New RR 20” wheels - terrible MPG!!!!
- Thread starter Jay Grundy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 20" mpg range rover land rover
As a trial, I have removed my 19's and have put on my standard wheels again- heading towards 600 miles until range goes to zero, so 60 litres to brim again as 10 litres appears to remain in tank even though range shows as zero.
My van is close to 15k miles and is now starting to noticeably 'loosen' up.
My van is close to 15k miles and is now starting to noticeably 'loosen' up.
My mpg 2 is around 42 on the computer but always set cruise to 66mph on the motorway, as Ratty says as soon as you hit 70mph or more the fuel consumption drops a lot, to mid 30's on mine
I think my euro 6 is about 10% better than my euro 5 but I suppose I lose the benefit with having to stick that Ad blue in every few thousand miles
I think my euro 6 is about 10% better than my euro 5 but I suppose I lose the benefit with having to stick that Ad blue in every few thousand miles
How much?
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
See the graph below (from fueleconomy.gov):
These are big figures to add to extra tyre width; extra rolling radius; fuel inefficient tyre type,
if your right foot is liable to become leaden.
So if you add the 28-3=25% extra fuel for a heavy foot (this is for cars, vans could be worst) driving at 80mph v 60 mph makes a big difference
It seems that 40% of fuel used at normal speeds is consumed due to drag; and 90% of that drag comes from the pressure difference between the front of the vehicle (fast air = low pressure); and rear of the vehicle (eddy currents= slow air = high pressure). This is a nightmare on a van with a chopped off near vertical rear.
We need fast back Vans!!!!!
Like a velodrome racers helmet
A tear-drop shape?????
Or at least a rear spoiler, apparently they do help mpg, as the air is more directed with less eddy currents. And I thought they were just for poseurs
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
See the graph below (from fueleconomy.gov):
These are big figures to add to extra tyre width; extra rolling radius; fuel inefficient tyre type,
if your right foot is liable to become leaden.
So if you add the 28-3=25% extra fuel for a heavy foot (this is for cars, vans could be worst) driving at 80mph v 60 mph makes a big difference
It seems that 40% of fuel used at normal speeds is consumed due to drag; and 90% of that drag comes from the pressure difference between the front of the vehicle (fast air = low pressure); and rear of the vehicle (eddy currents= slow air = high pressure). This is a nightmare on a van with a chopped off near vertical rear.
We need fast back Vans!!!!!
Like a velodrome racers helmet
A tear-drop shape?????
Or at least a rear spoiler, apparently they do help mpg, as the air is more directed with less eddy currents. And I thought they were just for poseurs
A rear spoiler does naff all on a van that can't do more than about 120 (unladen 204)...
BUT we are driving 2++ tonne boxes through the air. Many are carrying parts of a small home.
Engines are more efficient but there are limits.
But aerodynamic plastic tat won't make any difference except to add more weight and make the driver look like one of those 40/50/60 somethings in skater style jeans that show off his fake Calvin Klein pants to deeply unimpressed onlookers.
BUT we are driving 2++ tonne boxes through the air. Many are carrying parts of a small home.
Engines are more efficient but there are limits.
But aerodynamic plastic tat won't make any difference except to add more weight and make the driver look like one of those 40/50/60 somethings in skater style jeans that show off his fake Calvin Klein pants to deeply unimpressed onlookers.
A rear spoiler does naff all on a van that can't do more than about 120 (unladen 204)...
BUT we are driving 2++ tonne boxes through the air. Many are carrying parts of a small home.
Engines are more efficient but there are limits.
But aerodynamic plastic tat won't make any difference except to add more weight and make the driver look like one of those 40/50/60 somethings in skater style jeans that show off his fake Calvin Klein pants to deeply unimpressed onlookers.
You're sitting on the fence again @Polzeylad , what do you really think?
(p.s. I don't have a spoiler either)
You're sitting on the fence again @Polzeylad , what do you really think?
(p.s. I don't have a spoiler neither)
TBH I'm having a bit of an angry day. Absolute ****s opposite have a holiday home and we were informed of a "small extension" - they've very sneakily changed the planning and are now building a f*** of great thing that cuts right into our sea view. He had the gall to tell me it "enhances the value" (we had been getting on well) - well it doesn't enhance our house and from now on they can F*** right off.
As can any chavved up VW sodding "van."
Oh dear, and has he got planning permission for the revision yet?
Apparently yes; but no one on our road knows about it. No planning notice, nothing.
The Council here is very pro holiday houses and is corrupt beyond belief. So they probably "forgot" to inform anyone.
This place is being utterly destroyed by greedy to55ers interested only in "investment" with zero interest in the community or its proper citizens .
Our national attitude to housing is utterly broken.
I've had too many run ins with the Planners over the years, it is totally corrupt the whole thing. I guess Cornwall must be the worst county in the UK for 2nd homes, blighting the local community.
88% second homes here...
Totally understand the place was built tourism (and farming) but it's gone way too far. Every single local housing scheme gets thrown out, almost any holiday home plan gets the nod.
It's just wrong.
I'd be writing a siff letter to the council and not the parish numpties as they can do Jack S**t. I used to be on out local council for a few years and we were frustrated over a lot of what went on with the County Council. The parish would not pass planing for a house and the county would overule it . Sh*ts like that guy near you are par the course I'm afraid. If I knew of some houseing going up or an extension I check planning and if it is a problem to me I complain. the watch what is going on with it. That guy should not hav ebeen allowed to get away with what he did. You could be lucky though, so yob could set it on fire for him. Happened on a houseing estate being built near me. The snuck in on night and set a house on fire. The builders had to pull two down because of it and rebuild them. Good luck with the problem @Polzeylad I would not let them get away lightly.
Last edited:
Did 260 miles Saturday down the A1 and back, got 42mpg with 2 adults plus 2 dogs plus luggage, keeping to 65-70 with the odd bit of welly it's getting better with every trip and since the regen software update.
204 DSG 4motion velle now on 8k miles
Should have added std wheels and brimmed tank, mfd said 44mpg
What was the regen software thing all about? Did it go wrong? or was it a dealer general update?
Just to make you slightly happier gents, my 1.9 petrol t25 does about 20 mpg and it only goes 70 flat out, downhill...Polzeylad they have to visually display signs of any planning or change well in advance of any work being undertaken and it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't take photos of the application strapped normally to a telegraph pole,etc , you could always fill your road with t6 vans having a mini meet, though I'm not sure I would be allowed as I have a few go faster spoilers
, though I'm not sure I would be allowed as I have a few go faster spoilers
You make a good point @mark as today being so mild, on my usual trip home (20 mins ) the temp. showing 14 + my trip computer showed 34 Mpg. never done that before.
I remember now, I accidentally left a program on the rear heater to come on every Wednesday at 17:45 for 30 mins a few weeks back when I left it at the station that week when it was minus 7. It's been slurping my fuel away......
I'll do a more definitive test when the weather is warmer..
I'll do a more definitive test when the weather is warmer..
Cheers @chriscroft it would appear that your graph is bang on with my 24.7mpg at 80mph!!
Similar threads
