1HZ troopy vs ute vs 80 series wagon fuel economy?

Submitted: Monday, May 25, 2015 at 11:15
ThreadID: 118964 Views:4005 Replies:8 FollowUps:5
This Thread has been Archived
Hi guys,

I've decided to go with the 1HZ for my outback driving requirements. As I have aftermarket seats and I'm not terribly tall, comfort isn't a deciding factor for me. I would like to safe on fuel though. Can people please share with me their L/100KM they achieve with their 1hz troopies, utes and 80 series? I know the weights and aerodynamics between these vehicles vary so I'm just wondering which one would use the least fuel and by how much. I don't plan on crazy lift kits and bar work, just a decent steel bull bar and snorkel.

If you're running larger tyres or anything else that may alter your economy, please share that information too.

Thanks for your time! :)
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: TomH - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:27

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:27
Economy and either really dont go in the same sentence. LOL
AnswerID: 554193

Follow Up By: BenFraser747 - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 13:42

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 13:42
I know these vehicles are all pretty thirsty when compares to sedans etc. But they're much better than my 4.0 petrol auto 80! Just trying to find the most fuel frugal of the 1hz machines.
0
FollowupID: 840201

Reply By: muzbry - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:32

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:32
Gday
I drive a 105 and my fuel average for the last twelve mths has been under 14 lph. A bit of a run across the Simpson gave me a reading of under 16.5lph . I have 285/75/16 tyres and thats about it.
AnswerID: 554194

Follow Up By: BenFraser747 - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 13:40

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 13:40
Are they mud terrains or all terrains or? With 33s I imagine you'd get better economy on the highway than stock 31s due to the lower highway rpm. Not sure how much heavier the 105 is than the 80.

I'd compare kerb weights for all the vehicles but I believe the utes are done without trays.

I swapped my MT 33s off my petrol 80 for AT 31s and I'm now revving 200-300 revs higher at 100. My speedo is accurate again now. It's an auto so it's incredibly thirsty (4.0 not 4.5).
0
FollowupID: 840200

Follow Up By: Member - Rosco from way back - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 15:44

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 15:44
G'day Ben

Bigger tyres doesn't always equate with better fuel economy. You may lower the revs slightly, but if you're off the sweet spot of revs v road speed v load, you can end up using more fuel. Somewhat akin to staying in 5th on a hill and having the engine labour slightly as against dropping a gear.
0
FollowupID: 840210

Reply By: get outmore - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 14:19

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 14:19
you would be silly to make your choice based on consumption
all 3 will have simular unless pushed on road then the difference wont be huge
but they are all considerabally differently laid out vehicles it would be silly to put economy over which body style/suspension setup will suit you best
AnswerID: 554201

Follow Up By: Bigfish - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 15:24

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 15:24
Totally agree. You are going to get about 6-8klms to the litre depending on driving conditions. Buy the one that suits your sleeping arrangements and what gear you are carrying..
0
FollowupID: 840207

Reply By: madfisher - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 16:05

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 16:05
Relying on memories of road tests done nearly 25 years ago, the most economical of theses three was a standard 80 series,a bit better airflow, and at the back of my mind I thought a few standard 80s where not contant 4wd, so better fuel economy. But anything will give better economy then a 3f auto.
What you really need to concentrate on is finding a good example of any of these three and go with that.
Good luck Pete
AnswerID: 554211

Reply By: Member - Ron R - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 18:01

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 18:01
I have a HZJ73 with a 1HZ engine, build 1995 and driven over 300.000km with it. Circumstances vary greatly. Rig is basicly standard except a and an internal extra with a capacity of 120 litres.
I use it as a daily driver but have done some trips in the Sahara desert (mainly cross-country) as well as a trip to Kazakhstan and into Russia cross country (partly off-road).
And I tow a caravan on a regular basis. Caravan weight is max 1600 kgs. I then prefer to travel to countries like Norway, Spain, Portugal or Scotland.
In total I've been towing the caravan for about 100.000 kms (no joke I keep track of the distances).
The overall consmption is around 1 litre per 8 kms or 12,5 litres per 100kms.
I do keep records of this in a spreadsheet.
My highest recorded consumption was 3,4 km per litre in the desert.
The lowest was almost 13 km per litre during a relaxed trip in a rural area here in the Netherlands.
With caravan consumption is around 7 kms per litre, depending on conditions (headwind, mountainous area (Norway, Spain !) )
Hope this info is of some value to you.

Cheers, Ron


AnswerID: 554214

Follow Up By: Member - Ron R - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 18:12

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 18:12
Some words in my original post are missing after spell check and submission
The sentence:
"Rig is basicly standard except a and an internal extra with a capacity of 120 litres."
Should have been:
Rig is basicly standard except a roof rack and an internal extra fuel tank with a capacity of 120 litres.


0
FollowupID: 840227

Reply By: Member - WBS - Monday, May 25, 2015 at 18:35

Monday, May 25, 2015 at 18:35
I kept extensive fuel records for my 80 Series. It was a 97 40th Anniversary Edition, manual with an aftermarket turbo. It had a bigger exhaust and snorkel but ran on the standard tyre for that model. Around town not towing I would get 12-13L/100km.
Towing my 2.2ton tandem caravan on a 20,000km trip I averaged around 19L/100 km. The best I achieved towing was 17L/100km the worst 24L/100km.

I always towed in 4th gear and the speed varied between 70kph and 90kph depending on wind direction. Whilst it was an extremely reliable vehicle I don't think it was all that good towing. Sluggish would be the word. I often regretted not buying the factory fitted turbo auto version of the vehicle. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. Mind you I owned it from new and kept it for 16 years. In that time, I spent $1500 on stuff that needed to be fixed outside the normal servicing and after market additions/enhancements. (Refurbish the power steering seals, replace rear handbrake system, and new points in the starter motor. That amount is a pittance over the time I owned it.
WBS
AnswerID: 554215

Reply By: Member - Alastair D (NSW) - Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 08:15

Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 08:15
Ben,
We have a 1994 1Hz troopy which is set up for remote travel and has done a number of big trips including through remote parts of central asia. I would not hesitate doing another trip tomorrow in this vehicle even though it has done over 390K. It is simple with no engine electronics and very tolerant of fuel types. We do not flog it and get 11 - 13 L/100km on the road with a big load. The consumption obviously goes up with more demanding conditions.

I have wider BFG MTs in close to the original diameter and do not think they effect the consumption much. I can certainly feel the difference in rolling resistance between high and low tyre pressures when I am slow to pump back up after coming out of soft stuff. I suggest that installing a built in compressor with outlets front and rear is one of the best additions. I carry an air hose under the drivers seat and it quick and easy to air up/dn according to the conditions. Before I did this I tended to be slow to dig out the hose and connect up the compressor. Another benefit is that when we pull up it is a moments work to use an air gun to blow all the dust off the rear. Keeps self and inside much cleaner.

The downside of the vehicle is the lack of power if you wish to tow or push hard. We have a 100 series with electronics and turbo for that but I prefer the old troopy for remote area stuff. I would avoid any vehicle with an after market turbo if you plan on true remote travel. A Toyota factory system is going to be far more reliable in the long run. I know many people have got good service from after market units but there are many tales of failures due to stresses that were not catered for in the non-turbo engine.

The modern engines achieve great power, fuel economy and driveability but I still prefer the old chug alongs for solo remote area travel.

good luck
AnswerID: 554237

Reply By: BarryMcKenzie - Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:57

Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:57
1994 standard 80 series manual with Beaudesert 2.5" exhaust (fitted due to factory exhaust rusted) with approx 380,000 klms on the clock, approx 12.5l/100kms when touring/highway travel, 13-14l/100kms around town and when towing heavy trailer on last big trip out west 13-14l/100kms on flat country and prob up to 17ish on hilly country.....
AnswerID: 554375

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)