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.
Printable View
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.
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
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,
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkoffice
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.
Really have to agree with John here!Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSWComparing 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>Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkoffice
John
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkoffice
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mick88
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.