D40 Fuel Economy
- Thread starter Dazza
- Start date
Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:
justdrinkbeer
Member
Been giving mine a bit of a hard time around town this week, not too bad but more than usual.
idea is that seeing as Nissan are fking useless i'll hit them ith a bunch of figures, i.e. worst economy round town, best economy round town, best economy on highway, worst economy with boat (1.4ton).
So, giving it a bit of stick this week. 334km from 64litres=
Wait for it
20.4litres per 100km.
Bugger all load
Still they tell me nothing wrong.
idea is that seeing as Nissan are fking useless i'll hit them ith a bunch of figures, i.e. worst economy round town, best economy round town, best economy on highway, worst economy with boat (1.4ton).
So, giving it a bit of stick this week. 334km from 64litres=
Wait for it
20.4litres per 100km.
Bugger all load
Still they tell me nothing wrong.
Leprechaun
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,792
- Reaction score
- 2
Ouch, my 318 V8 Jaguar returned better figures than that!. I feel for ya, Unfortunately Nissan just don't give a F***.
I won't be buying another Nissan in a hurry. I'd rather $10K more for a Toyota.
jayk
Member
just filled up for the first time, got 490kms from 54 litres, so about 11litres per 100km. i feel very fortunate compared to you guys.
james
james
Pete22
Member
Don't worry James....when you start to add a bit of weight eg barwork, winch, bash plates, canopy, roof rack system, long range tank, water tank, storage unit, fridge, recovery gear....etc.....etc... you'll quickly catch up with us
I'm currently getting a combined average of around 13.5ltr/100km.
We've just passed the 18,000km mark and thought I'd update on the economy I'm getting. Remember the factory claim is 10.5 LPHK.
We're about 300Kg over the weight of a brand spanker, with the whatsits and widgets in the back, the bullbar, canopy etc. It might be a little higher, but that's about 15% which is close enough for our purposes. On a weight-for-weight basis, I should therefore be returning figures 15% higher than the 10.5, or 12.07 LPHK.
For mostly highway I'm getting as good as 10.96 LPHK (639.9km for 70.14L). Either I drive better than the anorexic dwarf that does the test drive, or there are some gross inaccuracies in my figures - although the fuel bowsers always seem to put in what I expect, and I've been through those odometer check lengths and have figured that over 5km, I'm less than 100metres out, so I'm fairly happy that my figures are at least close.
Towing has turned another pleasant result. We've just managed 14.94LPHK (398Km from 59.45L), with some hills and hard take-offs involved.
I can't say I'm unhappy. At most times, I'm trying to keep my engine turning at about 2,000rpm, where the peak torque starts, but will let it go higher on hills and when I'm pulling into traffic (eg from stop/give way signs or roundabouts).
I *have* been using 300ml of Castrol Activ 2T JASO FC 2-stroke oil in each tank. I've run out of this for now, and will be letting a few tanks go through without so I can have another comparison of performance without the oil, so that I can determine if my economy is being assisted by the oil, or just a better driving style.
We're about 300Kg over the weight of a brand spanker, with the whatsits and widgets in the back, the bullbar, canopy etc. It might be a little higher, but that's about 15% which is close enough for our purposes. On a weight-for-weight basis, I should therefore be returning figures 15% higher than the 10.5, or 12.07 LPHK.
For mostly highway I'm getting as good as 10.96 LPHK (639.9km for 70.14L). Either I drive better than the anorexic dwarf that does the test drive, or there are some gross inaccuracies in my figures - although the fuel bowsers always seem to put in what I expect, and I've been through those odometer check lengths and have figured that over 5km, I'm less than 100metres out, so I'm fairly happy that my figures are at least close.
Towing has turned another pleasant result. We've just managed 14.94LPHK (398Km from 59.45L), with some hills and hard take-offs involved.
I can't say I'm unhappy. At most times, I'm trying to keep my engine turning at about 2,000rpm, where the peak torque starts, but will let it go higher on hills and when I'm pulling into traffic (eg from stop/give way signs or roundabouts).
I *have* been using 300ml of Castrol Activ 2T JASO FC 2-stroke oil in each tank. I've run out of this for now, and will be letting a few tanks go through without so I can have another comparison of performance without the oil, so that I can determine if my economy is being assisted by the oil, or just a better driving style.
Pete22
Member
K
KraftyPg
Guest
Considering that all fuel figures for new cars are only ever tested in a lab and not when the actual vehicle is under load, empty or even actually moving it's not suprising very few people hit the magical 10.5 figure exactly. Journos and other such testers eventually take all cars out on a test track and make their own opinions of economy but in the majority of cases even those figures wont get quoted by manufacturers unless they are better than the lab tests.
For those people (especially new buyers) interested in the economy of a D40 the first thing they should do is forget the magical 10.5 figure and read through threads like this and get a real world average of what people here are getting, but above all don't be disappointed if your getting a few LPH either side of some of these real world figures until you take into account every factor from weight, to lift, to tyres, to driving habits.
As previously stated I'm getting averages of mid 10's and I'm constantly running about 280kgs on the back axle and about maybe 30kg or so on the front extra but the rest of the vehicle is bog stock, the worst I've had is mid 13's while towing several ton of fencing gear around farm paddocks and the best is a freaky 8.6 (which I don't expect too often). I also run my tyres 1psi under the placard on the door, for no other reason than I'm not getting the pump out for 1 psi. But all these things have a bearing on economy and for those wishing to research rather than just read figures they must remember to take all these things into account because the manufacturers figures don't.
For those people (especially new buyers) interested in the economy of a D40 the first thing they should do is forget the magical 10.5 figure and read through threads like this and get a real world average of what people here are getting, but above all don't be disappointed if your getting a few LPH either side of some of these real world figures until you take into account every factor from weight, to lift, to tyres, to driving habits.
As previously stated I'm getting averages of mid 10's and I'm constantly running about 280kgs on the back axle and about maybe 30kg or so on the front extra but the rest of the vehicle is bog stock, the worst I've had is mid 13's while towing several ton of fencing gear around farm paddocks and the best is a freaky 8.6 (which I don't expect too often). I also run my tyres 1psi under the placard on the door, for no other reason than I'm not getting the pump out for 1 psi. But all these things have a bearing on economy and for those wishing to research rather than just read figures they must remember to take all these things into account because the manufacturers figures don't.
Pete, mine's the 2.5 diesel auto.
Darrell, that's 8.11 LPHK. Very, very nice figures.
turbogu
Member
Hey all,
I just got an 06 manual diesel nav about 3 weeks ago and was wondering how you all tell what l/per hundred your getting because mine doesn't say it in the dash, are you just working it out your self or do the later ones have the function built into it??
cheers sean
I just got an 06 manual diesel nav about 3 weeks ago and was wondering how you all tell what l/per hundred your getting because mine doesn't say it in the dash, are you just working it out your self or do the later ones have the function built into it??
cheers sean
K
KraftyPg
Guest
I think you'll find most people here are working it out themselves, some use Scangauge but given that scangauge works on averages over the entire (or any part) of the tank the figures aren't always as accurate as calculating it yourself. Scangauge also relies on it being set up right in the first place and topping up the tank instead of filling it always alters the average figures in the final calculations.
Much easier and more accurate to zero the odo when you fill and then when you refill use the distance traveled and the litres in the fill. Of course if your odo is out and you want to be extremely accurate you'll have to take into account real kilomteres traveled but for the most part the reading on the odo will suffice.
Much easier and more accurate to zero the odo when you fill and then when you refill use the distance traveled and the litres in the fill. Of course if your odo is out and you want to be extremely accurate you'll have to take into account real kilomteres traveled but for the most part the reading on the odo will suffice.
Hi Sean,
Welcome to the forum! I have an 07 and yes, no onboard computer (2010 version has one though :drool
. I work out mileage by recording number of litres at each fill and km's travelled. I then average it over a minimum of 3 tanks. Being a scientist and having a father who was a statistician I am bound by the rules of minimum number of samples. Sorry...geek moment.
Cheers, Harley.
Welcome to the forum! I have an 07 and yes, no onboard computer (2010 version has one though :drool
. I work out mileage by recording number of litres at each fill and km's travelled. I then average it over a minimum of 3 tanks. Being a scientist and having a father who was a statistician I am bound by the rules of minimum number of samples. Sorry...geek moment.Cheers, Harley.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
If you're bound by those limitations then you are probably also bound to ignore trip computers and their calculations. I've had several cars with trip computers in them dating right back to a 90's model Dunnydore and none of them have been right.
Like Scangauge they rely on average figures to make the calculation and just because they can read the odo at 600ks and see 20 litres left in the tank doesn't mean they use those figures to work out the economy rate, they've been working it out thousands of times during the usage of that tank full and averaged it out. The longer distance you can travel without turning the engine off or without stop starting the more accurate the figures become but over short stop start trips the figures can be miles out.
For that reason alone it's always a good idea to work out a few tanks manually and if it compares well to the trip computers then all good but if it doesn't atleast you can get a truer reading, and your brain gets a workout.
Like Scangauge they rely on average figures to make the calculation and just because they can read the odo at 600ks and see 20 litres left in the tank doesn't mean they use those figures to work out the economy rate, they've been working it out thousands of times during the usage of that tank full and averaged it out. The longer distance you can travel without turning the engine off or without stop starting the more accurate the figures become but over short stop start trips the figures can be miles out.
For that reason alone it's always a good idea to work out a few tanks manually and if it compares well to the trip computers then all good but if it doesn't atleast you can get a truer reading, and your brain gets a workout.
justdrinkbeer
Member
Just did the fuel reset thing, then took it easy to coffs harbour.
Averaged about 13.5l/100km which is a whole lot better than the last time I did that trip.
I'm starting to think maybe the combo of muddies, auto transmission and big arsed tool boxes is buggering me up a bit
Averaged about 13.5l/100km which is a whole lot better than the last time I did that trip.
I'm starting to think maybe the combo of muddies, auto transmission and big arsed tool boxes is buggering me up a bit
95 litres of water will weigh 95Kg plus the weight of the tank and its mounts as well! Be interesting to kit your vehicle up as normal and hit a weighbridge and see what the result is. The math after that is fairly simple.
As for my figures, I do it the old fashioned way, and I don't mean that I put down a measuring tape, drive its length, get out, reposition, drive some more ... I reset my trip meter to 0 at each fill, after I've written down the km travelled and the odometer km on the fuel receipt.
When I come home, I put the information into a spreadsheet. Basically the calculation is an easy one. Replace the items in parentheses ( ) below. The assumption is that "litres filled" is what the bowser just put in your car, and that you reset your trip meter the last time you filled the car, so "km on trip meter" is how many km you've travelled since you last filled the tank.
(litres filled) / (km on trip meter divided by 100) = litres per hundred kilometres (LPHK).
Hope that helps!
Oh, a tip - if you're after accuracy, find one of those "odometer test" areas on the freeway and stop at the first one, note down exactly how many km on your trip meter, then drive to the 5th km sign and stop at the same distance. If your trip meter measures 5km, your odometer is perfect.
Also, for accuracy, use the same bowser at the same service station and only fill until the bowser clicks the pump off. Some people like to see diesel in the neck, that might work for you too.
As for my figures, I do it the old fashioned way, and I don't mean that I put down a measuring tape, drive its length, get out, reposition, drive some more ... I reset my trip meter to 0 at each fill, after I've written down the km travelled and the odometer km on the fuel receipt.
When I come home, I put the information into a spreadsheet. Basically the calculation is an easy one. Replace the items in parentheses ( ) below. The assumption is that "litres filled" is what the bowser just put in your car, and that you reset your trip meter the last time you filled the car, so "km on trip meter" is how many km you've travelled since you last filled the tank.
(litres filled) / (km on trip meter divided by 100) = litres per hundred kilometres (LPHK).
Hope that helps!
Oh, a tip - if you're after accuracy, find one of those "odometer test" areas on the freeway and stop at the first one, note down exactly how many km on your trip meter, then drive to the 5th km sign and stop at the same distance. If your trip meter measures 5km, your odometer is perfect.
Also, for accuracy, use the same bowser at the same service station and only fill until the bowser clicks the pump off. Some people like to see diesel in the neck, that might work for you too.
thanx for that.bloody good figures im shocked.no matter how hard i push it or sit in traffic it only goes down by 1mpg.makes my fpv gt look poor at 18.6 lphk
justdrinkbeer
Member
The tank weighs bugger all, skinny chequerplate job I had made up, wouldn't be 10kg. Only ever put water in when I need it, my tools and boxes aren't OTT (sparky).
Planning on getting it over the weighbridge for curiosities sake, will put up my findings here.
The Muddies brought the econo down by about 1.5-2l/100km, but it was when I was up the coast and I looked at it and just thought "its just a giant brick being pushed along".
