Thread: Holden 202 fuel consumption

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

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Originally Posted by 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......

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>
John

Really 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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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