Y62 patrol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1nando

Your right to a degree but i can get stupid economy from our Macks tridents if i wanted too and drove like a idiot. Averaged 550kms per tank on the 110 if i wanted too i could easily do under 450kms. Thats 16-17ltrs per 100kms.

---

My car uses around 9L/100km almost everywhere. Sure it uses more on sand, but not that much, the only bad figures i have got have been in the high country, and the petrol vehicle used twice as much. So i can drag off cars as i choose, if i choose, and its not going to make a noticeable difference. Its not going to hurt the hip pocket. I dont have godzillions of horsepower, only so much can be pumped through. With modern electronics its not going to waste any out the exhaust pipe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick130

That's a shame, it used to be pretty good years ago as there were some good, knowledgeable posters on there.

---

There are a few idiots that ruin it for others and bring down the tone of the place..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammypluge

My car uses around 9L/100km almost everywhere. Sure it uses more on sand, but not that much, the only bad figures i have got have been in the high country, and the petrol vehicle used twice as much. So i can drag off cars as i choose, if i choose, and its not going to make a noticeable difference. Its not going to hurt the hip pocket. I dont have godzillions of horsepower, only so much can be pumped through. With modern electronics its not going to waste any out the exhaust pipe.

---

do you think your car is doing 9l/100km when your draging off cars?

well he said almost everywhere,,,

exactly.
we need to compare apples with apples. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammypluge

My car uses around 9L/100km almost everywhere. Sure it uses more on sand, but not that much, the only bad figures i have got have been in the high country, and the petrol vehicle used twice as much. So i can drag off cars as i choose, if i choose, and its not going to make a noticeable difference. Its not going to hurt the hip pocket. I dont have godzillions of horsepower, only so much can be pumped through. With modern electronics its not going to waste any out the exhaust pipe.

---

Rammy you've got some weight on your Rok plus bigger tyres. I find it hard to believe its 9/100kms everywhere.
I bet that if i put 500kgs in it and took it 4wding with the 33s you've got on it that it would return close to 15ltrs/100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

do you think your car is doing 9l/100km when your draging off cars?

---

Of course not. Its economical when driven normally, and relatively economical when driven hard.

Diesels are even more economical versus petrols in racing applications. Renault in Le Mans, JCB breaking diesel speed records, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1nando

Rammy you've got some weight on your Rok plus bigger tyres. I find it hard to believe its 9/100kms everywhere.
I bet that if i put 500kgs in it and took it 4wding with the 33s you've got on it that it would return close to 15ltrs/100.

---

I put it on a weighbridge before fitting the alloy rocksliders, tared at 2100kg. Similar to a D5.

Bigger tyres dont tend to affect fuel economy, most people dont correct their fuel consumption readout/odometer/ tripmeter.

The bigger tyres would improve economy on sand due to the better flotation and hence reduced rolling resistance.

The worst fill-point-to-fill-point consumption i have noticed was 15L/100km after doing hours and hours of first gear steep hillclimbing in the high country plus some slow windy dirt road driving. Freaked me out, wondered what the hell was wrong.

However, i forget how far it is from Mt Dare to Birdsville? I did that with four people and gear in around one 82L tank.

Its only appropriate to compare modern diesels with the Y62 petrol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammypluge

I put it on a weighbridge before fitting the alloy rocksliders, tared at 2100kg. Similar to a D5.

Bigger tyres dont tend to affect fuel economy, most people dont correct their fuel consumption readout/odometer/ tripmeter.

The bigger tyres would improve economy on sand due to the better flotation and hence reduced rolling resistance.

The worst fill-point-to-fill-point consumption i have noticed was 15L/100km after doing hours and hours of first gear steep hillclimbing in the high country plus some slow windy dirt road driving. Freaked me out, wondered what the hell was wrong.

However, i forget how far it is from Mt Dare to Birdsville? I did that with four people and gear in around one 82L tank.

Its only appropriate to compare modern diesels with the Y62 petrol.

---

So it can drink 15ltrs and it weighs 659kg less than an unladen v8 petrol powered tank! I know my diesels mate, i work with them from 5.30am to 5pm monday to Friday. Diesels are great and i would of had the cummins if it was available at the time. In saying that the big v8 cummins doesnt offer much better economy than the petrol and im glad we got the peteol. Its about 150,000 kms before you break even with the cummins according to reviews. The diesel offers great low down torque, slightly better economy and longer travel distance between fills but it also offers more noise, more things to go wrong and vulnerability to crap fuel in remote areas.

Now tell me this; Is all the extra fun and peace of mind you can have worth an additional $50 per week as a worst case scenario?

Can't compare a 2.0l diesel to a 5.6l v8 petrol! Completely different.

Worst we have had in our gutless amarok is 16.8L/100.
Best is 8.6L/100.