roof-rack vs fuel economy

You could get into trouble for the last line.

Even if it is true.

Sorry...............that should be more trouble.

:0)

Duncs

many thanks for this reply plodder...

i have a 2.0L 4g63 sohc naturally-aspirated & snorkled SWB Pajero with a van grafted on, ala '85 L300 4x4

now b4 you'all start smirkin I've had Rangys, F20's, Bikes an a couple of FJ55's in the past an i lurve this cheap van...

to his immense credit the bloke b4 me went to town on it with a quality customised interior, lift, wheels, snork, rhinos, pipe, motor etc..etc and chekr-plate detailing everwhere.. i even like the 2.o liter after reading some history on it...

with 15' 31R's it makes a great short-haul tuff-truck but on the highways i am at war with the truckies, so i try to take alternative routes instead...

however - economy and wind resitence and fuel quality is on the mind.... then the bloke camped next door make an offer for the RR's and im thinkin about it...

Despite keeping the load to the height of the basket and aerodynamically shaped I am sure i can feel it too much

One thing losing the rr's will take away is the "tuff-look" ... this is proving a bigger struggle than i expected ..

rbt,

Used to have a 2.6l 85 NB long wheel base, with the same full length roof rack (2.1m). The 2.6 was rated at 74kw, while the 2.8 diesel is 92kw.
Economy was a little worse, but maybe only by 0.5l/100k.

One thing I found with mine is the position of the roof rack.

If I keep it back so the front of the rack is behind the rake of the windscreen, it saves about 1l/100k. Must be some extra resistance with the wind coming off the screen and hitting the underside of the rack.

Noticed I was getting more insects there on one trip.

Duncs,

No problem :o)

Wife knows, and it actually may be 2l/100k sometimes.

But then she always gets there before I would. :o)
Just has a heavier foot.

If we are in a hurry, she drives.