I like the diesels so won't bash them. But even an auto 4.0 litre should still be quicker than a chipped 2.5 as there is still 20-30hp difference and less weight. Add in better gearing and a more efficient drivetrain of a manual and it wouldn't really be a contest. Not if the person can actually drive it.

The p38 weighs a tad more than a classic. And I've personally seen an indicated 125mph from an auto 3.9 and they are quicker than a 150hp tuned Tdi 90. So a 150-160hp diesel p38 is not going to be playing ball.

Well i did say not far behind. Weight depends how fat the driver of the petrol one is. Diesels are quite capable of doing 30 MPH plus sat at the speed limit. Which is 70 MPH max in the UK i believe. IOM excepted. :D:D:D
 
On my annual run the Mancy airport and back 34 MPG on the trip. Around 21-22 round town stop start. So all in all a lot better.
Suspect you must be the exception not the norm. Land Rover claim 26mpg
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/revie...d-rover/range-rover/station-wagon-1994/14437/

Anyone considering a p38 shouldn't really expect 34mpg as it probably isn't realistic for most.

I'd have thought 22-28mpg is more realistic for a manual diesel. Slightly less for an auto. And if you only plan to do 4000-5000 miles a year. The cost difference is pretty negligible.
 
Suspect you must be the exception not the norm. Land Rover claim 26mpg
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/revie...d-rover/range-rover/station-wagon-1994/14437/

Anyone considering a p38 shouldn't really expect 34mpg as it probably isn't realistic for most.

I'd have thought 22-28mpg is more realistic for a manual diesel. Slightly less for an auto. And if you only plan to do 4000-5000 miles a year. The cost difference is pretty negligible.

No claiming combined figure of 25 or so MPG for the auto. I have said 21-22 around town 34 on a long steady run. Wonder what the combined of that is? Manual diesels have slightly better fuel consumption than the autos.
 
Dunno what all the fuss is my latest mpg on my 4.6 v8

2015-11-16 21.15.45.jpg
 
Personally I think if the autobox ratios we're better engineered. .it would be a nice 4x4 to drive..the kick up is like a pt cruiser...pure rubbish ..I'm near 4k rpm to kick up which is proper late ..this is the same at any speed or style or road condition ..I'd prefer a manual but I heard there gearboxes are like chocolate
 
Personally I think if the autobox ratios we're better engineered. .it would be a nice 4x4 to drive..the kick up is like a pt cruiser...pure rubbish ..I'm near 4k rpm to kick up which is proper late ..this is the same at any speed or style or road condition ..I'd prefer a manual but I heard there gearboxes are like chocolate
What do you mean by kick up??? Do you mean when it up shifts?

Mine varies on how it's driven, no need to go anywhere near 4000rpm unless you want too.
 
Personally I think if the autobox ratios we're better engineered. .it would be a nice 4x4 to drive..the kick up is like a pt cruiser...pure rubbish ..I'm near 4k rpm to kick up which is proper late ..this is the same at any speed or style or road condition ..I'd prefer a manual but I heard there gearboxes are like chocolate

Nothing wrong with the auto box ratios. You either have a very heavy right foot or the box has a problem.
 
Yes I mean kick up. .probably have autobox problem then wammers ..I did have issues 2 mths back with it ..had to change fluid and filters init...
 
Nowt wrong with manual box if the clutch roll pins have been done properly, they seam to be less troublesome than the autos going by all the postings on here:D:D
 
Last edited:
If you want fast 2.5, then fit slightly bigger turbo(TD04-15T), chip it accordinally and you can reach 200hp with ease.
:D
 

Similar threads