Ponder this question? 2004 Discovery 2 gets maybe 14MPG

ohlord

Member
Nov 14, 2019
5
0
NW coast of washington staTE
I don't complain about the MPG ITS A HELLA LOT OF FUN
but wonder why my V8 heavy Mercedes getS about 20mpg combined and better than that hway out of nearly the same displacement out of an older than the 2004 Land rover.
The LAND ROVER must be very inefficient engine managment
Or what????

Oh and thanks for my admission into the most recognized Discovery Land Rover forum

I mostly play with two 1957 Series 1's and assorted Brit Sports Cars
 

Attachments

  • 20191124_102543.jpg
    20191124_102543.jpg
    537.1 KB · Views: 9
  • 10.5 to 1 compression  45DCOE 71MGB and 49YT.jpg
    10.5 to 1 compression 45DCOE 71MGB and 49YT.jpg
    43.2 KB · Views: 9
  • Screenshot_20180319-160711-01 (1).jpg
    Screenshot_20180319-160711-01 (1).jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 8

Swedjen2

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2018
594
127
California
Well, the 2004 Rover V-8 is really a somewhat modified 1961 Buick Aluminum block 215 cu. in., carburated, push-rod, 16 valve V-8.
So yeah, milage wasn't an issue when 92 octane gas was @ $.31 gallon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: markwemple

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
The engine was completed in 1959, and sold in Buicks until 1962. It's relatively low power for a vehicle of this weight. It's saddled with all wheel drive on solid axles, with a transfer case full of gears rather than belts, and most of us have destroyed any aerodynamics it may have had to begin with. You've got to rev it quite a bit to get it rolling; but once it does it's pretty smooth; but that jump off the line and any down-shifting acceleration eats a hell of a lot of go-juice.

Never forget it's an AWD vehicle; like a big Subaru, and has to deal with an automatic transmission and torque converter that aren't exactly the grabbiest units ever cranked out. I like them, but they're nothing like what's available today.

Your fuel mileage is actually quite good for the vehicle in the US; where the only engine choice was an ancient V8. I happen to like it, but the last time it was fielded here on another vehicle was a chopped version powering the Buick Grand National with six cylinders. Nearly everyone else got diesel options with better economy.

It was designed for a much lighter car, as a budget option replacing the V6 engines for people who couldn't afford a V8. That didn't work out for GM, but it powered many generations of vehicles overseas.

Mine pulls about 8mpg on average most of the time; 10 if I'm watching things carefully, but I do push it. The most I ever got out of the vehicle was about 13.6 if I can recall correctly, when it was bone stock and I was really trying to see how far it would go. That depends on the road, obviously, but if you're in the 14s be happy. It's working well.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

ohlord

Member
Nov 14, 2019
5
0
NW coast of washington staTE
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
 

Attachments

  • 20191124_102226.jpg
    20191124_102226.jpg
    505.6 KB · Views: 10

xalty

Well-known member
Oct 28, 2018
51
13
Illinois
The M113 has much more advanced engine management, better gearing and yours probably isn’t AWD. Can’t speak for the thor engine but the older distributor engines ran extra rich.

Side note: my CLS55 weighs almost as much as my old LWB and still gets 13 mpg while on the boost 24/7.
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
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

Don't underestimate what it takes to spin up that drive-line. The mileage is comparable to other contemporary AWD vehicles with transfer cases.

Even new options don't do much better.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

robertf

Well-known member
Jan 22, 2006
4,778
354
-
Its the combustion chamber and port runners. Inefficient, dumps a lot more waste heat into the cooling system. Other manufacturers of the same era dumped some research into redesigning cylinder heads with port fuel injection in mind, rover did not
 

4Runner

Well-known member
May 24, 2007
660
110
Boise Idaho
If the D2 had a 5 speed auto that would also help. A quick google search showed the E430 having a 5 speed auto. It also has way better head design with 3 valves per cylinder. I would also assume that the frictional losses are less due to better, higher quality parts. The fit and finish of a Mercedes motor is also much better and adds to the efficiency. Drivetrain losses for a 4matic are probably less due to the rotational mass is less. Transfer case gears are lighter, axles are lighter, etc.
 

4Runner

Well-known member
May 24, 2007
660
110
Boise Idaho
I was hoping my 04 would get better gas mileage than my 94 but alas it’s the same. But the 04 does have more power so that’s a plus. I get 12/13 in the winter and 14/15 the rest of the time. When I had my 96 it actually got 15/16 but I wasn’t running E rated tires.
 

WaltNYC

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2010
707
135
NYC
If the D2 had a 5 speed auto that would also help. ...

Agree. At highway speeds these motors are turning 2,700-3,000 RPM. One more gear would make a big difference. It would need to kick down to pass but I'd take that.
 

Howski

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2009
1,483
209
Alabama
That’s great and all but can you tell us more about the zip tied light bar? How do those lights affect your approach angle?
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
Its the combustion chamber and port runners. Inefficient, dumps a lot more waste heat into the cooling system. Other manufacturers of the same era dumped some research into redesigning cylinder heads with port fuel injection in mind, rover did not

That doesn't really matter. Line it up against any contemporary vehicle with a similar setup and it's damned near apples to apples, so far as mileage is concerned.

The RV8 is providing a very small economy deficit regardless of the transmission and antiquated heads.

What kills mileage on a vehicle like this is the transfer case based AWD system and the associated heavy rotating mass throughout the entire drive-line, as well as the lack of any aerodynamic treatment. It takes a diesel to make a notable difference in fuel economy.

Even modern V6 based options aren't much better at all. Yeah, DII mileage sucks; but the "alternatives" are little different.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

robertf

Well-known member
Jan 22, 2006
4,778
354
-
So the inefficiencies of the gas motor dont matter and then you go on to say the only way to increase mpg is to use a more efficient motor?

funny guy
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
So the inefficiencies of the gas motor dont matter and then you go on to say the only way to increase mpg is to use a more efficient motor?

funny guy

Don't be a fucking asshole.

You know what you typed, and you don't need me to hold your hand and explain your whole point to you.

Jump on the RV8 for being antiquated, suggest other manufacturers are better, claim that's the problem... You're wrong. Deal with it.

Get your head screwed on straight. It's the drive-line. Period.

Swapping to a diesel wasn't on your table, it was on mine, right under: An entirely unreasonable option unavailable in this location that would nevertheless solve the problem, because it solves the problem on any vehicle; not just this one. That's not what you were on about, and don't you dare pretend it is.

Cheers,

Kennith
 
Last edited:

robertf

Well-known member
Jan 22, 2006
4,778
354
-
Exactly; and I'm sure it's got a magically modern engine that Rob would suggest is far higher quality than the RV8.

Give me a fucking break. What's happening to this place?

Cheers,

Kennith

never said anything about quality, just thermal efficiency. Computers that are used for things other than fortnight and blinking pink lights can simulate and validate things prior to manufacturing. This wasn't available in 1959, it was in 1989 or whenver mercedes designed that platform
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
never said anything about quality, just thermal efficiency. Computers that are used for things other than fortnight and blinking pink lights can simulate and validate things prior to manufacturing. This wasn't available in 1959, it was in 1989 or whenver mercedes designed that platform

Stop trying to squirm your way out of a mistake. It's unbecoming.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
No, your mistake is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and shouldn't be giving advice, and now you're trying to pull some political shit like Stewie. Fuck you and the ignorant horse you rode in on. Nobody needs to be listening to you.

I'm seriously questioning whether or not new Rover owners should be directed to this site, at this point. The level of sense to bullshit out of the people who are expected to be trustworthy is worse than LRO now.

We'd be better off with DiscoMike on board helping people out.

Cheers,

Kennith