Im trying to cut down fuel expenses as my wife is soon to be another LC owner. Gas is around 6 bucks a gallon and I fill up a 34gallon tank once a week, multiply this by two and thats becomes a ridiculous monthly figure. Im trying my best to not speed everywhere and go lightly on the pedal. The best I get on the onboard computer is 30L /100km which translates to around 8mpg. The last average consumption per 3 fill ups is 9.8 mpg. Ive tried the stock filter *brand new, "cold air" TRD filter, cleaned the MAF sensor, put in stp injector cleaner, reset the battery, filled up with 98 octance gas, nothing seems to help. My LC is heavy but not middle east armored heavy and kennx says Im getting the mpg of a tank. What should I look at?
3 Fill ups and I cant do better than 10mpg. Is the 4.7L less efficient than the 5.7L
- Thread starter jcmiro
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Lol, if the Prius was lucky.
have you had your cruiser weighed? I'm betting it is considerably more than you think....
gaijin
GOLD Star
Are you compensating your calculations for the larger diameter tires you are using?
The onboard computer thinks it is calculating mileage for a tire that turns 661 revolutions/mile. Your larger tires are only turning 635 revolutions/mile - about a 4% difference.
Multiply 9.8mpg by 104% = 10.2mpg
At least that gets you into double digits.
Of course, the best would be to use a GPS for mileage and use the gasoline volume from the pumps to calculate your mileage - ignoring the onboard computer altogether.
The only way you really know is to do the calculation yourself at every fill up. If you have changed tire sizes ou also need to calibrate using a GPS. Even with that, filling up 2 Land Cruisers is just plain expensive and is never going to get better.
- Thread starter
- #8
My land cruiser weighs about 3.5 tns depending on fuel and passengers. Usually I have 3 people in the car.
I have a GPS tracker on it so Im going start using it to measure distances. My tires are 33 inches so a little bit different. Ill post results next week. It just seems odd to me that the 5.7L engine is more fuel efficient than my smaller 4.7. How the hell are you guys getting 17-18mpg? That just seems unobtainable.
I have a GPS tracker on it so Im going start using it to measure distances. My tires are 33 inches so a little bit different. Ill post results next week. It just seems odd to me that the 5.7L engine is more fuel efficient than my smaller 4.7. How the hell are you guys getting 17-18mpg? That just seems unobtainable.
I've never seen 17-18...it's more like 13-15.
I find it hard to believe that an armored LC only weights 3.5 tons. That's only 1,100 lbs more than the 5.7 LC and you have the even less heavy 4.7 variant.
I would find out exactly how much it weight...MPG is heavily affect by weight.
I find it hard to believe that an armored LC only weights 3.5 tons. That's only 1,100 lbs more than the 5.7 LC and you have the even less heavy 4.7 variant.
I would find out exactly how much it weight...MPG is heavily affect by weight.
- Thread starter
- #10
There are several levels of armoring. In the middle east they use steel and heavier reinforcements to deal with bigger caliber weapons and explosions. Mine is a light weight in comparison. Its for people who are more prone to be kidnapped or robbed than killed. r/thirdworldproblems
elkaholic
Left turn ...freakin wipers!
In right at one year of ownership of my US Spec 2013, I have covered 15,755 miles consuming 962.8 gallons of fuel for an average fuel economy of 16.36 mpg. High tank was 20.6 mpg and low tank was 13.0
Just my experience ....
Just my experience ....
I understand your concern and frustration...but honestly.... embrace the suckage or get a volt.
Never going to be able to get it back up there, if everything checks out normal with the LC.
If something is wrong with her, then yes maybe you can. If not.....
Never going to be able to get it back up there, if everything checks out normal with the LC.
If something is wrong with her, then yes maybe you can. If not.....
What's your altitude?
The 4.7 is likely panting some. You could chassis dyno your rig to see if it is making 'nominal' power. You would need someone else to cough up a real world number or make a guess on drive train loss. Brian might be able to give you a guess. If it is, forget the motor as the culprit. If the AFR is close, it likely OK.
At one thousand above sea level, so fairly dense air, my 5.7 will return 20+ with two passengers and roof rack cross bars off. Around town, not so much. What RPMs do you normally see? It may be the 4.7 is down a cog because of weight or O2.
The 4.7 is likely panting some. You could chassis dyno your rig to see if it is making 'nominal' power. You would need someone else to cough up a real world number or make a guess on drive train loss. Brian might be able to give you a guess. If it is, forget the motor as the culprit. If the AFR is close, it likely OK.
At one thousand above sea level, so fairly dense air, my 5.7 will return 20+ with two passengers and roof rack cross bars off. Around town, not so much. What RPMs do you normally see? It may be the 4.7 is down a cog because of weight or O2.
Hey Juan,
I just check with some of the fleet managers - My major customer that has 600+ armored TLC FB6 (heavy) ie 4 people, extra tires, guns, ammo boxes, ballistic vest, more comm equipment to make a man sterile.
The numbers they are reporting on "road/off-road combo" conditions is 5Km/L or 11.7mpg
But I realized most of mine are the 4.5 diesel so my numbers would be different then the performance of a petrol. But normally out here we stick to diesel as we dont like the idea of a big petrol bomb under the car.
I just check with some of the fleet managers - My major customer that has 600+ armored TLC FB6 (heavy) ie 4 people, extra tires, guns, ammo boxes, ballistic vest, more comm equipment to make a man sterile.
The numbers they are reporting on "road/off-road combo" conditions is 5Km/L or 11.7mpg
But I realized most of mine are the 4.5 diesel so my numbers would be different then the performance of a petrol. But normally out here we stick to diesel as we dont like the idea of a big petrol bomb under the car.
From experience with side by side long distance driving on the highway, the 5.7 is less thirsty than the 4.7. The 5.7 has a much longer 6th gear than the 5th on the 4.7, difference almost 700 or 800 rpm around 120km/hour if I remember correctly.
With the 4.7 I used to get about 6km/liter with the original 285/65 R17 tires, after conversion to 315/70R17 this is dropped to well below 5km/liter.
With the 4.7 I used to get about 6km/liter with the original 285/65 R17 tires, after conversion to 315/70R17 this is dropped to well below 5km/liter.
On my last tank I got 10.67 mpg, not sure on the accuracy as I used an online calculator/converter.
I filled up with 130 L of fuel after driving 589 kms to almost empty from last fill up and I wasn't driving lightly either, I've got a steel bumper on the front tire carrier on the rear awning+lightbar up top and 285-70R 17 tires.
Longest distance on a single tank I did was 655 Kms.
I filled up with 130 L of fuel after driving 589 kms to almost empty from last fill up and I wasn't driving lightly either, I've got a steel bumper on the front tire carrier on the rear awning+lightbar up top and 285-70R 17 tires.
Longest distance on a single tank I did was 655 Kms.
