Offroad-Express

Hey all,

Looking at getting a zoom but wondering what the fuel use is like once you add a few mods, basically looking for a excuse not to get one !

So with a basic lift and 30inch MUDs what sort of Kms are you getting to a tank of gas. Would it be right to guess that you can get 400kms to tank ? Thinking around 10kms per litre or does it drop down quite a bit ?

Thanks

If you're looking for a reason not to buy one, then just don't.

No matter what fuel economy you get, you're not going to be happy with one. If you're really considering one, then in standard form the 1.6s will get around 8.5l/100kms when nana'd on a trip, dropping to (in my case) 10.5l/100kms on a road trip with the 31" muddies.

Modified 4x4 of any make and model + fuel economy = can never be in the same sentence.

well said,my lux gets 6.5km/l on a good day,but is v8 and on 35s,and manual,fuel economy is only something you read about in AA magazines

I get your point re fuel use, but..

When looking at vehicles it is always a point of difference. I'm trying to figure weather a zook is any better on fuel than say a 3L pajero swb with no mods...

Wellyranger wrote:I get your point re fuel use, but..

When looking at vehicles it is always a point of difference. I'm trying to figure weather a zook is any better on fuel than say a 3L pajero swb with no mods...

In that particular example you are looking at a 3L engine vs 1.6L, not a like for like comparison. Which one do you think will burn more fuel (simply because it has more capacity and thus generates more power).

My point is, buy it if you like it. Do not base your decision on fuel economy only, it won't work.

15litres per 100k
driving normal with a bit of jandal sumtimes
sprit safari GU ish

vince

fuel use...something you dont really consider for a capable 4wd, my Jeep 4.7 V8 GC gets along around 17L, mates Nissan GQ 4.2 i6 is the sameish with minor torque difference. Land Cruiser similar age and engine is the same. All of them awesome trucks, if you want something with low fuel consumption get a manual decent engine in a light truck. My 2c's

Pfft

for one litre of fuel i get 4km if im driving nice and sedate...

.

2.5l V6 Vit, best was 10l/100km in standard form on the open road. Worst was around 15l/100km with 245/75/16 MT's and a 2" suspension lift.

1.6l Vits are better but compared to a 1.6l road car they are still thirsty. 4x4's are thirsty and get even more so when modified for better offroad capability.

This thread should just be post ya fuel usage!
15l/100km for a V6 zuki makes my 18l/100km V8 cruiser look half decent!

TJ wrote:

Wellyranger wrote:I get your point re fuel use, but..

When looking at vehicles it is always a point of difference. I'm trying to figure weather a zook is any better on fuel than say a 3L pajero swb with no mods...

In that particular example you are looking at a 3L engine vs 1.6L, not a like for like comparison. Which one do you think will burn more fuel (simply because it has more capacity and thus generates more power).

My point is, buy it if you like it. Do not base your decision on fuel economy only, it won't work.

More capacity doesn't mean more fuel consumption, or more power. My 6 litre uses less than the 2.5litre,at 100km my 6l will rev 1300 rpm and at 100 km my 2.5 rev at 2800 causing it to use a lot more fuel, different configuration engines and modified different levels but even standard I had same results.

I used 20 litres of Av gas and 98 mix and did maybe 2km last weekend. used over 30l when the carb was over fuelling the trial before.
Its only a bog standard 350 chev. I just have a heavy foot

Mud Hog wrote:More capacity doesn't mean more fuel consumption, or more power. My 6 litre uses less than the 2.5litre,at 100km my 6l will rev 1300 rpm and at 100 km my 2.5 rev at 2800 causing it to use a lot more fuel, different configuration engines and modified different levels but even standard I had same results.

I am not following your logic entirely. RPMs at any given speed (or even fuel burnt per km driven) are determined by the final drive ratio / gearing. As I read your logic, if I get a V12 10l engine, I would be burning less fuel compared to my V8 4.7l? Surely then everybody would just go out and buy the biggest engine possible? As for more displacement not meaning more power, that one is something new to me.

TJ wrote:

Mud Hog wrote:More capacity doesn't mean more fuel consumption, or more power. My 6 litre uses less than the 2.5litre,at 100km my 6l will rev 1300 rpm and at 100 km my 2.5 rev at 2800 causing it to use a lot more fuel, different configuration engines and modified different levels but even standard I had same results.

I am not following your logic entirely. RPMs at any given speed (or even fuel burnt per km driven) are determined by the final drive ratio / gearing. As I read your logic, if I get a V12 10l engine, I would be burning less fuel compared to my V8 4.7l? Surely then everybody would just go out and buy the biggest engine possible? As for more displacement not meaning more power, that one is something new to me.

Mines real life experience not logic, so a 1000hp 2.6 litre engine it less powerfull than a 400hp 6 litre engine and what I meant is rpm are determined by the speed limit

1994 3.5lt SWB manual pajero with 33' muds = 14.09lt/100km best and 15.20lt/100km worst.

1991 1.3lt samurai was around 10lt/100km standard. After adding muds, extractors, snorkel, lockrite and general replacement of most wearing parts clucth,U/joints,waterpump,seals,cambelt etc it seems to be using slightly less fuel at around 9.8lt/100km.

Those usage rates are driving to work and back, same trip every day. But I think once you get off the beaten track the only reason for thinkng about fuel consumption is to know how many spare jerry cans to take along for the ride...

Own the Jeep, still paying for the petrol!
Doesn't matter how much fuel you use as long as you enjoy using it. That's why we have 4 wheel drives, isn't it.

Mud Hog wrote:Mines real life experience not logic, so a 1000hp 2.6 litre engine it less powerfull than a 400hp 6 litre engine and what I meant is rpm are determined by the speed limit

Mate, your 2.6l producing a 1,000 hp cannot be naturally aspirated (I would even question that an engine that small can produce anything close to 1000hp in any shape or form). Those extra 600 hps (compared to your naturally aspirated 6l engine) have to come from somewhere. Its not pulling them from thin air, its burning extra fuel to produce them. Different comparison.

TJ wrote:

Mud Hog wrote:Mines real life experience not logic, so a 1000hp 2.6 litre engine it less powerfull than a 400hp 6 litre engine and what I meant is rpm are determined by the speed limit

Mate, your 2.6l producing a 1,000 hp cannot be naturally aspirated (I would even question that an engine that small can produce anything close to 1000hp in any shape or form). Those extra 600 hps (compared to your naturally aspirated 6l engine) have to come from somewhere. Its not pulling them from thin air, its burning extra fuel to produce them. Different comparison.

No sh@t your comment was only on capacity, not induction. I think my point was made, not ruining this thread any more off topic

Well my 1.3 Samurai uses about 10lt per 100km which pretty much exactly the same as my 2.2lt 6cyl BMW.

The BMW is much nicer to drive on the road but not so good crossing creaks

1996 RZN Hilux Surf 2.7 litre petrol, Auto trans.
Highway, long trip :9 km per litre or 11 l/100km
Road/farm/towing mix :7km per litre or 14 l/100km.
figures would be worse if my foot was heavier.

G16a powered swb escudo. Running on 31's. Daily driver with recovery gear, hi lift jack etc on board. Getting about 70 - 80 kms per 10 litres, nana'ering it.... Luckily for me i only have to drive 3-4 mins to get to work.