With a full tank of diesel and reset the trip meter, we left this morning temp and conditions were cool and a bit windy, which varied from a cross to a head wind.
Before getting onto the ring road speeds were 60 and 80k for 10k and then from Plenty Rd on ramp of the Ring Rd through to the Calder Hwy it was 100kph after joining the Calder it drops back to 80k until Calder raceway from there it back up to 100k and soon after we are a 110 until Ravenswood, then it back down to 100, travelling via Marong and Serpentine to Kerang we are on 100 most of the time except for a couple of spot of 60/70/80.
The Cruise control was used for a majority which was set against the GPS as the Rangers Speedo was slow by 2 to 5k.
The trip meter showed 307k when I refuelled at Kerang with 27.05ltrs which gave me a consumption rate of 8.81l/100k
I use only Shell Diesel and have been adding 10ml per 10l of Repco Injector cleaner ( prior to using the injector cleaner during the last test it was 9.6l/100k)
Gunny, on a trip from Lower Templestowe to Kyabram via Heidelberg, Greensborough, Ring Road, Hume, and Goulbourn Valley Hwy. I regularly achieve 8.2l/100km, usually with two or three people on board, and sitting on the speed limit according to the GPS.
This weekend we towed from Lillydale to Sale, via Canterbury Rd, Eastern, Monash towing a 3.3t high set van with the cruise control set about 96k (92k by GPS). The trip down was hot and windy (mainly cross wnds), the trip back was cool and relatively calm. Average consumption for the trip was 14.1 l/100k.
Fuel is normally Caltex, or in some cases BP, I can not tell the difference.
we have a 2013 Colarado (very happy with it) but have found there is a difference b/w what the computer says our fuel consumption is to what it is when worked out manually - about .75 lt more per 100k's. Wondering if anyone else has done a comparison.
__________________
Jenny and Barry
2009 Roma Elegance / 2013 Colorado. Permanent travellers 2011-2015 now just travel for 4-6 mths
This can sure get folks going on RV fora in the US: truck wars! Some of the claims are a bit hard to believe: like say 20 mpg with a 40' motorhome, uphill through the Rockies, into the wind towing a Jeep and a motor boat. Surprised they were not fighting ISIS all the way
Exactly, well said Reedy. My neighbor just returned from a week long trip with great figure from his Pajero, but forgot to factor in he left with a full tank and returned empty :(
Just goes to show that the latest tugs are more fuel efficient. With a 2007 Navara 3.0 Lt manual with just on 2 tonne van we get 16.9 Lt/100 K and without van average 10.5 Lt/100 K.
We have a heavy van at least 3.5 t tow with a landcruiser 4.2 turbo diesel fuel consumption 20 to 22 per 100 Normal 15 per 100 I know it's high but it's still cheaper than hotels :) Dhutime
-- Edited by Dhutime on Tuesday 11th of November 2014 05:21:39 PM
__________________
Keep your eyes open so you can see where you are heading
we have a 2013 Colarado (very happy with it) but have found there is a difference b/w what the computer says our fuel consumption is to what it is when worked out manually - about .75 lt more per 100k's. Wondering if anyone else has done a comparison.
If the actual road speed is less than what the computer thinks it is, then the computer will underestimate the fuel consumption. For example, if you are really travelling at 95 kph when your speedometer is reporting 100 kph, then a reported fuel consumption of 10 litres / 100km will actually reflect a real figure of 10.5 litres / 100km.
__________________
"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."
We have a heavy van at least 3.5 t tow with a landcruiser 4.2 turbo diesel fuel consumption 20 to 22 per 100 Normal 15 per 100 I know it's high but it's still cheaper than hotels :) Dhutime
-- Edited by Dhutime on Tuesday 11th of November 2014 05:21:39 PM
Our GU Patrol 4.2 ute is similar , towing 3 tonne van , 19 to 22 l/100km , depending on which way wind is blowing
__________________
HAPPINESS is a journey, not a destination.
So work like you don't need the money,
Sing like no-one is listening,
Love like you've never been hurt &
Dance like no one's watching
we have a 2013 Colarado (very happy with it) but have found there is a difference b/w what the computer says our fuel consumption is to what it is when worked out manually - about .75 lt more per 100k's. Wondering if anyone else has done a comparison.
If the actual road speed is less than what the computer thinks it is, then the computer will underestimate the fuel consumption. For example, if you are really travelling at 95 kph when your speedometer is reporting 100 kph, then a reported fuel consumption of 10 litres / 100km will actually reflect a real figure of 10.5 litres / 100km.
There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the odometer reading and speed reading.
By law a speedo cannot read less than true speed, i.e.: if the speedo says 100kmh it must say this or up to 110kmh (up to 10% error) There is no such law for odometer reading so that is usually pretty accurate.
I have fitted slightly larger tyres to my car, Triton Dual Cab, and now the speedo is pretty right to the gps, but, the computer reckons I am getting 13 - 15 L/100km with the 3T van when by calculation I get around 19L/100km.
__________________
Neil & Lynne
Pinjarra
Western Australia
MY23.5 Ford Wildtrak V6 Dual Cab / 21' Silverline 21-65.3
If the speedo reads differently to the odometer, and if they are both digital rather than analogue, then, since both get their input from the same sensor, this would suggest that car manufacturers intentionally miscalibrate their speedos by a significant factor. I've seen reviews of old Holdens that were showing 100mph when they were really only doing 89mph, but I always thought this was due to poor design. However, 15L/100km versus 19 is a huge difference. I can't see how tyre size would account for it. In fact larger tyres should cause the computer to overestimate the fuel consumption.
__________________
"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."
About $450 to drive from Sydney to Queensland.. Taking it easy..
But 8m / 6 ton motorhome and few nights free camping we recover the fuel expenses somewhat..
We drive a 6.6 l 4 x 4 diesel and haul a 5th wheel of about 12400# fully loaded/5600 kilos (and we are weight police). We can get 14 mpg (20. l/100 km) on flats with a tailwind and generally over 10 mpg (28.2 l/100 km) through the mountains. Fortunately diesel is now about $3.30 US/gallon ($2.85/gallon for gas). But as noted above, there are folks that claim twice this milage hauling things twice as big, with a car and a boat behind.
Saw this "Bat Crossing" sign near turnoff to Calukmal Archaeological Site in Yucatan (near Guatemala). It is one of the two or three top Mayans sites. It is a 60 km drive on a decent paved road
Our twin cab ute is still very young and seriously hoping for better economy. This so far is how it has done.
With out caravan when new 1200 ks 7.4 to the 100. A rushed trip to Sydney at 11000 ks from up here in Brisbane 10.2, 9.6, 10.8 to the 100. I still a little disappointed with the economy of 3 litre V6 td. But the power linked with the 7 speed is great.
Now with our 2 tonne caravan 14.3, 15.5, 14.5, 13.4 to the 100 ks.
These figures are over about 10000 ks of towing our van. We do keep a note of with and without caravan and these are 100% of mostly highway/main roads. Ralph.
What I find with turbo diesels especially the newer single rail i.. fuel consumption is VERY depending on how you drive... Take 10% off your acceleration and your fuel consumption drops heaps.. More so pulling heavy loads.. Having said that taking it easy pulling a van
I finds fuel consumption is pretty good considering..
-- Edited by Aus-Kiwi on Wednesday 12th of November 2014 09:31:02 PM
What I find with turbo diesels especially the newer single rail i.. fuel consumption is VERY depending on how you drive... Take 10% off your acceleration and your fuel consumption drops heaps.. More so pulling heavy loads.. Having said that taking it easy pulling a van
I finds fuel consumption is pretty good considering..
-- Edited by Aus-Kiwi on Wednesday 12th of November 2014 09:31:02 PM
Good advice Graeme.
We frequently get 18 l/100km up to 20l/100 km and we are about 6.5 tonnes GCM, LC 4.2 Turbo ute BUT WE GO SLOWER than most and I drive to the tacho to maximise fuel economy.
We also go on a lot of back/rural/bush roads so speed is not an issue, we just enjoy the ride more.
__________________
Why is it so? Professor Julius Sumner Miller, a profound influence on my life, who explained science to us on TV in the 60's.
Very happy with our Coachmen Mirada, 6.7litre V10 Ford at around around 11 tonnes (plus towing a light trailer) whilst travelling and consistently using 40litres/100 on LPG. When we need to drop over to petrol it's around 30litres/100. That's around 36cents/km using gas and 50cents/km on petrol so averages out at around 42cents/km on long trips. We can do over 1,000km when all tanks are full. Normally cruise at 80-90kph and will wait rather than head off into a strong head wind. In a 20,000km trip around Australia fuel would be around $8,000 to $9,000 over a couple of years. If we were to go for a smaller motorhome consuming 12-15 litres per hundred it would cost about half, $4,000 to $4,500. We can live with the difference. I service the Ford myself, costs around $200 every 12,000km for oils & filters.
-- Edited by GMJM on Saturday 15th of November 2014 05:24:10 PM
By law a speedo cannot read less than true speed, i.e.: if the speedo says 100kmh it must say this or up to 110kmh (up to 10% error) There is no such law for odometer reading so that is usually pretty accurate.
---------------------
I have owned 2 Subaru Foresters whose speedos didn't read the correct speed..the 2005 model was showing 9km below the actual speed checked by 3 different brands of GPS......when I went back to the Subaru dealer to complain about it, they knew exactly how much it was out by...and other brands do the same but only by a couple of km/hr....check Forester drivers and you quite often see them with bewildered looks being overtaken by everyone else on the road.......
By law a speedo cannot read less than true speed, i.e.: if the speedo says 100kmh it must say this or up to 110kmh (up to 10% error) There is no such law for odometer reading so that is usually pretty accurate.
---------------------
I have owned 2 Subaru Foresters whose speedos didn't read the correct speed..the 2005 model was showing 9km below the actual speed checked by 3 different brands of GPS......when I went back to the Subaru dealer to complain about it, they knew exactly how much it was out by...and other brands do the same but only by a couple of km/hr....check Forester drivers and you quite often see them with bewildered looks being overtaken by everyone else on the road.......
Are sure you don't mean reading above the actual speed? That is the speedo is reading a higher speed than what you are actually doing, making you think you are travelling faster than what you really are? Hence being overtaken by al the other drivers.
__________________
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
