A Different Fuel Economy Question

Submitted: Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:04

ThreadID: 84187 Views:2198 Replies:3 FollowUps:8

This Thread has been Archived

Isuzumu

A question for all you well travelled tourers who keep a keen eye on their fuel economy:- Now I would like answers from people who tow and not tow please.
Roads like the Birdsville Dev Rd/Strzelecki Track and maybe some like doing the Diamantina NP, so the question is what difference is your economy travelling on these roads compared to any bitumen roads?
I probably have the info some where, but not travelling as much as a lot of people here would like your input please.

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Michael P (QLD) - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:24

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:24

Bruce Hi,
I keep an accurate log on each trip but don't break figures down to bitumen/gravel but would suggest that there is very little difference. If anything the gravel roads would be slightly more fuel efficient. (Towing on the type of roads you have suggested.)
I can email you copies of my fuel usage for individual trips if that would help. Then think of the fun you would have working out bitumen from gravel from horror.
Hope this helps.
Mike.

Member
My Profile Send Message

AnswerID: 444546

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:34

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:34

Mike, mate you would have a bit of time to divide it up for me hahahahaha, but if you like send it in a MM

FollowupID: 716681

Follow Up By: Member - Joe n Mel n kids (FNQ - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:36

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:36

i dont log it but do agree it seems to be better on gravel but only simply because i go a lot slower, the sealed roads are the "catch-up" leg and i keep the speeds up higher so i use more fuel ........ 1HZ so uses heaps anyway ....
But if it is muddy/boggy or soft/sandy then she uses HEAPS .....
Cheers
Joe

FollowupID: 716682

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:47

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:47

Yep under stand the boggy and sandy stuff, and I agree we seem to go a lot slower on the dirt, thanks

FollowupID: 716687

Reply By: Member - John T (Tamworth NSW) - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:41

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:41

G'day Bruce. How's Annie treating you?

Like the others mate, I don't differentiate between black top or "other" road types. Not towing the 4.2 avg's about 14.5 litres per 100k's and towing about 16.5 - 17 litres per 100 k. Unless it's tackling the slightly muddy Birdsville Track last year when we used .......... litres per 100 k's - don't even ask.

Cheers

John T (Lifetime Member)
VKS-737 Mobile 2619
Selcall 2619
"Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours" - Richard Bach in "Illusions"

Lifetime Member
My Profile My Blog My Position Send Message

AnswerID: 444554

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:57

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:57

Annie's treating me well as usual John have not made her get a second job yet so as to keep me in the manner I am use to hehehehehehehe
I am averaging around 7LPK/14LP100 towing the new camper on the bitumen and we want to do the Diamantina NP in June July school hols so need to know how much extra fuel to carry to do around 700Ks without refuelling.

FollowupID: 716688

Reply By: Ozhumvee - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:42

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:42

I've recorded some of my best consumption figures ever on dry well maintained dirt roads like the Birdsville and Strezlecki tracks. The combination of just ambling along at 70 -80k means you are not pushing it and the consumption shows.
Wet or damp conditions will increase fuel consumption slightly but usually still get better than on the bitumen at 100k.

AnswerID: 444555

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:59

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 19:59

Thanks Peter that is the answers I was hoping to hear cheers

FollowupID: 716689

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 20:07

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 20:07

Thanks Peter that is the answers I was hoping to hear cheers

FollowupID: 716693

Follow Up By: Fab72 - Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 20:24

Monday, Feb 07, 2011 at 20:24

I'll second Peter's answer. Diesel AWD Captiva loaded to the brim, on the bitumen at 110kmph was getting 8.2 litres per hundred. On the Birdsville track (including some boggy mud sections and slowing down for wash outs, creek crossings and the like - 7.4 per hundred. The speed on the Birdsville track was significantly slower than on the bitumen, and even with the lower tyre pressures, fuel economy was better.

Now sand driving when we went for a play in the Simpson...don't expect good figures there. That's a totally different type of driving altogether.

Fab.

FollowupID: 716698