Jackaroo 3.5l fuel consumption

Submitted: Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
ThreadID: 2549 Views:9770 Replies:11 FollowUps:7
This Thread has been Archived
I read with interest the fuel cosumption thread for the 3.5 mill. Did anyone try the ECM reset by Savaas? Any updates Savaas? Any other mods to share. Anyone used the Hiclone? I have a 2000 auto 3.5 which achieved 8.5km/l fully loaded on a trip to Robe. Around town it gets 5km/l or less (stop start). A recent trip to Fry's Hut (near Mt Buller) towing a Dingo Camper trailer (450kg dry) achieved only 5.5km/l.
I run Cooper ST's, standard air filter & 40psi all round on the highway.

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Old Soldier - Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
G'day Mike,

5.5km/l is pathetic mate. I wouldn't be looking for some magic solution, I would be finding a really good mechanice to rectify that.

Obviously something is wrong somewhere.

As an example I did a 7,500km trip around FNQ and the Gulf area winter this year, pulling a very heavily laden off road camping trailer.

the road surfaces ranged from first class bitumen where I sat on 100-110 in cruise control, ribbon road, formed but rough roads like the Great Top End highway from Normanton through to Burketown, very rough bush roads around Cooktown, and some straight out four wheel drive areas like the Bloomfield Track.

Driving was in cruise, 2WD, 4WD and 4WD Low Ratio in some areas.

Average overall for the whole trip was 7.65km/l.

Considering some of the conditions faced, the speeds driven and the load carried I am reasonably happy with that.

vehicle is 1998 3.5 V6 Jack SE with [then] about 145,000km on clock.

Like I say mate - find a good mechanic, don't look at gimmicks like Hi-clone


AnswerID: 9397

Follow Up By: Mike - Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
I presume your beast is an auto, Dennis? 7.65km/l is an excellent result considering the load. The aforementioned Robe trip, this year (without a trailer) yielded 7 km/l overall, including all the dune driving. 8.5km/l on the highway.
FollowupID: 4807

Reply By: Mike - Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
Thanks for the reply, Dennis.

The truck has only 15,000 km on the clock. The highway fuel consumption was impressive - especially considering the 3.0 TDI that I previously had generally returned 9.2km/l. Overtaking is magnificently lusty compared to the breathless diesel (despite all the hype on the high pressure diesel).

The trip out of Melbourne (with the trailer) was the Maroondah Hwy leg up to Yea and then Mansfield. It's very hilly and undulating country. Could not hold lock up in fourth and was continually changing down to lug the trailer at 100 km/h. So I'm not so sure it's a tuning thing, otherwise the highway consumption would be ordinary too?? Any other thoughts.
AnswerID: 9401

Reply By: Mick - Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
Mike I think you're right that the fuel consumption on the highway wouldn't be good if there was a problem. I think it's a thirsty vehicle and maybe you'll have to lighten your right foot!!
By the way Melbourne to Mansfield is not really a very hilly trip!!
AnswerID: 9406

Follow Up By: Mike - Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
Trust me Mick, it's not the right foot! It only took a slight undulation in the road with this loaded trailer for it to slip out of lock-up and into torque converter mode. I spoke to my dad about it today, who suggested leaving it in 3rd which at least should hold lock-up in this sort of terrain. The road never looks that hilly until the trans starts swapping cogs all the time & I don't really take that much crap around. Doesn't happen without the trailer. I think the guts of it is that the 3.5 is a peaky mill, that gets thirsty when pushed hard. If I decide to do a lot of towing I may go back to the TDI.

FollowupID: 4806

Reply By: rodeoowner - Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:00
Mike I have the 3.2 Rodeo. I get on average 6km/litre and the ute is always fully loaded, so I don't think your figures look too way out.
AnswerID: 9410

Reply By: Savvas - Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00
Hi Mike ...

Sorry to tell you this, but 5km/L or 20L/100km is what you are likely to get with the auto 3.5V6 around town. However, it depends on your definition of "around town".

In my (wife's) situation, she does less than 14kms a day going from one suburb to a neighbouring dropping off kids at school and then going to work and back again. This is all done in 4 separate short stop-start trips, where the motor barely gets to warm up. Our usual consumption is somewhere between 4.5km/L and 6km/L or 17L/100km to 23L/100km depending on circumstances. Usually around the 20L/100km mark.

Highway cruising it's a different beast all together. One winter trip from Thredbo to Sydney saw 10L/100km or 10km/L. I can only guess that the cold dense air and a generally downhill run to the coast contributed to such a good figure. Normally on a run up and down the NSW North Coast, it will get around the 8.5km/L or 12L/100km mark.

Resetting the ECM provides a reduction in consumption for about a week, however it creeps up again.

Using 98 fuel gets you a tiny improvement in consumption. On average since April 1 this year, using 98 we average 19.6L/100km and using standard unleaded we average 20.8L/100km. Not quite enough improvement to justify the extra cost of 98.

Ours is a 2000 Monterey V6 with 54000kms. We run BFG A/T's, Finer Filter air filter (single element about town, both elements on any sort of longer trip) and 36psi all round. I find that there is no benefit in consumption by going over 36psi, but there is a definite downside to going under 36.

A friend with his new 2002 Equipe V6 is getting similar consumption figures.

AnswerID: 9444

Reply By: Savvas - Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00
PS .... The consumption you achieved with a 450kg trailer on a country run is too high. You may get some gear hunting but not a lot of it.

Is the engine "pinging" under load? If it is, try running something like Wynns Spitfire Petrol Treatment through it. If you do try the Wynns product, then use "Petrol Treatment" not "Injector Cleaner". According to the Wynns website, the petrol treatment is the one-off system clean product whereas the injector cleaner is the ongoing maintenance product.
AnswerID: 9446

Reply By: Redjack - Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00
Mike, I've got a '99 3.5 litre manual. Overall consumption over 80 000km is 7.98l/km. Best has been 9.23l/km, light running on open roads. Worst has been 5.95l/km, towing 1200kg camper trailer at 110km/h. Out of curiosity I did the ECM reset, consumption unchanged. Petrol Jacks already have a swirl inducing device in the inlet to the airbox, so I don't think a hi-cyclone would do anything other than restrict airflow further. I had the standard Wranglers on (just replaced 2 after 80 000km with Michelin Syncrones), standard air filter. Pressures are 210/240kpa, as advised on tyre placard on vehicle. I understand the auto's are thirsty in traffic but yours seems a tad excessive, though the open road figure seems Ok. Is the around town figure mainly short trips on cold starts as that really sucks the juice?
AnswerID: 9447

Follow Up By: Savvas - Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:00
Hey Redjack,

I hope you mean km/L and not L/km, otherwise you have real problems there!

: - )
FollowupID: 4842

Follow Up By: Redjack - Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:00
Definately km/l, Savvas. Pretty happy with the fuel consumption.
FollowupID: 4843

Reply By: Greg - Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00
Mike I own a 97 3.5 DOHC Pajero AUTO (153kw). The values you get seem to be similar to mine. My speedo is very accurate at 100 kph which is what I mostly cruise at. On the open road I get between 8-9kpl at this speed and around town about 7kpl. Towing a heavy trailer (1200kg) I get around 5-6 kpl and using a roof rack without towing reduces the values by 1-2 kpl depending on the wind.
My unit is fitted with extractors and a free flow exhaust including cat to give 170kw and a fair bit more torque. The extractors make about 0.5 kpl improvement. I have tried a hiclone and in all conditions they are a waste of time. I recently crossed the Anne Beadell Hwy and got 5.2 kpl whilst the 2.8 diesel (MAN) with me got 7.2 (No roof rack). Without my roof rack I am certain I would have got over 6 kpl and if it was a manual I am sure I could have got 6.5 which looks pretty good against the diesel. I would suggest your figures are average for that type of vehicle. Autos are very heavy on fuel but generally much better off road. Try the extractors plus exhaust if you want an improvement but make sure you get a flow through CAT.
AnswerID: 9448

Follow Up By: Steve & Wendy - Thursday, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:00

Thursday, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:00
Hi Greg,

We have exactly the same model Auto Paj as you. We just did a weekend trip towing our new camper (estimated weight 1100kg) and our fuel consumption was a lousy 4.9kpl !! I was also cruising at 100kph.

Could you please let me know if you're using standard or premium unleaded fuel ?

Also, what is the significance of a flow through CAT (is this the catalytic converter ?)

Look forward to your response,
Thanks, Steve.
FollowupID: 4937

Follow Up By: Greg - Thursday, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:00

Thursday, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:00
Hi Steve and Wendy

A flow through Catalytic Converter apparently is just that. I was advised that some exhaust fitters modify the Cat which is illegal. A flow through unit is a more efficient unit that allows the whole exhaust system to work with the extractors. Fitting extractors without a good flow through system is of very little advantage.
Also quoting fuel figures really doesn't tell anyone much as there are many variables such as terrain, wind conditions, the driver and how the car is driven plus tyre pressures, size and wheel diameter and roof rack effects and so on. I would suggest your Pajero should give around 6 towing 7 plus around town and 8+ on the highway at 100 kph. These figures are not bad for a 2 tonne auto when compared with other vehicles despite what you might read.
I use Optimax (98 octane) whenever possible but it only seems to make a small difference to fuel consumption. The car runs better and I believe it is better for the fuel system. PULP is OK as recommded and ULP I have often used without problems but consumption and power is down but only noticeable when towing.
FollowupID: 4967

Follow Up By: Steve & Wendy - Friday, Dec 13, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Dec 13, 2002 at 01:00
Thanks Greg - really appreciate the info.

FollowupID: 4978

Reply By: Mike - Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Thanks for yr responses. My round town stuff is similar to Savvas - short trips, no top gear. I'm not sure on what side of a tonne the trailer was. Alleged DRY weight is 450kg, add water in the tank, toolbox, camping crap, tables, chairs, fridge & a fully loaded vehicle and you're prob looking upwards of 3 tonne. Then there's the missus .... but maybe it's safer to blame the trailer. The cruise control only need a sniff of an incline to give it full throttle (delicate device, not), but even using the right foot, it's still a little sensitive. No such problem without the trailer.
Having had the 3.0 diesel, I'm surprised in the capabilities of the petrol and as a non-tow mount, it's my preference!
AnswerID: 9475

Reply By: alex - Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:00
Mike, I think us V6 auto Jack owners need to just get used to bad fuel consumtion. Mine is bad so I fitted a extra tank for extra range. I will keep my eye on the forum for a miricle solution.
AnswerID: 9483

Reply By: Savvas - Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:00
There is actually a replacement air filter kit available from Calmini in the USA. The air box is replaced by a pod type filter which then is supposed to give better breathing. But it will be totally useless for any sort of offroading.

I'm also aware of one fellow in the US who came up with a cold air intake for his Isuzu Rodeo (Holden Frontera) and is getting increased mileage. However the intake is now below the front bumper and to my way of thinking is asking for trouble there.

I have been trying to come up with some safe way of getting a cold air intake from behind the top of the grille. I'll post it here if I ever work it out.
AnswerID: 9497

Sponsored Links