Hypermilling in a Turbocharged Range Rover Sport :)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Let's be honest, I know Diesel fuels has its downsides, but it doesn't justify most of the anti-Diesel rants that I usually see, not just here.

Originally Posted by Honda100

The U.S. has extremely strict emissions regulations on diesel vehicles for consumers to the point where it's ridiculously complicated to have a diesel as an American consumer. The relatively unregulated diesels are the semi trucks, locomotives, and farm vehicles, not us SUV owners.

And even the trucking industry in the U.S. has been turning to Natural Gas in order to keep costs competitive while still facing stricter regulations. Regarding farm vehicles and agricultural machinery, since there are not too many incentives for alternative fuels that are economically-viable in a real-world scenario, Diesel engines are still the best option. I'd only see a viable replacement for Diesel fuel and biodiesel in the agriculture if there were subsidies for bio-methane.

Australia maybe, but in the U.S. it's the opposite case. It's almost impossible to get most vehicles in diesel form (RRs included) and hence, we're extremely oil hungry and massive consumers of petrol. Even simple things like my Tacoma get 13 mpg in heavy New York traffic (windows up by the way because petrol exhaust is damn toxic too).

Not just Diesels have a higher efficiency, they're also still the most reliable platform for experiences with some renewable fuels such as biodiesel, pure vegetable oils, and even ethanol in some cases. Also, these liquid fuels can also be combined with some gaseous fuel such as LPG, CNG/LNG, bio-methane, and even Hydrogen, and this does decrease the soot issue which they have always been blamed for. And while it might sound smarter to just use gaseous fuels alone in a spark-ignited engine, the limited refuelling infrastructure is what makes them still not the most reliable option for many commercial operators.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Not just Diesels have a higher efficiency, they're also still the most reliable platform for experiences with some renewable fuels such as biodiesel, pure vegetable oils, and even ethanol in some cases.

None of these alternatives can be used in modern (post 2007) Euro diesels with DPFs. I also understand that Bio-D can ruin injectors not designed for it, at $1000 each from VW, you'd have to be really keen to try that.

[Honda100]

I wrote up a nice long reply and then my web browser managed to crash it all...

Basically though, I was trying to say that not all Range Rover owners are the showoff rich type. I bought my at $45k (yes that's a lot), but it's not a softroader Lexus, BMW or Audi and when you consider that a Honda Accord cost $49,000 usd here, a 3 year old Rover is a much more sensible choice in my opinion because I get the same kind of mpg and I also can use it in places the Accord wouldn't dream of going. The Rangie is a fantastic offroader and you can see I actually use mine off road. In fact, 60% of the time that's where the Rover goes, the rest of the time I am in the petrol Corolla (which also does 18 mpg)

However in other markets, I'd agree that the Rover is a complete toy meant for rich people to express their desired endowment size in car form.

Thing is though, I'm not out to prove anything to anyone. I love the Rover, it's extremely comfortable, a capable off roader, and so far (touch wood) very reliable. Just one wheel bearing over 60,000. Regular maintenance hasn't really been much more than other cars. Yeah okay, when the EAS goes fine...but I've enjoyed it very much as a vehicle.

And also then referring to the U.S., a lot of the fleet vehicles are things like Ford Fusions or Dodge Charger V6s (at least where I live). There are a few E-150 vans (box vans), but besides the presidential Cadillac limos and such, I don't see many SUVs as fleet vehicles. They're always the throwaway midsize sedans.

Muscle car enthusiast, of which I am admittedly not one actually, I don't have any beef towards. It's more just the concept I was hitting on, and also with older cars that didn't have to meet emissions regulations that newer ones have. I'd speculate that the 09 Rangie is much cleaner than most cars that are on the road today, and if you take into account all the cars that are illegally passed for smog (a problem here at least), then I'm doing so little damage in comparison. Not saying I'm trying to justify diesel over petrol in this aspect, just that when you look at how many Range Rovers are on the road vs. your run of the mill family runabout in average to poor shape, our impact is rather small.

If it's any "consolation", I am not one to chip my diesels and run "black smoke tunes". I leave all the emissions equipment on all of my cars, unless it's something stupid like secondary intake butterfly valves that always stick closed and cause drivability issues every three months (Nissan 180sx )

Honestly though, I can't be shaken off diesel until I read much more in depth, and even then it's not really commercially viable for me. Not the Rover, but for my mechanic business I use Ford diesels for tow trucks and delivery vehicles. If my e-350 was petrol, I'd be sitting at 5 mpg and lost money so fast it'd make my head spin. At least at 14 mpg and a working motor after 300,000 miles, I have a van/truck that's served my business well. Also for basic errands, the Transit diesel has been excellent, as well as the TDI Jetta sportwagon before it. I don't know what I'd do without my TDs.

Re: the VW injectors, I did mine at 200,000? miles on the sportwagon, and they were $450 ish for a new set of 4 from VW. Was an older Mk4 though.

Misc Re: I also ride bikes occasionally and have a CRF 230M that I love to bits. I get 78-85 mpg on it, but it's not very good at hauling a 300 lb toolbox.

[UltArc]

If I had more money then sense, I would get an RTR C and swap a Tv6 into it, and hypermile the snot out of it.

RTR C is a 2012 Mustang v8, supercharged, and most of the vehicle (including all exterior body panels) replaced with carbon fiber. Then some CF rims. Then the aero portions... 150k+ just for the RTRC base.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by Honda100

The Rangie is a fantastic offroader and you can see I actually use mine off road.

Don't see any shots of it either off road or dirty? The only off road picture you've posted is a dirt road where a W124 was sufficient.

And also then referring to the U.S., a lot of the fleet vehicles are things like Ford Fusions or Dodge Charger V6s (at least where I live). There are a few E-150 vans (box vans), but besides the presidential Cadillac limos and such, I don't see many SUVs as fleet vehicles. They're always the throwaway midsize sedans.

I don't mean fleet vehicles I mean the entire US auto fleet (all cars/ suvs in the US). A lot of big vehicles that needn't be so big.

I'd speculate that the 09 Rangie is much cleaner than most cars that are on the road today, and if you take into account all the cars that are illegally passed for smog (a problem here at least), then I'm doing so little damage in comparison. Not saying I'm trying to justify diesel over petrol in this aspect, just that when you look at how many Range Rovers are on the road vs. your run of the mill family runabout in average to poor shape, our impact is rather small.

There are a LOT of RR's on the roads, and one from 1976 is still worse than a family hatch from 1976. An 09 RR is getting close to the average age of a car on the road today, so half the cars you see will be newer, and half will be older. It will still be in the dirty half. Smog failures seem to be a thing of the past (almost), and nowadays cars come with pretty long smog warranties in the US.

If my e-350 was petrol, I'd be sitting at 5 mpg and lost money so fast it'd make my head spin. At least at 14 mpg and a working motor after 300,000 miles, I have a van/truck that's served my business well. Also for basic errands, the Transit diesel has been excellent, as well as the TDI Jetta sportwagon before it. I don't know what I'd do without my TDs.

I accept that businesses need big vehicles, and big vehicles need to be diesel. In my experience with my TDI Transporter, the fuel savings are eaten up by the higher purchase cost of the vehicle, higher fuel cost per litre, and vastly higher service costs ($120 just for low ash oil), just did an injector pump at 30,000miles from new, DPF cleaner additive with every fill, oil changes every 5k miles to keep the turbo happy (before we consider the eventual DPF replacement bill). But you just can't buy a petrol van anymore

A diesel isn't three times as efficient as a petrol if you look at EPA numbers it's about 40%, which is the same as the 'gain' I got from switching to a similar sized/ weight TDi from my (broken down) Mercedes petrol (it's more aerodynamic, has an extra gear, and has LRR tyres - so only a portion of that gain is from the engine itself) This is 100% city driving with a 16.7mph average speed. With a petrol you can use EOC and turn it off at lights, can't often do that with a TD. A petrol with auto stop would basically close the gap.

[Honda100]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Don't see any shots of it either off road or dirty? The only off road picture you've posted is a dirt road where a W124 was sufficient.

The Rover might look shiny in the pics, but it's really dusty and there's plenty of dirt all over it. I never wash it.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I don't mean fleet vehicles I mean the entire US auto fleet (all cars/ suvs in the US). A lot of big vehicles that needn't be so big.

That I will wholeheartedly agree with then, I thought you meant "fleet" as in commercial/government. Yes, there's far too many oversized SUVs and trucks and even the basic runabout vehicles have bigger engines. I have the smallest engine possible in my Civic and it's a 1.8 liter whereas in Thailand 1.3 liters are commonplace.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

There are a LOT of RR's on the roads, and one from 1976 is still worse than a family hatch from 1976. An 09 RR is getting close to the average age of a car on the road today, so half the cars you see will be newer, and half will be older. It will still be in the dirty half. Smog failures seem to be a thing of the past (almost), and nowadays cars come with pretty long smog warranties in the US.

At least where I live, there's remarkably few Rovers on the road but yeah, that's my point of view. And when you compare to the U.S., RR to Suburban, F-150, Chevy Silverado ratio is tragically small.

Also, there's plenty of cars that are well over 10 years old since it's relatively cheap to keep a used car running in the U.S. Lots of Chevy Caprices, Crown Vics, Lincolns, Escalades that are 10 years plus, as well as older Hondas and Toyotas (although those aren't admittedly that dirty). That's just my point of view though and of course it represents a small area of the world

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I accept that businesses need big vehicles, and big vehicles need to be diesel. In my experience with my TDI Transporter, the fuel savings are eaten up by the higher purchase cost of the vehicle, higher fuel cost per litre, and vastly higher service costs ($120 just for low ash oil), just did an injector pump at 30,000miles from new, DPF cleaner additive with every fill, oil changes every 5k miles to keep the turbo happy (before we consider the eventual DPF replacement bill). But you just can't buy a petrol van anymore

Sorry mate, petrol vans a plenty in the U.S. for the exact reasons you've outlined. Some call me stupid for running a powerstroke when I could have gone with a 6.8 V10 or maybe even a 5.4 Triton, but I grew up on a farm and there's diesel in my vein admittedly, and probably a lot of other carcinogens as well.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

A diesel isn't three times as efficient as a petrol if you look at EPA numbers it's about 40%, which is the same as the 'gain' I got from switching to a similar sized/ weight TDi from my (broken down) Mercedes petrol (it's more aerodynamic, has an extra gear, and has LRR tyres - so only a portion of that gain is from the engine itself) This is 100% city driving with a 16.7mph average speed. With a petrol you can use EOC and turn it off at lights, can't often do that with a TD. A petrol with auto stop would basically close the gap.

[/QUOTE]

Mpg for mpg from my RRS 5.0 supercharged to my RRS 3.0 TDv6, I get triple the mileage in the city, but that's my case I know.

I think the actual energy content "benefit" in diesel is 20% over gasoline? So all things considered equal, 20% increase is in order, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also with the sportwagon, I was able to top 75 mpg when I was really really trying to go for fuel economy and having no other mods. A normal Jetta on the best of days being completely modded to the extreme I think would struggle to top 55 - 60 mpg.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Honda100

Yes, there's far too many oversized SUVs and trucks and even the basic runabout vehicles have bigger engines. I have the smallest engine possible in my Civic and it's a 1.8 liter whereas in Thailand 1.3 liters are commonplace.

Not just the average econoboxes are fitted with relatively oversized engines. Diesel trucks in America, for example, became less of a reliable workhorse and turned into fancy and expensive toy-haulers. After seeing many Brazilian-assembled Ford F-250 and F-350 factory-fitted with the 4-cyl Cummins, one can wonder why there are no such options for the American customer who would rather want a Diesel but doesn't see the point about the so much higher cost for a V8 Powerstroke over the gasser version. European-designed vans and light trucks have been fitted with turbodiesels under 3-litre for a long time still perform decently, nowadays there are even some versions of the F-350 and the F-4000 (a local derivative of the F-450) fitted with a 2.8L Cummins ISF2.8 4-cyl turbodiesel in Brazil.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Honda100

I...a 3 year old Rover is a much more sensible choice in my opinion because I get the same kind of mpg and I also can use it in places the Accord wouldn't dream of going. The Rangie is a fantastic offroader and you can see I actually use mine off road.

I dunno... I must have missed a post of yours with pictures of it being driven off-road. The only pictures I see are in the first post: all but one are in urban areas (some even on tiled parking areas!). The one rural-ish one (the last one, with clouds), looks like a dirt road to me, and nothing I'd have problems taking my Insight on. Of course photos can be misleading...

As for diesels in general, perhaps it's possible to build a diesel engined vehicle that isn't excessively noisy and doesn't stink, but I've yet to see one. (OK, that might be because I don't notice the ones that aren't noisy & stinky :-)) But it is an indisputable fact that there are a lot of new noisy, stinky new diesels being sold in the US today.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As for diesels in general, perhaps it's possible to build a diesel engined vehicle that isn't excessively noisy and doesn't stink, but I've yet to see one. (OK, that might be because I don't notice the ones that aren't noisy & stinky :-)) But it is am indisputable fact that there are a lot of new noisy, stinky new diesels being sold in the US today.

Sometimes it's hard to disguise a newer Diesel from a gasser, unless it's illegally modded to roll coal. Even some new gassers are knocking a little like a Diesel due to their higher compression direct-injection engines...

[Honda100]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I dunno... I must have missed a post of yours with pictures of it being driven off-road. The only pictures I see are in the first post: all but one are in urban areas (some even on tiled parking areas!). The one rural-ish one (the last one, with clouds), looks like a dirt road to me, and nothing I'd have problems taking my Insight on. Of course photos can be misleading...

As for diesels in general, perhaps it's possible to build a diesel engined vehicle that isn't excessively noisy and doesn't stink, but I've yet to see one. (OK, that might be because I don't notice the ones that aren't noisy & stinky :-)) But it is am indisputable fact that there are a lot of new noisy, stinky new diesels being sold in the US today.

Some pics are on the road, but the Rover is always dirty until it rains (which it did that day). The dirt trail was also the end of a 3,000 ft elevation climb of mud, rocks and a few hills, but nothing in terms of hardcore off roading if that's how it was taken. The S320 bottomed out a few times but made it if that explains it.

I was just saying that I take it through the deep water, dusty roads, jungles and mud and don't stick to paved roads and garages. Not necessarily offroading per se, but I'm not afraid to explore with it. It's definitely not a soccer mom "gem" or a footballers' way to display bling.


For the US, some diesels are noisier, but petrol motors have gotten noisier too. It's harder to tell than I expected when I listened to the diesel Cruze and the gasser. Exhaust smell wasn't much different either, the sooty smell I love so much was completely non existent with the Cruze. Driving it, the only way for me to tell was the massive torque and 5k rpm redline.