Real world MPG - 2.7 TDV6 vs 3.6 TDV8?

[Mike_C]

This is not specific to any car, but would be interested to know what real world MPG people are getting from either their Range Rover Sports of Dicovery 3's fitted with the 2.7 TDV6 and the 3.6 TDV8 (RRS)? If you can state what sort of usage too, that would be good.

Thanks.

[CycleSi]

My RRS 3.6 TDV8 averages around 19.3 mpg.

However, I do the 'worse' type of driving mpg-wise, in that my journey is only 4 miles so it never really warms up, it's a hilly route and I like to boot it when & where I can.

I'm sure most people get closer to 24/25 mpg urban driving?

[V8TVR]

CycleSi said:

My RRS 3.6 TDV8 averages around 19.3 mpg.

However, I do the 'worse' type of driving mpg-wise, in that my journey is only 4 miles so it never really warms up, it's a hilly route and I like to boot it when & where I can.

I'm sure most people get closer to 24/25 mpg urban driving?

exactly the same on a short trip, but motorway driving i get 26/7 constantly

[peaktorque]

My 2.7 TDV6 will average 30 MPG, which includes motorway and central London traffic over a week.

The best I've had is 38 MPG on a run up north and I've never got below 26 MPG.

[GT03ROB]

I've run a 2.7 RRS for the last 6 years.

I reckon 24-26 for normal driving, 30+ on a motorway run at the limit

[CycleSi]

These figures seem reasonable.

It was my belief the V6 does around 7 mpg more than the V8 so the replies would appear to back that up.

[Mike_C]

GT03ROB said:

I've run a 2.7 RRS for the last 6 years.

I reckon 24-26 for normal driving, 30+ on a motorway run at the limit

OK, that's about what I expected - and not far off my current BMW 330Ci in fact. Although diesel is quite a bit more expensive, which widens the gap further...

So the TDV6 is more economical than the TDV8?

[tyeo86]

20mpg combined for my TDV8

[Mike_C]

tyeo86 said:

20mpg combined for my TDV8

That's pretty terrible for a diesel IMO!

[Ranger 6]

Mike_C said:

tyeo86 said:

20mpg combined for my TDV8

That's pretty terrible for a diesel IMO!

That's quite normal for a 2.7 ton car with a 3.6 engine....

[Mike_C]

Ranger 6 said:

That's quite normal for a 2.7 ton car with a 3.6 engine....

They need to work harder to make it lighter and more efficient, that is crap!

[camel_landy]

Mike_C said:

Ranger 6 said:

That's quite normal for a 2.7 ton car with a 3.6 engine....

They need to work harder to make it lighter and more efficient, that is crap!

If you knew how much work DOES go into that part of the design, you wouldn't come up with comments like that!!

Quite simply, if you don't like it, don't buy it... Don't just sit around criticising.

It is a heavy car and as discussed on other threads, there is a lot of drive train there. On top of that, customers want luxury & performance... Extra weight & performance is going to use fuel!

/RANT OFF

As for my real world MPG... I normally get 24-25mpg on a run, 20mpg when hoofing it but the missus gets 29mpg.

Personally, I'm quite happy with that.

M

[E39 M5]

wee bit of input guys i'm looking to get a sport and still not sure which engine to get, i dont do many miles so was thinking the 4.2sc but a tdv8 is only a couple of grand more so i'm thinking it might hold its value better come resale time

cheers

[budrover]

I seem to average about 23.5 mpg in my TDV8, but just spent 2 weeks in Morocco with a Disco 3, and even after lots of offroad it was still managing 28mpg ...and 32 mpg on normal roads.

[bogie]

jeez, after reading these, I will stick to the cheaper petrol bargain cars our there. I have a 2004 V8 4.4 and average 18Mpg ish since I got it 2 years ago ...to be fair I dont spend a lot of time in town and do regular 500-600 mile round trips on the motorway

I was expecting people to be averaging 25-30mpg easy out of a diesel engined Rangey to make it worthwhile

[bakerstreet]

Mike_C said:

They need to work harder to make it lighter and more efficient, that is crap!

What a stupid comment.

It weights just shy of 2.7T and has a twin turbo V8 cmoplete with a complex 4WD system and lets face it, its not exactly aerodynamic is it!

If the press are to be believed they are gunning for 40mpg out of the new RR. I can't see them keeping the TDV8 in the log term though.

My old boss had a 2007 RRS TDV8 and they were getting an average of 24mpg on that and up to 30 on a run. I didn't think it was too bad. My old 2.8TD Pajero could barely manage 20mpg!!

[LFB531]

Like everone else it seems, my 2.7 RRS does 25/26 in daily faffing around use, creeps up to 30 on long runs. For what it's capable of, I can live with that.

[Mike_C]

bogie said:

jeez, after reading these, I will stick to the cheaper petrol bargain cars our there. I have a 2004 V8 4.4 and average 18Mpg ish since I got it 2 years ago ...to be fair I dont spend a lot of time in town and do regular 500-600 mile round trips on the motorway

I was expecting people to be averaging 25-30mpg easy out of a diesel engined Rangey to make it worthwhile

Out of interest, what sort of MPG do you get from the V8 on a motorway run at 70/80mph?

[bogie]

Mike_C said:

Out of interest, what sort of MPG do you get from the V8 on a motorway run at 70/80mph?

never measured it to be honest, I think I must be getting 25Mpg at least, to average 18mpg. I do drive it hard when not cruising on the motorway

its the town or city use that kills it, when you are down to 12mpg ish, but I rarely spend that much time in town or traffic

[Gazzab]

D3 2.7TDV6 for 5 years and average 22 - 24 mpg.
On a long journey might nudge 30mpg.
I have AT2s which rob me of maybe 1 or 2 mpg.
The car is remapped which hasnt made much difference if any IMHO.
We do live in a very hilly rural area so whilst we dont sit in traffic there are lots of fuel sapping hills.