P38A On-board computer MPG

[Henry_b]

Here here! Plus the v8 is, well, a v8!

Yes obviously, the better motor that had powered the ole RR since 1970..

A proper old torque monster..

 

[Grrrrrr]

Wasn't talking about LPG consumption in regards to the computer, on petrol its rather accurate..

LPG is 57ppl here a Healthy thor 4.6 will do 16mpg on Gas and around 17-21mpg on petrol which is roughly 121ppl here, so around half the price.. double the consumption and thats your saving, so around Mid 30s to the gallon in price equiv..

The overworked diesel will do 23-26mpg prolly peaking into the 30s if chipped but derv juice is 132ppl so no money saving, unfortunately, maybe even a tad more expensive.

Not to mention the V has more TORQUE and is smoother quieter etc etc etc..

No trip computer on my budget model but I get 600 miles to a tank on a run. Not sure what that works out as. Mine is a manual though. Less around town, obviously.

 

[Henry_b]

No trip computer on my budget model but I get 600 miles to a tank on a run. Not sure what that works out as. Mine is a manual though. Less around town, obviously.

Less to go wrong, only found out mine had it when i was fiddling with all the funny buttons

 

[RangeRoller dt]

Vogue will have all that.

No trip on mine either (good) or powerbox. hard to tell how much is in tank, depends on what mood gauge is in. Get really good MPG on long run even with 32” mud flingers if you take it easy.
My previous 4x4 was fast, much faster than a P38 (not Marjon’s obviously) but I couldn’t take to it. No character and chewed the fuel, too souped up to use as a daily and joking 4wd no good for off-road. Very light made of plastic but couldn’t take a clonk. No good when you’re used to plodding anywhere and everywhere in a defender

 

[wammers]

No trip computer on my budget model but I get 600 miles to a tank on a run. Not sure what that works out as. Mine is a manual though. Less around town, obviously.

95 litres = 20.89707 gallons. So if you filled the tank with 95 litres and it ran out after 600 miles you would have averaged 28.7121592 MPG.

 

[Grrrrrr]

95 litres = 20.89707 gallons. So if you filled the tank with 95 litres and it ran out after 600 miles you would have averaged 28.7121592 MPG.

That would be about right. I thought it was a 90 litre tank but I guess there might be a bit more. Maybe 20 mpg around town, I reckon.

 

[wammers]

That would be about right. I thought it was a 90 litre tank but I guess there might be a bit more. Maybe 20 mpg around town, I reckon.

Yep you are correct silly me, 90 litre tank on diesel. So it's 19.7972242 gallons for 600 miles gives 30.3072791 MPG.

 

[RangeRoller dt]

Yep you are correct silly me, 90 litre tank on diesel. So it's 19.7972242 gallons for 600 miles gives 30.3072791 MPG.

Since my gauge is temperamental I try to keep it brimmed up. Can even tell where the PO would keep the level like it’s worn there?

Would there not be few more litres held in the filler neck or something aswell as the tanks 90L when the garage pump knocks off?

 

[Datatek]

Vogue will have all that.

No trip on mine either (good) or powerbox. hard to tell how much is in tank, depends on what mood gauge is in. Get really good MPG on long run even with 32” mud flingers if you take it easy.
My previous 4x4 was fast, much faster than a P38 (not Marjon’s obviously) but I couldn’t take to it. No character and chewed the fuel, too souped up to use as a daily and joking 4wd no good for off-road. Very light made of plastic but couldn’t take a clonk. No good when you’re used to plodding anywhere and everywhere in a defender

My P38 without a power box is faster that any of my 4 previous 4 X 4's.

 

[Datatek]

Wasn't talking about LPG consumption in regards to the computer, on petrol its rather accurate..

LPG is 57ppl here a Healthy thor 4.6 will do 16mpg on Gas and around 17-21mpg on petrol which is roughly 121ppl here, so around half the price.. double the consumption and thats your saving, so around Mid 30s to the gallon in price equiv..

The overworked diesel will do 23-26mpg prolly peaking into the 30s if chipped but derv juice is 132ppl so no money saving, unfortunately, maybe even a tad more expensive.

Not to mention the V has more TORQUE and is smoother quieter etc etc etc..

Chipping a diesel will do nothing for fuel consumption if you use the extra power. The long term brim to brim average on mine is 24mpg, that's mostly runs of 25/30Km on long runs it will top 30mpg even towing the caravan it's well the right side of 20mpg usually 22mpg, no way the 4.6 would do that.

 

[RangeRoller dt]

I had a 3.2 direct inj V6 Shogun 3dr. weighs about the same as a fly rwd very low, bigger turbo and remap with all bits added for some guy used to tow big caravans around. Felt pretty much like a drift car but anywhere near mud it would get stuck straight away. Had to be careful not to spool turbo up in the rain
No way my P38 would keep up with that even with chip/ported head and a merc turbo, power-weight just isn’t anywhere near but still my favourite

 

[Henry_b]

Chipping a diesel will do nothing for fuel consumption if you use the extra power. The long term brim to brim average on mine is 24mpg, that's mostly runs of 25/30Km on long runs it will top 30mpg even towing the caravan it's well the right side of 20mpg usually 22mpg, no way the 4.6 would do that.

The 2.5 is constantly overstrained, with the powerbox freeing up some extra hp it doesn't have to be worked as hard and as a result does slightly more MPG, and yes it does do damage over the long term on the Auto as it removes the torque "limiter".


Long term averages can range from a sickly 4.6 doing 12-14 and a healthy one doing 16-20 mpg on LPG of course it is half the price so double that..

 

[supapete]

I'm on the ferry from Cherbourg to Poole. (Thanks data, made it). Spain is not so prolific for LPG (gpl) so, to break the tedium and as a bit of light relief from outstarring the tc and abs lamps, I experimented with just this issue.
Now, to totally massage your firm belief that your P38 is an economy measure.......wait till you're on a slight long downward straight road then hold the MPG button in. Wait. .........see how high you can get your reading. ............this could compete with " what did you do with your............" Thread.

 

[plumbfisher]

Yup! Done that, it went up to its max (99.9). Mind, watch it come down again when you start accelerating again

Had my first over £95 fill the other day. It was Shell v power diesel and it is a bit dear, complete opposite to LPG, but I'm told that long term use will be much better for the old engine rather than supermarket crap. (I like to give them as little of my hard earned as I can anyway

 

[RangeRoller dt]

My old petrol BMW engine seemed to like shell fuel funny enough. Didn’t like Tesco stuff so if local I’d go few miles to the local fuel station but if you go there these days looks pretty much the same but they ask you if you have club card. Must be buying them out systematically?

 

[Datatek]

The 2.5 is constantly overstrained, with the powerbox freeing up some extra hp it doesn't have to be worked as hard and as a result does slightly more MPG, and yes it does do damage over the long term on the Auto as it removes the torque "limiter".
.

I disagree that the M51 is constantly "overstrained" as you put it, it has much more power than my other 4 X 4's it's quite sufficient even when towing 3 tonnes. The power box does not remove the torque limiting strategy, however the torque reduction is insufficient. There is a small fuel consumption improvement if you don't boot it which comes mainly from being able to hold a higher gear on inclines and the like.
In today's traffic, more power is entirely pointless IMO.

 

[Henry_b]

I disagree that the M51 is constantly "overstrained" as you put it, it has much more power than my other 4 X 4's it's quite sufficient even when towing 3 tonnes. The power box does not remove the torque limiting strategy, however the torque reduction is insufficient. There is a small fuel consumption improvement if you don't boot it which comes mainly from being able to hold a higher gear on inclines and the like.
In today's traffic, more power is entirely pointless IMO.

It has less oomph than the 2.5vm that was used in the Classic RR which lacked 2 pots on the M51, ..

The diesel engine in the P38 is well known to be underpowered for the application..

 

[Grrrrrr]

It has less oomph than the 2.5vm that was used in the Classic RR which lacked 2 pots on the M51, ..

The diesel engine in the P38 is well known to be underpowered for the application..

Goes OK with a manual box but first could be a bit lower when in high range.

 

[Datatek]

It has less oomph than the 2.5vm that was used in the Classic RR which lacked 2 pots on the M51, it lacks torque..

The diesel engine in the P38 is well known to be underpowered for the application..

It's only under powered in the opinion of those who have not driven 4 X 4's with much less power. For not dissimilar weight it has 30% more bhp than I've had in the past.
It certainly lacks torque and it is far from smooth compared to the balancer shaft 4's in my Jap stuff it's a very poor engine overall, however the auto transmission masks the lack of torque fairly well. The four's I had had much better torque not least because of the longer stroke. The 6 pot in the Iveco truck I used to drive was much smoother.

 

[Henry_b]

Goes OK with a manual box but first could be a bit lower when in high range.

Goes "OK" yep with a manual i suspect it wouldn't be too bad..

Have a go in a diesel VM classic and you'll be surprised, they pull like a train