2H Fuel Mileage (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

You can move a few tons down the road at 100km/h and use around 6 litres/100km. You simply need a more efficient engine than the old 2H and very high gearing. Go buy a new Range Rover and see for yourself.

Even my 4BD1T has done a best ever of 8.6 litres/100km (~33 MPG). It averages 10km/h on the road.

Turbos and extractors vs hiclones? Sorry, not even close to the same thing. Dyno tests show that Turbos and extractors actually work.
Your dreaming again. a PUG usually averages 5 to 6 litre per 100km. there pretty efficient (but we are talking about old cruisers right??) 6 lts/100 km? where? tell me the model and is it a commercial production? I avoid cars with no resale, so RR does not fit my buy list. My personal preference is not to buy a depreciating asset. So most of my cars and bikes are pre 1975 right back to 1928. And lets stick to averages (which I have done) 10 lt to the 100km is very very acceptable for a proper 4 wheel drive. Your best result obvious excludes average influences.
Now you explain turbo's and extractors as not being the same thing.........are you for real? Did you Phone a friend.? Or are you just trying to misrepresent a sentence? Contributions on this web site seem to have lacked value.......without leaving the door open.........I refer to you dougal

( retain std wheels n tyres on my 85 and 45 psi )
 
Mr hj75 what consumption are you getting from the mighty 2h turbo. :)
To be honest I have no idea. My front tank is mostly bio-diesel while my rear tank is strictly commercial diesel fuel and I switch back and forth on a regular basis to exercise the valve. The last time I checked it (prior to the engine rebuild and turbo installation) I averaged around 20-21 mpg.
 
82 FJ45 Troopy with a 2H, 4 spd, 33x10.5 tires
I do a mix of in town (35-50 mph US, 56-80 kph) driving and highway (55-70 mph US, 88-110 kph)
Have averaged 18.5-19.5 mpg US (12.7 lts/100km +/- based on 3.78 liters conversion).
Which to me is great considering my 100 gets 12-14 mpg US.
 
Your dreaming again. a PUG usually averages 5 to 6 litre per 100km. there pretty efficient (but we are talking about old cruisers right??) 6 lts/100 km? where? tell me the model and is it a commercial production?

Make: Range Rover
Model: Vogue TDV8
Engine 4.4 litre V8 turbo diesel.
Power 230kw (310hp)
Torque 700Nm.
Tested here: http://www.caradvice.com.au/103907/range-rover-vogue-review/

Quote from the review: It’s more like 6.5L/100km, and that’s sitting on anywhere between 108-113km/h for over 200km. It’s absolutely staggering except for the fact that we took a shot of the average fuel consumption after one such run this week. No sane individual would believe us without the photo. Oh, and that’s with two adult passengers with luggage and camera gear.

Photo:
IMG_9029.jpg


Now back to the 2H's please.
 
Make: Range Rover
Model: Vogue TDV8
Engine 4.4 litre V8 turbo diesel.
Power 230kw (310hp)
Torque 700Nm.
Tested here: http://www.caradvice.com.au/103907/range-rover-vogue-review/

Quote from the review: It’s more like 6.5L/100km, and that’s sitting on anywhere between 108-113km/h for over 200km. It’s absolutely staggering except for the fact that we took a shot of the average fuel consumption after one such run this week. No sane individual would believe us without the photo. Oh, and that’s with two adult passengers with luggage and camera gear.

Photo:
IMG_9029.jpg


Now back to the 2H's please.
Thanks Dougal, Outstanding. Its awesome that these cars are everywhere and common to get these figures. I see "no one would believe if we didnt take a picture" illustrates unbelievable results.
Dougal. let it go........... and allow the thread to continue
 
So this is a very entertaining thread indeed. Cool to see that new design Lt head is indeed improving in cylinder swirl. Not new technology, but nice to see it adapted to an older engine. Nice improvement in economy. Did you retard timing a bit? Peak pressure will be achieved sooner as flame front will propagate faster, so you might realize a bit more gain by doing that. Drop in egts?

Ken buddy. We are all on board to improve our engines, but the swirl from that thingy is completely destroyed by the throttle plate. By the time it's in the cylinder all it has achieved is restricting flow. It is a net loss overall. I have two. I have done many before and after testing. I have put them everywhere and they stayed the last place I put them...on the shelf. By the way, rifling a barrel has nothing to do with projectile speed, but accuracy rather. Many main battle tanks run smooth bores to increase projectile speed. The often run fin stabilizing projectiles.

Small shops who tout minor advances in turbo compressors show detailed dyno graphs to prove an improvement. Hyclone should man up and do the same if there is indeed an advantage. They don't, cus there isn't one. Now if they made tiny rectangular ones that fit each intake runner, well now that would be quite intriguing.

And.... Your a salesman. We've seen them before.
 
Last edited:
So this is a very entertaining thread indeed. Cool to see that new design Lt head is indeed improving in cylinder swirl. Not new technology, but nice to see it adapted to an older engine. Nice improvement in economy. Did you retard timing a bit? Peak pressure will be achieved sooner as flame front will propagate faster, so you might realize a bit more gain by doing that. Drop in egts?

Ken buddy. We are all on board to improve our engines, but the swirl from that thingy is completely destroyed by the throttle plate. By the time it's in the cylinder all it has achieved is restricting flow. It is a net loss overall. I have two. I have done many before and after testing. I have put them everywhere and they stayed the last place I put them...on the shelf. By the way, rifling a barrel has nothing to do with projectile speed, but accuracy rather. Many main battle tanks run smooth bores to increase projectile speed. The often run fin stabilizing projectiles.

Small shops who tout minor advances in turbo compressors show detailed dyno graphs to prove an improvement. Hyclone should man up and do the same if there is indeed an advantage. They don't, cus there isn't one. Now if they made tiny rectangular ones that fit each intake runner, well now that would be quite intriguing.

And.... Your a salesman. We've seen them before.
I was liking your initial points and I will remove mine and put them on the bench at some point soon. But reading further, I guess i lost confidence in your information.
Now the power output of a diesel engine is controlled by regulating the quantity of fuel that is injected into the cylinder. Because the engines do not need to control air volumes, they lack a butterfly valve in the intake tract. An exception to this generalization is newer diesel engines meeting stricter emissions standards, where a throttle is used to generate intake manifold vacuum, thereby allowing the introduction of exhaust gas to lower combustion temperatures and thereby minimize NOx production. We are discussing older engines, right? 2H? yes
Yes, i stated accuracy for the benefits of rifling. Was there a typo that stated different?
Thanks for the validation of being a salesman. That I have never been, and so I guess you understand the definition of assume? Its quite disappointing to see your inept conclusion.
But lets understand, I only wanted to say I had an improvement after fitting the item. Regardless of others thoughts, there are many people on both sides of the camp. Often the negative comments come without substance. But in fairness to my experience i will remove them for a few months and see what the result is
 
2H engines have a throttle butterfly
Strange isn't it?

Even I know that. Yet I don't claim to be an automotive engineer who's owned one for years and even stuffed hiclones in the intake next to the throttle body!
 
Have any of you tried removing the throttle plate from your 2H engines? I did on my 2LTE, and loved the difference it made. Eliminated the throttling losses. The engine can now get all the air it wants at low rpm. My engine burns cleaner off the line now, and gained quite a bit of torque from idle. I've found in general that the more air I give my engine and the less restricted it is from air intake through to exhaust tip, the more fuel efficient it has become. Maybe because the 2LTE is quite a restricted engine and runs rich AFR from the factory.
 
Have any of you tried removing the throttle plate from your 2H engines? I did on my 2LTE, and loved the difference it made. Eliminated the throttling losses. The engine can now get all the air it wants at low rpm. My engine burns cleaner off the line now, and gained quite a bit of torque from idle. I've found in general that the more air I give my engine and the less restricted it is from air intake through to exhaust tip, the more fuel efficient it has become. Maybe because the 2LTE is quite a restricted engine and runs rich AFR from the factory.
There are two different systems. One, like your 2l uses the throttle plate for nox reduction.

The other uses a throttle plate and pneumatic governor on the injection pump to control engine speed.
 
There are two different systems. One, like your 2l uses the throttle plate for nox reduction.

The other uses a throttle plate and pneumatic governor on the injection pump to control engine speed.

Ah, I see. Yeah, would not want to remove that then!
 
There are two different systems. One, like your 2l uses the throttle plate for nox reduction.

The other uses a throttle plate and pneumatic governor on the injection pump to control engine speed.

Which Toyota diesels have what you describe as the second system? Is it the B series?

I realize this is a hijack, and this thread has already been hijacked enough, so if I find enough of the info that I'm looking for I will start a new thread to pursue that topic.

To explain what I'm looking for: I have a 1981 Nissan SD-22 motor which is controlled with what you describe as your second system. I eventually plan to put it into a 1973 Datsun 620 pickup, and MAYBE will want to eventually turbo it. It is a non turbo motor, which according to the info I can find, is a difficult motor/system to turbo. If the Toyota motors with this system have been successfully turboed I would like to learn how it has been done, and see if I can possibly apply that system to the SD-22.

Thank you! Now the hijack mode is off.

Don
 
I remember Peter Brock backing the energy polariser and Holden canned him from the racing team over it. :popcorn:
 
Which Toyota diesels have what you describe as the second system? Is it the B series?

I realize this is a hijack, and this thread has already been hijacked enough, so if I find enough of the info that I'm looking for I will start a new thread to pursue that topic.

To explain what I'm looking for: I have a 1981 Nissan SD-22 motor which is controlled with what you describe as your second system. I eventually plan to put it into a 1973 Datsun 620 pickup, and MAYBE will want to eventually turbo it. It is a non turbo motor, which according to the info I can find, is a difficult motor/system to turbo. If the Toyota motors with this system have been successfully turboed I would like to learn how it has been done, and see if I can possibly apply that system to the SD-22.

Thank you! Now the hijack mode is off.

Don

The early 3B's (inline pump)use it as well. Plenty here have turbocharged those without issues. The main problem (and it's a big one) is the hoses popping off under pressure and taking the engine to full rpm.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom