Hypermilling in a Turbocharged Range Rover Sport :)

[Honda100]

Hi all,

I know the last thing that people buy Range Rovers for is to save gas, and trust me, I didn't buy this thing to be frugal. However, I was going on a 1k + road trip with my wife and wanted to see just how "efficient" the beast was. It is a diesel after all, and diesels save fuel right?

Probably not your idea of a fuel saver though...


Car:
2009 Range Rover Sport (smaller "fake" Rover on a D3 chassis)
3.0 liter twin turbo V6 211 hp, 380 lb/ft torque.
Curb Weight: 5600 lbs (over 6,100 after me, my wife and our gear)

Misc:
20" Stormer rims with Nexen Roadian HPs (nearly brand new)
"Flashed" BCM (ride height manually adjustable)
97,000 km (60,000 miles approx.)

My current lifetime average is 18.2 mpg US (highly congested city driving, heavy A/C usage).


Anyway,

Here's the breakdown of the trip. Usually I adjust the ride height for that little extra something while I'm in the mountains for the maximum ground clearance when I really need it (hence the adjustable ride height). However, this time around I figured I could drop the suspension to pretty much the bottom (since I was on the freeway) and cut down the frontal area considerably. Better mpg

Instant Hypermiling Time!!

Aero "mods"
I dropped it until it was about 1.5 inch above the bump stops (not recommended, but fun and it feels very "sporty". lol

Masking tape over the gaps and half of the radiator grille (watched coolants temps closely, was okay).

Retracted mirrors.

Misc "mods"

Makeshift vacuum gauge (laptop interfacing with ECM).

Aired up the tyres to 50 psi (max is 54)



The trip was uneventful, so I wont describe how it went. Here's the results of how I did though.

***According to the "scangauge" for various speeds. All readings are readings taken at a constant cruise.***

My interface reads in Mpg UK FYI, and the speedometer reads in kph. As far as the history has gone, the readout MPG is accurate to within 1.5-2%. All speeds were taken in 6th gear except the 52 kph number.

100 kph (62 mph) = 39.87 mpg (UK) or 33.2 mpg (US)

90 kph (55.9 mph) = 40.47 mpg (UK) or 33.7 mpg (US)

80 kph (49.7 mph) = 43 mpg (UK) or 35.8 mpg (US)

70 kph (43.7 mph) = 45.4 mpg (UK) or 37.8 mpg (US)

Best reading: 52 kph (34.8 mph) = 49.6 mph (UK) or 41.3 mpg (US). Note: I had to pin it down in 5th gear to get it to stay at around 1,100 rpm to get this number.

Actual trip results

First fillup (mostly freeway, only two stops) = 39.8 mpg (UK) or 33.1 mpg (US)

Second fillup (70%? freeway, and riding the trails and having "fun" as well) = 29.4 mpg (UK) or 24.14 mpg (US).

Total mpg over the entire trip
33.3 mpg (UK), 27.7 mpg (US)

I'm pleased, especially considering it's a 3 ton dual chassis lump of SUV capable of climbing anything I throw at it. I'm also very please because my petrol US Rangie is averaging on the low side of 12 mpg overall, dipping into single digits for city commutes.

Just FYI for anyone interested.


*Misc shots of the dirty Rangie. The way I think they should be. *











The S320 is my brother's, also a TD.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by Honda100

I know the last thing that people buy Range Rovers for is to save gas, and trust me, I didn't buy this thing to be frugal.

Nothing annoys me more than a Range Rover. Why does someone spend $100K+ on a car (local prices), and then go for a dirty black smoking diesel? Particularly annoying that Range Rovers put out more smoke than any other late model diesel (on the road observation).

[dirtydave]

Because if it was gas it would have less power and worse fuel economy.

[Honda100]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Nothing annoys me more than a Range Rover. Why does someone spend $100K+ on a car (local prices), and then go for a dirty black smoking diesel? Particularly annoying that Range Rovers put out more smoke than any other late model diesel (on the road observation).

I've got a Ford Transit (2012) on the side and that thing smokes way more than the Rover. Also, the Rover was "only" 45k, so nothing near 100 plus.

I do have a petrol Range Rover though and honestly, I'd never have bought it if there was a diesel option in the U.S. More torque, triple the fuel economy, and unless you've got your head under the bonnet, you forget it's a diesel. Smooth as silk.

Petrol definitely has the edge on power, but as a daily driver, the diesel wins hands down.

[oldtamiyaphile]

On what planet would it be less powerful?

2010 BMW X5 M Road Test

Pretty sure 555hp knocks the pant off any other production SUV.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Pretty sure 555hp knocks the pant off any other production SUV.

So why would a sensible person want 555 hp in a SUV, anyway?

[Honda100]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Pretty sure 555hp knocks the pant off any other production SUV.

Not quite.

Supercharged RRS, 510 bhp, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

Turbo Cayenne S, 540 bhp, 0-60 in 4.3 seconds.

Grand Cherokee SRT, 470 bhp, 0-60 in 4.7 seconds.

AMG ML63, 557 bhp, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

[brucey]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So why would a sensible person want 555 hp in a SUV, anyway?

Why would a sensible person want a car that can hold 5 people when 90 percent of the time it's only carrying 1?



I like the ride and love that someone new is trying out our hobby in a non-typical vehicle and getting real world results with it. Nothing can beat that.

[Honda100]

^^Someone should tell that ecoboost owners

EDIT: I replied to something and it disappeared...

[UltArc]

Seems like a lot of people jumped right to judgment...

Cool story! I like reading stuff like this. I also enjoy hearing taking non eco cars and doing something like this with it. Also, screw HP, torque is where it's at. My favorite is the Audi Q7 something. I like the X5M better in every way BUT that diesel v10 making 700+ torques.