Reply With QuoteSoory to add confusion guys I just work my consumption out at kms to the ltr not ltr s per 100 km
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using AULRO mobile app
ChatterBox
That's actually good for me to hear (not so good for you). I'm getting 13.8L/100km with a 2 inch lift, roof top tent, bull bar, winch, 245/75-16 BFG KM2 tyres and loaded to 200kg short of GMV.Originally Posted by gofish
I have been checking mine for ages now (TD5) & I get a woeful 12-13.5 on average. I have no idea why it's so bad. I have a 2"lift with bull bar & AT's but that shouldn't make it that bad. Have spent many hours on the net trying to find ways to improve it
I have 2 different tunes from TD5inside and original and a second one that Jose did for me because my fuel economy was pretty bad with the first tune.
Before I started modding I got 10.5L/100km with a box trailer on. I was running the 18 inch wheels, the trailer was full of 5 x 16 inch rims with the roof of tent in it's box on top of the trailer and an awening too.
I really didn't expect fuel usage to go up that much since it did so well while towing the trainer.
Happy Days.
Master
Soory to add confusion guys I just work my consumption out at kms to the ltr not ltr s per 100 km
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using AULRO mobile app
Fossicker
Ha ha,
Right you are!
Must have a word to my right foot about that one while I'm bashing through the sticks.
Stumpy
Fossicker
Holy smokes!
Now I'm totally confused...
Was the off road economy better or worse? My brain hurts
Stumpy
LordRover
SupporterThe thread and the topic of discussion by 3lud13 is in the correct measurement of l/100km. Yes km/l might be more more logical but that is not the official terms of measurement and has been so since metrication well over 40 years ago - time enough to get used to it.
Bushy was talking in km/l which he is obviously happy with, but he is not the original poster just a contributor to the thread.
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
ForumSage
SupporterKilometres per litre is not more logical.
It is not a measure of fuel consumption. Litres per hundred kilometres is a measure of how much fuel you consumed to travel 100 kilometres.
That is logical if you want to measure fuel consumption (or usage).
Kilometres per litre is just a carry over from the days when miles per gallon gave a measure of fuel economy.
1973 Series III LWB 1983 - 2006
1998 300 Tdi Defender Trayback 2006 - often fitted with a Trayon slide-on camper.
ChatterBox
SubscriberAll I can say is thankfully I average 10.....(and I am not talking mpg). Keeps the math real simple.
Swaggie
I get good economy.
It returns a fair distance per tank.
Now, ya gotta be happy with that.
ForumSage
Supporterit doesn't matter whether I am happy with that. The important thing is that you are happy with it.
If you meant (jokingly), that I would be happy with the way in which your consumption/usage/economy was expressed, then I am happy because it means I am not the only one who knows how useless some people's comments about fuel consumption are.
1973 Series III LWB 1983 - 2006
1998 300 Tdi Defender Trayback 2006 - often fitted with a Trayon slide-on camper.
Master
I'm only 33 I'm not that old. It was a carry over from an old trucking boss. Some times when your working out mileage in trucks that are using more litres than you are traverling km , ie 2 litres per km which is 200 litres per 100km. You may not always be traveling 100 km per job it makes more sense in those terms. It kind of got ingrained in me and I still do it that way
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using AULRO mobile app
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks