And those figures mean exactly squat.
You can't compare an aerodynamic 2wd vehicle to a 4wd brick.
I guarantee that if you fitted one of those supercharged V6 engines to a RRC the fuel useage would be near enough double those figures.
Printable View
And those figures mean exactly squat.
You can't compare an aerodynamic 2wd vehicle to a 4wd brick.
I guarantee that if you fitted one of those supercharged V6 engines to a RRC the fuel useage would be near enough double those figures.
You'll notice they quote the supercharged engine as using about 10% more than the NA version.Quote:
Originally Posted by 400HPONGAS
I used to work for a company which had two NA commodores 3.8 V6 auto. Their average fuel consumption was 15-16 litres/100km. I couldn't get them below 12 litres/100km on any trip.
In a rangie, double it.
The other problem is peak torque just below 4000rpm.
Honestly, I don't know why people have any love for those engines. As a 90 deg V6 they aren't even compact for their displacement, power/litre and torque/litre isn't good and fuel consumption is woeful.
I had a 81 RRC that was built up here in SA and sold by the shop.
Had lots of issues. It did have a new gearbox, a 700 something rather but the economy was same as the 3.9L V8 I had in my other RRC.
The torque did not come on till around 2600rpm and box shifted all at the wrong time.
It drank too much fuel, had over heating problems and way too much electrical stuff for most mechanics to get their head around.
Its the only Rangie I took a big dive on when selling it.
I actually thought it was going to be a great thing but forget it.
Totally wrong motor for application.
For economy go diesel or Gas or better still, both.
Cheers
V8 5.7L Manual: 13.0 / 7.4 (L/100km)
Funny isn't it. Their V6 can't beat the V8 for economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_35