Below Nav Bar
Collapse
What's wrong with your fuel economy
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by XTV View PostDicko. FNQ
2014 NW with all the usual stuff plus more.
TIME....1000 times more valuable than money
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dicko1 View PostI still cant see the issue. Factory figures compared to vehicles that drive on dirt roads, tow, stop/start, creep in city traffic, flogged on highways, not in peak tune, various tyre pressures, user pedal control, altitude heights et.cetc. will vary enormously. Has anyone on here really bought a car based on fuel consumption and accepted the factory figures as gospel?NS SWB X 3.2DiD - Factory locker, Hella spotties, GME UHF, 2" lift
Retired: 1991 NH SWB 3.0L V6 5sp Manual, Mickey Thompson ATZs, GME UHF TX3200.
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dicko1 View PostI still cant see the issue. Factory figures compared to vehicles that drive on dirt roads, tow, stop/start, creep in city traffic, flogged on highways, not in peak tune, various tyre pressures, user pedal control, altitude heights et.cetc. will vary enormously. Has anyone on here really bought a car based on fuel consumption and accepted the factory figures as gospel?
Not advocating that factory consumption figures are correct, just pointing out the intended logic behind providing them as they do.2013 NW VRX
- Quote
Comment
-
-
The theory is great..the reality is not. Every manufacturer dress,s up their fuel figures. Notice how most tests done by magazines and testers always say..."Although we didnt achieve factory supplied figures. In fact we used considerably more". Or words to that effect. So what is the point of them, really? Smart people know that they are not reliable.Dicko. FNQ
2014 NW with all the usual stuff plus more.
TIME....1000 times more valuable than money
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by rotare View PostBut isn't that why they provide factory stated consumption figures, because there are so many variables.... therefore by testing vehicles under supposedly controlled conditions and with standard criteria the benchmark is all the same, so a potential purchaser can fairly compare one car to another?
Not advocating that factory consumption figures are correct, just pointing out the intended logic behind providing them as they do.2009 NT GLS(NZ) diesel LWB auto
BFG AT,Rhino Rack Vortex Bars,Foxwing Eco Awning,BUSHSKINZ I/C, sump guards and steps
"do not check the button for faster communication, this will throw a wobbly with some dongles"
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Jeffwatkins View PostShares are down 50% on news of more damaging fuel consumption knowledge going back 25 years.
Are there any honest vehicle manufacturers left?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-2...ction=business
Hill200 Series
AOR Quantum 4
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by KiwiNTPajero View Postyes thats what they are for,but probably no one actually gets thse figures in real life
Everyone's situation is different and the current format in my eyes does a reasonable job. Other people may not get factory figures but at least generally they can say in their situation one car will use more fuel than the other. Its certainly better than manufacturers being able to use what ever they wanted, I imagine you'd get fuel figures of a car rolling down a hill at about 70km/h no throttle, pajero's averaging 5L/100km would be the advertised figure.2010 NT GLS DiD Auto Silver | TJM T13 Bullbar | Lightforce LED 180 Spotlights | Runva 11XP | Dual Batteries | TJM snorkel | Bushskinz & TJM bash plates | Custom alloy roof rack | Sunseeker II Awning | MDC RTT | EGR Block | Bilstein/Lovells | Dick Cepek Fun Country tyres | Wet seat seatcovers | Uniden UH7760NB | Parrot Asteroid Smart | Morel, Soundstream and Kicker Audio | MM Cargo Barrier | Storage Drawer | Onboard water system |
See our latest adventures at http://www.treksandtinroofs.com
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by grhyso View PostWhile my Pajero was stock I averaged 0.5-1l/100km better fuel economy than MM advertise just driving to and from work, the beach, shops and generally around town. I lived 20 minutes from perth cbd and drove 40 minutes to the airport for work.
Everyone's situation is different and the current format in my eyes does a reasonable job. Other people may not get factory figures but at least generally they can say in their situation one car will use more fuel than the other. Its certainly better than manufacturers being able to use what ever they wanted, I imagine you'd get fuel figures of a car rolling down a hill at about 70km/h no throttle, pajero's averaging 5L/100km would be the advertised figure.
Last week did 2800kms from Adelaide, to Mt Gambier, Port Fairy, Warrnambool, great ocean road, Torquay, Geelong, Melbourne (Geelong to More lone averaged 8), St Andrews Beach (while there, visited Frankston Beach, Puffing Billy and Philip Island), MMelbourne, Ballarat, Grampian, Nhill, Bordertown, Murray Bridge, home with whole family and 100kgs of stuff totalling 2.5 tonnes and averaged 8.8. Brother's VE 3.6V6 Calais V used more 98RON considering it had 6 speed auto and weighing less and was always behind me.
- Quote
Comment
-
-
When I bought my NT Exceed new in December 2010 , I did see fuel economy around the 9.0L/ 100klm . When it was a few weeks old , I drove to Cairns from Melbourne and it averaged 10.8L per 100klm over the 6700klm travelled in the 1.5 weeks (at the pump).
A few years later , when the car was paid off - the mods began .
AT tyres increased it to 11.4 L per 100klm .
The roof rack , awning and roof lights added another 1 L per 100klm .
The lift kit , ARB deluxe bar , winch , bash plates and front 9inch LED then added another 1.5 Lt per 100klm .
Finally after the camping equipment, food, beer and fridge and 3 passengers are in the car with swags on the roof racks (covered in a tarp) - this makes the car weigh around 3000kg++.
The car was using around 14.3litres per 100klm .
Around Tom Groggin region ( High Country) trails , the Pajero used 24L per 100klm. Around Licola High Country region (minus 3 passengers and roof luggage and less booze and food) 19.5L/100klm . The highway drive cycle to Valencia Creek was 12.9L/100klm .(2650Kg)
I would hate to know what it would be like to tow a caravan .
Please let me know about your fuel economy .2010 NT Pajero Exceed
Koni Raid 90 series Lovells HD/ Koni Raid 88 Kings KCRR-35HDSP. Front & Rear ARB diff lockers/18inch CSA Jackals on Atturo Trail Blade MT 275/65/18. Full Bushkinz/SAFARI snorkel/ARB Deluxe Bar & Runva 11XP/GME TX4500S/
Piranha Dual Battery system /UL80-VO AGM battery/ Gista 160W Solar Panel/36 inch 480W LED Light bar/Kings Awning and Awning tent/9inch 185W Led/ LRA tank
Wants: a roof tent/ exhaust/drawers
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Reef I cant comment on roof rack load on the Pajero but on my CRD JK Wrangler Unlimited as soon as I put the Rhino roof basket on I went from low 10lts / 100km to mid 11s. Load the roof rack and it was to mid twelves.
Take it off and tow my trailer weigh in in at about 1000kg loaded and economy was 11.4lts/100km on multiple trips up and down the Hunter Valley.
In short drag sucks.
My recent highway run with two blokes and a weekend of camping gear, seats folded down, so likely 400kg of gear and I returned 9.8lt/100km.
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Fuel scandal - Mitsubishi ordered to stop selling Pajero
Mitsubishi Motors has been told to stop selling eight more models after it was found they overstated fuel efficiency.
The investigation by the transport ministry comes after the firm admitted in April to falsifying the fuel efficiency of two of its models, along with two cars produced for Nissan.
The admission led to a suspension of sales of the vehicles, prompting a sharp drop in the firm's market value.
Nissan subsequently bought a controlling stake in the company.
The latest models affected by the fuel efficiency scandal include variants of the Pajero, Outlander and RVR SUV cars.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37218510
What are your thoughts?
- Quote
Comment
-
-
Moved to Mitsubishi News, as it's not specific to 4-1 Pajero.
Story mentions "variants" of models - would be good to learn more. I guess it will come through in good time.
Edit:have merged a few threads, will clean up in due course.NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, lots of touring stuff. Flappy paddles. MMCS is gone!
Project: NJ SWB. 285/75R16 ST Maxx, 2" OME suspension, 2" body lift, ARB 110, 120l tank, bullbar, scratches, no major dents. Fully engineered in SA. NW DiD & auto in place - a long way to go....
Scorpro Explorer Box
- Quote
Comment
-
-
What do I think??? - I think it's *+% discusting that multi-national cooperations think its okay to behave like this and get a slap on the wrist.
What would the consequences be, for example, If I was caught to be actively deceiving a govt department (ie ATO or Centrelink) for financial gain??
Feels like one rule for the 'plebs' and another for big multi-nationals.Silver NT VRX Di-D
ARB bullbar | snorkel | Bushskinz & Boo’s guards | UltraGauge MX | 2" lift | Cooper AT3 LT's | dual battery | Superwinch X9 | 80ltr diesel tank | 22ltr water tank | aux trans cooler | MM Lockup Mate | GME UHF | locker/TC mod | SPV EGR | rear LED work light | rhino platform | ARB awning | rear drawers ... & plenty of scratches
My Build Thread - HERE
Previously - NL Pajero (now owned by Forum member 'Gemster')
- Quote
Comment
-
Matched content
Collapse
Comment