Thanks
All valid but with fuel injection and ecu mngt it isnt even close to a Mercedes 430 v8 station wagon almost the same weight.
Cant all be aero and poor Cd
The Mercedes isn't exactly stealthy
I'll put it on the analyzing machine and record the BSFC must be miserably high for an engine under 5Liters
I would argue the comparison is invalid from the very start; even on an engine stand the Land Rover would consume more fuel than the MBZ because of the very nature of how the engine and fuel system were designed.
The Land Rover has a non-integrated fuel injection system, it is literally bolted onto the old Buick/Rover V8 and made to work. Steel liner, aluminum block, pushrod, chain drive, noisy, fun, simple motor. This is a common design of the era. Regardless, the pushrod design, enormous rotating mass, dumb, reactive fuel management system, and a host of other 1990's innovations keep the MPGs low. There is no way to make the old head and valve design work more efficiently though - it is what it is, a wonderful relic.
The 430, I'm guessing is a M113, designed in 2000, a triple valve single overhead cam with cylinder bores lined in silicon and aluminum. The fuel injection system is integrated into the design of the engine, it can compensate (vs. just report or alter fuel mixture) for a broad array of anomalies during operation, etc. If it is the 5.0 it can deactivate cylinders when not needed. Although nearly impossible to service, the M113 is a reliable motor with a lot of torque.
Who wins? The Land Rover. The M113 has 16 spark plugs. We make more HP with 8 fewer spark plugs.
(also an invalid comparison)