Whats the story guys????????????

Submitted: Monday, May 09, 2005 at 13:55
ThreadID: 22804 Views:2366 Replies:7 FollowUps:5
This Thread has been Archived
For years now i have watched this forum quote lots of fuel consumptions which i am sure some are true and some are crap but i must have the most uneconomical GQ diesel 1996 manual patrol lwb on this planet......
Roof rack, 31 inch coopers, standard diff ratios, dont thrash it, turbo, .....
No matter how i drive it i cant better 14.5litres per 100...

I have had the injectors, pump and tappets done....
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Moz - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 14:25

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 14:25
I'm not sure what you expect to get, but by way of comparison
I have 60 LC with a 4 litre 2H diesel and it returns 13-14l per 100km.
Now it is non-turbo with no A/C and the engine was rebuilt 10k ago
so the figures might improve a bit more, but if I added a turbo I reckon
I might get similar figures to you.
Interestingly the fuel economy changed very little between normal commuting
and a recent touring trip to Barrington Tops with a full load of gear and roof racks.

How many miles on the GQ?

Cheers Moz
AnswerID: 110447

Follow Up By: DukeAtty - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 16:45

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 16:45
130,000kms... on the clock...

I knew i forgot to state something ....
FollowupID: 366983

Reply By: V8Diesel - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 14:33

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 14:33
Out of interests sake last year, I did a side by side, km by km comparison over more than 2,000km's covering both on and off road driving conditions between my GU 4.5 Patrol petrol and a 2004 stock standard, naturally aspirated 4.2 diesel HZJ105 wagon, travelling exactly the same route in convoy. The diesel Toyota got around 16.5l/100km's (expected much better!) and the Patrol 19.5/100km's so 14.5 from a '96 'old school' turbo sounds great. Enjoy it!

Roof rack made a difference to my fuel bill.

Contary to popular belief, a diesel that's out of its 'comfort zone' trying to keep up with a convoy and being worked hard can still suck plenty of juice.
AnswerID: 110451

Reply By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 15:10

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 15:10
Sounds about right to me mate.

My 1993 GQ with Safari turbo (I sold it in 2000) had a 145 litre tank. With the roof rack fitted I could squeeze 1100 klicks out of it, but with the rack fitted it dropped back to 1000 (ie: 14.5 litres per hundred klicks)...same as you.


AnswerID: 110458

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 15:12

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 15:12
Sorry, I pharked up there....

Should have said that with roof rack OFF I could get 1100 klicks...
FollowupID: 366966

Follow Up By: Member - iMusty (VIC) - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 18:43

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 18:43
Oh well that's justbleepen great Roachie.

In the last 2 minutes I just spen $2,750.00 on a roof rack for the bus just to get a better fuel econonomy out of it on YOUR SAY SO.

Thanks. MATE !! lol.
FollowupID: 366996

Reply By: ColinD - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 20:17

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 20:17
Pretty sure the fuel filters were located in a different spot on the 96 Patrols (than the earlier ones). At the time they come out a few were actually sent back to Japan so they could try to figure out what was wrong with fuel consumption and power. Its a while ago now, but I think it was the filter location that caused the problem. Again, Im not certain, but if you have explored all other avenues, it might be worth a look........................col
AnswerID: 110518

Follow Up By: ColinD - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 20:21

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 20:21
P.S. A 92 Maverick deisel 5spd 31"10.5 I had, regularily returned 12.5-13L/100km.
FollowupID: 367016

Reply By: Martyn (WA) - Monday, May 09, 2005 at 23:08

Monday, May 09, 2005 at 23:08
I had a 92 GQ Patrol 4.2 I got roughly the same figures, usually around 13 litres per 100 klms. Funny as it might seem fitting the snorkle helped and got my numbers consistently down to around 11.5 to 12 litres / 100 klms. Mine had 200k plus on the clock, same deal I did the pump and injectors, plus I put put a foamy air filter in and ditched the pre cleaner filter, stuck one of those socks in the snorkle. My opinions as usual.
Keep the shiny side up

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 110560

Reply By: DukeAtty - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 07:53

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 07:53
Thanks for everyones replies....
Figures like last stated at 11.5 - 12 litres per 100 is what i was convinced i was missing out on... So i went searching for them thinking something was wrong with my car....
I have done everything and 14.5 l/per 100 is the best i can do....
Last time i travelled 1350kms and had to put in 200litres...14.8 l/per 100...
The car is no light weight..winch, fridge, bull bar, side rails and steps all steel, rear steel bar, internal draw system, etc etc.....

AnswerID: 110578

Follow Up By: Disco200Tdi - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 12:10

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 12:10

You've aswered your own problem. Tooo much added steel.
Do you really need the side rails, rear steel bar ?? Is the draw system one of those super heavy duty bought ones ??
Can you change the winch cable to plasma ??
If you swapped tyres to skinnies (say 238/85r16) you will get less rolling resistance.

John D
FollowupID: 367077

Reply By: Redback - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 09:20

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 09:20
I wouldn't think that what you are getting was too bad as my TD5 Landy gets 11.0 to 12k/100 12.9k/100 was the worst i got on average over 3000ks towing our camper when we went to Murry Sunset EO gathering Mick who came with us has a 100s cruiser 4.2 diesel with a turbo and his figures were around what you are getting also some of the figures quoted could be got if you travelled at 80ks everywhere.

AnswerID: 110587

Sponsored Links