last 8000km fuel consumption figures

[F4Phantom]

all of these figures are from a 120L tank where the car traveled between 800 and 1000km per tank, so largish sample sizes per tank. This represents about 8000km of driving. Mobil without additives gives me roughly one litre per 100km better economy. the new caltex vortex was useless in better economy as they advertise it, and 2 stroke did worse with the mobil, I didnt notice any more power, less noise or any change at all. All other additives or fuel savers were also useless. most fuel costs about 1.30 per L, but the two fuel line tanks cost 1.13 each, very cheap. the caltex was about 10c per L more.

DIESEL FUEL
L/100km fuel type additives
11.85 7/11 none
10.96 7/11 none
11.92 bp none
10.76 mobil magnet and FFI fuel tablets (both free!)
11.71 fuel line none
11.13 fuel line redline RL2
11.98 caltex vortex none
11.34 mobil 2 stroke castrol

[blitz]

interesting figures, was it rural, city, flat, hills, towing? highway speed cruising?

sort of helps to determine just how the stats stack up

[F4Phantom]

Well this is my only car, I drive it every day for work around 50 to 200km.

It is a mixture of city driving and freeway driving. Probably a quarter of that per day is 100kph, another half is 70/80 zones and the rest suburb speeds.

I dont tow much but each tank would recieve about 150km of towing per tank with a trailer weight of 400kg. I perminantly have tools in the back weight of 1 person.

I drive with the accelerator flat to the floor or nothing nearly ever gear change the car has ever done with me, boots tops at 10psi.

I dont think I get better economy on the open road for some reason.

I am soon getting it dynoed so I will see if any of this changes.

[ramblingboy42]

I assume we have to guess what vehicle and engine you are using...............

[vnx205]

It is possible that your figures were gathered with identical trips, identical conditions and identical driving style. It is also possible that you had some way of ensuring that each time, the tank was filled to exactly the same level.

So the following comments are general in nature and should not be seen as questioning the accuracy of your figures. At least they are expressed in litres /100km rather than the "How many kilometres before I decided it was time to top up the tank" that some people seem to prefer as a measure of fuel consumption. :)

My tank is difficult and tedious to fill. Others may not be quite as bad. Generally after froth first starts almost spilling from the filler neck, I can fit in four or five litres or more before it is really full.

That can have a significant effect on the apparent fuel consumption. I wonder how many people realise just how much it can distort the figures.

If someone with a 75 litre tank used 11 litres/100 km, they would probably fill up after about 630 km. The tank would then take about 69 litres. If they stopped too early (which with the filler neck on my Defender is very easy to do) and were just three litres short, they would believe they had used 10.5 litres/100 km. If the next tank was properly filled, because they were starting three litres short, they would think they had used 11.4 litres/100km; an apparent jump from 10.5 to 11.4.

With your bigger tank, the difference would be slightly smaller than those figures, but still significant.

Your figures may well be accurate, but given the variation possible by being just three litres short when filling up, I often wonder whether that is the explanation for some people's claims about different consumption with different brands. Some of the claims seem especially dubious when someone else get the opposite result when they try different brands.

[vnx205]

... ... ...
I dont think I get better economy on the open road for some reason.

... .... ...



My experience is that with my Defender especially with the camper on the back, the open road and freeways don't give the best economy.

My best figures over a long distance with the camper were in Tasmania. I found most of the time, I couldn't go fast enough for wind resistance to become an issue, so I used 9.5 litres/100 km.

[justinc]

I assume we have to guess what vehicle and engine you are using...............

....Maybe one of these???:wasntme:

F4 Phantom - Google Search (http://www.google.com.au/images?q=F4+Phantom&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&oe=&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=YtBDTf-CJoWycJGgoKAO&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQsAQwAQ&biw=1328&bih=632)


JC

[F4Phantom]

VNZ205 I tend to agree, I am a big one for accuracy and cannot stand it when people tell me how that " well a full tank lasts me a week and costs me $75 to fill up, so I think thats pretty good" I stand in amazement as I try to explain as nicley as possible that these 'facts' are worthless! idiots! They are so shallow that they simply care about the cost per tank.

Probably the best way to measure economy is km per L but I have so many l/100km swimming around in my mind since age 15 that I cannot change now.

So My figures are all a little arbituary but I can tell you the driving style is very similar, the load the same, the types of terrain identical, and I think my figures are a fairly good start. 1000km driving the same is really two to three tanks on a traditional petrol sedan.

So with that in mind one deceving thing in the stats is mobil fuel, the last tank was worse because the 2 stroke made me use more fuel, but mobil consistantly uses around 1L less per 100. I now dont see the benefit in any other fuel.

The vehicle is an 87 RRC with R380 and 3.5L 4 cylinder nissan TD.

[F4Phantom]

....Maybe one of these???:wasntme:

F4 Phantom - Google Search (http://www.google.com.au/images?q=F4+Phantom&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&oe=&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=YtBDTf-CJoWycJGgoKAO&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQsAQwAQ&biw=1328&bih=632)


JC


yeah thats it, lets go 4x4ing, you take the LR I take the F4, I have to say though the dealer network for these things makes LR look overwhelming.

[ramblingboy42]

I too experience the tedious filling of the last 7-8 litres in my D2 TD5 due to foaming.....sometimes I dont bother filling it right up but if I'm tripping I stand there and dribble the last few litres in. I have put a larger breather pipe in it made the initial fill quicker but cant get those last few litres in without dribble, dribble, dribble. Wynns once sold a anti foaming product for just that many years ago but now never see it. A few drops in the tank while filling stopped all foaming.

[ramblingboy42]

yeah thats it, lets go 4x4ing, you take the LR I take the F4, I have to say though the dealer network for these things makes LR look overwhelming.

arent/werent they the most fantastic aircraft? nice pics....good reply to my question

[F4Phantom]

arent/werent they the most fantastic aircraft? nice pics....good reply to my question

I remember when I first saw one at the melb air show about 15 years ago, I didnt know what it was but it looked amazing. I like the look of many others but the F4, the Iron Pig as the germans called it, is special.

[justinc]

Some aircraft, like the F4 , the F4UCorsair, the P51d Mustang and the Supermarine Spitfire are just plain beautiful to look at( and listen to:twisted:), pity they were designed for such a destructive purpose.

JC

[F4Phantom]

Some aircraft, like the F4 , the F4UCorsair, the P51d Mustang and the Supermarine Spitfire are just plain beautiful to look at( and listen to:twisted:), pity they were designed for such a destructive purpose.

JC

when the USA was looking for the JSF boeing also sumbitted a proposal. The JSF looks good, the boeing looks shocking. Now you would think in the world of such expense and perfect cutting edge science the looks would be quite irrelevant. But I remember reading that powerful men in the US air force said the boeing did not look right. So in essence art is always important, proper proportions are important. Thats why so many new cars make my eyes bleed.


YouTube - Boeing JSF X-32B Maximum Power Untethered Engine Runs