I have had a Scanguage for a couple of months now and it was mainly bought to monitor fuel consumption and to try to improve it.
The 3lt CRD GU has a reputation for not being the most fuel efficient engine around and when compared to my previous Series 3 GU it uses more fuel.
By monitoring instantaneous fuel consumption I have lowered my fuel consumption noticeably.
The vehicle is a Series 6 GU with the 3Lt CRD and done about 92K, normally fitted is a roofrack. I have kept fuel records for this vehicle since new (3 1/2yrs).
My normal daily driving is a mix of small rural roads, secondary roads and some suburban. The suburban driving is early in the morning so it is not in heavy stop start traffic. And I do about 75Km's per day.
I have done 5 fuel fills with the scan guage and it is calibrated pretty good on litres, but the KM’s and KMH’s are not yet correct. I get the KMs right and the KMH’s go off, and visa versa.
My average actual consumption absed over the previous 5 fills prior to fitting the scan guage was 13.83Lt/100 actual (based on odometer and bowser reading). The long term average for the 92K km's was 13.9 lt/100 which includes towing on two
Kimberley trips etc.
I have now got my average fuel consumption over the last five fills down to 12.8 Lt/100 on a actual basis.
I carry a roofrack fulltime now, but previously I fitted it only when I need it and historically this added about 1lt/100 km’s
So deducting this I am currently getting about 11.8lt/100km. Which I am close to happy with, I could be happier though.
It is amazing how the little things add up, now I am gentler on the pedal, back off earlier and mainly sit at the speed limit instead of 1-2 Km’s over.
These numbers above are actual based on car odometer and purchases, on the last fill the scan guage showed 12.3 lt/100k and the actual was 12.94 lt/100K.
A comparison of the guage and the purchase was
Scanguage Litres 123 Actual 124.88
Odometer 1003 965
Depending which numbers are correct consumption on these figures could be between 12.4 to 12.7, so my 5 fill average at 12.8 appears to be valid.
Also Speed and fuel consumption appear to be directly related. Unlike a carburetted motor where once you find the sweet spot, fuel use drops off, it doesn’t appear to in a CRD diesel. Therefore Highway driving is actually more uneconomical than slow suburban driving.
On a side issue my records show that I have spent $18,599.81 on fuel since new. Therefore depreciation is probably more of a concern than fuel cost.
Alan