HDJ81 fuel consumption test run

[Dougal]

Hmm, i wouldn`t them powerhouses, whilst they hold nice speed i found overtaking at openroad speeds quite scary, you would need a good 1km to make a pass safely.
My first Bighorn i owned 4years (tranny rebuild) and 2nd one three years (2 cracked heads).
There`s about 1 second 0-100kmh between the 1hdft & 1hfte but this changes dramatically with off boost fuel response adjustment and even more so with 3inch exhaust.
Just my own personal real life experience

The great advantage of a mechanical fuel pump, more go by turning the screws. Chipping the FTE's is much more expensive, but they are claiming some impressive numbers.

 

[crushers]

You keep missing the point.
A single fill is useless to calculate a fuel consumption figure.
Even the slope on the gas station forecourt has a huge effect.

oh, so the last 4000+ km of fill in the same truck (my wife's DD), most at the same pump, is useless since they all are single fill at a time... you make so much sense...

 

[Dougal]

oh, so the last 4000+ km of fill in the same truck (my wife's DD), most at the same pump, is useless since they all are single fill at a time... you make so much sense...

There's a statistical tool called a "mean". Often called "average". Averaging values reduces the impact of extreme high and low readings.

For example:
I fill up once an use 10L to drive 60km, getting 6km/l. I fill up the second time and use 6L to drive 60km, getting 10km/l.

Instead of telling everyone that my vehicle does 10km/l, I average those results (add the km's, add the litres, divide total km by total L) and get 7.5km/l.
(120/16 = 7.5 km/l)

If you average the km/l readings, you get the wrong answer (i.e. (10+6)/2 = 8km/l, but actual economy was 7.5 km/l). All of these numbers are for example only.

 

[crushers]

okay, for the sake of argument i will see if i can pull up the reciepts for the last few tanks... they have the km written on each one... we can add them up and divide by the litres used and get the average...

sad to say each tank has been about 10L/100 +/- .5 L depending on the weather mostly... she drives the same road at the approx same speed since she is a person of habit...

but if i can find them all it will be interesting to see...

it just might be an eye opener for me... in which case i will owe you an appology...

 

[Dougal]

sad to say each tank has been about 10L/100 +/- .5 L depending on the weather mostly... she drives the same road at the approx same speed since she is a person of habit...

It'd be good to know what type of roads and speed as well. Is the odometer accurate?

 

[diesel junkie]

That seems to be the problem with the chipped FTE`s 11second 0-100 is your limit, nice for sure but the FT`s break 10 seconds without silly fuel and only 14psi.
Few more things require attention though & the $ add up quick.

 

[Dougal]

That seems to be the problem with the chipped FTE`s 11second 0-100 is your limit, nice for sure but the FT`s break 10 seconds without silly fuel and only 14psi.
Few more things require attention though & the $ add up quick.

How much power does it take to get one running that quick?

 

[diesel junkie]

Without dyno figures i couldn`t say but i know that the chipped FTE`s push about 180kw to achieve their 11 second dash.
Do have some G tech passes of my friends FT i can email though.

 

[crushers]

interesting reading from Roverboy's home country:

Greetings All

Allan Greeves and Bryan I think commented on fuel consumption and
maintenance costs for diesel versus petrol. The differences in favour of
diesels are much more marked when Land Rover and other European diesels are
used. They go further between oil changes, filters for LR are relatively
cheap and the engines are frugal but sufficiently grunty.

First fuel consumption, my personal 200TDi manual Discovery doing about
850Km per week and 280,000Km on odometer 8.6 l/100Km

My sons 200TDi manual Discovery, with some head work done, on delivery
journey segment Whangarei to Wellington with some back roads for variation
8.8 l/100Km This equates to about 32-33 mpg.

My fathers 300 TDi auto about 9.8l/100Km. (240.000 on odo)

A friends well monitored 3.0l Surf about 12l/100Km


AND

This is compicated and affected by several things. I cant answer for
Landrovers but they wont be much different to the bighorn for the sums.
Actual MPG on my diesel Bighorn is about 33 on a trip

and from Ivoac site:

1988 HJ61:
People might look at my lifted truck with 33s and think "there goes another loser with a big gas guzzling SUV" but unless they actually talk to me and find out my truck gets milage comparable to most mid sized cars (28.5MPG) they will think what they want..


hummm, look at all the posts with over 25 mpg...are these boys mistaken??

cheers

 

[Adam B]

hummm, look at all the posts with over 25 mpg...are these boys mistaken??

cheers

I'm in no position to call them liars, but to get those numbers they must drive like a bunch of pussies.

 

[crushers]

and another report of over 25 mpg:

https://forum.ih8mud.com/showpost.php?p=2435377&postcount=6

 

[M John Galt]

30 MPG is quite easy if computed with Imperial gallons instead of US gallons. Metric km/litre or litres/100km is much less ambiguous.

Comments like "bunch of pussies", "serious grandmothers" only bring disrespect to the author and contribute nothing useful to a technical discussion.
Grow up and cut the personal insults.

I recently did a 400km [250 mi] round trip, averaging 105kph [65mph], cruising at ~2500RPM, and occasionally accelerating to 3000+ RPM passing up to 130kph [80mph]. Altitude ranged from 700m [2300ft] to 1000m [3280ft] on 2 lane sorta paved [frost heaved and cracked] road. Temp ranged from 8°C [46°F] to 20°C [68°F]. Drove in 5th gear OD for most of the trip, it easily pulls any hills without loosing speed. GVW about 2000kg [4400lbs]. It's getting fuel efficiency of 10km/litre [23.5MPG] average. This is the sort of operating envelope the 3.4L turbo diesel loves.

The fuel is 20% canola, 80% ULSDiesel with 125ml [4oz] Acetone per 10 litres VO which works out to ~ 0.25% Acetone in a full 90 litre [24gal] tank of mix. If the claims about acetone are correct it will help clean the injectors and piston on long runs. Starts clean and smooth even cold like this morning with only minimal white smoke in the first minute of idle, then no visible exhaust. Unburnt hydrocarbons at the tailpipe for this fuel mix in this engine were recently measured at 200ppm over the operating range of 1000rpm to 2500rpm. The Euro II standard, which by law, all new vehicles in New Zealand must meet is 300ppm.
Not too bad for a 1989 mechanically controlled [non-computerized] engine. The only computer in the vehicle is the CD player ;<}

 

[Dougal]

I'm sure my truck would do 14 km/l if I drove it at 60-80km/h.
But I don't, so it's a little irrelevant.

I managed to get almost 10 km/l on a 1HD-FTE powered 100 series by babying it. But the same trip the way I usually drive returned 7 km/l.
That truck has averaged 8-8.5 km/l over it's lifetime and it was the pinnicle of toyotas diesels until recently.

 

[brownbear]

I just cannot get my head around km's to a litre... I think much easier in litres per 100 kms. Or MPG imperial.


Here this helps us conversion inhibited.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/grantm/frans/fuel.html


To add to the arguments, my BJ60 driven at 3000 feet altitude, 20 degree C days with my foot to floor try to maintain above 100 kph, I used get all the time 10.5L per 100 k.

Or 9.52 klicks to a litre.

It was easy to get that on the highway with my truck.

My Merc in town gets 9.9 Litres per 100 kms.

 

[Dougal]

I just cannot get my head around km's to a litre... I think much easier in litres per 100 kms. Or MPG imperial.

Real simple.
10km/l = 28 MPG imperial.

 

[roscoFJ73]

I just cannot get my head around km's to a litre... I think much easier in litres per 100 kms.

I agree ,ltr/100klms is a world standard agreed to by most western nations(except the US)and is a good standard.

Klm per litre is wildly inaccurate unless you go into 1/10 of a klm.
The difference between 6klm per litre and 6.9 klm per litre is about 15%.

 

[Dougal]

I agree ,ltr/100klms is a world standard agreed to by most western nations(except the US)and is a good standard.

Klm per litre is wildly inaccurate unless you go into 1/10 of a klm.
The difference between 6klm per litre and 6.9 klm per litre is about 15%.

For vehicles the size we're talking, km/l and l/100km are both quite valid.
But when you get into small diesel passenger cars, l/100km becomes numbers too small to discern any difference.
The difference between 4 l/100km and 5 l/100km being 20 or 25% depending on whether you're going up or down.

km/l is not wildly inaccurate unless you're rounding the numbers off wrongly. If you're doing that then nothing is going to be accurate.
The other advantage of km/l is that bigger numbers are better. Just like the mpg that many people are used to.

 

[crushers]

another one:
29 mpg
https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=171365

 

[crushers]

latest fill up
508 km with 49L needed to fill...
previous
622 km with 60L to fill

will add as more fills are completed...

anyone want to figure out these numbers in km/l , l/km, american mpg and canadian mpg?

 

[Dougal]

another one:
29 mpg
https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=171365

You should read a little closer.

Returns anywhere between 19mpg (city) and 29 hwy.