Engine RPM Vs KM/H
- Petrusd
- LR 4WD Rear Locker
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:28 am
- Town: Stellenbosch
- Vehicle: 1997 2.4 Hilux DC 4x4 / Yamaha Motorfiets
- Real Name: Petrus
Engine RPM Vs KM/H
I took these pics of the dash while driving this afternoon
I Still had one hand on the steering wheel
My speedometer is 100% spot on.
Checked it with two GPS`s.
Must be the 31" tires
90Km/h @ 2600RPM
100Km/h @ 2900RPM
110Km/h @ 3200RPM
120Km/h @ 3500RPM
Which RPM would give the relative best fuel consumption per distance traveled?
Petrus
I Still had one hand on the steering wheel
My speedometer is 100% spot on.
Checked it with two GPS`s.
Must be the 31" tires
90Km/h @ 2600RPM
100Km/h @ 2900RPM
110Km/h @ 3200RPM
120Km/h @ 3500RPM
Which RPM would give the relative best fuel consumption per distance traveled?
Petrus
- Family_Dog
- Moderator
- Posts: 12702
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:09 am
- Town: Klerksdorp
- Vehicle: Hilux DC SFA, Hilux 2.7 DC, Hilux 2.7 SC, Prado 95 VX
- Real Name: Eric
- Club VHF Licence: HC101
- Location: Klerksdorp, NW
- Contact:
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Bulldog is happiest at 110km/hr GPS speed, but that is at an altitude of some 1400 metres and using a fuel-injected 4Y 2200 engine. It just 'feels' better at that speed, although Bennie had a photo of the speedo at just over 150km/Hr once when he took Bulldog for a dyna at Schalk. That was before I had Cooper STT tyres fitted though.
31" tyres tend to make the speedo fairly accurate as well!
-F_D
31" tyres tend to make the speedo fairly accurate as well!
-F_D
White Fang: 1999 2.7i DC Raider 4x4
Bull Dog: 1987 4Y-EFI 2.2 DC 4x4
Pra Dog: 1998 Prado VX 3.4
Hound Dog: 2000 2.7i SC 4x4
One Staffie, One Jack Russell, One Ring Neck Screecher, 17 Fish of questionable heritage
- Mud Dog
- Moderator
- Posts: 29859
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:18 am
- Town: East London
- Vehicle: '90 SFA Hilux DC 4X4, Full OME, 110mm lift. Brospeed branch, 50mm ss freeflow exhaust. 30 x 9.5 Discoverer S/T's on Viper mags. L/R tank. (AWOL) '98 LTD 2.4 SFA, dual battery system. Dobinson suspension, LR tanks, 31" BF mud's.
- Real Name: Andy
- Club VHF Licence: HC103
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Ja, with 31"s fitted the SFA speedos are almost spot on. Your best speed for good consumption is relative to the terrain (hills and downhills) as well as the nature of the load that you might be carrying (weight and aerodynamics with a roof carrier). As a generalisation you will probably find that somewhere around the 100 - 110 km/h mark will do best. I like to listen to the motor while keeping a note of the accelerator pedal position. Don't change down too late on hills ... I think you use more fuel that way. Avoid flooring it. The moment you start 'pushing it' fuel economy flies out the window.
Oops, I see Eric posted before me, but it's relative and we seem to agree on the speed.
Oops, I see Eric posted before me, but it's relative and we seem to agree on the speed.
When your road comes to an end ...... you need a HILUX!.
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers ... what you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Don't take life too seriously ..... no-one gets out alive.
It's not about waiting for storms to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.
And be yourself ..... everyone else is taken!
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers ... what you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Don't take life too seriously ..... no-one gets out alive.
It's not about waiting for storms to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.
And be yourself ..... everyone else is taken!
-
- Low Range 4WD
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:00 pm
- Town: ......
- Vehicle: .....
- Real Name: ......
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
The faster you go, the more energy is required (fuel burnt). Yes you are also going further, but the fuel per km is more than when traveling slower. Imagine every km/hr represents air particles that has to be moved for your vehicle to pass through, let's just say at 60km/hr, you are replacing 60 air particles in one hour. At 120, you are replacing 120 particles per hour so, double the particles but also double the distance. So why are you using more fuel when speed increases???
Reason is that the particles have to be accelerated from their condition of rest to move aside so your vehicle can get past. At higher speed they have to give way faster, so more urge, energy, power, petrol, money is needed to give each and every little particle out of the way quicker for your brick shaped vehicle to pass through...
At relatively low speeds other factors may play a larger role so this may not always be true for very efficient (aerodynamic) vehicles, but mostly at low speeds and often for automatic vehicles with lock-up boxes that only lock at higher speed (say 80km/hr) you may find that the consumption does not always get better below certain speeds. Past 80 those little air particles get very upset for being shuved aside so violently, so they start putting up a real fight...
Cappish?
Reason is that the particles have to be accelerated from their condition of rest to move aside so your vehicle can get past. At higher speed they have to give way faster, so more urge, energy, power, petrol, money is needed to give each and every little particle out of the way quicker for your brick shaped vehicle to pass through...
At relatively low speeds other factors may play a larger role so this may not always be true for very efficient (aerodynamic) vehicles, but mostly at low speeds and often for automatic vehicles with lock-up boxes that only lock at higher speed (say 80km/hr) you may find that the consumption does not always get better below certain speeds. Past 80 those little air particles get very upset for being shuved aside so violently, so they start putting up a real fight...
Cappish?
- CasKru
- Moderator
- Posts: 23956
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:52 am
- Town: Benoni
- Vehicle: '94 Hilux Raider 2.4i (22RE) DC 4x4
- Real Name: Cassie
- Club VHF Licence: B15
- Location: Rynfield
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
When the guys try to set a longest range on amount of petrol record, they drive at no more than 90km/h.
To God be the glory
- ThysdJ
- Moderator
- Posts: 16587
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:31 am
- Town: Brackenfell
- Vehicle: 2010 Hilux D4D 3.0 D/C 4x4
- Real Name: Thys
- Club VHF Licence: HC102
- Location: Brackenfell
- Contact:
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Kaspaas, with a rooftop tent fitted, at 100km/h used half the fuel over the same distance than without a rooftop tent at 130km/h. Proven this past weekend.
The best way to improve fuel economy is to contain the weight of your right foot...
The best way to improve fuel economy is to contain the weight of your right foot...
Thys de Jager
CEO and Refreshments Manager at Team Offroad.
2010 Hilux 3.0 D4D D/C 4x4 with GOMAD "Brood" Canopy. Tripod.
1997 Jeep Wrangler TJ 4.0 Sport. The original SFA. AGA... Gooi kole
email: thys@teamoffroad.co.za
Like Team Offroad on Facebook...
CEO and Refreshments Manager at Team Offroad.
2010 Hilux 3.0 D4D D/C 4x4 with GOMAD "Brood" Canopy. Tripod.
1997 Jeep Wrangler TJ 4.0 Sport. The original SFA. AGA... Gooi kole
email: thys@teamoffroad.co.za
Like Team Offroad on Facebook...
- Petrusd
- LR 4WD Rear Locker
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:28 am
- Town: Stellenbosch
- Vehicle: 1997 2.4 Hilux DC 4x4 / Yamaha Motorfiets
- Real Name: Petrus
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Roofracks/Tents/etc on the roof can cost you anything from 1.5 to 3km`s less per liter of fuel.ThysdJ wrote:Kaspaas, with a rooftop tent fitted, at 100km/h used half the fuel over the same distance than without a rooftop tent at 130km/h....
- ThysdJ
- Moderator
- Posts: 16587
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:31 am
- Town: Brackenfell
- Vehicle: 2010 Hilux D4D 3.0 D/C 4x4
- Real Name: Thys
- Club VHF Licence: HC102
- Location: Brackenfell
- Contact:
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Indeed, the RTT causes more drag, but I got better fuel consumption WITH the RTT at 100, than WITHOUT it at 130... granted, the RTT on Kaspaas is neatly half tucked away behind the cab, but it will still cause more drag.
Thys de Jager
CEO and Refreshments Manager at Team Offroad.
2010 Hilux 3.0 D4D D/C 4x4 with GOMAD "Brood" Canopy. Tripod.
1997 Jeep Wrangler TJ 4.0 Sport. The original SFA. AGA... Gooi kole
email: thys@teamoffroad.co.za
Like Team Offroad on Facebook...
CEO and Refreshments Manager at Team Offroad.
2010 Hilux 3.0 D4D D/C 4x4 with GOMAD "Brood" Canopy. Tripod.
1997 Jeep Wrangler TJ 4.0 Sport. The original SFA. AGA... Gooi kole
email: thys@teamoffroad.co.za
Like Team Offroad on Facebook...
- Stef
- Monster Truck
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:54 pm
- Town: Pretoria
- Vehicle: '98 LTD
- Real Name: Stefan
- Club VHF Licence: X107
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
My RPM's the same as yours, also with 31" tyres, STT Coopers nogals
- Maddoglips
- LR 4WD Full Lockers
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:49 am
- Town: P.E.
- Vehicle: Raider 2.2 4x4; Mikem 50mm raised suspension, long range tank, Monroe gasses all round.
- Real Name: Zane
- Location: Port Elizabeth
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Stef wrote:My RPM's the same as yours, also with 31" tyres, STT Coopers nogals
Same here
It's better to Burn Out then Fade Away.
- the BuTch3R
- LR 4WD Full Lockers
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:13 am
- Town: Cape Town
- Vehicle: '89 Hilux SFA - SOLD; '95 Hilux - STOLEN; '67 Series 2A Land Rover; 3.5 V6 Pajero; 120 Prado VX 4.0
- Real Name: Shaun
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Since I bought my 2.4P, I've been averaging around 5.5 km/l around town.
But I knew I could expect to get better consumption on the open road.
I took a trip up to Heidelberg a few weeks ago. Cruised at 110km/h, hoping to get closer to 7km/l. I filled up again in Heidelberg and was shocked to discover that I had only used 32l for 254kms. Thats just less than 8km/l
Very content with the open road consumption, I decided to push it a little on my way back. Averaged about 130km/h...and my consumption suffered for it. All the way back down to 5.8km/l.
So there's definitely a huge cost incentive to take it a little slower on the long road. Plus it's much safer too. A clear win-win in my opinion.
But I knew I could expect to get better consumption on the open road.
I took a trip up to Heidelberg a few weeks ago. Cruised at 110km/h, hoping to get closer to 7km/l. I filled up again in Heidelberg and was shocked to discover that I had only used 32l for 254kms. Thats just less than 8km/l
Very content with the open road consumption, I decided to push it a little on my way back. Averaged about 130km/h...and my consumption suffered for it. All the way back down to 5.8km/l.
So there's definitely a huge cost incentive to take it a little slower on the long road. Plus it's much safer too. A clear win-win in my opinion.
- cyborg
- LR 4WD Rear Locker
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:24 am
- Town: Richards Bay
- Vehicle: 1984 Toyota 4Runner 4x4 SFA ; 2011 Fortuner 4x4 ; BMW 650 GS
- Real Name: Gerald
- Location: Richards Bay
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Always an teresting read this topic, but very dangerous too, 'cos suddenly one gets the urge to want to go change and swop and modify . . .
My ongoing debate (Between me, myself and I) is how much, and to what length should one go, to get your Hilux as efficiant as possible.
With the considerations of eventual Total cost in mind.
Currently I'm getting just over 7 km to a liter, on 31's. On a stock standard 2.2 4Y. With no extra load whatsoever.
I'm impressed with this, but want it better. I'm busy looking for someone who can supply Carb Jets, it seems the spares shops don't stock that kind of thing anymore ...
My ongoing debate (Between me, myself and I) is how much, and to what length should one go, to get your Hilux as efficiant as possible.
With the considerations of eventual Total cost in mind.
Currently I'm getting just over 7 km to a liter, on 31's. On a stock standard 2.2 4Y. With no extra load whatsoever.
I'm impressed with this, but want it better. I'm busy looking for someone who can supply Carb Jets, it seems the spares shops don't stock that kind of thing anymore ...
Hilux 4x4. . . .
- Stef
- Monster Truck
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:54 pm
- Town: Pretoria
- Vehicle: '98 LTD
- Real Name: Stefan
- Club VHF Licence: X107
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
My semi accurate consumption is 4.5km/l. Tried to fill the tank Friday so I could get more accurate readings on my RDW trip, but I made the attendant stop at 100 litres and I had roughly 10 litres in the tank prior...
Must have a really loooong range tank
Want to hook up my 3.9 litre fuel can and drive it 'til it's empty; only wat to really know.
Must have a really loooong range tank
Want to hook up my 3.9 litre fuel can and drive it 'til it's empty; only wat to really know.
- Petrusd
- LR 4WD Rear Locker
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:28 am
- Town: Stellenbosch
- Vehicle: 1997 2.4 Hilux DC 4x4 / Yamaha Motorfiets
- Real Name: Petrus
Re: Engine RPM Vs KM/H
Stef wrote:My semi accurate consumption is 4.5km/l. Tried to fill the tank Friday so I could get more accurate readings on my RDW trip, but I made the attendant stop at 100 litres and I had roughly 10 litres in the tank prior...
Must have a really loooong range tank
Want to hook up my 3.9 litre fuel can and drive it 'til it's empty; only wat to really know.
Mine is between 8.5km/l - longer distances, 7km/l - town driving and 5.8 km/l - speel op Atlantis se duine