Fuel Saving
Submitted: Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 14:23
ThreadID:
26983
Views:
2413
Replies:
5
FollowUps:
3
This Thread has been Archived
stevesub
Over the weekend I drove our Troopy from
Melbourne to home just north of
Brisbane. While on the trip I tought that I would see what speed did to fuel consumption.
Set the cruise control on 90kph once I hit NSW. Used a
tank of fuel. Result 11.8 l/100k or 23.9mpg.
Second
tank, set the cruise control to 100kph. Result 13.2 l/100km or 21.4mpg.
Driving conditions were flat near enough all the way over the test, no wind, temps mid 20's - perfect driving weather.
The Troopy is a 78 series diesel, non turbo pop-top camper and weighs in just under 3000kg with full fuel,
water and assorted junk that seems to live in the Troopy that we can never fet rid of.
Moral of the story, a small difference in speed makes a big difference in fuel consumption.
Stevesub
Reply By: Wizard1 - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 14:52
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 14:52
Carried out a similar test driving
Melbourne to the
Gold Coast in my Prado TD, manual. Travelled through
Sydney in morning peak hour, then via the Pacific Hwy. Cruise control set 5 km below the limit in 110 zones and on the speed limit in 100 zones (with all the speed cameras you tend not to speed). Still did a couple of stretches at 110 kph. Total distance was 1004 km, still had a third of the subtank left, used 107 litres (10.6 L/100km).
Your figures are very good for a non-turbo Troopie. Perhaps if people adjusted their driving behaviour they may save a few litres and dollars at the pump.
AnswerID:
132990
Reply By: John L G - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 16:04
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 16:04
Steve
I have been driving a stretched 75 series crew cab 92 model for some years and your consumption sounds pretty familiar however it's a pity, and I think a tad selfish, that you couldn't have continued up the coast for another couple of
tank fulls to give us more info with higher speeds.
These trucks seem reasonably fuel efficient up to 100kms/hr but anything above that and you would swear you had a hole in the
tank. As you so rightly say, they tend to end up full of stuff and must admit to never assessing consumption when empty, but in my experience, it doesn't seem to make much difference once they are rolling and the speed is kept below thye magical 100 click barrier.
I installed a turbo on
mine last year and seems to have made no real difference one way or the other to consumption apart from the obvious power difference which transformed the vehicle from a bit of a slug to a much easier drive.
Ciao for now
John G
AnswerID:
132996
Reply By: BenSpoon - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 17:14
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 17:14
I drove to
perth for the first time without my roof rack on the long weekend- result was a 15% increase in economy. I used to get 400km with the rack on before low petrol light, without the rack I got 450km.
Cutting down the weight of the car I found made bugger all difference on the highway- it was more speed and aerodynamics.
AnswerID:
133006
Reply By: Rigor - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 21:02
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 21:02
I believe you guys are spot on , 100 KPH is a magical figure where most fourbies turn into a sheet of ply pushed through the air , flat side on. But unfortunately most people are too impatient to even try driving at below 100 for any length of time , must be an age thing I simply don't bother hurrying these days.
Cheers Dave L.
AnswerID:
133047
Reply By: Leroy - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 21:24
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 21:24
At the end of the day you are not going to save that much money. I would rather drive at 100kph in a 100kph zone and not impede traffic than do 90 kph to save a few buck and be involved in an accident because of some impatient d_head wanting to get past you at any cost.
Leroy
AnswerID:
133054
Follow Up By: gramps - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 21:59
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 21:59
LOL .... Unfortunately even when sitting on the speed limit it seems the road is full of d_heads wanting to overtake just because you are in front of them :)
FollowupID:
387281
Follow Up By: Spade Newsom - Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 22:14
Tuesday, Oct 04, 2005 at 22:14
I had a friend who had a phobia about following any one on the highway. She had to pass and pass fast. She was dangerous. She would prefer to sit on 100kph if there was nothing in front, however would often sit on 140kph just to pass a car that was a couple of k's in front.
She never had an accident (died of a heart attack) and had very few speeding tickets although most people refused to go in the car with her out on the highway.
Certainly the exception however thought an interesting story.
FollowupID:
387287
Follow Up By: stevesub - Wednesday, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:42
Wednesday, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:42
We travelled the Newell from
Melbourne to
Brisbane and if we had stayed on 90kph, it would have taken 2 hours longer but saved around $40 in diesel.
As for the speeds, the majority of the Newell is 110kph and I found that there were around the same number of cars overtaking at whatever speed I did. Just the trucks generally travel at 100kph so I kept a
lookout for them in the mirror and made it easy for them to pass.
There were also a suprising number of people that I passed on the way, even at 90kph.
Stevesub
FollowupID:
387332