best mpg Land Cruisers? (1 Viewer)

[BCR4619]

Tmarx
The driving speed is mainly between 50 to 80 Km. My trips are more highway than stop and go. That being said the stretch of highway that I drive every day is quite hilly on the Upper Level highway here in North Vancouver.
The "Cut" is a very long and steep hill. Watch lots of cars fly by me on the way up the hill.

You not doing something right, I pass cars on that thing in the fast lane.... I can do an easy 80 if not more while I look at people in their small cars n mini vans revving like crazy for a "big hill"

Now if I get stuck behind some joker doing 60 at the bottom and can't lock up.... Well then that's a different story.

Sent from my iPhone using IH8MUD

 

[WAF450]

.................

 

[daboheme]

How accurate is your odometer?

 

[canucksafari]

You not doing something right, I pass cars on that thing in the fast lane.... I can do an easy 80 if not more while I look at people in their small cars n mini vans revving like crazy for a "big hill"

Now if I get stuck behind some joker doing 60 at the bottom and can't lock up.... Well then that's a different story.

Sent from my iPhone using IH8MUD

I'd have to agree. Without a load, I can do 80 up the Cut with my NA TD4.2. If you cannot do 80 in your 80 up the Cut, then it is time to find out why.

 

[hedydd]

To put the figures I posted earlier into some kind of perspective, I also run a 2006 Audi Q7 V6 3.0 diesel and regularly get significantly better than 30mpg Imperial from that, driven much harder than the Land Cruiser.

31mpg Imperial = 9.1 l/100kms = 25.8mpg US

It is re-mapped from the original 220hp to around 300hp and is scarily fast. For those that don't know, the Q7 is about the same weight as the 100 series and is bigger in terms of length and width but is not as tall.

 

[canucksafari]

To put the figures I posted earlier into some kind of perspective, I also run a 2006 Audi Q7 V6 3.0 diesel and regularly get significantly better than 30mpg Imperial from that, driven much harder than the Land Cruiser.

31mpg Imperial = 9.1 l/100kms = 25.8mpg US

It is re-mapped from the original 220hp to around 300hp and is scarily fast. For those that don't know, the Q7 is about the same weight as the 100 series and is bigger in terms of length and width but is not as tall.

I also doubt it has the aerodynamics of a brick. It isn't all about weight. It is amazing how even a roof rack impacts the fuel economy on my mobile brick.

 

[crushers]

gearing has a huge influence as well...

 

[canucksafari]

You can add to that tires (type, width and height).

 

[hedydd]

I also doubt it has the aerodynamics of a brick. It isn't all about weight. It is amazing how even a roof rack impacts the fuel economy on my mobile brick.

There are all kinds of reasons for the LC doing a best of 24mpg Imperial while I can easily average 31 and get a best of 33 out of the big Audi, which incidentally has big wide tyres and is not exactly a shrinking violet in terms of frontal area either. The latest Q7 model with eight speed transmission and modified engine is capable of nearly 25% better economy than mine by all accounts and therefore 40mpg should not be out of reach. Technology and efficiency is improving at a fast rate these days. I remember owning a carburetted 1300cc Ford fiesta town car in 1977 that struggled to better 27mpg and a vastly more powerful Golf GTi 1800 with gas injection was a revelation at 112hp and 30mpg in 1982.

The point I am trying to make is that my 100 has never bettered 24mpg no matter how it has been driven although I can better 30mpg easily with a similar more modern and economical car where other drivers tend to average about 28mpg. Yet someone here hints that 30mpg is achievable and representative of a 100 series. IMO it is not. Not even possible unless on a very flat highway at a constant 55mph and even then I have my doubts.

This is not a criticism of the vehicle. It is what it is, and when introduced it was as economical as the old indirect injection 3.0 four cylinder then fitted to the smaller and lighter 90 series. The 1HD FT-E is indeed a very good engine fitted to a very good vehicle of its type.

 

[canucksafari]

Quick, someone propose this to topic Myth Busters so we can settle it once and for all. Oh wait, diesel 80 series Land Cruiser were not marketed in the US. Hydedd, maybe you can get the lads at the real Top Gear to settle it for us.

 

[Dougal]

There are all kinds of reasons for the LC doing a best of 24mpg Imperial while I can easily average 31 and get a best of 33 out of the big Audi, which incidentally has big wide tyres and is not exactly a shrinking violet in terms of frontal area either. The latest Q7 model with eight speed transmission and modified engine is capable of nearly 25% better economy than mine by all accounts and therefore 40mpg should not be out of reach. Technology and efficiency is improving at a fast rate these days. I remember owning a carburetted 1300cc Ford fiesta town car in 1977 that struggled to better 27mpg and a vastly more powerful Golf GTi 1800 with gas injection was a revelation at 112hp and 30mpg in 1982.

The point I am trying to make is that my 100 has never bettered 24mpg no matter how it has been driven although I can better 30mpg easily with a similar more modern and economical car where other drivers tend to average about 28mpg. Yet someone here hints that 30mpg is achievable and representative of a 100 series. IMO it is not. Not even possible unless on a very flat highway at a constant 55mph and even then I have my doubts.

This is not a criticism of the vehicle. It is what it is, and when introduced it was as economical as the old indirect injection 3.0 four cylinder then fitted to the smaller and lighter 90 series. The 1HD FT-E is indeed a very good engine fitted to a very good vehicle of its type.

30 MPG (imperial) is just possible out of a 100 series 1HD-FTE on a perfect run. But you're never going to acheive it regularly or even occasionally.

The 100 series 1HD-FTE evolved several times through their life and fuel economy does vary. The one that has acheived the 30mpg above is a 2001 model with no EGR. Later models had EGR and also possibly retarded ignition timing to reduce NOx. A 2003 model locally can't get the same figures despite having the 5 speed auto.

 

[hedydd]

30 MPG (imperial) is just possible out of a 100 series 1HD-FTE on a perfect run. But you're never going to acheive it regularly or even occasionally.

The 100 series 1HD-FTE evolved several times through their life and fuel economy does vary. The one that has acheived the 30mpg above is a 2001 model with no EGR. Later models had EGR and also possibly retarded ignition timing to reduce NOx. A 2003 model locally can't get the same figures despite having the 5 speed auto.

My 1998 model does have egr and an oxidation cat [unregulated] but I disabled the egr two years ago which did not increase the economy or performance.
The Audi is a 3.0 220hp [in factory tune] model with a high degree of cooled egr as well as cats, but it does have common-rail high pressure injection and a vernicular cast block very similar to the current LC V8 diesel.
Of course the current V8 LC engine has far more power and performance mated with a 200 series combined with greater economy than was ever possible with a 100 series. Things just keep getting better. And the potential repair bills get higher exponentially. I just hope that reliability and longevity rise to match so that these things last a lifetime with no more than normal oil changes.

 

[Dougal]

My 1998 model does have egr and an oxidation cat [unregulated] but I disabled the egr two years ago which did not increase the economy or performance.
The Audi is a 3.0 220hp [in factory tune] model with a high degree of cooled egr as well as cats, but it does have common-rail high pressure injection and a vernicular cast block very similar to the current LC V8 diesel.
Of course the current V8 LC engine has far more power and performance mated with a 200 series combined with greater economy than was ever possible with a 100 series. Things just keep getting better. And the potential repair bills get higher exponentially. I just hope that reliability and longevity rise to match so that these things last a lifetime with no more than normal oil changes.

Is your 98 model a 1HD-FT or a 1HD-FTE?
The significance of the EGR means it's an engine that is targetting a low NOx market, which normally goes hand in hand with retarded injection timing to decrease NOx at the expense of some fuel economy. This particular 2001 100 series has no cats and no EGR. I always assumed it was there and started looking with the intent of cleaning out any carbon buildup. A pleasant surprise.
NZ emissions standards were euro 2 when this vehicle was sold new.

The 200 series gets slightly better economy in the standard test cycles, but most owners are reporting higher consumption. Partly due to using the extra power.

I'm a big fan of VAG tdi engines. One of the most memorable cars I've driven was a 3.0 tdi A4 quattro. It's also my experience that euro cars get far better economy here in NZ than japanese cars do. Because japanese cars are intended to be driven at 80-90km/h and we drive faster at 100. But euro cars are intended to be driven at 120-130km/h and we drive slower.
The average japanese vehicle suffers from both low gearing and poor NVH at higher speeds.

 

[Rugy]

Guys, I am driving a 1981 BJ 42 with BFG 33s on 15 inch wheels with what maybe 90 hp?
No speed demon for sure.
If I get a run at the cut then I can get up to 80km but then I am pushing black smoke like crazy.
The cruiser has become my daily driver and really have no need for speed in the cruiser.
If and when I have the need for speed then I drive one of my other cars, but would never bring these to work.

 

[hedydd]

Is your 98 model a 1HD-FT or a 1HD-FTE?
The significance of the EGR means it's an engine that is targetting a low NOx market, which normally goes hand in hand with retarded injection timing to decrease NOx at the expense of some fuel economy. This particular 2001 100 series has no cats and no EGR. I always assumed it was there and started looking with the intent of cleaning out any carbon buildup. A pleasant surprise.
NZ emissions standards were euro 2 when this vehicle was sold new.

The 200 series gets slightly better economy in the standard test cycles, but most owners are reporting higher consumption. Partly due to using the extra power.

I'm a big fan of VAG tdi engines. One of the most memorable cars I've driven was a 3.0 tdi A4 quattro. It's also my experience that euro cars get far better economy here in NZ than japanese cars do. Because japanese cars are intended to be driven at 80-90km/h and we drive faster at 100. But euro cars are intended to be driven at 120-130km/h and we drive slower.
The average japanese vehicle suffers from both low gearing and poor NVH at higher speeds.

My LC has the 1HD-FTE engine with the electronically controlled rotary mechanical injector pump, a Nippon Denso version of the Bosch VP30 type. One of the first 100 series sold in the UK. The main advantage of the cat, especially now it is used with ultra low sulphur fuel, is the elimination of the exhaust stink that was a characteristic of my previous 80 series with the 1HD-T engine.
The VAG 3.0tdi V6 diesel is a very good engine, especially after a re-map.

Not sure about the timing of my LC engine. I'll have a look in the manual over the weekend

 

[Dougal]

That's gotta be one of the first 100 series sold anywhere. They were MY1999 release.

 

[LanceCruiser]

When I first got my HDJ81, it had the stock 4.11s, and running on Super Swampers SSR 37s. With all around driving city and hwy, I was averaging 500-550 km/ 75L. I don't run my tank past the E line, just until the amber light flickers. When I fill up, I give it 2 clicks at the pump, and never top it up to the top, and usually comes to about 73L-75L to fill from there.

When a few friends and I went to Winchester Bay in Oregon to go ATVing. We had a propane camper towing a trailer with our ATVs, and my 81 for driving around. I had my friends GPS to keep track of my speed and km. I filled up right after the border in Blaine WA. With my rubber O/D, the revs were around 1800-2000 RPM, doing 100-120km/h on the I5. I was surprised to see my fuel gauge needle was barely moving as fast at these speeds. I have driven the Hwy from Burnaby to Abbotsford a lot, and never really notice a significant change in mileage. We ended up driving around a lot looking for gas stations that had a propane filler, it was something we never figured would be a problem. We ended up having to fill up the propane camper at least 3 or 4 times on the way down, and I never had to once. We did 1000km on the way down, and the needle was touching the E-line when we got into Winchester Bay.

 

[hedydd]

That's gotta be one of the first 100 series sold anywhere. They were MY1999 release.

Registered and delivered on 1st August 1998 along with another which was a V8 petrol. At that time registration numbers changed in the UK on that date, making mine an 'S' registration.

 

[crushers]

aug 1997 was the first month of production for the HDJ100
aug 1997 was the first month of production for the HZJ105
aug 1997 was the first month of production for the UZJ100
aug 1997 was the first month of production for the HZJ101

 

[northernrighty]

the A440 does suck but it is smoother than the H55F benind the 12HT which in my books makes up for the 1L/100 difference.

That's a lot of manual bashing! Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't ALL AUTOMATICS be smoother than the manual option? I am very good at driving a stick (as that is all I have even owned) and I would still say that an auto can shift smoother than me?

Don't be so hard on the 5 speeds, remember the rules of simplicity, at the end of the day a manual gives you options an auto never will. And that i will sacrifice many MPG for!