I started a thread just before Christmas talking about a buying an 04 Discovery. I have a non-binding verbal agreement on it and keep talking myself in and out of it. I got a shock the other day when I realized it was rated at 14/11mpg Highway/City with premium. That could be a deal killer even though gas is criminally cheap in this country. What are you guys really seeing in your daily use?
depends on what you mean by highway. If I keep it around 65ish, I get around 12 or 13. If I keep it around 50, I get 17mpg.
I combined run back and forth to work which encompasses speeds of 35mph city roads and 55mph highways, I get about 15 mpg. Yes, this is on Premium and right now my MPGs are down due to oxygenated winter blends.
The Disco and Rangy are basically heavily rounded bricks as far as aerodynamics are concerned. Combine that lack of airflow with their heavy weight and it is not a recipe for economical running. I have heard the newer Disco replacements (LR3 and 4?) do better with their more modern jag engines
mad_machine said:The Disco and Rangy are basically heavily rounded bricks as far as aerodynamics are concerned. Combine that lack of airflow with their heavy weight and it is not a recipe for economical running. I have heard the newer Disco replacements (LR3 and 4?) do better with their more modern jag engines
I have a full-size RR with the 5.0 Jag V8. It is atrocious in city driving - maybe 10 or 11 MPG. Will do ~12 MPG towing my old open trailer (haven't measured with the enclosed yet) and I've seen it hit 19ish highway with nothing on the hitch.
The trucks are super heavy - mine weighs nearly 6k lbs with half a tank and me in it.
And being constant 4wd doesn't help. They do make kits for locking front hubs, turning it into a semi 2wd, but not sure that would help.
Ugh, this isn't good news as it would be mainly in town daily and on the freeway we tend to cruise at 80+
"Zero in the city, one on the highway."
'02 RR 4.6 got 9-10 MPG at 80-85 MPH when I was driving it.
Damn. That's worse than full-size pickup mileage.
Wow, I never knew my van was an economy car. Before mods my 5.0 mustang was a consistent 25mpg highway, now 22.
One more reason I will never get a LR, even though I still want one.
My Range Rover Classic averaged around 12mpg. They are very thirsty.
97 Supercharged RR gets around 14 as discussed
I used to get 14-15 with my DiscoII, unless towing and then I didn’t even bother doing the math. Still better that what my Suburban gets.
My old Cayenne Turbo S got 13 mpg in mixed driving. Towing it would get 8-10mpg. My current Cayenne Diesel blows the old one into the weeds mileage wise, I regularly get over 30mpg in my daily commute.
The 4.0 XJ I'm driving right now gets 13-16 mpg in actual use in 2WD. That's worse than my 6.7 Cummins or the 400 hp M5, but without the associated torque or power 
I'm beginning to think going back to plan A and getting a 2020 EcoBoost Bronco is going to be cheaper than this!
I guess I kind of feel ambivalent about the mileage because my GMT800 Denali and Coyote F150 weren't any better. The F150 would do slightly better in city driving (12-13 versus 10) but none of them will do that well. Given they are utility vehicles, poor MPG is the tradeoff unless you can go diesel.
I grew up with Series then Defender Land Rover V8's and don't remember them being that bad on fuel, and that wasn't premium in the UK either, just regular. But I guess 25 years has dulled the pain at the pump. As a reference I used Tom Spangler's EcoBoost F150 to fetch my Saab years ago. 700+ mile round trip there and back with a trailer (empty on the way down obviously) and we pulled 17mpg cruising at 80 much of the way. I was impressed with that and it wasn't premium either.
My Series is around 10 mpg with the 2.25.
Remember that US gallons are smaller than other gallons, even the ones in Texas.
Keith Tanner said:My Series is around 10 mpg with the 2.25.
Remember that US gallons are smaller than other gallons, even the ones in Texas.
Leave my rose tinted retrospection intact please. Good point though, embarrassing I needed to be reminded of it as I point that out all the time when people back in the UK complain about American gas hogs.
To be fair, you could probably fuel a Series with 50% gasoline and 50% water from the ditch and it would have no measurable effect on performance.
I have a 98 R.R. 4.6 and agree with most of what's been said, although during the summer blend months, I'll get 20-21 miles to the gallon at 65mph and 12-13mph city driving-the biggest reason behind why I'm selling it.
I didn't get it for gas savings though- got it for trailer hauling, and, surprisingly, it did a really good job of it.
Hmm, my 2500 Duramax would net me around 16-17mpg in mixed driving. Granted, it probably got that same mpg towing, and compared to a gasser truck it was for more efficient. Still doesn't hold a candle to a diesel SUV tho, I'm shocked at the mpg I get now...
Rover engines are thirsty beasts. My wife's 4.6 RR got around 14. Even a TR8 with a mild 3.5 will struggle to get 20mpg, but that also has something to do with the fact that its so much fun to mash the peddle. I'd be willing to bet my LS3 powered TR8 making over 500 hp is going to get better mpgs than the last 300 hp 4.6 I stuffed into an 8.
Adrian_Thompson said:I grew up with Series then Defender Land Rover V8's and don't remember them being that bad on fuel, and that wasn't premium in the UK either, just regular. But I guess 25 years has dulled the pain at the pump. As a reference I used Tom Spangler's EcoBoost F150 to fetch my Saab years ago. 700+ mile round trip there and back with a trailer (empty on the way down obviously) and we pulled 17mpg cruising at 80 much of the way. I was impressed with that and it wasn't premium either.
Sorry to further remove the tint from your glasses, but we were going more like 65, not 80. I'm too paranoid about trailer tires and wheel bearings to tow any faster than that. Also, there was no way that truck would get 17mpg at 80, even empty. More like 15.
tr8todd said:Rover engines are thirsty beasts. My wife's 4.6 RR got around 14. Even a TR8 with a mild 3.5 will struggle to get 20mpg, but that also has something to do with the fact that its so much fun to mash the peddle. I'd be willing to bet my LS3 powered TR8 making over 500 hp is going to get better mpgs than the last 300 hp 4.6 I stuffed into an 8.
Don't bet too much. Fuel usage on an LS in a small car is best expressed in gallons per hour. Drive slowly and you just don't get very far in that hour.
tr8todd said:Rover engines are thirsty beasts. My wife's 4.6 RR got around 14. Even a TR8 with a mild 3.5 will struggle to get 20mpg, but that also has something to do with the fact that its so much fun to mash the peddle. I'd be willing to bet my LS3 powered TR8 making over 500 hp is going to get better mpgs than the last 300 hp 4.6 I stuffed into an 8.
Yeah, they were never exactly state of the art. I popped the hood on a 1994 RR a friend picked up and about fell over laughing when I saw the vacuum/mechanical advance distributor, port fuel injection and ignition straight out of the 70s.
You'll need to log in to post.
