60 Series 2H using 20l per 100k... Please help me.

[dibbz]

To be more accurate, theres more low RPM (sub 1000) torque without the turbo. This is when I notice it the most.

When you put more load in you have more forward momentum which is better against wind resistance. I do the maths every time I fill up and I've always gotten excellent economy with a full load in the 60 up the highway.

Other 60 owners I know have found the same results with both low rpm torque post turbo install and fuel economy with a bigger load. *shrug* I'm not making it up :)

[Shadow]

To be more accurate, theres more low RPM (sub 1000) torque without the turbo. This is when I notice it the most.

When you put more load in you have more forward momentum which is better against wind resistance. I do the maths every time I fill up and I've always gotten excellent economy with a full load in the 60 up the highway.

Other 60 owners I know have found the same results with both low rpm torque post turbo install and fuel economy with a bigger load. *shrug* I'm not making it up

sorry, but your physics is flawed.

More load = More energy required to change your momentum = more fuel.

Your theory about wind resistance is valid when your off the accelerator, but more than countered by the increased energy it takes to get your increased load going, ie, gaining the momentum. If your theory was even remotely valid, 50tonne B-Double trucks would be driving around on 1L/1000KM's economy.

If you are seeing better fuel economy with a bigger load, this can only be related to your driving style, and you must drive it like a nascar driver unloaded, and a grandad when its loaded.

Generally, turbo = more bang = more torque. Sub 1000RPM the turbo will probably not be on much boost (probably none), and thus will probably not be increasing your torque over a NA engine, however, I highly doubt it is going to decrease your torque at any speed, unless the turbo is not well suited to your engine, IE: too small and creating a restriction off boost.

[carts]

To be more accurate, theres more low RPM (sub 1000) torque without the turbo. This is when I notice it the most.

When you put more load in you have more forward momentum which is better against wind resistance. I do the maths every time I fill up and I've always gotten excellent economy with a full load in the 60 up the highway.

Other 60 owners I know have found the same results with both low rpm torque post turbo install and fuel economy with a bigger load. *shrug* I'm not making it up

Hmmmmm. I'm not convinced on your theory. More weight in the vehicle means more inertial mass. Which means it takes more energy to accelerate this greater mass up to highway speeds. The load inside your vehicle does not affect its aerodynamics, therefore, you will still require the same amount of energy to combat these forces whether you have full load or no load.

I would suggest if you are noticing increased fuel economy, it is more likely because people have a tendency to travel slower on the highway when fully loaded. This will have an effect on wind resistance. For example, when i used to tow behind my 60, i rarely travelled over 90km/h on the freeway, but when i was unloaded, i would sit on 110-120km/h, which had a huge impact on fuel consumption.

As for turbo dynamics, from my experience, my 60 had truckloads of torque down low in comparison to when it was N/A. The fact that it was overfuelling down low off boost meant it had more grunt, let alone the fact that i was achieving at least 1psi boost before 1000rpm. Any amount of boost means more power/more torque. Also, a turbo is a great source of back pressure in the exhaust, which means you should be achieving more torque. This is why a 2h with extractors will notice a loss of low rpm torque.

[STUMPY]

To be more accurate, theres more low RPM (sub 1000) torque without the turbo. This is when I notice it the most.

When you put more load in you have more forward momentum which is better against wind resistance. I do the maths every time I fill up and I've always gotten excellent economy with a full load in the 60 up the highway.

Other 60 owners I know have found the same results with both low rpm torque post turbo install and fuel economy with a bigger load. *shrug* I'm not making it up

sorry, but your physics is flawed.

More load = More energy required to change your momentum = more fuel.

Your theory about wind resistance is valid, but more than countered by the increased energy it takes to get your increased load going, ie, gaining the momentum. If your theory was even remotely valid, 50tonne B-Double trucks would be driving around on 1L/1000KM's economy.

If you are seeing better fuel economy with a bigger load, this can only be related to your driving style, and you must drive it like a nascar driver unloaded, and a grandad when its loaded.

Generally, turbo = more bang = more torque. Sub 1000RPM the turbo will probably not be on much boost (probably none), and thus will probably not be increasing your torque over a NA engine, however, I highly doubt it is going to decrease your torque at any speed, unless the turbo is not well suited to your engine, IE: too small and creating a restriction off boost.

I'm sorry Shadow but you are wrong.

It is a well known fact that by carrying more weight on board you decrease your wind resistance. I too have done the maffs.

Another thing that i have learnt is that by wearing your hat backwards and putting the air conditioning on, it also lowers the wind resistance. You just have to do the maffs.

Before you try and undermind me, i'll let you know that i'm a laminar flow researcher at the team special school of 2H technology.

Regards Joel

[dumbdunce]

To be more accurate, theres more low RPM (sub 1000) torque without the turbo. This is when I notice it the most.

although unlikely, this is possible. A well tuned, well matched turbo on a 2H should be making some boost by about 800rpm; below this then it will have more torque than a turboed 2H - if the turbo isn't making boost then it's just a big exhaust restriction.

When you put more load in you have more forward momentum which is better against wind resistance. I do the maths every time I fill up and I've always gotten excellent economy with a full load in the 60 up the highway.

that is absolute rubbish. your aerodynamic load does not hange with load, however every hill will cost you more fuel. perhaps you travel slower with more load, and/or take it a bit easier, but the end result is more load = more fuel. Thousands of road transport operators will attest to that.

Other 60 owners I know have found the same results with both low rpm torque post turbo install and fuel economy with a bigger load. *shrug* I'm not making it up

waiting for more of these alleged 60 owners to post up confirmation of this made up claim?

a well set up turbo can increase the efficiency of your vehicle but it has nothing to do with the load. if you think you use less fuel by carrying more load, click here http://www-zeus.desy.de/~brownson/data/idiot.swf

cheerio

DD

[dibbz]

bigger mass = takes longer to stop

Thats just my reasoning :) I know i get better economy fully loaded on my way up to Fraser, maybe I drive slower beacuse I am more relaxed, being on holidays and all :)

[foodie]

I'm with dibbz

Loaded it up with 3 guys and enough piss for a week plus a 400kg boat/trailer behind it drove better on the highway than no load.

It is how you drive it, flat out down hills and the momentum takes you up the hills better than if you stick to the speed limit and I found much better than when unloaded.

[Shadow]

I'm with dibbz

reminds me of that shirt,

<- im with stupid

[frp88]

This is a tricky one I pull my box trailer around all day total weight 2.8t the weight of the middy is 2.2t.13bt 4speed auto on 32's I get 16 to17l per 100k.This is only around town when I take it off when work is slow I can feel how much easier it pulls up the hills but my economy isn't that much better a liter at best.When we went to "XI" last year I used between 13 and 14 liters pulling the trailer with our camping gear.I think my 13bt is using a bit to much for the power I getting in return but I have wait until I can get more coin to up the boost and get the pump done. My cos has a 45series ute inj 5l 4 speed and pulls a 3.5t Minnie digger with all the attachment he get 25 to 28l per 100k and before the new business he was getting 12to13l.

[NHV6]

UPDATE - i changed the fuel filter. Now I get 15l/100k. The injectors will cost $400 all up to get new ones so I'm going to get them ASAP and see how that goes. I'm not sure how a fuel filter could cause this much of a difference, but the figures don't lie. I got 450km to 66 litres. I would have thought that if the fuel was restricted thru the filter it would use less, not more. Any ideas???

[cruiser60series]

technically speaking more mass inside the car (increasing your density) will increase your "resistance" against wind drag. If you think about it the terminal velocity of a feather is not that of a brick due to the relative difference of density and surface area. It follows that with more weight in the same shaped car you will "coast" with greater resistance against drag if you were for example rolling up to traffic lights. (were talking a tiny amount of difference)

BUT!!!
this would not help the fact you still had to lug more weight around with you and use more fuel to get the extra force required to accelerate at the same rate you did without the weight.

So dibbz is right in a sense...but in a more accurate sense is completely wrong.

PS: sick of the 2H, i'm finally gonna get something more economical, though i love the thing i cant afford the fuel bills anymore as a student. I'm even thinking the un-thinkable and maybe getting a Land Rover on gas.

[wgw76gd]

Hey guys - just a side note - why is the gap between manual and auto so large.

I have a 12ht auto, and I'm geting around the 14's (guys did tune it for power rather than economy when I had her dyno'd though)
This seems to be about the standard - as others have noted (Shadow etc..)

I have a mate that has a manual version, and he's scoring low 10's (l/100km).

Now I have the High roof - and he has the normal. I do drive with the aircon on a lot though (and being a dual one - probably draws a bit of power..). His has doen aboiut 100,000 km less than mine (290 vs 390 k km)

Any merit to these ideas, or does the auto really chew it ?

[Shadow]

The auto normally delivers slightly worse fuel economy, but certainly not 40% worse.

Id say its more to do with as you say, the engine is setup for power not economy. If all they changed was the fuel, you will probably see alot of black smoke when your stuck right into it? does your mates blow as much black smoke?

[wgw76gd]

Can't say for sure -

Mine doesn't seem to blow that much black smoke.
I'll have a look the next time I'm driving behind my mate.
(Forgot to add, had the injecotrs done at the same time as the dyno)

I've just installed my boost gauge and Pyro - looking foward to fitting the boost controller - I'll see how she goes then !

Cheers

Dave

[wgw76gd]

Here's a left fielder for ya !!

My aircon was playing up - not cold at idle, took ages to get cold etc... Had the compressor ripped out.
Now I'm driving it around for a few days while I wait for the new compressor. I notice that I have done far more K's (Ireckon 100km at least ) to this tank (100l) (and it's not finished yet).

Turns out my compressor was stuffed (Wasn't making any noise though).

Is the normal aircon a huge drain (I used to drive with it on alot), or does a dead compressor chew through a lot more fuel ?

[NHV6]

I just changed out the injectors for reco ones. There is heaps less black smoke, and it needs much less throttle to get the same power as before. The turbo seems to spin up a bit quicker too. I'll have to see how the next tank goes. I'm heading to adelaide next week so I'll be able to get a real test of how she goes over a 4000km return trip.

[ellard]

hi there

I have a 1986 12ht - 60, and I get great fuel ecconomy. On average I get 600 plus km on 65-70lt = approx 11-12lt/100.

Its got 31 10R 15 tyres - and very impressed with the power and performance of the 12ht.

All the best

Wayne