Landcruiser ute

Submitted: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 21:01
ThreadID: 95911 Views:7766 Replies:5 FollowUps:5
This Thread has been Archived
I'am wanting to know if anyone has compared the old 4.2TD to the new 4.5TD fuel economy. Toyota claim the 4.2 does 11.7L/100km and the new 4.5 does 11.5L/100. Can someone please post up their figures. Preferably for urban and country driving. But anything is greatly appreciated. and also does the new ute rev less when sitting on 100km/h.

Thanks
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Anthony W Adelaide - Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 21:28

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 21:28
G'day Scoop,

my 2008 VDJ79 GXL has done 73000 and uses 13.5lts/100ks mostly around town.

Not sure about the revs but I think about 2000rpm @ 100kph

We are off on our first outback trip with it next week so I will post up mileage on our return.
Wooly VKS-737 Mobile 0058

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 487208

Reply By: Mick O - Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 22:14

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 22:14
My 2009 VDJ79 has never had economy like that. It's more like 16 to 20 litres per 100km. It's heavy though and I tend to drive it a little harder as a result.

100kph is actually closer to 2300 rpm on standard tyres. An increase in tyre size to 75/R16 will drop it to 2000rpm at 100 kph.

They are starved for air and deliberatly tuned down for air and fuel as standard. Replacing the standard snorkel head with a scoop helps with economy and power as does fitting a larger exhaust.

Have a read.

Creating the dream off roader


Cheers Mick
''We knew from the experience of well-known travelers that the
trip would doubtless be attended with much hardship.''
Richard Maurice - 1903

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 487211

Follow Up By: Member - bungarra (WA) - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 11:01

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 11:01
Hi Mick

What snorkel head did you use on your replacement?

Cheers

Graeme
Life is a journey, it is not how we fall down, it is how we get up.
VKS 1341

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 762504

Follow Up By: Mick O - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 22:39

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 22:39
Graeme I've got an Ironman snorkel head fitted. Simply used longer bolts.

Cheers Mick
''We knew from the experience of well-known travelers that the
trip would doubtless be attended with much hardship.''
Richard Maurice - 1903

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 762557

Reply By: racinrob - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 08:15

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 08:15
I have a 1HZ 4.2 with after market turbo, I wish I was getting 11.7/100kms !!
On a trip towing a 2 tonne van I get about 18 per 100 and around town 15 or so. The vehicle has a heavy steel tray and all up weighs around 2.5 tonnes, 8 x 16 wheels.

rr
AnswerID: 487238

Follow Up By: Geoff in SA - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 12:40

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 12:40
I have a F250 and it does about 17 round town. Its my work vehicle and runs about 4000kg with tools and stuff.

On our return from Pt Lincoln at Xmas we did 19.7 L per 100K and that was doing about 100kph where I cold

Geoff
0
FollowupID: 762508

Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 22:59

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 22:59
Racinrob,
Its hard to do much with the 1Hz. Combined figure for your HZJ79 was 13.1 l/100k - thats before you add the turbo.
0
FollowupID: 762558

Reply By: Member - Howard (ACT) - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 16:42

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 16:42
My 2009 vdj79r ute (85,000 km) gets between 15 and 16 /100 depending on how hard its driven. thats with canopy on and loaded
speed seems to be the big killer.I just wish it had another gear .
2700 revs at 110 is too high.

when I first got the vehicle (2nd hand 40k) I did get just on 12/100 on a trip Canberra to Central coast - ie freeway running but no quicker than 110 mostly at 100.
that was pre canopy not even tools/recovery gear.2up no luggage.

off road , ie simpson/madigan around the 16.5/100 ,slow travel but very heavily loaded.

I will be interested to see effect of going to 285/75 tyres for this winters WA trip. wider tyres =more rolling resistance V 4% gearing change=lower revs
might be lucky and get some fuel relief but change has been driven by need to achieve more clearance under axles
regards
Howard
Resigned to Retirement

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 487286

Follow Up By: Member - Leigh (Vic) - Sunday, Jun 03, 2012 at 00:11

Sunday, Jun 03, 2012 at 00:11
Hi Howard, I ended up going with a 255/85/16 Cooper ST (33's) to get that extra gear you are referring to. 3" beaudesert exhaust and dyno'd chip and it produces really good torque and is a good cruiser on those 1000km days that we have going to somewhere. Getting around 11-12's ltr/100 with 3.2 tonne set-up on hwy. I drive it fairly conservatively at 105-110 kmh at about 2300-2500 revs. Tyres give about 5% less revs cw 265/75/16's. Cheers, Leigh
0
FollowupID: 762737

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 23:10

Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 23:10
I'm a bit surprised about the thirst of the V8's.
My HDJ79 always carries a load. Don't have city figures because it never gets used around town, but for some comparisons it gets 12.5-13.5 l/100k on easy desert tracks, 15.5 L/100k on the Madigan Line, not towing.
And when towing the TVan, gets 15-16 l/100k on the highway at 100 kph.

Consumption improved a fair bit with the 3" exhaust. I don't believe in chips.
I run 285 Bridgestone 694's and these give better fuel figures than the muddies I've had before.

A mate who recently sold his HDJ78 always got better fuel figures than me but he was blessed with a better right foot and he always ran the 750R16 skinny tyres.

My personal opinion is that the HDJ79 was a much better vehicle than the VDJ79, which is why I've hung onto mine.
AnswerID: 487331

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)