Fuel consumption LPG Jackaroo

Submitted: Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 17:21
ThreadID: 47629 Views:6200 Replies:8 FollowUps:8
This Thread has been Archived
I'm thinking about buying a second hand 4WD but was unable to find precise information about their fuel consumption.
As I won't need a very strong engine, a 4 cyl with max. 3ltr would be enough and to save on fuel costs I'd prefer a dual fuel.

I found a 1991 Jackaroo with a 2.6ltr engin but have no idea about how much petrol/gas this would use per 100 km.

How about other models like the 3ltr Pajero (definitely not younger than 1991 to stay affordable for me).

Thanks for any replys!

Achim
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: kcandco - Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 20:06

Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 20:06
Hi Achim

I have a 91 mazda bravo 4wd on gas. It also has a 2.6 four cylinder motor. Around town i get 290 - 300 km out of a 56 litre (usable) tank. On a trip I have been known to get 440 km out of a tank. Equating this to petrol use the best I have achieved on a trip because of cheap lpg prices was 46 MPG. Sorry dont know what that is in l/100Km. I have found the bravo to be very reliable. It has now over 300,000 k on the clock and the engine has not been touched ...except for welch plugs. Clutch has been replaced. Hope this gives you some idea. Be aware that gas installations must be inspected every 10 yrs.

regards Kc

AnswerID: 251952

Follow Up By: jomah - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 18:29

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 18:29
46 mpg from a mazda 2.6 4wd????? You gotta be kidding - yourself that is. what are you running it on ? ......200 octane Bulls**t !!! Perhaps you accidently hit the wrong key when typing that message or you seriously need to revise you method of calculating fuel consumption.
0
FollowupID: 513160

Reply By: madfisher - Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 20:48

Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 20:48
Hi Achim,
I have a 3.5 Jack, wife has a 3lt Pajero, I have had a 2.6 swb Jack in the past.
The 3lt Paj is a lot thirster than my 3.5 Jackaroo as it is lower geared and a lower tech motor. When we put 10rs a.ts on it the fuel economy got even worse. With a canidian canoe on the roof siting on 100 it uses 15lt per 100ks or 18 mpg. The paj is more ecomonical if you can stand to drive it at 80ks. My Jack will do over 20mpg towing my 600kg boat siting on 100. Best I have got is arround 12.77lper 100ks cruising at speed limit.
Beware of any V6 on gas big NO NO (early pajs and Jacks particulaly).
Best fuel economy from my 2.6(which had extractors and sports exhaust) was 27mpg with road tyres. with ats about 23 to 24 mpg. My old 2.6 went better than wifes Paj.
Remember fuel is the cheapest runing cost with most vehicles. The 2.6s are a very long lasting motor. Another very good vehicle are 4runners with a 22r motor. I also owned one of these, best economy was 11ltr per 100ks or 27mpg, but shoprt trips and arround town I would get 430 ks to about 52lts . I would be much more concerned about the mechinical condition of a vehicle than the fuel economy, as you can easily spend thousands on an engine or gearbox rebuild
Cheers and goodluck Pete
AnswerID: 251962

Reply By: Aandy(WA) - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:19
Kc that has to be the greatest "positive spin" ever!! Even greater than a politician would apply in an Election Year. Please don't tell me that you get 46MPG from a 91 bravo 4wd because I just plain don't believe you!!!
Now here are the factual figures:
Your worst figures are 290km from 56litres around town. That is 19.31l/100k. This is 14.69mpg.
Your best figures of 440k from 56l is 12.72l/100k. This is 22.29 mpg.
I don't know exactly how you stretched 22.29MPG to 46MPG but it must have something to do with "equating".
The facts are that your vehicle uses between 12.72 and 19.31 litres per 100km. The average of those figures is 16.01l/100km which is not good and the 19.31 around town is absolute petrol guzzling.
By way of comparison a medium sized TD will use 11 around town and a little less on a trip.
Many years ago I had an 89 Pajero with a 2.4l petrol engine. My figures were consistent with yours - best on a trip 22.5MPG and around town about 15MPG.
AnswerID: 252010

Follow Up By: Member - Shane D (QLD) - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 17:09

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 17:09
you got lost in the translation,(yes it is hard to follow)
What he is saying is $20 gas goes a lot further, than $20 petrol.
if $20 gas gets you 300km,in order for you to get the same distance on petrol,for $20, you would have to half the usage.
If you look at the numbers you listed you can see that 22.92 is a little less than half of 46,same as the price of gas compared to petrol, funny way of explaining though
0
FollowupID: 513146

Follow Up By: Aandy(WA) - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 21:55

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 21:55
Shane I didn't get a bit lost in the translation and I know exactly what he's saying. He's claiming to get the equivalent of 46mpg when his figures actually range from 14 to 22 mpg. Hence my reference to positive spin! It's also probably the equivalent to 55mpg from Premium unleaded but the FACTS are that his CONSUMPTION is actually a very ordinary 14 to 22 mpg!
0
FollowupID: 513198

Follow Up By: Member - Shane D (QLD) - Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 19:09

Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 19:09
I'm glad Mrbitchi took the time to explain what I was trying to say
0
FollowupID: 513338

Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 17:57

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 17:57
Achim,

Unless the Jackaroo already has a proper Gas conversion installed, I wouldn't bother.
The cost of adding one is high and the return on your investment somewhat low.

In other words, you can use a lot of petrol for $2000+ worth of conversion.
It's not only the conversion kit itself, but the upgrade of valves, seats, etc. that may also be required.

I don't believe it's a viable proposition for an older model vehicle.
If economy is a driving force, look for a vehicle with a diesel donk.
Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 252088

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Nullagine) - Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 00:12

Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 00:12
sandman in WA a 2k conversion would be FREE there is up to 3k avilable in refud from state and federal GVT
But otherwise yea gas is fine for tootling round the city and going on trips to dwellingup etc. Once you head out however you wouldnt consider gas
0
FollowupID: 513215

Reply By: murray murray - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 18:26

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 18:26
Achim,
I know this is late reply, but I owned a 2.6lt Jack for many years, only selling it last year. Consumption around the city (with air con), if light on the the accelerator, was 12 - 13 lts/100k. You can get better with no air con and no roof rack. On the highway, with full roof rack, pulling a light trailer (not camper trailer), loaded for a long trip, 14 - 16 lts/100k. Some times as bad as 18 lts/100k with a head wind. The 4 cyl didn't have the power to be efficient when fully loaded.

I wouldn't change one of these over to gas. Not worth it as already stated, plus there is some question about suitability. Look at this site jackworld.alphalink.com.au/ It has tips about problems with each model. The 2.6lt is getting old and is old technology. I had a great run out of mine. I didn't mind the scratches and took it everywhere it would go and it never let me down, but in the end too many things were wearing out.

I still stand by the Jacks and would buy another, but I'd go for a 6 cyl petrol or diesel. A friend who recently bought a 1997 3lt diesel Jack gets 10lt/100k. He gets much the same consumption, city or highway driving. He buys his air, fuel and oil filters from a diesel place (can't remember the name), not a spare parts outlet and buys them for a quarter the price. He couldn't be happier. Cheap to buy and cheap to run.
I hope this helps.
AnswerID: 252094

Reply By: kcandco - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 21:36

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 21:36
OK firstly let me concede distance of 440 km is wrong 390 km has been the best from a tank. BUT the other figures are absolutely correct, but maybe confusing in its translation. Put simply… if it can be.

I traveled 484 km on 7th January 2004. I fueled 3 times.

On the first stop (at 108km) I used $6.25 of gas. The price of unleaded was 81.9 cents per litre. Gas was 38.5 cpl. If I had used that $6.25 to buy ulp it would have given me 7.63 litres which equates to 1.677199479 gallons. 108km which is 67.08075 miles divided by 1.677199479 gallons is 39.99569 mpg.

On the second stop (after another 223km), I filled up and used $11.51 of gas. Gas was 35.9 cpl. The price of ulp at this stop was 85.5 cents per litre. If I had used that $11.51 to buy ulp it would have given me 13.46199 litres which equates to 2.958678748 gallons. 223km which is 138.5093 miles divided by 2.958678748 gallons is 46.81458 mpg.

On the 3rd stop (after another 153km), I filled up and used $9.81 of gas. Gas was 37.5 cpl. The price of ulp at this stop was again 85.5 cents per litre. If I had used that $9.81 to buy ulp it would have given me 11.47368 litres which equates to 2.521688837 gallons. 153 km which is 95.03106 miles divided by 2.521688837 gallons is 37.68548 mpg.

The first leg was a little town and mainly highway. The second leg was all highway. The third leg was highway and then some driving at the Gold Coast. All driving was at the speed limit. Four people were on board and their luggage. In all it cost me $27.57 to cover 484 km. On this trip the price of LPG was slightly less than half of ulp.

Now to the present day. I filled my car last Saturday with all town driving. It cost me $35.22 to fill. If I had bought ulp with that money I would have received 28.657 litres which is 6.298 gallons. I covered 298 kilometres which is 185.093 miles. This equates to 29.389 miles per gallon for ALL TOWN DRIVING…. And no I don’t use angel gear or hook onto the back of buses. Why do you think a large number of taxis run on lpg.

Because of the difference in price of the 2 fuels and also the expected consumption rates, I find it more relevent to use this method to compare.

This is why I will be changing my other vehicle to gas as well. I have compared my fuel consumption figures with a friend at work who has the same vehicle (year and model) and my fuel costs are just over 50% of his which is petrol only (over a long term basis). The savings are there to be had at the moment especially with a $2000 rebate from the government. Excise rates are to be increased from 2011 starting at 2.5 cents per litre and increasing to 12.5 cents per litre in 2015, so this will have a real impact on the feasibility of changing over. Untill then I will be filling my 4wd drive at the lpg bowser and smiling at the dollars I am saving. Just remember the cheaper lpg is in relation to petrol the better for the wallet.

Sorry for the longwinded reply but this had to be done to backup my reasoning for loving lpg. LPG is definitely worth investigation, but of course with the other factors listed above taken into account ie vehicle condition and suitability etc.

Regards Kc

Now suffering from typing induced rsi.
AnswerID: 252127

Follow Up By: Aandy(WA) - Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 22:03

Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 22:03
You say "If I had used that $9.81 to buy ....... but you DIDN'T and you wouldn't have got that far so it is nothing but positive spin. I think you must be a politician! Your actual fuel consumption ranges from 14 to 22mpg - actually less than that now that you've changed to mileage figure.
0
FollowupID: 513200

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:07

Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:07
Kc, I think what you're trying to say would better be described as dollars/kilometer. I run a V8 Statesman on gas and understand perfectly what you're trying to say.
My Statesman gets roughly the same fuel economy as your Jack, but goes a whole heap quicker ;-)
I pay approx $30 for 60Lt of gas which takes me about 320Ks. Thats about 18.75lt/100ks at a cost of $9.37/100Ks. To travel the same distance for the same dollars on petrol I would have to achieve 7.5Lt/100Ks. Best I can actually get is about 14Lt/100Ks ;-~
So what your saying is the cost "equates" to running on petrol @ 45mpg (in your example)
As far as the excise increase is concerned, just remember that over the same time frame the price of petrol will increase considerably. Gas will obviously go up too, but not to the same extent, so the difference in price will probably be the same, if not better in gas's favour.

Got to get the Paj done ASAP.
0
FollowupID: 513227

Follow Up By: kcandco - Saturday, Jul 14, 2007 at 16:12

Saturday, Jul 14, 2007 at 16:12
Hi John

Thank God someone understands the point I am trying to make. It is easy to compare diesel and petrol because their cost is roughly the same. It is a lot harder with lpg because of the large difference in price and also usage rate. That is why I used the "if i had bought petrol' scenario to explain the savings possible. I thought this would simplify things but obviously not. I feel that comparing fuel consumption rates between the 2 fuels does not give a true indication of the savings because of 1. the fluctuation in price differences between the two, and 2. the difference in efficiency of the fuels. I have seen the price of lpg vary between just below 50% of the price of ulp to roughly 70% of the ulp price locally. Unfortunately locally we pay up to 10 cents per litre more than capital city price. I could have used the cents per kilometre measurement as well but that changes with the ever increasing rise in fuel prices so cannot be used over a long term....repeat long term.... to reflect the savings unless c/km rates are also kept for petrol. By using the "if it were petrol" equation, the figures are relevent whether they were yesterday or ten years ago. If you can explain this another way so that Aandy understands please jump in as I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

Your comments about the excise versus petrol costs in the future is spot on. I am sure we are on the right track running lpg.

regards Kc
0
FollowupID: 513423

Reply By: Achim1 - Sunday, Jul 15, 2007 at 20:53

Sunday, Jul 15, 2007 at 20:53
Thanks everybody! Your comments were more than helpful. It's always good to get first hand information from people who know what they are talking about!

Cheers,

Achim
AnswerID: 252609

Reply By: Brew34.5(SA) - Sunday, Jul 15, 2007 at 21:11

Sunday, Jul 15, 2007 at 21:11
Buy a GQ on GAS. Oh wow.........what a coincidence.I have one for sale :)
AnswerID: 252617

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)