1.3L 1991 Sierra Fuel Consumption

[rogerramjet]

Hi All

I drive my cars really gently to save fuel, coasting down hills and to traffic lights, accelerating slowly, barely using any brakes, slip streaming trucks etc. Driving my past cars, normally I use around 20% less fuel than the rated consumption rate. Now I have a Sierra, driving it the same way, and I am using 9L/100 but its rated at 8.5L/100 city cycle.

Whats sort of fuel consumption do you guys get?

Its a pretty tough question without any details, but what could the problem be? The motor is tuned correctly, everything to do with the ignition is fine.

I know the motor has been reconditioned by the previous owner, could it be that the recond motor is just inherently inefficient?

Cheers

Roger

[nicbeer]

9L sounds about right, most get that or 10L/100.

You have a std sierra i am guessing (tyres, suspension i guess)

Aerodynamics of a brick do not help.

Nic

[rogerramjet]

Yeah everything is standard, and I keep the tyres pumped up hard too. I thought I saw in some specification on the interent that the sierra is rated at 8.5L/100. No one actually gets that?

[=SKB=]

Nope. 45L tank and about 400k's out of it. There is a thread somewhere on this if you can find it.

I've heard synthetic motor oil and trans/diff oil can make a big difference. I am using it after I run in my newly reco'd engine to see how it goes.

[HotAe92]

i got 360+ kms out of 31L of Premium last week.

[CHOPS1]

HotAe92 yours is injected isnt? where as a 91 is a crap carby job! and 8.5l per hundred is dreaming and would be what you get from it when driving it out of the showroom. back in 91. They arent good on fuel stock really, wait till you put bigger tyres on it.

Chop

[Santos]

i usually get 11kms a litre (9km/100km) running 98 octane E10 doing what you do in a very hilly part of sydney.

Atm moment i have seemed to get 3 batches of bad fuel in a row (odd as i fill up at the same servo for the last 18 months) Which seriously has effected my economy to 9.8kms a litre (even decided to go for fuel treatent since it may be moisture that got absorbed in it)

te only other difference is i went from a synth 5w50 to a 1synth 10/w40 oil in the last change.

Even recondition your car probably wouldn't do much better than 9l/100km
true the factory is 8,5l/100km (1l/12km) but hey you are probably heavier than a japanese test driver, have a bull bar and running larger than stock tyres (205/70r15) which can distort the figures a bit.

Several of suzuki's cars like the alto show better factory rated fuel economy with the bigger same year engine (like the 800cc thas better milage than the same engine family 500cc or the f10a to a f8a in the lj80/sj410) this is probably because the engine did less work to pull same weight (ie better power to weight ratio)

[=SKB=]

Fuel figures aside, Zooks are still an economical car to own. Ask any Patrol or Cruiser owner what their rigs cost to run and keep on the road per year. You'll be to busy showing them up on the tracks to care bout fuel usage anyway.

[Pep]

I'm getting 340km a tank running 29's mtr 1/2 highway 1/2 city driving,
needs a bit of a tune and a good carby clean,
but 9/100 sounds pretty good to me the best i ever got was 10/100

[lay80n]

I usually search before asking the same question as everyone else over and over again.
Oh, 10L/100KM 90 model spoa 31 or 32's 5.14 and over 200,000Km/s on 1.3 carbie.
Layto....

[HotAe92]

HotAe92 yours is injected isnt? where as a 91 is a crap carby job! and 8.5l per hundred is dreaming and would be what you get from it when driving it out of the showroom. back in 91. They arent good on fuel stock really, wait till you put bigger tyres on it.

Chop

Nope mine is carbie poo.
Oh and those figures are with 26" stock wheels
With the muds and no gearing, i lose about 30 - 40kms off that figure.

Cheers
Jayden