Holden 202 fuel consumption

[tangiers]

I bought a Series III with the Holden 202 red motor. I am using it for short trips (to the station) only. I am getting around 27 litres/100km fuel consumption. I've read that the 202 is very thirsty. Is this normal? Or do I need to have it looked at? I've tried driving as economically as possible and only use the manual choke for the first 20 seconds of any trip.

[mudmouse]

Just my thoughts...

Yep, that doesn't sound too far off the mark. I've had 179's, 186's (in an EH sedan) and a 202 then 186 in a SWB S3 - I don't recall getting much better than 5kms per litre (20/100). Checking the float level on the carby and the ignition timing might help a bit, however don't be tempted to spend too much money on it because the savings will take a lifetime to be realised.

It's just an old engine/head design and in a Land Rover tends to spend a bit of time in the upper rev range.


Matt.

[101RRS]

I bought a Series III with the Holden 202 red motor. I am using it for short trips (to the station) only. I am getting around 27 litres/100km fuel consumption. I've read that the 202 is very thirsty. Is this normal? Or do I need to have it looked at? I've tried driving as economically as possible and only use the manual choke for the first 20 seconds of any trip.

That is only about 10mpg - about 17 mpg is what you should be getting.

Garry

[Bigbjorn]

That is only about 10mpg - about 17 mpg is what you should be getting.

Garry

agreed.

[TJWA]

My LWB 186 gets about 25l/100km.

A mechanic has put a carby kit through it this week so we'll see how it goes from now on. He also said the distributor is not the original points type, but a newer electronic one. He claims it will run better on an original!?!?

[subasurf]

My LWB 186 gets about 25l/100km.

A mechanic has put a carby kit through it this week so we'll see how it goes from now on. He also said the distributor is not the original points type, but a newer electronic one. He claims it will run better on an original!?!?

I just bought a SIII with a 186 in it today. Please let us know how yours is running with the carby kit. :)

[agrojnr]

What type of carb is it (Iam guessing the old stromy) they tend too make them run crappy

Adam

[Jeff]

I used to get about 10 mpg from my 202 powered 2A, but I used to flog it a bit. My Dad used to get 20 mpg when he drove it, but he used to hold up traffic everywhere. My 186 2A wagon used to get around 14mpg but I drove it more sedately and did less off road. Sorry I don't know l/km conv as speedos were in miles and tanks were in gallons and it's too late at night for me to work it out accurately.

Jeff

:rocket:

[Ben SIII]

i have a 186 and was getting about 18L/100km when i first got it. I spent the better part of a day tuning it and putting in new plugs, leads,etc.

it now gets about 14L/100km mixed high range driving.

offroad low isn't worth working out, just glad it has a second tank

[subasurf]

^^^^^
That's reassuring to here :)
Mine has a 202 in it which is running a bit rough. Only just got the car and the previous owner wasn't very clued in so I have no idea of the engines history. I'm thinking of getting a cheapo 186 block and doing a rebuild of it from scratch, with economy in mind. Worth it, if not just to learn something.
Luckily I've got dual tanks and considering putting in LPG.

[Phoenix]

my old 173 used to do between about 14 and 16L / 100km most of the time. good leads, electronic ignition from a blue motor helped a lot.

[jmkoffice]

I don't remember the 202 being so uneconomical in the old Holdens I used to have. Below are the rear axle ratios that were available for the HJ Holden back when they were new. There was an economy option......

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder three speed manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder four speed manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder four speed wide-ratio manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder Tri-matic automatic transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.08:1
Performance Option Axle Ratio: 3.55:1

Cheers

[stig0000]

wow,,, reading this i woulda bort a v8,,, i no its not in a car buy my 186 in the ski boat is unbelievable on fuel,, i can get a full weekend of good flogging about skiing and tubing on no more then 40 bucks of fuel,

[JDNSW]

Comparing a Holden engined Landrover fuel consumption to that of the Holden the engine came out of is not particularly useful - the Landrover is heavier, has greater aerodynamic drag, and greater transmission and tyre drag. Furthermore, unless the gearing has been changed, the Landrover gearing is unsuitable for these engines, meaning that they spend a lot more time in the higher rev range than in the original vehicle.

Fuel consumption is more usefully compared to the Rover engines originally fitted, and results should be fairly similar; 15 - 20mpg, possibly as much as 25mpg in a swb driven carefully, but economy achieved is very dependent on how you drive. Worth remembering that some Series Landrovers were fitted with a heavy accelerator spring that came in at half throttle as an economy device.

Poor tune can badly degrade fuel consumption on any of these engines (spark plugs, leads, ignition timing, worn carburetter), as can fuel leaks and dragging brakes or low tyre pressures. But the biggest factor on fuel consumption is in your right boot.

John

[Bigbjorn]

I don't remember the 202 being so uneconomical in the old Holdens I used to have. Below are the rear axle ratios that were available for the HJ Holden back when they were new. There was an economy option......

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder three speed manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder four speed manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder four speed wide-ratio manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder Tri-matic automatic transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.08:1
Performance Option Axle Ratio: 3.55:1

Cheers

I can assure you that at GM-H we built 6 cylinder autos with a 2.78 diff unless a dealer order specified another. A diff ratio of 3.55 was used in the one tonner, not in other 4 speed equipped vehicles which usually had the 3.08.

[Bunjeel]

I've got a 186S in my 2A Shorty and I get around 12-14L/100 in the city and around 10-12 on the highway. That's with standard Stromberg carby, points ignition and free-wheel hubs. It's got an overdrive which helps on the highway- also I've found timing is significant - many of those old motors are a bit coked up and tend to 'ping' or 'run-on' if the ignition is advanced to the optimum, so often they're been over-retarded to keep them quiet, which chews up the fuel. Also they use more fuel in the warm-up period, choke on or not. They seem to run best at about 90 degrees. Also suggest, as general aid to drivability, shifting the vacuum advance pipe from the throttle body to the manifold.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I don't remember the 202 being so uneconomical in the old Holdens I used to have. Below are the rear axle ratios that were available for the HJ Holden back when they were new. There was an economy option......Comparing a Holden engined Landrover fuel consumption to that of the Holden the engine came out of is not particularly useful - the Landrover is heavier, has greater aerodynamic drag, and greater transmission and tyre drag. Furthermore, unless the gearing has been changed, the Landrover gearing is unsuitable for these engines, meaning that they spend a lot more time in the higher rev range than in the original vehicle.<snip>
JohnReally have to agree with John here!

The Holden HQ-HG were aerodynamic compared to the housebrick aerodynamics of the Land Rover and that is before we discuss the 25-50% greater weight of the Land Rover.

After that the diff ratios on a 14" rim are irrelevant if you are comparing them to a 16" rim with a concurrent loss through the transfer box.

A more usefull comparison would have been the Holden powered Bedford vans and cab chassis using engine Revs/Km as a basis.

[scarry]

I don't remember the 202 being so uneconomical in the old Holdens I used to have. Below are the rear axle ratios that were available for the HJ Holden back when they were new. There was an economy option......

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder three speed manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder four speed manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder four speed wide-ratio manual transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.55:1
Economy Option Axle Ratio: 3.36:1

202 3.3 litre Six cylinder Tri-matic automatic transmission:
Standard Axle Ratio: 3.08:1
Performance Option Axle Ratio: 3.55:1

Cheers

I changed the Diff ratio of a '74 HQ ute,manual 3 speed from 3.55 to 3.08.Fuel economy went from 20mpg to 25mpg normal driving,some around town.On a run would easily get 27mpg.This was the first of the 202 not much polution choking stuff on it,and also ute's were not real heavy.
I didn't tow anything or carry much weight,or it would have worn out clutches quickly.

As other have said,gearing & weight will cause a 202 powered LR to use heaps of fuel.

[mick88]

My SWB Series 3 has a 186 with electronic dizzy and 3.54's.
I fueled it up today and it delivered 19.5 mpg (14.5/100 or 6.8/litre), its fairly consistant at this economy with sensible driving on short running and can get up to 25mpg on long runs sitting on around 90kmh.
But every now and then for no known reason it will give about 15 mpg!

Cheers Mick :)

[landrover dave]

My SWB Series 3 has a 186 with electronic dizzy and 3.54's.
I fueled it up today and it delivered 19.5 mpg (14.5/100 or 6.8/litre), its fairly consistant at this economy with sensible driving on short running and can get up to 25mpg on long runs sitting on around 90kmh.
But every now and then for no known reason it will give about 15 mpg!

Cheers Mick :)

You wont get much better than 21-22mpg out of a holden in a Landy, unless its a s1 swb, then maybe 24mpg! The holden 6 is designed to work at a lower rev range than what you need to run them in a landy. They were not designed to lug around a 2 ton house brick! I had a s3 lwb, 202, electronic dizzy out of a blue motor, 6 cyl oil bath air cleaner, high speed t/case, std diffs, 7.50x16 radials and the best I could get was 22mpg at 100kph. Std carby and air filter on 202 runs rich, with the oil bath filter it ran at optimum eir/fuel ratio measured with exhaust gas analizer. Lpg will keep running costs down.
High ratio t/case also gives you 39.5:1 low 1st.
My 76 rangy with 1.113:1 high range and 33" tyres was doing the same revs at 100 as my s3.

[clubagreenie]

The webber carbie with elec choke from XE(?) falcons can be adapted to the stromberg mount with a plate adaptor. Choke works well and was getting 22mpg around town and 28 hwy in a 68LWB with 3.54's and a 186HP block, yella terra head and high comp. Would sit on 110 at 3100 and 130 at 3600. Redline at 4200.

[Seriestwo]

My 2A has a 179 with hi-comp heads. Its not too bad on fuel but you need to put 98 in her otherwise she pings like a be-arch. But it will do about 20mpg.

[Davehoos]

not a 202 fan--the 3300 block and crank are a betterversion.
if spending money I look at 179-186 or 2850.I like the 12 port head.

the build quality of production engines can vary a lot.often on worked on commodores that could just get 8 km/l and others that easily did 12 km/l.

the last carby 6 had a varijet that are dead simple to work with.
nobody wants to adjust these and call them crap.
the primary is small with throttle pump,high speed bleeds and choke-to give drivability and the seconday is SU like for ecomomy.these are by far the best on fuel other than the su type carby or a throtte body injection.
the VK EFI commodore wasnt good on fuel with the original computor as it was set up to give XU1 tripple carb power and good emisions.
the engine design is similar in technoligy to the different ages of rover/leyland V8 except they are not cross flow.

the older pre 75 holden's are low geared-and under exhausted.most people forget that even the wheels are smaller.torana-hr had 13 inch wheels,1968 to early 80's had 14.[15 inch low profile rolling dia is smaller than the 13 inch wheels].torana and VB had 2.78 to get the gearing back to 3.36 comparison.throwing an overdrive manual improves fuel ecomony heaps.

Emision levels raised over time,and they are being measured over distance,the gearing needed to be raised,holden for some reason use very low gearbox ratio's to reduce NOX when starting off-in doing this they retard ignition timing with the fuel mixture rich.
sometimes lowering the ratio improves the economy if you change the cam-distributor and carby.

single barrel stomberg is cheep--the small throttle gives good drivability with a holden car in a shopping center and cruise is good..a few conversions i worked on had the original landrover or other leyland 1-3/4 single su fitted.the muffler tube manifold adaptor on the original manifold horrified me but worked ok.i saw a alloy cast adaptor in a 70's magazine.

I recomend a 186S style manifold as a minimum.these use a 2 barrel stomberg that is smaller than a holley 350.[280 cfm aprox].i like the ford style webber and with it you could use a landrover intake.

holden likes a 2 engines pipes if you cant fit tuned extractors.

[Davehoos]

small bore holden was used by the local government and eutility poeple around these parts.untill they got rid of the 2A and 3 fleets or ex army engines became cheep.

the NSW rego rules at one time only allowed a 2200-149-161 as they are under the 2.6 limit and a 173/179 HP with brake booster and improved wipers[2A].