Improve fuel consumption.

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
goodwoodweirdo

You´ve just got to read Cassie´s web page, go to ´Vehicle & Caravan Mechanical fault issues´ I rest my case.

Poor Cassie, thinks they were unfortunate! Truth is this is the norm for many landrovers. Lets see how they feel next year when they have had another set of ´unlucky´ mechanical failers!

I repeat, you need to be mechanicaly competent and know how to fixe these problems yourself. You need to take spares, and tools.

I am only trying to save you grief.

I think this is a rather unfair statement JM, There are plenty of people who run LR's and LC's both with and without mechanical failures. Some mild and some which render the vehicle useless. Each has their merits and each has their pitfalls. Its personal taste/choice at the end of the day.

With regards to websites, web content is (largely) uncontrolled so people can recommend and say exactly what they like. You dont have to like it, but having a rant wont change anything and you will ultimately make yourself look like a chump. So what if Cassie linked something, it might be what someone is after, does it really matter? Do you think the people who read these websites dont think for themselves? There is a reason they are independent overland travellers and thats because they are free thinking and can fabricate ideas and ways to get what they want and to where they want. Not because they walked into Thomas Cook and booked a package holiday to Spain. You Baulked at the idea so why do you think the majority of people logging onto Cassie's site will run to Az. and purchase a 130?

forums are about personal opinions so you cannot correct statements you deem to be ignorant. If you disagree, I suggest you take your channeled opinions to a different forum.

G
 
Last edited:
So...what exactly has been said that is "ignorant"[/quote]

Infering that because I choose a reliable vehicle i want to make my jourmey as easy as possibbe.

Its an ignorant comment because you are enitrely ignorant of all the other motivation I may have for my journey.

Ignorant - ´lack of knowledge, information´
 
I think this is a rather unfair statement JM, There are plenty of people who run LR's and LC's both with and without mechanical failures. Some mild and some which render the vehicle useless. Each has their merits and each has their pitfalls. Its personal taste/choice at the end of the day.

With regards to websites, web content is (largely) uncontrolled so people can recommend and say exactly what they like. You dont have to like it, but having a rant wont change anything and you will ultimately make yourself look like a chump. So what if Cassie linked something, it might be what someone is after, does it really matter? Do you think the people who read these websites dont think for themselves? There is a reason they are independent overland travellers and thats because they are free thinking and can fabricate ideas and ways to get what they want and to where they want. Not because they walked into Thomas Cook and booked a package holiday to Spain. You Baulked at the idea so why do you think the majority of people logging onto Cassie's site will run to Az. and purchase a 130?

forums are about personal opinions so you cannot correct statements you deem to be ignorant. If you disagree, I suggest you take your channeled opinions to a different forum.

G

Yes, that´s the point right, its a forum where people can express an opinion. This ttread was started by someone asking for opinions on landrover vs landcruisers. If they are going to read the replies, which I suppose they will, I see it as only valuable that they are able to gauge the level of experince of the people who are giveing the replies.

I have not said that Cassie shouldn´t link to anything, that´s entirely their affair. I was asking why, and if they knew anything about the product they were linking to, that´s all.

I am not complaining that I don´t like it, I am just saying that I don´t like it, there is a difference.

Where have I said that I think people on these forums don´t think for themselves?
 
Yes, that´s the point right, its a forum where people can express an opinion. This ttread was started by someone asking for opinions on landrover vs landcruisers. If they are going to read the replies, which I suppose they will, I see it as only valuable that they are able to gauge the level of experince of the people who are giveing the replies.

I have not said that Cassie shouldn´t link to anything, that´s entirely their affair. I was asking why, and if they knew anything about the product they were linking to, that´s all.

I am not complaining that I don´t like it, I am just saying that I don´t like it, there is a difference.

Where have I said that I think people on these forums don´t think for themselves?

the thread was started on comparative MPG's not "which one will break down quickest" (Land Rover) or "which one will be impossible to repair by a bush mechanic in Ouagadougou" (land Cruiser) :) thats why I made that point.

I just thought the way you went about asking your question was rather unfair. You didnt say people dont think for themselves (I was talking overlanders in general not forum readers) thats why I put a question mark.

Ps. feel free to rip apart my website while your here :D
 
Yes, that´s the point right, its a forum where people can express an opinion. This ttread was started by someone asking for opinions on landrover vs landcruisers. If they are going to read the replies, which I suppose they will, I see it as only valuable that they are able to gauge the level of experince of the people who are giveing the replies.

I have not said that Cassie shouldn´t link to anything, that´s entirely their affair. I was asking why, and if they knew anything about the product they were linking to, that´s all.

I am not complaining that I don´t like it, I am just saying that I don´t like it, there is a difference.

Where have I said that I think people on these forums don´t think for themselves?

And While we are on the subject of opinions Griffdawg, stange that you chose not to reply to my comment on your post in another thread -

Griffdawg wrote

"a note on Morocco, a friend we met at Portsmouth dock prior to departure stopped overnight in Algerciras and had the rear quater window smashed and they got in and stole his clothes, camping stove, pots, chair etc etc etc. he riveted the seatbox cover plate over it for the duration in Morocco, but it still happens. Get some security grilles at the very least."

I wrote in reply -

Griffdawg,

You say "a note on Morocco" but Algerciras is in Spain. I think the statement is a little misleading for people who have not made the journey before and may worry them unessacarily . I know what you mean, and it may well have been a Moroccan living in Algerciras who broke in, there are enough of them there, but I think it just gives the wrong impression, which I´m sure wasn´t your intention to give.

Security is an issue everywhere, but Morocco, IMHO, is much less of a risk than Europe. The stakes are too high for the people who live there.

They´ll hassle you endlessly, and heaven help you if you break down and need help because they´ll see you as a huge stranded `cash-cow` and milk you for everything.

But this sort of crime against people who are so obviously tourists I don´t think happens.

Has anyone had any experience of being robbed or broken into in Morocco, I would like to know genuinely
 
Infering that because I choose a reliable vehicle i want to make my jourmey as easy as possibbe.

NO, you wern´t ´saying in general´ the comment was a driect reply to my post. Don`t try now to back track-.

*sigh* - I did not suggest that though did I? Re-read what I said. I would be very suprised if anybody but you would come to the same conclusion that you did.

Let me quote myself again so you cannot accuse me of attempting back tracking as you say...

My car vehicle choice is neither practical, ecomomical or comfortable but I can see that there are some rounded opinions above - I went purely on fun - and I like a bit of a challenge!

Not quite sure how you get from what I have said to suggesting that I have directly commented towards yourself and your vehicle to say that because you choose a reliable car that you are making the trip easy.

What I said was - go on -read the above quote again - is that a bit of the challenge to me is to do it in a not so practical/comfortable/economical car. Why would I infer such a thing to yourself anyway - consider that my car was also reliable (it was)...I am also pointing that suggestion (thata reliable car mkes a trip easy) towards myself?

I was not commenting on your motivation to drive whatsoever. For a start I was talking about my opinion, not yours, and the opinion you have formed is incorrect anyway! Think about it before you rant and start calling people ignorant as it is quite clearly not the case!
 
G - I re-read your thread and understood it completely and don't think it's misleading or out of context at all. Makes absolute sense. I don't think it needs explaining.

J - you accuse RR of back-tracking "I am not complaining that I don´t like it, I am just saying that I don´t like it, there is a difference." The difference everyone can see is the 'how' you say it with references of
ignorance, incorrect facts and mis-interpretation - all it seems because RR made a reference everyone took in context and fully understands except you it seems. Who's the ignorant one - are you getting the message?
 
Thought I would post a bit more on topic rather than this silly ranting...did a quick google search for different years of Land Cruisers and the MPG (I am ignoring the V8 petrol variants!)

From members on Diesel Forum - The Diesel Stop.com

1982 BJ60 - average of 26MPG over 4 years
1983 with the 4 cyl - 26-28MPG
1987 with the inline 6, got 20MPG


according to a user on Carsurvey.org - Car Reviews 1996 VX Diesel 27MPG

From Sytner Toyota: 2004 Diesel SW 3.0 D4D Auto: 27.2MPG
2007 Diesel SW 3.0 D4D 31.4MPG


From tlcocuk (Toyota L C Owners club (UK)
i have got a 1999 lwb auto round town i get 20 ish to the gallon and can srtetch to 29 to the gallon driving like my dad on the motorway on average i get 26 mpg and down to 22 towing

I have a 1997 80 4.2 Diesel. I have averaged 29MPG over the last 6,000 miles

Autocar did a road test on the Colorado 3.0 litre manual back in 1997. Their results varied from 21.3 -29.7


From the 1997 Toyota brochure conducted under the 93/116/EEC directive (diesel) (I would however expect a 10 year old car to have lost a few MPG!):

Amazon Urban 21.4 Extra-urban 30.7 Combined 26.6

Colorado Auto 19.8 27.4 23.9

Manual 21.4 30.1 26.2


So if for fuel consumption alone, I would not consider the LC to be a significant gain (if it all) over any LR 200tdi or newer?
 
Last edited:
*sigh* - I did not suggest that though did I? Re-read what I said. I would be very suprised if anybody but you would come to the same conclusion that you did.

Let me quote myself again so you cannot accuse me of attempting back tracking as you say...



Not quite sure how you get from what I have said to suggesting that I have directly commented towards yourself and your vehicle to say that because you choose a reliable car that you are making the trip easy.

What I said was - go on -read the above quote again - is that a bit of the challenge to me is to do it in a not so practical/comfortable/economical car. Why would I infer such a thing to yourself anyway - consider that my car was also reliable (it was)...I am also pointing that suggestion (thata reliable car mkes a trip easy) towards myself?

I was not commenting on your motivation to drive whatsoever. For a start I was talking about my opinion, not yours, and the opinion you have formed is incorrect anyway! Think about it before you rant and start calling people ignorant as it is quite clearly not the case!

that´s not the quote i was refering to and you know it,
 
G - I re-read your thread and understood it completely and don't think it's misleading or out of context at all. Makes absolute sense. I don't think it needs explaining.

J - you accuse RR of back-tracking "I am not complaining that I don´t like it, I am just saying that I don´t like it, there is a difference." The difference everyone can see is the 'how' you say it with references of
ignorance, incorrect facts and mis-interpretation - all it seems because RR made a reference everyone took in context and fully understands except you it seems. Who's the ignorant one - are you getting the message?

I was accusing RR of backing tracking but you are gwetting the quotes mixed up, your quoting me replying to Griffdawg!!!

RR made a direct reference to me, he did atempt backtrack, and you don´t like what I say about your website link or obvois inexperience so naturally you choose this stance.
 
that´s not the quote i was refering to and you know it,

Me:
My car vehicle choice is neither practical, ecomomical or comfortable but I can see that there are some rounded opinions above - I went purely on fun - and I like a bit of a challenge! Personally don't see the point in making an expedition as easy as possible but of course each to their own.

Back to the original question r.e MPG though and then Land Cruisers...what do the Diesel LC get? 25MPG perhaps? Not that much in it between that and a LR?

Rightie ho. I suppose you are now aware of a hidden agenda that I have that is so hidden, even I do not know about it. That above was the entirety of what I said before you started presuming things and I don't think anyone but you has taken it the way you have - it is my personal opinion that to me part of the challenge is to take a vehicle which presents it's own challenges - so what - that's my opinion and does not reflect what I think about people who would prefer a comfortable, economical, practical vehicle. Stop argueing for the sake of agueing, this is an expedition part of the forum, we are having an open discussion about that - lets get back to that rather than this rubbish of who said what and how and so on - no one wants to read this kind of crap!
 
I was accusing RR of backing tracking but you are gwetting the quotes mixed up, your quoting me replying to Griffdawg!!!

And for the record I have not "back tracked" on anything - I share the same view as I did from my first post on this thread.
 
J- Quotes re: G and RR are not mixed up and were a deliberate attempt to try to get a point across to you. But this appears to get continually lost with you for some reason and your view on my stance as result could not be more wrong. Reactive rather than pro-active – not sure.

I am not sure what obvious lack experience you are referring but in terms of vehicle choice, preparation and overlanding – ours is always going to be less than others and more than some. There is not a lot we can do about where we are in this process. Our own experiences are based on 2-3 years serious research, robust and measured vehicle preparation and prior to this several years of informal enquiries. Toward our longer term 2010 trip we have undertaken an 8 week shakedown trip this year and provided feedback based on our experiences during this time – all of which is based on what we’ve learned and the ‘facts’ to date long with valuable input from several resources. We don’t really have an issue with our level of experience in the way that you do with regard to us, have never made a secret of it and is clearly stated via our website and in several posts in this forum. The responsive advice and views we have gleaned in this process have always been considered and often used.

In the process, our website has been well received by both experienced and less experienced viewers which help us build further in assisting us to make more informed decisions and to provide information to others which they are free to use/discard as they wish. You advise you don’t like our website – we appreciate it is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea - but the reasons you have provided to date have all been unfounded or unjustified so far in our view – references to apparent lack caravan wheel spares (untrue), bias toward Az (untrue and this, despite explanation and offering to add more links to make clearer for you).

We strive to make our website as informative and detailed as possible to serve as a reference for ourselves, friends and family and to others thinking of undertaking a similar project/experience to us. And, also as a resource for the more experienced, so they can see where we are in the process. We always welcome feedback and useful input/advice and include as part of our website posts where appropriate.

If you can provide us some constructive and more justified feedback regarding the issues you seem to have with regard to our lack of experience or in relation to our website, we would gladly welcome and look forward to hearing from you.
 
General comments:

Cassie – funny enough I was reading your website the other day, I think you where incredible unlucky to have the timing belt go, especially after having a professional “overlanding” company fit it …. Miss-alignment would kill any timing belt and possibly the engine. You where very brave to travel with children and I have several overlanding friends who have turned to caravans…. Damm awful things but that’s only my opinion.. If I had a bigger budget I would look at these clip on backs or a complete rear conversion but its all at a cost.

Regarding reliability, I personally believe its down to luck and preparation more than anything… my company VW had a new turbo at 60.000 kms and new cat at 160.000 that’s all in 3.5 years, my 10 year old Elise blew its head gasket in the first week of ownership… and my 18 year old Honda Africa Twin took me to Jordan with only a knackered front brake and broken rack (rack was my fault after dropping the bike / the caliper I should have rebuild before leaving – had it fixed in Turkey for €40)

But still I look around and all these Overlanding companies advertise with Land Rovers !! Can it be all down to emotion ???…

Also had a mate who’s TD5 window was removed, contents taken in a hotel car-park in Morocco … couldn’t steal the national Luna fridge as it wouldn’t fit though the rear window… but hey could happen in a village near you..

I was once told by a African tour operator, his Land Rovers always needed something but when the Land Cruiser broke he new it would be serious and expensive …

I’ll keep you updated on my decisions…

Cheers
Matt
 
My car vehicle choice is neither practical, ecomomical or comfortable but I can see that there are some rounded opinions above - I went purely on fun - and I like a bit of a challenge! Personally don't see the point in making an expedition as easy as possible but of course each to their own.

Back to the original question r.e MPG though and then Land Cruisers...what do the Diesel LC get? 25MPG perhaps? Not that much in it between that and a LR?

Hello Every one :))

Well Despite having the Land Cruiser, I always feel welcome here, :)

I have the 2005 Land Cruiser 120 series.
.
STP80020a.jpg

.
and I know there is always banter about "which is best" but at the end of the day, we all like to do 'what we do, in whatever vehicle' we chose.

I think it is fair to say, that the newer common rail engines, will always be more economical than the old "direct or in-direct" injection of years ago.

I really don't know much about the new "Green oval stuff" but I am sure they also have pretty good common rail diesel engines also.

In my opinion, and this is just me, I think the Land Rover is a tad "under powered", and this means, you have to give a bit more "right foot" than you would want.

I think we have all heard the expression that a a more powerful engine, can often be more economical than a smaller less powerful engine.

I think this is where the LC is probably more economical.
I have no idea what the LR engine capacity is, or power output, but the LC is reasonably good.
From the 4 cylinder 3.0 Liter which is intercooled and of course, turbo, they put out 175 bhp, and I think 404 torque.
So any way, what I am saying is, the engine isn't working so hard, and as such is more economical.
The LC will do 30 mpg all day long, if you keep between 55 and 60 mph.
Its strange, how the auto, what mine is, is more economical that the manual.

'vette



 
Hi Vette, agree about the power. 110 for us - power-wise really not up to much especially when towing - much harder work. Have to say we were gob-smacked when a tiny little Renault taxi came and towed our caravan with considerable ease and with great speed to a campsite after we'd been lumbering along the motorway in LR and then broke down. Kind of put things into perspective a bit. Uphill was a big struggle for us in a 110 with a heavy load behind. We did some research when we got back and found our 12 seconds average up hill was beaten by the split seconds of other vehicles (incl. lorries that passed us - became a daily challenge for us to try to keep up!).
Link to downloadable PDF - caravan and towcar data - provides an indication of speed, tow data across varying vehicles might be useful to some:
http://www.caravansa.co.za/caravan_data/[/URL]

But then the decision came down to - do we want to trade for more power, speed, ecomony - for us, the answer was no.

Matt, we did have mechanical training and were equipped with spares, tools etc. but this issue along with the fuel pump were much bigger than us (I’d imagine even many of the most die-hard experienced would not be able to deal with a timing belt by the roadside). Had to be left for the professionals to resolve as we could never have achieved a fix for this nor the subsequent legacy issues it left behind. It was really unfortunate for us but we had the sun, beach, 50+ days freedom, friends & family to meet part of the route, sites to visit plus happy kids – so not all bad.

Agree with you re: caravan – we love it but it is a pain - especially uphill as that’s where the strain really starts to occur. Also parking and the rest of it (costs, fuel impacts). Looked at alternatives but more cost v less time v trade off – so we’re sticking with as provides largely the living/sleeping combo we’re after. We’ d prefer all-in-one solution but maybe another time now.

Reliability – again agreed – luck of the draw as well as prep to a great degree.

Outside the emotion – practicality pointed us to the 110 because of how tangible the vehicle is – cannot diagnose an LC/other etc, without computerised diagnostics or attempt to repair. No mechanical expertise as all technician based these days. And the expense of parts and fixes as you said. Even if you get the parts in the particular country you are visiting - i.e. they may have a Jap build but not necessarily the skill or expertise for the given UK spec. We followed the drive-to-oz.com team who had an LC they had to ship back at considerable cost after several attempts to repair, import parts etc. and ended up flying onward and hiring another vehicle eventually to complete their trip. Country (Thailand not equipped to deal with specific vehicle spec.). On the other hand Jolliefollies.com - following currently have a very old LR prepared via the same overlanding company with no issues to report. They are in India currently. We reckon availability of worldwide LR community is good (as we found out ourselves first hand this year) with ease of parts availability/skill – don’t hear of many LR’s ever being shipped back or repaired unsuccessfully locally – none in fact.

Obviously, we're still learning (but that will be forever) but something in what you say must be true “But still I look around and all these Overlanding companies advertise with Land Rovers !! Can it be all down to emotion ???…” A resounding NO would be our response. Parts & skill avail (even DIY temporary bodge to next garage in some cases), ability to train/skill yourself, vehicle flex & layout, value and overall reliability to name a few.

Happy decision-making.
 
Back
Top