Fuel Consumption TD100

Submitted: Monday, Jan 04, 2010 at 16:26

ThreadID: 74881 Views:4249 Replies:6 FollowUps:3

This Thread has been Archived

Richard W (NSW)

FWIW I just got back from a quick trip up to the Sunshine Coast and back with a day on dirt around Cooloola and a run down Rainbow beach.
Traveled light with only the storage drawers/recovery gear a swag and fridge and no roof rack/basket/2nd spare tyre. Have been averaging 12.5L/100 outback touring over the last few years with a full load of camping gear/water. Averaged 11L/100 on this trip. Up was 12.1L/100 and back was 10.3 L/100. Most likely the removal of the roof rack/basket/spare tyre made most of the difference.
I do have a D'tronic and 3" exhaust and the muds have a fair amount of wear.

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator Share

Reply By: Member - OzGazza (VIC) - Monday, Jan 04, 2010 at 16:49

Monday, Jan 04, 2010 at 16:49

That's a pretty good result. I'd be happy with that.

AnswerID: 397597

Reply By: Members Paul and Melissa (VIC) - Monday, Jan 04, 2010 at 19:57

Monday, Jan 04, 2010 at 19:57

I towed our pop top to the gold coast in dec 07 from melbourne and averaged 14. odd L/100 over the whole trip. was wrapped with that but most people just boo hooed me saying it wasnt possible. i also have a d-tronic,3" exhaust as well, they do make a big difference.

AnswerID: 397638

Reply By: MARIC - Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:08

Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:08

Hi Richard, at what speed do you cruise at to get that mileage
..... regards Ric

It is only when you see mosquito land on your testicles that you find another way to solve problems without violence

Member
My Profile Send Message

AnswerID: 397721

Follow Up By: Richard W (NSW) - Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 15:22

Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 15:22

Ric,

Sat on 110 where I could on the way up.
Kept to 100 on the way back even in the 110 zones.
Probably the main reason for the difference up and back.
I have found 100 seems to be the most economical speed/time combination.

FollowupID: 666608

Reply By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:08

Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:08

Richard

I have a similar set up to you on my 2003 100 series TD but generally returning 12-13L/100km, do you know if the 3" exhaust made much of a difference to your fuel consumption when you got it?

Thanks Snowy

AnswerID: 397728

Follow Up By: Richard W (NSW) - Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 15:30

Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 15:30

Snowy,

I fitted the 3" exhaust first and the fuel economy deteriorated.
It was when I fitted the D'tronic there was a significant improvement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a post I put up on LCOOL.

Key:
Tyres: 285X75X16 BFG Muds. (Note : Fuel consumption adjusted for tyre size)
Exhaust: 3" Mandrel bent.
Chip: D'tronic (Note: Mostly outback touring.)

Linear: Straight line linear progressions.

The big fuel consumption numbers (outliers) are mostly sand driving eg. Simpson, and distort the results. I generally sit on 100KPH as fuel consumption deteriorates rapidly over this.

Here's a graph of the fuel consumption:

FollowupID: 666609

Reply By: fisho64 - Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 13:24

Tuesday, Jan 05, 2010 at 13:24

Ours gets 11.5L/100 highway, 115kmh with a fair bit of overtaking
and 13.5 around town. These figures dont vary much on a car with nearly 200K, D-tronic and snorkel.
I get the same reaction from people-"yeah right, landcruisers are guzzlers"
While we rarely tow, we have a large family and on highway car is around 3.1 to 3.2 tonne.

Im curious if the 3" makes much difference-but its unlikely that Id muck around with it anyway as Im chuffed with the milage as is!

AnswerID: 397738

Follow Up By: Richard W (NSW) - Thursday, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:22

Thursday, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:22

See the graph.
By itself the economy deteriorated.

FollowupID: 666877

Reply By: Member - Shane D (QLD) - Thursday, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:03

Thursday, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:03

I have just returned from a 2 week trip, starting form Brisbane, down to Merimbula, across to Omeo via Thredbo & Davies High plians, Dargo to Licola Via Wonnongata H/S, Walhalla to Warrigal, Melbourne back to Brisbane via Bindaree falls and Criags hut, Newel Hwy to Coonabarabran , Tamworth, Warick then Home.
I have a bog standard 1 HZ with no mods to improve performance, a wife and sister in law who don't have a clue about packing conservitive, 6 & 2 year old (I didnt think they needed much, how wrong can you be!!).
Gross weight when weight at weighbridge was 3.52ton with everybody in Vehicle and full tanks and week worth of food
Travelled 4782 K's, used 712 liters, averaged 14.88 l/100k's.
Worst feul figures I got was 21.5l/100k's was from Omeo to Warrigal, lots of low range took 3 days to do 120liters/558 k's.
Best I got was from Port Mcquarie to Rosebay (Sydney's East) 54liters/404K's, equates to 13.3l/100k's

Image Could Not Be Found

AnswerID: 398023