100 series V8 fuel economy

Tomkat1 posted:

i have thought about this and is a good idea cause i have heard they are better for 4wding as well

Tomkat1 posted:

would it be worth changing out my manual for an auto trans if possible?

Robin Miller posted:

Have run them both in parallel (my Auto & Manual 4800 petrol Patrols) and result is about 20% more fuel used by the auto 4wding and about 5% less when cruising, the manual is better overall.

Runing 34 inch 255/85/16 tyres or equivalent was the way to win.

Tomkat1 posted:

i already have 33" tyres and have compared my speedo to GPS my speedo is about 5k's an hour too fast but i am still doin about 2800 revs at 110kph

Member - nick b posted:

12s !!!! as in like what you will get out of a 4 cyl turbo diesel ute = v8 petrol land cruiser .....I think hard to comprehend ...

GT Campers posted:

He's just told me better than that: Highway cruise Sydney/Byron. 738km to his main (80L) tank, running it until it conks out. That's in the 10s. His vehicle is 2003 4-sp auto, naked - no racks or barwork - had three kids and all thier crap on board. Now, I didn't do the fills or measurements but this bloke is a builder and logs all his fuel in his car and tipper

chisel posted:

Is he talking about the TD? I've never heard of a V8 petrol 100 series getting 10s.

Member - nick b posted:

Or it's down hill all the way .....

GT Campers posted:

Folow up to correct my error: LC100 main tank is 95L (not 80) so my mate's figure calculates to 12.8 ('in the 12s' is what he told me) not in the 10s as I wrongly calculated :(

Not bad for a 2500+ keg 4WD with smooth highway running.. in contrast,. I've done 28+ Litres per 100 kays when towing with a LC100!

Tomkat1 posted:

I run 285/75r16 cooper stt tyres. On standard unleaded i generally get about 20L/100 and between 16.5 and 18 on premium unleaded. I have found it doesnt make much difference if the vehicle is loaded or not. My car has most of the fruit on it. Bullbar, winch, dual batteries, roofrack, awning, couple inches of lift

Member - nick b posted:

yes i agree with that Tomkat...also I think if it was possible to get 12 /15 l/p 100 the 100 series v8 they wouldn't be cheeeeap to buy !!!!

GT Campers posted:

yEP, $2000 or whatever to save 1L per 100 kays will buy a LOT of extra fuel.

The tricks to saving fuel are smooth driving, no bars or other aero impediments and high tyre pressures

Madfisher posted:

Interesting about no bars. We recently picked up and 99 se Jack for my 16yo as his first car.This car came completely orinigal and with mild ats. On the way home from Singleton to Bathurst this vehicle used 31.6l to cover 290ks. This was with my son driving on his Ls so speed waas around 80. I also told him to mainly use 4th unless coating down hill. I workede this out to 10.9/100 pretty good I thought. On the trip up in my jack I used 38l but I was in a hurry and have B/bar and more aggro lt ats on.
Cheers pete

Ron N posted:

Tour boy - Yep - it's got me beat, why people buy 4.5 litre petrol V8's fitted to 3 tonne 4WD's - and then whine about fuel economy?????

If you're worried about fuel economy, buy a Barina!!

Cheers - Ron.

Member - nick b posted:

Ron , This is a forum and that is what it's for , you can call it whining if like but its a discussion ..... not forgetting Tomkat Question ....
I want to know why some are claiming to get 12's when the best i can get is 16 .
and thats a big difference from 500k's to 730 k's out of a 95 litre tank . not whining discussing ....and by the way its not a 4.5 L its 4.7 litre .....


cheers nick

Ron N posted:

Nick - Well, the key word is "claiming". I've heard all kinds of BS about fuel consumption over many decades, and 9 times out 10, the figures are "pub talk". People brag about great fuel consumption figures, like they brag about conquests in the sack.
Until you do deadly accurate, side-by-side fuel consumption comparisons, you could argue until sunup about who's getting the best fuel consumption.

Basically, it comes back to any number of factors. Primary amongst these factors is driving style. If you jack-rabbit away from the lights, then hang on the anchors at the next set of lights, you'll hog the fuel. If you vary your speed constantly, rather than keep the pedal steady, then fuel consumption goes up. If you use cruise control, fuel consumption sufffers.

If you don't keep your tyre pressures spot on, your fuel burn will increase. The amount of kms the vehicles covered (low kms vehicles are still tight) and even wheel bearing tightness, affect fuel consumption. Along with many other variables, such as terrain, prevailing winds, and the amount of "junk" carried around in the car (some people carry 50 or 60kgs of useless, unnecessary stuff around with them) will all affect the amount of fuel used.

So ... until you can get the "braggers" side by side with your vehicle, and do fill-up to fill-up comparisons over the same route, at the same time - I'd be taking the "excellent" fuel consumption reports with the proverbial grain of salt.

Cheers - Ron.

Member - nick b posted:

Very good Ron... thanks , That is very much the same as what the Dyno guy & toyota said to me re fuel consumption...B.S ....ask them to prove it !!!!!


cheers nick

GT Campers posted:

yeah you are right, with steady crusiing vehicle weight doesn't matter as much as wind resistance - but moving weight aropund town hurts!

Jeff P posted:

Its a pity toyota never put the 5.7 V8 engine into the 200 series( they saved it for the lexus in Aus) like they do in the US more power and better fuel economy than the previous 4.7V8 but then again Australia is the dumping ground for what others would not accept but funny they dont fit the 4.5V8 diesel to the cruiser in the US figure that !
Jeff

Shaver posted:

Yes I believe the 100 Series is 170kw/410nm & the 200 is 202kw/410nm. They always say to go by nm, but on quiete a few occasions I can easily pull away from the 100 on the H'way. The only thing about the V8's is that Cam Belt replacement. It's funny the wife commented the other day that the 200 seems to glide along the road, and I said what do you mean. She said it's so earily quiet & smooth compared to our Honda Civic (2010 model). I don't get to drive it much, bought new 2008 & it's only done 17,000k's. I ended up taking out the Toyota Extended Warranty. My H'wy figure is 2 up with luggage & I don't drive for economy.

Member - nick b posted:

" but on quiete a few occasions I can easily pull away from the 100 on the H'way".
I dont know if that may prove .....

"The only thing about the V8's is that Cam Belt replacement".... is that v8 diesel / petrol / or other ? ... & what about the cam belt ???

100 series dyno test

Shaver posted:

Whats your point ref graph, to prove what ? You know very well that I'm talking about the Petrol 200 & T/Belt replacement at 150,000k's which is also applicable to the 100. The Diesel 200 runs a T/Chain. Trying to be smart is a sign of your ineptness.

Member - nick b posted:

Shaver ,the graph was showing 112kw of power from the 100 series v8 petrol on the dyno . regards timing belt I was unaware of the timing chain in the 200 petrol ...I must of missed that ....not being smart at all .

cheers nick

Shaver posted:

Sorry ! took it the wrong way. By the way your graf shows 112kw & 747nm at the wheels, is that normal considering it is 410nm at the engine ? I would have thought it would be a lot less with powertrain losses.

Member - nick b posted:

Shaver , 112 kw of power verses 747nm Torque .... tow different thing . regard the high reading , I thought the same , Dyno guy said it was like a leaver action / mechanical advantage - on the wheel Dyno I guess - verse 410 nm is on the fly wheel on a test bench .

cheers Nick

Shaver posted:

Makes you wonder what the 4.5 V8 Diesel is at the wheels !