Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: 2.7lt TDV6 fuel economy change

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,563
    Total Downloaded
    0

    2.7lt TDV6 fuel economy change

    Hi all

    I used to get fuel economy as reported on the dash of high 9's on highway cycle and low 10's getting up it around town.

    Since I did my build up, rhino short rack, Foxwing, front ARB bar with winch, RWC and long ranger tank, safari snorkel, I can't get it under 11.7 even on highway cycle.

    I expected it to go up a bit but that seems quite a lot. What are Ther people with similar set ups getting?

    Do you think I might be confusing the computer by topping up from my LR tank while driving or is something else wrong?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Coolum
    Posts
    188
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Ton of lead / ton of feathers =

    Sounds like you have punched an even bigger hole in the 'air' and you may have to pay for it.

    bullbar turbulence may save you from a roo but not the bowser.

    not trying to be a smarty .. but when I drive my W/E'er sports car (at speed) with the rear view mirrors folded in, its so much quieter, that i figure the noise is doing something.

    I shudder when I see Patrols with big lift, monster tyres, Bullbar, Snorkel, Monster rack with a tinnie and a 23' caravan (= gallons per mile).. and I think the stock V8 D3 drinks a bit ??

    Don't know about low speed though? maybe thats where the extra wieght kicks in ?

    again not trying to get offside here .. I love all the info the Aulro site has, its a special forum and there's so much to be learn't browsing the threads..

    ...sorry if this (comment) is not considered constructiive

    Coolum

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    18,616
    Total Downloaded
    0
    You don't think all that extra drag and weight will not have an impact on fuel economy. I would say the changes you have experienced are to be expected.

    Garry
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1976 Jaguar XJ12C
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mount Martha
    Posts
    1,399
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Maybe purchase an ecu upgrade to compensate for the extra weight.
    You will be surprised how much extra weight you have added. Has to have a fair impact on your fuel economy.

    Cheers, Craig

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    191
    Total Downloaded
    0

    FUEL Consumption

    I have similar "touring" build, less the awning. I seem to always get around 10l/100km out on the big road. But I only cruise at 100km/hr. Fuel consumption is about 12l/100km when travelling at 110km/hr.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,563
    Total Downloaded
    0
    If you read my original post I said I expected it to go up, and I am not complaining I am very happy with my mods and am using them for what they were intended for so if a couple of liters per 100 is the price I can live with it.

    My question is just to try and see if this is the normal to be expected or if there might be another problem.

    Thanks Agro, that's helpful to know.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,563
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Disco4SE View Post
    Maybe purchase an ecu upgrade to compensate for the extra weight.
    You will be surprised how much extra weight you have added. Has to have a fair impact on your fuel economy.

    Cheers, Craig
    Not surprised at the weight, I know pretty much exactly how much it is. I am wary of ECU upgrades, I know lots have done it but I never quite trust that it wont accelerate the end of turbo's and the onset of other issues. I am still very happy with the power so would only consider it for the economy.

  8. #8
    Tombie Guest
    I just don't understand how 10l/100 ever became the magic number

    12 isn't a lot...

    As for your kit...

    Take the fox wing and rack off during normal use. No need to have it out in the elements for no reason and will remove the drag issue.

    The rest, should see you down around 10.5-11l

    Snorkels can use a bit more than without.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisbane,some of the time.
    Posts
    13,888
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I am flat out getting much less than 11's with two roof rails,and nothing else.
    So i would say what you are getting is to be expected.

    If you are going by the dash read out you may be in for a surprise as it is usually optimistic by around 10% at least.

    Calculating the actual l/100k's is the only way to get a true reading.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW SW Slopes
    Posts
    12,035
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombie View Post
    Snorkels can use a bit more than without.
    The D3/4 snorkel blocks a lot of airflow from the windscreen judging by the wind noise it creates.
    MY21.5 L405 D350 Vogue SE with 19s. Produce LLAMS for LR/RR, Jeep GC/Dodge Ram
    VK2HFG and APRS W1 digi, RTK base station using LoRa

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!