my friend lives next to the sea.
Higher altitude always means less performance or more fuel consumed in order
to produce similar performance.
It has to do with the oxygen in the air which reduces the higher you are.
Plain matter of life on earth.
I will ask my friend about how the engine feels in general and whether he
gets any smoke or erratic idle etc.
Take care
Pantelis
"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
news:1opfc1tbiuvr9tga6hkdte80uc6c99uhqk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:48:51 +0100, Austin Shackles
> <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
> >On or around Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:38:29 +0100, Tim Hobbs
> ><tim@101ambulance-urine.net> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> >>On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:08:54 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos"
> >><pantg@otenet.gr> wrote:
> >>
> >>>?im Hi,
> >>>
> >>>I also fear that my friend's Disco V8 has a serious problem either with
the
> >>>general condition of the engine or the Efi or ignition system.
> >>>
> >>>Take care
> >>>Pantelis
> >>
> >>ICBW but I would have thought that a 50% loss of fuel economy would
> >>show some fairly obvious performance losses or exhaust garbage as
> >>well. It should pull smoothly and fairly strongly from as low as 1000
> >>rpm without hesitation, and rev to 4500 through the gears.
> >
> >If you nail it, it should rev to about 5500...
>
> It doesn't like it though. You can feel it begging to change up after
> 4500, and someone (Badger?) said something once about it being quite
> bad for the lifters as they pump up.... Or something....
>
> After the new cam mine was noticeably happier to rev and felt OK up to
> 5000. There isn't much to be gained up there though - it doesn't seem
> to produce much more power beyond the mid 4000's. Oddly the new cam
> didn't seem to do anything for the fuel economy though, although there
> was other buggering about for LPG done at the same time so it wasn't a
> true comparison.
>
> Back to the OP - are there are any visible problems such as erratic
> idle, colourful smoke or misfiring? Does your friend live at the top
> of a mountain - not joking, when I moved away from Sheffield (where
> everything is on a steep hill) my Peugeot of the day used a lot less
> fuel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tim Hobbs
>
> '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
> '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
> '03 Volvo V70
We get 200 miles per tankful. I have been to RPi and they checked everything
out but the only thing wrong was a split diapram in the bit on the side if
the dizzy. Must be the way I drive!
Richard
"Pantelis Giamarellos" <pantg@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:3ipfbsFmpiuiU1@individual.net...
> People Hi,
>
> I would be extremely obliged if you could provide me with a rough figure
> of
> how many miles a 3.9 V8 engine Discovery could make on a fuel tank.
>
> A friend here in Greece gets around 200 miles (up to 230 occasionally) and
> I
> think this is pretty low.
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>
>
On or around Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:25:48 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos"
<pantg@otenet.gr> enlightened us thusly:
>Austin Hi,
>5.500 rpm sounds a bit high for the LR/RR V8.
>But then again I am used to the Tdi in Landies and even 4000 rpm is way too
>much for those lumps of iron (Tdi I mean)
well... looking in the books:
early RR V8 - peak power at 5000
later 3.5s - 4000 carb, 4750 injection.
3.9s - low comp 4550, high comp 4750.
official disco manual quotes max power at 5000, for a 3.5
but that's the peak power figure, not maximum permissible speed, which none
of the books seem to list.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
"Pantelis Giamarellos" <pantg@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:3ipfbsFmpiuiU1@individual.net...
>
> People Hi,
>
> I would be extremely obliged if you could provide me with a rough figure
of
> how many miles a 3.9 V8 engine Discovery could make on a fuel tank.
>
> A friend here in Greece gets around 200 miles (up to 230 occasionally) and
I
> think this is pretty low.
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
Not had mine that long but half a tank got me to 95 miles easily,
probably do a 100 miles but don't really want to run out of fuel!!.
>Tim Hi,
>
>my friend lives next to the sea.
>Higher altitude always means less performance or more fuel consumed in order
>to produce similar performance.
>It has to do with the oxygen in the air which reduces the higher you are.
>Plain matter of life on earth.
>
Well, to be pedantic the proportion of oxygen in the air doesn't
change much. However, the air is at lower pressure and therefore
there is a less mass of air (and hence oxygen) drawn in on each
stroke. Turbocharging helps substantially...
reduction of oxygen due to lower barometric pressure as altitude increases
was the main reason why turbochargers and superchargers were invited and
first applied in airplane engines, at least this is what the books write.
Richard and DomJ I guess for every two person quoting a proper fuel
consumption for a V8 two more exist quoting a fuel consumption of around 200
miles per tankfuel.
No wonder then that the V8 is considered a fuel thirsty engine by most.
But I think that 200 miles is a bit low for a 90 lt. fuel tank even if this
is done by an american designed 1960's engine.
-------
Forgot to also mention that my friend's engine has starting problems with
the starter turning OK but the engine not firing up on the spot.
Occasionaly, and usually when he is in a hurry, it may take up to 15 minutes
to fire up properly.
Take care
Pantelis
"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
news:mcigc19p47a41bcbpcseerghgclrtmmc5v@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:14:30 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos"
> <pantg@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> >Tim Hi,
> >
> >my friend lives next to the sea.
> >Higher altitude always means less performance or more fuel consumed in
order
> >to produce similar performance.
> >It has to do with the oxygen in the air which reduces the higher you are.
> >Plain matter of life on earth.
> >
>
> Well, to be pedantic the proportion of oxygen in the air doesn't
> change much. However, the air is at lower pressure and therefore
> there is a less mass of air (and hence oxygen) drawn in on each
> stroke. Turbocharging helps substantially...
>
>
> --
>
> Tim Hobbs
>
> '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
> '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
> '03 Volvo V70
On or around Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:29:11 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> enlightened us thusly:
>On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:14:30 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos"
><pantg@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>>Tim Hi,
>>
>>my friend lives next to the sea.
>>Higher altitude always means less performance or more fuel consumed in order
>>to produce similar performance.
>>It has to do with the oxygen in the air which reduces the higher you are.
>>Plain matter of life on earth.
>>
>
>Well, to be pedantic the proportion of oxygen in the air doesn't
>change much. However, the air is at lower pressure and therefore
>there is a less mass of air (and hence oxygen) drawn in on each
>stroke. Turbocharging helps substantially...
This is why your engine runs best at low altitude, on a frosty dry day, and
worst at high altitude, in humid conditions in midsummer.
Doing a regular route on the same roads, you can actually detect the
differences that day-to-day weather changes make, even at the same altitude
etc.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
