Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Machinery
Classic Machinery
landrover series 3!! what she worth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cowabunga" data-source="post: 2623548" data-attributes="member: 718"><p>I had a dark blue truck cab of that age. The chassis was actually heavily and thoroughly coated in thick wax from the factory for the last two or three years of Series3 production.</p><p>Mine was also a petrol. Thought it a good idea at the time to replace a Subaru. It was quite reliable but the petrol engine was a pig. Low on power and poor idler.</p><p>For the kind of work I used it for, which had far less towing than I do these days, it averaged 9 miles per gallon. Since it has a fuel tank capacity of just over 10 gallons, you can plainly see that I was a regular and valued customer at the petrol station. Every 85 miles and it would be rushed for a refill.</p><p></p><p>Best thing I ever did was change it for a diesel 110 hi-cap, in 1984, which gave good service for 22 years. I also bought a 110 station wagon in 1983, only a few months after buying the Series3, but that 110 was an unreliable heap of crap on which anything that could fail, did. Go figure. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/scratchhead.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":scratchhead:" title="Scratchead :scratchhead:" data-shortname=":scratchhead:" /></p><p></p><p>While towing with the Ranger yesterday, up a local hill, not a particularly steep one, my brother and I discussed the contrast between towing with the 110 diesel [which was a much better and more economical performer than the S3 petrol] and the 2.2 Ranger automatic. I was driving it easily at 2500 rpm at 40mph and we both agreed that the 110 would have been revving at 3000rpm in third and probably dying down, which equated to 30mph. Overall the Ranger does 21mpg for me while the naturally aspirated 110 wheezed to a 16 mpg average. When both are driven gently they are capable of 30mpg, The petrol was even more asthmatic than the 110 2.5 non-turbo but even downhill with the wind behind, it couldn't better 15mpg [9 average but lord knows how many gallons per mile it sucked while towing].</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cowabunga, post: 2623548, member: 718"] I had a dark blue truck cab of that age. The chassis was actually heavily and thoroughly coated in thick wax from the factory for the last two or three years of Series3 production. Mine was also a petrol. Thought it a good idea at the time to replace a Subaru. It was quite reliable but the petrol engine was a pig. Low on power and poor idler. For the kind of work I used it for, which had far less towing than I do these days, it averaged 9 miles per gallon. Since it has a fuel tank capacity of just over 10 gallons, you can plainly see that I was a regular and valued customer at the petrol station. Every 85 miles and it would be rushed for a refill. Best thing I ever did was change it for a diesel 110 hi-cap, in 1984, which gave good service for 22 years. I also bought a 110 station wagon in 1983, only a few months after buying the Series3, but that 110 was an unreliable heap of crap on which anything that could fail, did. Go figure. :scratchhead: While towing with the Ranger yesterday, up a local hill, not a particularly steep one, my brother and I discussed the contrast between towing with the 110 diesel [which was a much better and more economical performer than the S3 petrol] and the 2.2 Ranger automatic. I was driving it easily at 2500 rpm at 40mph and we both agreed that the 110 would have been revving at 3000rpm in third and probably dying down, which equated to 30mph. Overall the Ranger does 21mpg for me while the naturally aspirated 110 wheezed to a 16 mpg average. When both are driven gently they are capable of 30mpg, The petrol was even more asthmatic than the 110 2.5 non-turbo but even downhill with the wind behind, it couldn't better 15mpg [9 average but lord knows how many gallons per mile it sucked while towing]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Machinery
Classic Machinery
landrover series 3!! what she worth?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top