SIEVAX::WHEELWRIGHT | Lapsed atheist | Fri Apr 02 1993 15:52 | 8 |
| 25-28mpg? Is that on a run or overall? Sounds very good to me.
*Dream* of that sort of fuel consumption in the 'B'.
Do you remember which engine the 95 had?
Might be interested in those spares...
Joanthan.
|
| 2059.3 | | VANGA::KERRELL | but that's not my real job | Fri Apr 02 1993 16:04 | 4 |
| I learned to drive in a 90. I seem to remember it had a 2.6 litre engine and
weighed about two tons. Not good for petrol consumption!
Dave.
|
| 2059.4 | Less for boy-racers at the traffic lights | CHEFS::OSBORNEC | | Fri Apr 02 1993 18:36 | 17 |
|
Both sets on consumption were definitely on a run.... I must confess I
never worry about consumption as, on a relatively low mileage,
depreciation is much more important in modern cars than fractional
savings on mpg. Depreciation not a significant issue on these cars.
95 was the 6-cylinder engine (as was everything from 90-110). All were
single-carb, except the 105S. The 80 had the 4 cyl engine, also used in
a de-tuned (!) form in the Land-Rover.
Colin
(who, amongst the spares has official Rover Workshop Manuals etc...)
Colin
|
| 2059.5 | those were the days... | CHUND::EATON | A quattro is not a spreadsheet... | Sun Apr 04 1993 10:27 | 3 |
| The 2.6l was a "6" with a "F" head valve arrangement. Definitely pretty low tech
and heavy. Was also an option on the L/R models, the 109" especially. About 90hp
if I remember correctly.
|
| 2059.6 | 22mpg from a Rover 100 | ZSAZSA::READINGS | Richard Readings | Wed Apr 07 1993 15:16 | 5 |
| And that was on a run! Add caravan + headwind and it came down to 14mpg.
Lovely car though - wish I had it now.
Richard
|
| 2059.7 | Rover P4's and gates... | RDGENG::RUSLING | Dave Rusling REO2 G/E9 830-4380 | Wed Apr 07 1993 15:21 | 10 |
|
On my student placement at Rutherford one of my co-workers had a P4.
He was teaching his daughter to drive around the perimiter road (quiet, you
see). She ended up driving through Rutherford's gates. The gates were written
off, the P4 was fine.
BTW did you know that some of the Dr Who's were filmed outside of Rutherford
and Harwell (they're next door to each other)?
Dave
|
| 2059.8 | Permanently Poor | UPROAR::KINGSTONT | Tony Kingston | Wed Apr 07 1993 21:59 | 16 |
| Hi there,
I have a 2.6l 109 land rover and the consumption is 13mpg, has always
been 13mpg and probably always will be 13mpg. It doesn't make any
difference whether I'm towing anything or not.
Apparently the 2.6l option for the Land Rover came about because the
Rover factory had a couple of thousand spare blocks lying around after
the introduction of the V8. They were offered as the performance
option for Land Rovers before the 109 V8 was announced a few years
later.
BTW unleaded petrol is NOT an option for this engine.
Tony
|
| 2059.9 | LandRover 2.6 T | CHUND::EATON | A quattro is not a spreadsheet... | Thu Apr 08 1993 02:47 | 5 |
| I always thought that the 2.6l motor (an the 2.25l 4) were tailor-made for
turbo-ing. Low compression, pretty strong etc. Probably improve your
consumption as well as the breathing would improve.
-Dave.
|
| 2059.10 | | SUBURB::FRENCHS | Semper in excernere | Thu Apr 08 1993 12:50 | 6 |
| I still like my 3.5 V8. Low compression means that I run it on
unleaded. Unleaded made it run better, along with a 'Fuel Cat' device,
like the carbon flo device, in the petrol tank. I got several miles
more per gallon.
Simon
|