Long Range Tank 4.8 GU 2004
Submitted: Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 09:50
ThreadID:
86743
Views:
3532
Replies:
2
FollowUps:
3
This Thread has been Archived
Vicar QLD
Hi guys,
I've been looking for a biiiiiiiiig long range tank for my thirsty 4.8. Is there a main tank replacement or larger sub tank? It's the series 3 model, just before the new shape.
And...while your on a roll, anyone know if the upgrade chips work ok on the 4.8 motor. I heard around the traps that maybe the big donk doesn't respond so
well to a chip.
Appreciate your help.
Cheers,
Chris.
Reply By: Robin Miller - Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:06
Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:06
There is both Chris
I have the long
ranger 145lt main tank in my 2002 manual 4800 , and have the 75lt export model as a sub in my auto 2010 4800 (these cars came without a sub).
I have a unichip but is doesn't work
well with the 2002 manual motor.
These types of things work by setting a manual 8 degree advance over standard and then the chip removes the advance as appropriate while adjusting the fuel level at each point.
Problem is that my car cannot work properly with a set + 8 degree advance over standard - everynow and then the ECU looses control of the idle and it will idle at anywhere beteew 1500 - 2200 rpm.
Hence mostly I run without it
So if you go down this path , advance the ignition 8 degrees first and run the car for a couple of weeks as a
test.
Note this issue doesn't appear as much of a problem in autos.
AnswerID:
456343
Follow Up By: Member - DAZA (QLD) - Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:09
Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:09
G/Day Robin
I dont want to steal the thread.
Could you tell me what sort of fuel consumption you are getting from your 2010 modeL
At the moment on our trip we are getting horrendous figures.
For example towing the van between
Winton and
Cloncurry in Qld approximately 343ks.
The 3.0 litre crd sucked up 77 litres which worked out at nearly 4 litres to a kilometre.
I pulled into the Nissan dealership at Mt Isa, and they reckon it's guite common to use that amount when towing.
PS. I have my eyes on a 2010 4.8 model with 8000ks on it.
Cheers
FollowupID:
729396
Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 17:16
Saturday, Jun 04, 2011 at 17:16
Hi Daza
The auto 2010 model is using about 10% less than the manual at 14 lt/100km
on a trip and about 20 % more than the manual around town at (17.5llt/100km)
Over its first 13000km its total consumption has been 16.8 lt /100km
This is driven conservatively (95-100kmh ) without towing.
Its easy to burn more fuel though , when organizing a complex party near
home with lots of stops and starts it soon used 18-19lt/100km and I would expect that towing a couple of tons would see it into the low twenties.
The number of thirsty reports on those CRDs is a little worrying.
FollowupID:
729422
Follow Up By: Member - DAZA (QLD) - Monday, Jun 06, 2011 at 14:48
Monday, Jun 06, 2011 at 14:48
On my follow-up it should have read 4 kilometres per litre, geez it's not that bad.lol lol.
FollowupID:
729638
Reply By: ingo57 - Monday, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:54
Monday, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:54
Vicar,
Long
ranger do a main replacement (145)and auxiliary tanks(75) giving a total of 220 ltrs.
My old 4.8 used to get around 900km out of the two tanks and I found there was always about 10 litres left in both that the fuel pickup could never pump.
I averaged 22-25L per 100 no matter how I drove it & I could never reach the figures Robin states. Not saying there not true but in 4 years In my 06 I could never get any range past 950km, In saying that unfortunately I had to move my beloved GU on when I cracked the rear chassis (stat write off).
One thing to think of Chris is you should be careful when adding long range tanks for it puts extra stress on the coil towers of the GU breed, I also had polyairs and a twin wheel carrier hanging off the back which swiftly helped the problem along.
Looking back I wish I put the ATOC kit on to strengthen the chasis before spending a fortune on accessories that are now gone. Better to say glad I did than wish I did.
My 2 cents worth
AnswerID:
456569