Some real world fuel consumption figures on my 130

[Tote]

We have just completed a trip to Maralinga and Googs track I recorded the fuel that I put into the vehicle from the 200 litre tank along with the Kilometres done. Some interesting learnings indeed, including that if you wish to travel at 110 in a 130 you will pay for it.
The vehicle has 15000 Km on it now and clicked over 10,000 not long after we left home.

Home - Hay 16.91 Lt/100Km
Hay - Murray Sunset NP 17.7 Lt/100Km
These were travelling at 110 KM/H fully loaded

Gawler Ranges 14.1 Lt/100Km
Mt Finke 13.7 Lt/100Km
Maralinga 14.4 Lt/100Km
Mostly 50 - 60KM/h on dirt roads with some bitumen at about 90KM/H

Cooper Peedy 12.88 Lt/100Km
Traversing the Anne Beadell

Glendambo 18.32 Lt/100Km
Port Augusta 17.0 Lt/100Km
Renmark 17.2 Lt/100100Km
Hay Plain 16.52Lt /100KM
Cootamundra 16.7Lt/100KM
All travelling home at about 110KM/H



The 130 in touring mode, it's not exactly aerodynamic.....

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/toteau/media/Defender/IMGP3989.1_zpsoxsbzjir.jpg.html)

Regards,

Tote

[debruiser]

if it makes you feel any better, my D90 gets thirsty driving over 100km/hr

[Richo130]

What engine do you have?

If it makes you feel any better, when i have 35's on my 300tdi 130 I'm luck to pull 22 ltrs per 100k's!

Regards
Richo130

1978 S3 wagon
1995 Defender 130
2001 Discovery
2014 Range Rover Sport

[Richo130]

Nice truck by the way!

Regards
Richo130

1978 S3 wagon
1995 Defender 130
2001 Discovery
2014 Range Rover Sport

[newhue]

And what's even more scary, that at 110km/h on the speedo running 235/85 one is actually doing 100km/h in reality. 255/85 100 at the speedo is 100 in reality. But at 110 you pay....a fair bit.

[debruiser]

And what's even more scary, that at 110km/h on the speedo running 235/85 one is actually doing 100km/h in reality. 255/85 100 at the speedo is 100 in reality. But at 110 you pay....a fair bit.

I'll 2nd that..... haven't done enough milage on my 255's but it must work out nearly cheaper ot run the bigger wheels....

[Tote]

What engine do you have?

If it makes you feel any better, when i have 35's on my 300tdi 130 I'm luck to pull 22 ltrs per 100k's!

Regards
Richo130

1978 S3 wagon
1995 Defender 130
2001 Discovery
2014 Range Rover Sport

Puma 2.2 ( stock)

Regards,
Tote

[newhue]

I'll 2nd that..... haven't done enough milage on my 255's but it must work out nearly cheaper ot run the bigger wheels....

I think you are right. I was going considering to stay with 235's, but think I will return to to 255.

by my reckoning and gps. full or empty, and as aerodynamic and clean as a defender is with average crap hanging off it.

255 sit at 2050Rpm at 100 on the speedo, which equals 100 on the gps.
235 sit at 2150rpm at 100 at the speedo which is about 95klm on the gps.
235 sit at 2250rpm at 110 at the speedo which is 100 on the gps.
If you want to do 120 on 235's you can almost watch the gauge move.

It seems to take a tad longer to get 255 rolling, so not so zippy of the lights if that matters to a defender anyway. And just a tad longer to pull it up. Both are easily compensated for in driving style and easily adjusted within fifteen minutes.

[vnx205]

I'll 2nd that..... haven't done enough milage on my 255's but it must work out nearly cheaper ot run the bigger wheels....


I think you are right. I was going considering to stay with 235's, but think I will return to to 255.

by my reckoning and gps. full or empty, and as aerodynamic and clean as a defender is with average crap hanging off it.

255 sit at 2050Rpm at 100 on the speedo, which equals 100 on the gps.
235 sit at 2150rpm at 100 at the speedo which is about 95klm on the gps.
235 sit at 2250rpm at 110 at the speedo which is 100 on the gps.
If you want to do 120 on 235's you can almost watch the gauge move.

It seems to take a tad longer to get 255 rolling, so not so zippy of the lights if that matters to a defender anyway. And just a tad longer to pull it up. Both are easily compensated for in driving style and easily adjusted within fifteen minutes.

Engine revs and aerodynamics are not the only things that affect fuel consumption.
Higher gearing can require more throttle and greater fuel use.

[AK83]

Did you use the trip meter/odometer for the distance calculations, or a GPS of some type?
Have you confirmed the speedo's/trip meter/odometer's accuracy if you've used these?

FWIW: I just got myself a D1(300 Tdi).
Had to drive up to Maitland a few weeks back.
I noted my fuel consumption using the trip meter, as I've always done with all my vehicles.
But I use a tablet to run OziExplorer(Android) as my GPS.
Trip meter is miles out compared to the GPS. One of them had to be wrong.
I've never doubted the GPS and Ozi in the many years I've been using it now.
So to confirm it I used the mile markers set up along the roads.
Over the course of the next 1000klms up there, and then the 1300klms back, the speedo's trip meter is out by 8% .. OziExplorer is basically spot on.
So, based on my trip meter reading, I was getting roughly 11klm/lt (or about 9l/100km .. which I hate as a fuel consumption rating!)
But the reality was that the trip meter was short by 8% .. that is reading less than actual distance traveled.
So my actual consumption was closer to 12km/l .. or 11.9(8.2l/100km).

Speedo reading is close enough to spot on tho .. I see 101-103kmh or so, and GPS is saying 100km/h .. close enough for me with a bit of safety :nazilock:

[MrLandy]

Did you use the trip meter/odometer for the distance calculations, or a GPS of some type?
Have you confirmed the speedo's/trip meter/odometer's accuracy if you've used these?

FWIW: I just got myself a D1(300 Tdi).
Had to drive up to Maitland a few weeks back.
I noted my fuel consumption using the trip meter, as I've always done with all my vehicles.
But I use a tablet to run OziExplorer(Android) as my GPS.
Trip meter is miles out compared to the GPS. One of them had to be wrong.
I've never doubted the GPS and Ozi in the many years I've been using it now.
So to confirm it I used the mile markers set up along the roads.
Over the course of the next 1000klms up there, and then the 1300klms back, the speedo's trip meter is out by 8% .. OziExplorer is basically spot on.
So, based on my trip meter reading, I was getting roughly 11klm/lt (or about 9l/100km .. which I hate as a fuel consumption rating!)
But the reality was that the trip meter was short by 8% .. that is reading less than actual distance traveled.
So my actual consumption was closer to 12km/l .. or 11.9(8.2l/100km).

Speedo reading is close enough to spot on tho .. I see 101-103kmh or so, and GPS is saying 100km/h .. close enough for me with a bit of safety :nazilock:

Which tyres are you running AK83?

[AK83]

Car came with 255/70 16's brand new, so will last me a few years.

Strange part about my speedo is the differences between the two indicated vs real readouts.
Speedo is basically spot on, but trip meter is short by 8%.
That is, it shows 100km, but I've actually travelled 108km.
I actually measured it the other way.
I drive 100klms, but it displays 92km travelled.
The 100km distance was confirmed both via OziExplorer on my tablet and the roadside distance markers.
You'd think they'd both be synchronised, or at least close to it, but they aren't.

ps. I do understand that the circumference of the tyres affect speedo readouts.
Wouldn't have thought that the speedo vs tripmeter differences to be so wide.

[vnx205]

That sort of discrepancy is not unusual.
My Defender speeedo shows 110 at actual 100.
The odometer shows 104 for actual 100 travelled.
There is no reason why they should have the same error.

[cripesamighty]

My 300Tdi D1 has 235/70/16's which is the standard tyre size. Speedo reads roughly 6% over but the odo is pretty much right.