NX fuel usage

[Geoffaw]

I have been following this post with much interest. I recently did a trip to Coffin Bay (SA), three 4x4 – NW (2013), NS (2016) & FJ Cruiser. All cars carried about the same weight and the same gear on the roof racks. None were towing. Both the NW and the NS were full at the start of trip. By the time we reached Port Lincoln my NW took about 9 litres more than the NS. We all travelled together and shared the lead. Coming back home both the NW & NS filled with diesel from the same pump at Port Augusta. Just outside of Port Wakefield we compared moving fuel usage over the 2 ways. I know these reading may not be accurate but never the less a good comparator. My NW could not get better than 10.4/100, while the NS was 9.3/100 for the range that we were testing. When we got back to Adelaide we both filled from the same pump, my NW took 5.5 litres more. For the overall trip I averaged 11.4/100km (measured from litres used and dist). I don't understand the difference!

Stats on 4x4s
NW
· 40mm Lift, OL Steel Bull bar, Rhino Pioneer Roof rack, Full length bash plates including rear bumper, Spot lights, Toyo open country AT tyres, EGR cut off (electronic), tow bar.
NS
· Rhino Cross Bar (3) Roof rack, Full length bash plates including rear bumper,Nudge bar, Std Road Tyres, EGR cut off (electronic), tow bar.




After the Coffin Bay trip I had a Roosystems Re-map (towing & touring) & 3" King Brown - Pacer exhaust, turbo back- Cat, Center muffler and the rear resonator installed/fitted. The NW drives very well now but having just completed a trip to Renmark and back to Adelaide I only got 11.51/100 (measured lit & dist.) The car had 3 adults and 2 teenagers plus packed in the back. I did about 4 hours at Loveday. I was very careful driving, trying not to accelerate hard for the trip up & back. My fuel run checks over 15 to 20 km on Port Wakefield Rd (SA). There was virtually no wind and the air was cool. I went up and back twice so that’s about 80 km in all. I re-set both manual & Auto fuel readouts on the centre console at each test interval (both read the same while testing). May it be noted I was driving like a “Nana in a car park” for these tests!
Here are my average readings
70 kph - 9.4 lit/100
75 kph - 9.5 lit/100
80 kph - 9.7 lit/100
85 kph - 9.8 lit/100
90 kph - 9.9 lit/100
95 kph - 10.0 lit/100
100 kph - 10.3 lit/100
105 kph - 10.4 lit/100
110 kph - 10.7 lit/100

I don’t understand when I hear people getting 8.5/100 km going 100kph. As my NW rpm goes up so does the fuel consumption. I understand I now have a Roosystems tune, but the general economy before and after is about the same. Are these figures reasonable or are they classified as high considering I am doing sort of controlled runs?

Cheers Geoff

[nj swb]

Hi Geoff,

If I understand your post, you have lift & after market tyres on your NW.

The lift will increase your effective front area, and hence your aerodynamic drag. The ATs will be heavier, and require more power to turn. If they are larger, that's more fuel to turn, and another contribution to height - and another factor to consider in distance calculations, but that's not an issue when the two cars travel together and fill together.

The consumption you report is about what I get in my NT - similar lift, heavier tyres, no roof rack.

[Axis]

I'm with NJ,

Ours is an NS but when we got is all was stock - no rack, lift and HT. Just factory alloy bullbar. Would be able to get 9L/100 or slightly better on the highway under good conditions.

Now with MT51 in a bigger size, lift, Rack, bash plates I am lucky to get 10L/100 on the highway under good conditions (more like 11 if loaded and 110kph).

Cheers,
James

[Pajshomoneroguntero]

I have been following this post with much interest. I recently did a trip to Coffin Bay (SA), three 4x4 – NW (2013), NS (2016) & FJ Cruiser. All cars carried about the same weight and the same gear on the roof racks. None were towing. Both the NW and the NS were full at the start of trip. By the time we reached Port Lincoln my NW took about 9 litres more than the NS. We all travelled together and shared the lead. Coming back home both the NW & NS filled with diesel from the same pump at Port Augusta. Just outside of Port Wakefield we compared moving fuel usage over the 2 ways. I know these reading may not be accurate but never the less a good comparator. My NW could not get better than 10.4/100, while the NS was 9.3/100 for the range that we were testing. When we got back to Adelaide we both filled from the same pump, my NW took 5.5 litres more. For the overall trip I averaged 11.4/100km (measured from litres used and dist). I don't understand the difference!

Stats on 4x4s
NW
· 40mm Lift, OL Steel Bull bar, Rhino Pioneer Roof rack, Full length bash plates including rear bumper, Spot lights, Toyo open country AT tyres, EGR cut off (electronic), tow bar.
NS
· Rhino Cross Bar (3) Roof rack, Full length bash plates including rear bumper,Nudge bar, Std Road Tyres, EGR cut off (electronic), tow bar.




After the Coffin Bay trip I had a Roosystems Re-map (towing & touring) & 3" King Brown - Pacer exhaust, turbo back- Cat, Center muffler and the rear resonator installed/fitted. The NW drives very well now but having just completed a trip to Renmark and back to Adelaide I only got 11.51/100 (measured lit & dist.) The car had 3 adults and 2 teenagers plus packed in the back. I did about 4 hours at Loveday. I was very careful driving, trying not to accelerate hard for the trip up & back. My fuel run checks over 15 to 20 km on Port Wakefield Rd (SA). There was virtually no wind and the air was cool. I went up and back twice so that’s about 80 km in all. I re-set both manual & Auto fuel readouts on the centre console at each test interval (both read the same while testing). May it be noted I was driving like a “Nana in a car park” for these tests!
Here are my average readings
70 kph - 9.4 lit/100
75 kph - 9.5 lit/100
80 kph - 9.7 lit/100
85 kph - 9.8 lit/100
90 kph - 9.9 lit/100
95 kph - 10.0 lit/100
100 kph - 10.3 lit/100
105 kph - 10.4 lit/100
110 kph - 10.7 lit/100

I don’t understand when I hear people getting 8.5/100 km going 100kph. As my NW rpm goes up so does the fuel consumption. I understand I now have a Roosystems tune, but the general economy before and after is about the same. Are these figures reasonable or are they classified as high considering I am doing sort of controlled runs?

Cheers Geoff

So NW with AT’s and the NS with HT’s? That’d be worth 1-1.5L/100 wouldn’t it?

[Geoffaw]

Thanks to all for the replies. I understand that various mods and additions change fuel consumption. Combine that with driving style and environmental conditions it’s all over the shop. This being my first diesel (previous NL petrol/gas) I am still trying to understand its workings from fuel consumption, traction control, turbo lag to the incredibly weak roof rack - All so different from my NL, that vehicle was bullet proof but like me it became old.
Cheers Geoff

[jackhays]

I have a 2016 NX GLX that has just reached 85000km and I've had it since new.
Accessories listed below, no DPF.

Just fitted Bridgestone A/T 697 Duellers.

When I had the original Dunlop's I could easily get under 9l/100km, even with quite an internal load on board and travelling at 100kmh.

I have a dash photo of one time I got 6.7l/100km on the display.

I have recorded, on paper, fuel use since new and it pretty much matches what the display shows.

With the new Duellers I haven't been able to get below 9 yet and I've had them for 11000km. The weather generally has been cold in that time so I wonder if that matters.
I use Costco diesel all the time in Adelaide and Vortex when travelling because I have found the type of fuel can make a difference

[Geoffaw]

My Toyota Yaris (1.3L) gets about 6.5 to 7 lit/100. Perhaps my Pajero was built on a Monday or Friday!!

[old Jack]

My Toyota Yaris (1.3L) gets about 6.5 to 7 lit/100. Perhaps my Pajero was built on a Monday or Friday!!

Hi Geoff,


Yes our 1.3 litre auto Yaris does about 6lt/100 kms on the highway but it cannot carry 700kgs of people and gear at 100-110kph both on and off the bitumen!


Your fuel figures are better than what NJwwb's NT, Pajero 12"s NW and my PB Challenger recent got on highway running at 100-110kph from Adelaide to Lyndhurst, we were at GVM+130-150kgs. All 3 of our vehicles are fitted with heavy AT/MT tyres, 40-50mm lifts, bullbars, underbody guards and the NW & PB have roof racks carrying a spare tyre carcass and also Maxtraxs. All vehicles are autos and fitted with Lockup Mate torque convertor lock ups.


I am always amazed at many of the reported fuel consumption figures, we have not traveled in a group with a standard Gen 4 Pajero because all our trips require modified vehicles.


OJ.

[Geoffaw]

Sorry if I offended you OJ. I was simply making a comment that 6.7 lit/100 is a pretty low mileage/km figure. I was saying nothing good or bad. For myself, I am trying to understand my new NW Pajero and the lit/100. I have never owned a diesel before! The test I did and the figures I wrote down were under control conditions over a 2 hour period. Around town with normal driving I get 12 to 13 lit/100. On the one trip I did I got 11.5lit/100 over 800 km. Hopefully you read my previous post – “I understand that various mods and additions change fuel consumption. Combine that with driving style and environmental conditions it’s all over the shop” Do many other Pajero owners get 6.7 lit/100?, if so I would be interested in your replies.

[Dicko1]

Sorry if I offended you OJ. I was simply making a comment that 6.7 lit/100 is a pretty low mileage/km figure. I was saying nothing good or bad. For myself, I am trying to understand my new NW Pajero and the lit/100. I have never owned a diesel before! The test I did and the figures I wrote down were under control conditions over a 2 hour period. Around town with normal driving I get 12 to 13 lit/100. On the one trip I did I got 11.5lit/100 over 800 km. Hopefully you read my previous post – “I understand that various mods and additions change fuel consumption. Combine that with driving style and environmental conditions it’s all over the shop” Do many other Pajero owners get 6.7 lit/100?, if so I would be interested in your replies.

Coming down the Kuranda Range road I can get my gauge to show 3 lts per 100klm!!! I have never taken any notice of the gauge in my NW as I believe that the only true way is to fill tank completely and measure fuel used against mileage shown on the gps. Using the cars speedo and the car gauge you have to be at least 10% optimistic!!

[insect_eater]

In my manual 2015 NX, I get around 10l/100km when unladen, even around town (Canberra). On last year's moderately loaded (2850kg) camping trip to Uluru/Kings Canyon/Finke Gorge/Western Macs I averaged 11.74l/100km.

This was the real figure - GPS kilometers (not odometer - which reads 9% more). The trip was 7000km and included 1000km of dirt including 80km of low range. I was running D697s, but expect the STMaxx I now have fitted to suck another litre/100 or more.

I've also concluded that the average fuel consumption readout is pretty accurate - sitting somewhere between the GPS and odometer consumption figures. If using fill volumes and km travelled to calculate consumption, I've found that I need to average the consumption over many tankfuls as unless I am super careful when filling up as fill volumes are affected by vehicle angle, foaming, etc.

Speed is a significant factor in consumption. Below 100km/h I get 9l/100km. 110km/h equates to 10-11, and 130 (in the NT) to 13. 13.Xl/100 is the worst figure i can generate in 5th gear regardless of speed/throttle. These are all with a roof load - I hardly ever travel without one, so I don't know what difference it makes.

[old Jack]

Sorry if I offended you OJ. I was simply making a comment that 6.7 lit/100 is a pretty low mileage/km figure. I was saying nothing good or bad. For myself, I am trying to understand my new NW Pajero and the lit/100. I have never owned a diesel before! The test I did and the figures I wrote down were under control conditions over a 2 hour period. Around town with normal driving I get 12 to 13 lit/100. On the one trip I did I got 11.5lit/100 over 800 km. Hopefully you read my previous post – “I understand that various mods and additions change fuel consumption. Combine that with driving style and environmental conditions it’s all over the shop” Do many other Pajero owners get 6.7 lit/100?, if so I would be interested in your replies.

Absolutely no offence taken Geoff. What amazes me is how people can get such good economy in vehicle that is 2 to 2.5x the weight, engine capacity and frontal area of a Yaris and report only a 50% increase in fuel used. This is my first Diesel engine and auto 4wd and was also expecting better fuel economy.

OJ.

[KiwiNTPajero]

turbo diesels are very economical and modern tech helps.Previous to the Pajero i had a BMW 120d (deisel)manual.Its normal day to day consumption was 6.5 l per 100 k.On the open road 5.5 l per 100 k was easily acheivable.It was chipped and was manual.If it had more sensible gearing(for nz) I beleive it would have been been more economical.6th gear was almost unuseable .It wasnt really worth changing into 6th unless youe were doing more than 110km hr or if it was completely flat.
I am amazed at the economy i can get out of the Mitsi.I run bfg AT and always have roof rails on.When we go on a trip and before we start to head inland(ie climbing hills ) i can easily get into the 9s(by onboard computer) I have seen high 8s.As soon as we hit the hills or if if it is windy its th 10s and 11s.I consider myself a pretty economical driver,i tend to hold momentum,and i dont brake or accelerate hard .I treat he throttle very gently on a trip.

[Geoffaw]

Absolutely no offence taken Geoff. What amazes me is how people can get such good economy in vehicle that is 2 to 2.5x the weight, engine capacity and frontal area of a Yaris and report only a 50% increase in fuel used. This is my first Diesel engine and auto 4wd and was also expecting better fuel economy.

OJ.

I think the best thing for me to do is have the centre console set to the music channel full time. I was more concerned that there may have been underlying issues. I have cleaned the MAF sensor, the manifold & head inlets have been cleaned and the car has had a complete service. No fault codes. The guy that did the Roosystems Tune (dyno) said the air/fuel ratios were really good across the range. He even got an extra boss welded in (3”system), back from the turbo so his oxygen sensor could be placed for the Dyno runs. He believes that the vehicle will give good fuel economy when towing. I am yet to test this. I either need to take early retirement or some long service leave and test it out on a decent trip with the camper trailer. For now I am going to try to forget about it and enjoy the 4x4 for what it is – a great vehicle.
Cheers Geoff

[nx2016]

I an averaging for the first 32000 kms 9.6 LITRES PER 100 KM. Includes city and open road driving but no use of anything other than 2wd and 4h.