First fuel economy with 14CUX O2 sensors

**Frontier1** · 14th October 2007, 11:08 AM

Hi Philip,

Just taking a look at my Haynes workshop manual, which I should do more often, I see that I do have a 14CUX ECU system.

Does this mean that I can adjust/tune the system better?

Pete'

**PhilipA** · 14th October 2007, 11:14 AM

No the gas system is completely separate.
Th eonly way to tune it is to go to a shop which has a exhaust gas sensor, who can set it ot the correct mixturs.
Or there may be some people on here who can advise you on DIY methods.
Regards Philip A

**procrastination inc** · 14th October 2007, 11:40 AM

On LPG I'm getting approx 300k's to a 70 liters...

I get between 350 and 379 on the highway out of 66lt

**PhilipA** · 14th October 2007, 11:50 AM

I assume you mean 17l per 100Km on petrol.
This is a bit high, but if you are going up Gosford hill and then along the expressway at 110Kmh , this very hilly country and high speed.
So 17L per 100 is about what I got before the o2 sensors were fitted in this area. So it pretty normal.

You would probably get 13-14 at 100Kmh , going to Broken Hill ( where all the diesel drivers take their economy).
Regards Philip A

**vnx205** · 14th October 2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by PhilipA

You would probably get 13-14 at 100Kmh , going to Broken Hill ( where all the diesel drivers take their economy).
Regards Philip A

Actually the worst fuel consumption figures I have ever recorded were going to Broken Hill.
Remember those couple of days of gale force Westerly winds in September last year? Well I drove straight into them all the way from Dubbo.
Even though I dropped my cruising speed by about 10km/h, I used 20% more fuel than I usually do.
My best figures (only slightly better than average) were in Tasmania where it was hard to go fast enough for wind resistance to be a factor.

**vnx205** · 14th October 2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Frontier1

( and why does everyone always work on a liter rate per hunder rather than just k's per ltr?).
Pete

Originally Posted by p38arover

Because that's the international standard.
Ron

Yes

Originally Posted by 100I

yes the math is much the same either way, the difference is road maps aren't marked in neat lots of 100km the fuel capacity of my tank is however constant, therefore it's easier math the old fashioned way.

It's only true that the maths is easier the old fashioned way if you plan your trips by starting with a fixed amount of fuel and stopping to camp when you run out of fuel. For those people, the constant or the starting point is the amount of fuel they have.
A more common way is to stop when you get to where you want to go, in which case the maths is easier using the international standard method of measuring fuel consumption, ie Litres per 100 km. For those people, the constant or the starting point is the distance to the place they want to go.
The hundred is only there to make real life figures more manageable and avoid lots of decimal places. ie 10.5 litres per 100 km instead of 0.105 litres per km
Anyway what is all the fuss about the 100? It doesn't involve any maths. All you do is shove the decimal point over a couple of places.

Thread: First fuel economy with 14CUX O2 sensors

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions