Gas mileage: 4.2L better than 3.0L?
#1
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
fueleconomy.gov says here that the 3.0L 6-cylinder S-type gets worse gas mileage than the 4.2L 8-cylinder S-type. Isn't that wrong? What should that say instead?
Wikipedia says the manual transmission gets significantly better mileage (like, 3mpg better) than the automatic. Is that right? I don't think I've ever seen a manual trans S.
Wikipedia says the manual transmission gets significantly better mileage (like, 3mpg better) than the automatic. Is that right? I don't think I've ever seen a manual trans S.
Last edited by Xeno; 03-16-2013 at 11:53 PM.
#3
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hey, I don't know...except that the 3.0 S-Type is a heavy car (3850 lb.), recieves 3.30:1 rear gearing. and has 60 less hp and trq. to "Move the Mass". The 1980 Ford Econoline full size van came standard with a 140 hp @ 260 lb/ft trq. 300 cu. inch 6 cylinder that provided less mpg's than the 185 hp @ 300 lb/ft trq. 302 cu. option.
Perhaps the 310 hp @ 320 lb/ft trq. S-Type "Moves the Mass" more efficiently?
Perhaps the 310 hp @ 320 lb/ft trq. S-Type "Moves the Mass" more efficiently?
#5
#6
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
#7
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
fueleconomy.gov says here that the 3.0L 6-cylinder S-type gets significantly worse gas mileage than the 4.2L 8-cylinder S-type. Isn't that wrong? What should that say instead?
Wikipedia says the manual transmission gets significantly better mileage (like, 3mpg better) than the automatic. Is that right? I don't think I've ever seen a manual trans S.
Wikipedia says the manual transmission gets significantly better mileage (like, 3mpg better) than the automatic. Is that right? I don't think I've ever seen a manual trans S.
Yes, the 5 speed 3.0 was available here up through 2004. It was dropped in 05. If you do a used car search in say the UK you will see a ton of them. They were never a solid seller. In fact, the 3.0 / 5-speed stick is the rarest S Type in the US. Much rarer than the STR even... Sorry Supercharged folks, don't flame me. Remember, I said rarer not "more desirable".
Now this is a reoccurring theme and will also prove to be very interesting here in the US as CAFE standards keep going up...
Driving Style is the greatest factor in MPG
Yes, I know there are people out here in this forum that will start posting up there "30MPG" numbers.. (LOL Mikey).. yet, me and other close family members have had similar experiences.
I got better MPG out of a V8 S-Type and V8 (5.0/385hp) XF than I ever got in my 3.0.
I actually average the same MPG in my 5.7 Hemi 300 than I did in my 3.0 S-Type. The 300 is larger with one less gear in the trans...yet I average 20MPG in it, including driving it pretty hard. Hmmm.. I used to get 20 in the Jaguar as well.... Why??? It had to work much harder under my driving style..
Here are other examples as well.... My cousin gets better mileage in his V6 Accords than he got when he had a 4cyl Accord.
My wife gets better MPG in her heavy @ss R350 4matic than she got in her Grand Caravan... again, more HP and 3 (yes 3) more gears.
So my other point... notice everyone (car companies) moving to forced induction small motors?? Heck, they are going to be offering a turbo 4cyl in the XF!!!! So, what they are doing are putting motors in their cars that can be advertised to have enough HP and also turn high MPG numbers in the controlled government tests. The reality on the street? A bunch of high strung cars getting crappy mileage... Just like the Chrysler Turbo's from the 80's... LOL
![Icon Smash](https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smash.gif)
Trending Topics
#8
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
The following users liked this post:
JOsworth (03-17-2013)
#9
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Code:
4.2 R 15/22 3.0 16/24 4.2 16/25
#10
#12
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Last time I checked a one mpg difference on the highway number is not "significant". In fact on that EPA site both the 4.2 and 3.0 are listed as the same combined MPG and identical fuel costs.
Brisk wind or a fat friend along for a ride can account for more than one MPG.
But these numbers all the more prove my point that if you are looking to get a 3.0 over a 4.2 for fuel economy reasons, don't bother. Most drivers won't see a difference. Now if you choose a 3.0 because of cost and availability it will satisfy most. Me personally would have been much happier with a V8.
Kind of a mute point since the ZFHP26 is applied to all automatic S Types. So, the 3.0 and 4.2 cars have the same transmission. That said, yes the ZF transmission is definitely a factor in all the cars MPG performance.
#13
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Absolutely agree with this. As an example, for my typical morning I can typically get about 26-28 mpg. On the way home, I'm lucky to get 20 mpg because the traffic is a lot heavier and there is usually an accident 2 days a week during the evening. Don't get me started on why that is though.
#14
#15
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not forgetting that the UK uses real gallons when converting from litres, not the little US versions.
#16
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You are right. For some reason I thought the 3.0 was only mated to the 5 speed auto, but I see it was upgraded to the 6 speed in 2003-4.
#17
#18
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My wife averages 27 to 28 mpg on her solo trips to and from Tampa in her 2006 XK8 4.2. She averaged right at 33 mpg on those same trips when she was driving our 2005 S-Type 3.0. Same route, same driving habits, hauling the same payload. Our S-Type simply does this trip more efficiently than her XK8 does....
#19
#20