Is it true 3.0L will take almost same ammount of gas as 4.0/4.2L?
#1
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i'm about to purchase a 2003 v8
Is there really a big difference? what is the KM per litre for v6 and also v8
i wont be doing any highway driving at all, maybe once every 3 months
Is there really a big difference? what is the KM per litre for v6 and also v8
i wont be doing any highway driving at all, maybe once every 3 months
Last edited by CarSmartNot; 01-03-2010 at 06:57 PM.
#3
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I've owned 2 V6 Jags - an 03 X Type 2.5 and a 06 X Type 3.0. In town my 4.2 does as well as they did. On trips my 4.2 S Type does better than either of the X Types by 3 - 5 MPG(US). After I took my S-Type on its first long trip, I was amazed that it was consistently getting 30 MPG running at interstate speeds.
Regards:
Oldengineer
Regards:
Oldengineer
#5
#6
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The basic science behind it has not changed. That said, I had forgot that when shopping for my car. The main decision behind the 3.0 vs the 4.2 was MPG and I was wrong. To put it as simply as possible, when the power to weight ratio reaches a certain point a smaller engine will actually yield lower MPG than a larger more powerful engine.
Here is a link to a kind of funny test between a Prius and an M3 on Top Gear. While a bit extreme it does show the science I talk about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk
My experience with a 4.2 was an 06 loaner. I had it for a few days and found that at the same average MPH I got the same combined MPG as my 3.0. And the "driving" feel was much better to say the least.
Here is a link to a kind of funny test between a Prius and an M3 on Top Gear. While a bit extreme it does show the science I talk about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk
My experience with a 4.2 was an 06 loaner. I had it for a few days and found that at the same average MPH I got the same combined MPG as my 3.0. And the "driving" feel was much better to say the least.
Last edited by JOsworth; 01-04-2010 at 06:41 AM. Reason: Ooops, forgot to add something.
#7
Trending Topics
#8
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)
The OP asked me this and similar questions in a PM. I responded that I easily attain 7L/100Km on the highway and that I average around 11L/100Km overall. Interesting that you average 13-14. Must be a much heavier mix of city driving than me.
#9
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi,
Comparing the EPA ratings for the 2003 S-types you will find:
3L V6: city 16 mpg, hwy. 24 mpg, combined 19 mpg
4.2L V8: city 15 mpg, hwy 24 mpg, combined 18 mpg
in liters/100 km:
3L V6: city 14.7, hwy 9.8 , combined 12.4
4.2L V8: city 15.7, hwy 9.8, combined 13.1
This should give the best science-based comparision between the fuel economy of the engines tested in identical circumstances. The V8 is close but the V6 is still better in fuel economy. My 2000 3L V6 averages around 28 mpg per tankfill with bests of over 36 mpg tanks achieved on long, mostly freeway trips. I haven't tested a V8 S-type but I bet I could do pretty good with it also.
Good luck in your search for an S Type and I hope this info helps you. Both are great cars.
VMV
Comparing the EPA ratings for the 2003 S-types you will find:
3L V6: city 16 mpg, hwy. 24 mpg, combined 19 mpg
4.2L V8: city 15 mpg, hwy 24 mpg, combined 18 mpg
in liters/100 km:
3L V6: city 14.7, hwy 9.8 , combined 12.4
4.2L V8: city 15.7, hwy 9.8, combined 13.1
This should give the best science-based comparision between the fuel economy of the engines tested in identical circumstances. The V8 is close but the V6 is still better in fuel economy. My 2000 3L V6 averages around 28 mpg per tankfill with bests of over 36 mpg tanks achieved on long, mostly freeway trips. I haven't tested a V8 S-type but I bet I could do pretty good with it also.
Good luck in your search for an S Type and I hope this info helps you. Both are great cars.
VMV
#10
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi,
Comparing the EPA ratings for the 2003 S-types you will find:
3L V6: city 16 mpg, hwy. 24 mpg, combined 19 mpg
4.2L V8: city 15 mpg, hwy 24 mpg, combined 18 mpg
in liters/100 km:
3L V6: city 14.7, hwy 9.8 , combined 12.4
4.2L V8: city 15.7, hwy 9.8, combined 13.1
This should give the best science-based comparision between the fuel economy of the engines tested in identical circumstances. The V8 is close but the V6 is still better in fuel economy. My 2000 3L V6 averages around 28 mpg per tankfill with bests of over 36 mpg tanks achieved on long, mostly freeway trips. I haven't tested a V8 S-type but I bet I could do pretty good with it also.
Good luck in your search for an S Type and I hope this info helps you. Both are great cars.
VMV
Comparing the EPA ratings for the 2003 S-types you will find:
3L V6: city 16 mpg, hwy. 24 mpg, combined 19 mpg
4.2L V8: city 15 mpg, hwy 24 mpg, combined 18 mpg
in liters/100 km:
3L V6: city 14.7, hwy 9.8 , combined 12.4
4.2L V8: city 15.7, hwy 9.8, combined 13.1
This should give the best science-based comparision between the fuel economy of the engines tested in identical circumstances. The V8 is close but the V6 is still better in fuel economy. My 2000 3L V6 averages around 28 mpg per tankfill with bests of over 36 mpg tanks achieved on long, mostly freeway trips. I haven't tested a V8 S-type but I bet I could do pretty good with it also.
Good luck in your search for an S Type and I hope this info helps you. Both are great cars.
VMV
Last edited by CarSmartNot; 01-04-2010 at 02:03 PM.
#11
#12
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PHX some of the time
Posts: 117,257
Received 6,307 Likes
on
5,495 Posts
#13
#14
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
From what I've read, the 3.0 is marginally better than a 4.2 mileage wise. However, your driving habits will make a bigger difference in mileage. As Jeff said earlier, the 4.2 will drive better, but will be more expensive to buy and they aren't as plentiful as the 3.0 cars. Since I'm stuck in crappy DC area traffic much of the time, the extra power isn't of much use to me.
Mike
Mike
#16
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
From what I've read, the 3.0 is marginally better than a 4.2 mileage wise. However, your driving habits will make a bigger difference in mileage. As Jeff said earlier, the 4.2 will drive better, but will be more expensive to buy and they aren't as plentiful as the 3.0 cars. Since I'm stuck in crappy DC area traffic much of the time, the extra power isn't of much use to me.
Mike
Mike
the 3.0 is more expensive, and they are much harder to find. of all the jags i seen about 65% have been 4.2/4.0
i'm going to purchase the jag this Wednesday
#18
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Regards:
Oldengineer
#19
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My Jag's stablemate is now a 2010 Honda CRV 2WD with the 180 HP 2.4 4 cylinder I-VTEC engine. EPA highway for the Honda is 28 MPG. On business trips the best the Honda has done so far is 25 MPG. My Jag with the 4.2 smokes this Honda on fuel economy.
Regards:
Oldengineer
Regards:
Oldengineer
#20