Morning gents, well im monitoring my consumption at the moment closely, i used to have a 2.0 tdi zaf which i got 300-400 miles from about £80 so im not ure that im just getting used to the high running cost of the GV, can any one give me an idea of what a full tank would get me in miles driving normally round town????

 

Hi
I have GV 2.8 CRD which has recently had new rail & mprop valve fitted, however the mpg around town is still poor at 20mpg max. On motorway at steady 60mph i will still only get 32mpg max! It seems i have a problem as others are quoting 40+ MPG

 

Sounds good to me, I've also got an Audi 80 TDI and only average 36 MPG in that (worked out the old fashoned way) as it's normally only used around town/short journeys.

I'd also quoted 33 MPG from the voyager on another forum and someone commented that was what they got as well.

 

- agreed - 33MPG mixed for the 2.8CRD is about the average wherever you look
- a mixed average can move up & down 2% simply by the use of the right boot
- winter MPG is always a fraction % lower than summer MPG
- take the battery off and the first 1000 miles is higher while it re-learns driving style
- etc

 

I have found the biggest influence on MPG to be injectors. I replace 3 nozzles and had the injectors properly set up and went from 37MPG to 44MPG on the trip computer, but when I actually figure it out by fuel burned vs milage I am lucky to get 34MPG. Yes, I have seen 50 MPG plus, but it does not last long - all it takes is a hill, or a little accelleration. The Grand Voyager seems to do best at about 60/65MPH 70/75 will cost you at least 2MPG on the trip computer. I have been trying to figure out how the ECU figures out fuel flow to compute MPG. as it is, mine is 25% out and surely that must have an effect on how the ECU computes other things?

vrc8883

 

2003 Grand Voyager LTD 2.5CRD...
Edinburgh to Southampton 47mpg at 70mph....
Goggs...

 

goggs:
I guess that is downhill!
I just drove to Copenhagen and back Trip Computer = 44.8 average MPG Actual old fashioned calculation = 34.3 average MPG over about 6 fill-ups - go figure... and that is using Shell diesel! I am actually wondering what part EGR plays in all of this, but I still don't know why there is such a difference in the ECU generated figures to real life? So as far as I can see the trip computer MPG is totally unreliable. By the way, my best leg between fill-ups was 38.05 MPG and that driving at around 65 MPH. Also there are many rogue diesel service shops only too happy to take your money - I had been to two who told me there was nothing wrong before Swadlincote Diesel explained I needed the new nozzles and that boosted my average (Trip Computer) long trip mileage from less that 40 to almost 45. It is always worth getting injectors checked at a competent shop and I would highly reccomend Swadlincote, not far from Derby.

 

Around the late 70's onwards most 2 litre UK diesels imported from any country were 50MPG+. Environmental inventions from the EEC and others led to the EURO1 standard and the 'eat your own $hite valve' with a corresponding reduction in MPG as the cars fuel energy cost was used to re-eat the particulates. Up to speed then we are in 2012 and with the Euro 5, Euro 6, standards. During that intervening 20 or so years manufacturers have improved consumption with extra gears and ratio's and improved engine efficiency - all wasted and lost to the emissions / EGR.

Here in the UK there is still no legal requirement at 'test' time for and EGR to even be present on the vehicle let alone working properly. What we therefore have is a Euro-law that says you must have one and a Euro-test that says you don't need one. It was easy pre canBUS to simply stick a shaped piece of Heinz bean tin as a blank, the PCI computer controlled bus on modern vehicles means the computer throws a fit and shuts down if you try to blank it off. I blanked off three different motors over the years and on each of the three occasions had a much better acceleration and a better consumption figure. Each of the 3 gave about 4 more miles per gallon - quite a lot over a year.

I hate the 'eat your own $hite valve' / EGR, more so now that you can't just 'blank' it off !

 

Yes well what can we say, can we believe the MPG system in the car. Can only say what it says. Today on way down from Edinburgh, 50mls on A701, then 100mls on M74/M6 it reads 43mpg. The only thing its good at is telling us that we get more MPG driving slower. Would need to record miles for a given amount of fuel used to make certain...I'll try that sometime soon.
Goggs.

 

All telemetry, Speedo's, MPG etc is always out. I've posted here in this forum that at 50MPH I get a steady 50MPG. I imagine at 30MPH I'd get a lot higher. It's 'linear' the fact of the matter is (1) with 'cruise control' you'll get substantially better MPG at any speed, and at (2) lower RPM you'll also get better MPG - bound to be fact.

There's no substitute for 'tank~to~tank', MPG testing - never has been and never will be.