2H Fuel Mileage (1 Viewer)

[ken cheers]

km/ltr

8.03
8.17
7.80
8.13
8.42
8.90
8.18
8.22
7.90
9.38
8.51
7.74
8.43
7.73
9.45
8.92
8.43
7.96
8.08
9.81
8.79
7.52
8.77
8.98
7.73
7.67
7.78
7.48
8.11
7.61
8.30
7.82
8.65
8.91
8.04
8.44
7.90
8.20
8.84
8.18
8.51
7.86
8.71
7.06
8.39
8.14
8.27
8.11
7.83
6.45
7.75
8.56
8.15
7.86
7.86
8.12
7.94
8.37
8.25
7.56
8.61
8.69
7.04
8.64
8.65
8.24
7.70
8.16

These are all my fuel economy numbers since I've owned it, chronological order.

new user here today. searching to find a new brake booster for my GX 1985 diesel. seen this on fuel economy. Mine is 210,000 km and a little sweet in condition with no off road miles really. I put this in when i bought it at 100,000 km in 2002. http://www.hicloneqld.com/toyota.html
this didnt make a huge difference on power, just possibly noticable. Id give it 5% increase as a guess. But i get good economy and should have extractors fitted, but exhaust is still all good and i only do 8,000 a year in it. I consistently get 23.5 to 24 MPG (I always convert back with factors of one km is 0.62 of mile and 4.54 lt to gallon) I dont go over 100 kmh either with the 2 H. can do but it will drop off to maybe 20 mpg at 115KMH. if i drive at 85 to 90 then i will get 25 mpg each time. I pulled a huge trailer from riverina to canberra to brisbane loaded with a 2 ton truck (8.25 x 16 landruiser trailer wheels) and kept the foot as you would with that weight and worst was 17.5 mpg and best about 19 mpg. but this is pulling 3 ton at least. Around town is about the same as open road driving but im not a heavy braking person. If i was to buy another diesel, i would definitely put the hyclone in. I put 2 in and very simply to fit in the hose from your aircleaner

 

[ken cheers]

That's what they do. If you want to save fuel, drive slower.

I rarely drive my 2H 60 at 110kmh. sat nav speed i try not to exceed is 95. Best economy is around 85 if you are patient. The road is long but saving five minutes is often not worth it

 

[maat]

that hiclone thing is a fxxxing sham. it doesnt take an engineer to know anything like that in the intake will restrict airflow which = lower power/fuel economy.

 

[ken cheers]

that hiclone thing is a fxxxing sham. it doesn't take an engineer to know anything like that in the intake will restrict airflow which = lower power/fuel economy.

Apologies and I don't mean to upset you. I am a light strand auto engineer. I just gave my personal experience. It has been used in military applications also. A combustion chamber is designed to create swirling of the air on entry and this can be enhanced by flowing the ports. It does not allow me to sit inside the intake to personally feel it but anything that can increase airflow delivery IMHO is an advantage. Using vanes within this area creating a vortex would not restrict but enhance the flow. A comparison could be with a rifle which is creating (internal rifling) the projectile to leave with greater accuracy and distance. Swirling actions and particularly with motors is involved in many of our daily operations. Please take a look at how combustion chambers are designed and enhance for air flow before being hard on other contributors. it would be nice to encourage new people in the site and there is a danger we could all learn something.

 

[maat]

not upset, just know they dont work. A group of my friends did a dyno day and we tested a whole heap of things on one car and did before and afters. 3 runs with and 3 runs without and it came up better without. FYI this was a nissan naturally aspirated 2 litre petrol engine. I cant see the effects changing from diesel to petrol engines in anyway. unless it is forced to spin like a turbo somehow, its just a restriction in the intake.

 

[ken cheers]

not upset, just know they dont work. A group of my friends did a dyno day and we tested a whole heap of things on one car and did before and afters. 3 runs with and 3 runs without and it came up better without. FYI this was a nissan naturally aspirated 2 litre petrol engine. I cant see the effects changing from diesel to petrol engines in anyway. unless it is forced to spin like a turbo somehow, its just a restriction in the intake.

Thanks for your reply. Its the early 2000's when i did my research and you really had to fit 2 in. By memory, the focus was on diesels. All I can offer is that my fuel economy went up and I never achieve less than 23 mpg. it is always very consistent around the 24 mpg. I am very well versed in conversion factors and have done virtually every tank of fuel since i was 17 years of age. A strict teacher i had. It maybe that you only fitted one in your tests? try 2 in an older diesel and don't just focus on dyno readings. I confirm my experience validated my purchase as positive and I would again fit them if i bought another. I have 22 old restored cars and bikes and havnt yet learnt how to part with a vehicle

 

[maat]

2!? double the restriction. i cant see it. but hey if you think it works, power to you

 

[cuteo100]

The Hiclone is an interesting product to read about, Ken. Thanks for sharing your positive feedback.

 

[ken cheers]

Thanks Maat. I guess we all have experiences and differing manners of testing. As you have never tried 2 installed, then be open to try it. I have owned the car cruiser for 15 years and knew it well before install and and have noted the change. Ill agree that we will have to disagree on this. I think many small ideas without full exploration and it appears that your test did not include the recommendation for 2 hiclones to be fitted rather than one which is what is normally done. Ill post elsewhere on some oil experience also

 

[onelesssblues]

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/land_cruiser/1986/davey_hk/369428


just bought mine a couple weeks ago. drove from BC to Southern California. 384k km runs solid and had quite a bit of weight with me. Was light on the pedal and had hand throttle locked in at 90-100km/h for the most part with quite a few agonizing large long hills and some heavy traffic through the major cities.

 

[hj 60]

My hj gets 11 kilometers from a liter when it is on high grade fuel, downhill, rear-wind hurricane and booze & women in sight.
Other than that it is mostly 1:9 liter/kilometer.
maybe I use to many rpm but I like the engine sound, if it was a turbo i would set idle to 2500 rpm.

The cyclone thing is interesting, would definitely like to try but far to expensive:

1 AU$ = 0.690386849 Euros
HICLONE - E.F.I / diesel standard air inlet 40-83mm inside diameter (inc. 4WD) $175.00 x2 == 350 aus dlr =245 euro plus post plus tax = 350 EU

 

[ken cheers]

My hj gets 11 kilometers from a liter when it is on high grade fuel, downhill, rear-wind hurricane and booze & women in sight.
Other than that it is mostly 1:9 liter/kilometer.
maybe I use to many rpm but I like the engine sound, if it was a turbo i would set idle to 2500 rpm.

The cyclone thing is interesting, would definitely like to try but far to expensive:

1 AU$ = 0.690386849 Euros
HICLONE - E.F.I / diesel standard air inlet 40-83mm inside diameter (inc. 4WD) $175.00 x2 == 350 aus dlr =245 euro plus post plus tax = 350 EU

From memory, i paid 125 each and the retail was $175 way back then. I got the discount for 2 and being a licensed mechanic, i guess i brokered the discount. Post should not be much really, but your countries charges all vary. Ours is current zero under $1000

 

[darthvincor]

I too think it looks very dodgy, their website:
-Note that there is no clear photo, just a small one.
-And how the testimonials are all written in the same style, all well capitalised, punctuated and no typos.
-Fuel economy improvements: the base/pre-hiclone numbers are unsourced.
-They boast 'up to' numbers, but say nothing about minimum improvements.
-This line: "These are on road results from Australian vehicles in Australian conditions NOT dyno figures" and that's the whole thing: only dyno figures and objectively measured fuel economy truly counts, and they have neither.

I cannot see how putting something in the air intake can improve matters. Like maat says, it's a restriction. And even if it does create a swirl effect, the air still has a ways to travel before it enters the cylinder. Will it still be 'swirling' then. I doubt it.

 

[gerg]

Putting a swirl gadget before a throttle plate and hoping to get in cylinder swirl is way past a stretch. Now designing a swirl mod in the intake runner just before the intake valve will influence in cylinder swirl.... Which is what they did on the hd and Hz heads. Tons of other engines run the same head design in one form or another. They are however, customized to each engine and are not a one size fits all deal. In cylinder swirl is a a super difficult thing to model and you can over do it and actually induce too much spin and chuck the fuel droplets out against the cylinder walls. It is not a simple subect and would involve a lot of trial and error, a dyno, lots of sensors and lots of spare time.
g

 

[ken cheers]

I too think it looks very dodgy, their website:
-Note that there is no clear photo, just a small one.
-And how the testimonials are all written in the same style, all well capitalised, punctuated and no typos.
-Fuel economy improvements: the base/pre-hiclone numbers are unsourced.
-They boast 'up to' numbers, but say nothing about minimum improvements.
-This line: "These are on road results from Australian vehicles in Australian conditions NOT dyno figures" and that's the whole thing: only dyno figures and objectively measured fuel economy truly counts, and they have neither.

I cannot see how putting something in the air intake can improve matters. Like maat says, it's a restriction. And even if it does create a swirl effect, the air still has a ways to travel before it enters the cylinder. Will it still be 'swirling' then. I doubt it.

Some good points and I acknowledge this and will check the site again as I have not seen it for years. All I know is that I do have great fuel economy and i went up 1 to 1.5 MPG and power change wasnt really noticed. Giving 5% to a 2H is not going to create a noticable change on such a heavy vehicle.
on another site I found this

goldiexxxx
Been here a while
Posts: 204
Joined: March 15th, 2008, 2:46 am
Re: hiclone
Yes, definitely.
But a set of extractors and matching exhaust system will give a greater improvement. But yes, Hiclones will improve your fuel economy further with slightly (very slightly) more power.
I have had Hiclones on a few different diesels. They work well on older non-computer controlled engines, but not on the newer models. If you put them into a computer controlled engine, the computer will just counteract the airflow / fuel mixture etc.
I have very detailed fuel figures on all my vehicles and Hiclones do make an improvement in fuel economy.

 

[ken cheers]

Then further down

Here and there
Posts: 61
Joined: February 15th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Re: hiclone
THe idea behind a hiclone is to add turbulence to the flow of air entering the combustion chamber. But it is useless for a number of reasons. Here is some engineering fluid mechanics to show briefly why. It is a simple analysis but is fit for purpose. The reynolds number is a number basicalyl used to quantify the level of turbulence of a flow. So lets assume that the ole 1hz is spinning at 2000 rpm, where maximum torque is generated. Therefore it will be inhaling about 4.2m3/minute, With the kinematic viscosity known, and an approximate inlet pipe diametre of 7cm, the reynolds number is 79500. So what does this mean... well the critical reynolds number for pipe flow is 2300, and fully developed turbulent flow occurs at a RE of 4000. So basically when the air is passing though the intake pipes, its already highly turbulent.
Additionaly, there are further obstructions in the flow; direction changes, orifice plates, filters, etc, that further increase the turbulence. So be assured that the flow entering the combustion chamber is already turbulent.
So a hiclone is clearly nothing but snake oil. And this should be enough proof

is his inlet assumed; too small at 7cm?

then he adds

There are other reasons too. On the hiclone site they use the analogy of an inverted water bottle. This is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, yes the flow if faster if the water bottle has a vortex, but this only lets the air flow in to relieve the back pressure, in a constant manner. If you did this with a funnel. I would think you would see no difference. Secondly. If the hiclone does manage to create this perfect, idealised flow into the engine. As soon as it hits the intake valves, it is ruined.

but most of all, please remember, Toyota and all other engine manufacturers do detailed combustion analyses and computational fluid mechanics to optimise the flow into the combustion chamber and ensure the flame front propogates evenly and fully. If there was a simple way by installing a hiclone, dont you think they would have done it?
Cheers Owen
My comments below.
I do not agree with the funnel comparison, as achieving a vortex flow in a funnel pouring fuel is faster than keeping the funnel full. this questions his technical ability. If a hiclone does speed up the flow in the supply hose but does change or be interfered with further on, there would still be greater airflow than without. Otherwise, is there a blow off valve for it to dissipate? If there is a greater airflow, then there is greater airflow. Later models would be questionable with sensors etc.

and another

Re: hiclone
I wonder how many of the haters on here have tried them?? I myself fitted one to a ba xr6 falcon... Got an extra 50kms to a tank of highway driving... this was not an isolated test but done in outback WA all long distance driving.. definatly improved that vehicle.. don't know about a diesel cruiser...

and one more

Re: hiclone
Picked up some off eBay for quite a bargain. Fuel economy slightly better. Best improvement for the 1HZ is the improved response to accelerator input (previously would bark and then move) and the one in the snorkel has removed the intake drone.

I'm happy especially given the price I paid.

Even put some in the other vehicles to see how they go.

My final response
people are often refuting something without proper evaluation. Some have questionable abilities to evaluate, but its a little hard to dispute when you do feel the savings. Manufacturers dont do a lot of things, they often cut where they can and who really knows whats happening at valve entry with turbulence? a little hard to get a view really. of course turbulence will change at each change in airflow direction and varied induction locations, but increasing just one areas airflow will have an effect right through but could well be optimized with further ability to carry this on through in whatever engineering feat is possible.

 

[Fey1]

Wow, you guys are getting better mileage than me. I tend to get 13 - 15 MPG in the city, and between 18-21 on the highway running around 55MPH. I have a rebuilt (about 15,000 miles on it) Canadian 2H with a Turbo Glide Turbo kit, and freshly rebuilt injectors and injector pump (around 3000 miles).

My truck is likely heavier than most, weighing in around 5,000# so that will certainly have an effect the economy.

 

[ken cheers]

Wow, you guys are getting better mileage than me. I tend to get 13 - 15 MPG in the city, and between 18-21 on the highway running around 55MPH. I have a rebuilt (about 15,000 miles on it) Canadian 2H with a Turbo Glide Turbo kit, and freshly rebuilt injectors and injector pump (around 3000 miles).

My truck is likely heavier than most, weighing in around 5,000# so that will certainly have an effect the economy.

mine is standard weight and orig 220,000 KM. My diesel is naturally aspirated and your turbo would in many cases use more fuel but i could not ever get down below 17 MPG towing 3 ton 1,000 miles and i needed to hold it at full rack most of the way

 

[Dougal]

that hiclone thing is a fxxxing sham. it doesnt take an engineer to know anything like that in the intake will restrict airflow which = lower power/fuel economy.

You are completely correct. Hiclones are nothing but a scam and cannot possibly work as claimed.

But when I pointed that out I was banned for a week.

 

[GarethsSixty]

What kind of fuel economy are you guys experiencing with your 2H powered Land Cruisers? ( 47, 60 and 70 Series )
Thanks......

11.5L per 100km's. running 31's when i got that mileage, between Cairns and Rockhampton. 12.5L to 13.5L per 100 driving around daily. 15L per 100km's towing a 8x5 Tandem trailer from melbourne to cairns loaded with tools and household white goods....i was pretty happy with that..but it was frikken slow lol