Pajero Fuel Economy??????

PajeroMan · Post by **PajeroMan** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:56 pm

Ok,

140,000K's
3.5L V6 DOHC
Automatic

Wheel alignment, DONE
New Tyres, DONE
Engine running at optimum tunning, DONE
New Air Filter, DONE
New petrol Filter, DONE
New Oil Filter, DONE
New Spark plugs, DONE

Fill tank: $145.00 @ $1.71= 85ltrs
Distance travelled: 500kms

Does anyone have ANY ideas how to improve fuel economy, as i have done everything i can think of and still not getting the milage i was hoping for.

I have noticed 95,98 gas is great for econmy and 91 sucks. Have noticed that if i fill and drive on the open road, econmy is great, around town and everyday driving, fuel doesnt like me.

Can you enlighten me as to anything else that would improve it.

Would a K&N Filter do the trick?

doddzee · Post by **doddzee** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:03 pm

Your not alone i have a pajero with a 3" lift and 33's fuel economy is about the same as yours usually around 17l/100km.

I wouldnt mind dropping my gas bill a bit as well.

Trading it for a desiel would save a bit but there never as much fun.

PajeroMan · Post by **PajeroMan** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:07 pm

Trading for a Deisel i would not go for, You have to pay RUC and deisel is not as cheap as it used to be, more engine problems and less power. Na gotta find a way with the petrol one.........

Did you have the 33" on it originally, I did hear by increasing the tyre size it uses less gas as it takes less for a full rev on the tyres thus using more gas. Any ideas?

niblik · Post by **niblik** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:08 pm

vespa?

PajeroMan · Post by **PajeroMan** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:10 pm

Vespa, hhmmm

maybe a skateboard, a bit hard over rocks though!~!~

doddzee · Post by **doddzee** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:29 pm

Yip i put 33's on it the day after i bought it so im not really sure what difference it makes. I thought it used more because of wind resistance and haveing to turn a larger radius tire requires requires more torque?

17l/100km is an around town figure it does better on the open road.

NJV6 · Post by **NJV6** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:44 pm

Hmmm, like you guys I have a 3.5 Dohc, SWB mind you. They all come with about 31 inch tyres unless a soft top which measure about 32 inch.

I run 33's and about a 2 inch lift, and economy is not startling but it is better than your 17l/100km.

It is better on my road tyres 31's than the 33 MT's. Even thou it is revving less on 33's it seems to be working harder to keep the same speed. Mud tyres also catch a lot of drag so I'm told...

I work on an average including off road of about 16l/100km, a recent trip to Haast with 3 days 4WDing and 5 hour drive each way I did about 17L/100km, on road is often around 13l/100km, yes round town is not very good, but when i'm on the road I drive it relatively quietly really.

But I did 2500km between warrants to running a petrol doesn't worry me.

Petemcc · Post by **Petemcc** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:58 pm

i have been from 29's to 31's to 33's on my 3L v6 petrol surf and found there wasnt much difference in economy. uses more to get up there but once cruising i think the bigger wheels are abit better as pulling lower revs, all evens out really. remember you speedo is out with bigger wheels so you are actualy going further than the trip meter says. I get about 420 ks on a 65L tank. notice the big wheels in the hills heaps you really have to rev the shit out of it becos of the lack of low dwn torque

pete

Cloggy_NZ · Post by **Cloggy_NZ** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:23 pm

Phew, I am glad I am not the only one with a thirsty vehicle.
Don't have a Mitsi but a Disco which also has a 3.5 litre V8 engine.
It runs around 6.5 kilometers per litre of fuel, or about 15.5 litres per hundred kays on the open road. Around town it is a little more thirsty, havn't done an accurate check but around 400 kays to full tank which works out to 5.7 kilometers per litre, or 17.5 liters per hundred kays.
This was on 32" mud tyres, probably a slightly heavier vehicle and an ancient engine design (no fancy overhead cams here

).
I would have thought a later model Japanese vehicle would be more economical than my Disco, so perhaps you Mitsi is using a little more than it should. This could of course be due to different driving styles. Some people like to accelerate faster than others. Having an auto doesn't help either. Knowing at what RPM your engine produces maximum torque and trying to maintain engine speed around there also helps. Again this is easier in a manual than an auto. Maximum torque is produced at that RPM where the engine runs at its optimum efficiency.

Big heavy mud tyres chew the fuel. The blocky design creates a lot of rolling resistance. And having all those heavy rubber blocks on a larger diameter wheel takes more horsepower to spin at any given RPM than small wheels. Just look at the ballerina who stretches her arms out whilst spinning on the spot, it slows her down.
The advantage gained by reducing RPM at any given speed is easily lost by the extra power requirement and increased resistance.

paj94 · Post by **paj94** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:47 am

500km in full tank is just about it and not so bad.

I fit KN panel filter but not much improve in economy wise.
It's good for on-road use, but I prefer Mitui original filter for off-road use.
Mitui one is very good quality even compare to others.
I also fit HyClone since it claims to improve fuel economy.
However the difference is minimal, I guess.

My 3L runs around 10~12L/100km on mixture of open road and town use.

Tyres? 31 Bridgestone 604/AT

matwelli · Post by **matwelli** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:50 am

You are draging a 2.1 ton brick around, the fuel economy will always be bad. (my brother in-law has a 3.o v6 with similar fuel sucking properties)

LPG would make a noticable difference (if available in your area) price wise, but a bit hard to find space for the tank(s).

Both of our trucks are diesel -2.5 litre turbos 4D56 engine. The horsepower rating is around 100 compared to the 150 of the petrol.

Running thru the numbers , to do 1000 ks on petrol, at $1.71 per liter and 16litres per 100 k's, the trip will cost you $273 in petrol.

Same trip for me with the diesel, to do 1000k's, at $1.29 per litre and 11 litres per 100k's, comes to $142 for fuel, add $38 for RUC and $20 towards the extra cost of the frequent oil changes total trip cost $200 bucks

The Diesel is still about 26% cheaper to run, but not as much fun

doddzee · Post by **doddzee** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:34 pm

2.1T??? They are only 1850kg

here are the some specs including fuel economy
http://english.auto.vl.ru/catalog/mitsu ... 5_8/17542/

matwelli · Post by **matwelli** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:05 pm

Gen 1 (83-89) are 1850, I think you will find they put on the beef and the gen2/3 are around 2100 kgs, but I could be wrong

depends which site you visit, one indian site had them varying from 1750 to 2060 kgs (would make a big diference to fuel economy figures as well)

NJV6 · Post by **NJV6** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:43 pm

From the owners manual. Nz new 1999 model. Diesel (2.

LWB auto fully optioned model is the heaviest at 2160kg. (hell thats scary)

base model 2.8 LWB manual is 1960kg

3.5 Petrol fully optioned auto is 2085kg and SWB manual like mine is 1765 to 1895kg depending on the options. Soft top petrols are 1725kg.

And as Matwelli said it does take a few hp to move all this around, the 3.5 DOHC's are factory at a tad over 200hp so thats good