Ahhhh Yet another trip from Melbourne back to Sydney on one tank last night...


car is bone Dry right now tho CBF going to the servo

wheels magazine drove a 6l gen IV calais going the other way on 1 tank last year

wheels magazine drove a 6l gen IV calais going the other way on 1 tank last year

Calais also has a 73 litre tank, a fair bit bigger than the 380s

Calais also has a 73 litre tank, a fair bit bigger than the 380s

6L bigger. Pretty sure the 380 tank is 67L. My math is pretty dodgy, but at 8L/100km isn't that 75km further?

Just wondering how bigger wheels effect fuel economy.

I've seen a few comments on other forums that as you go up in wheel size, fuel economy drops, and drops quite a lot.

Is that really true?

If so, is it due solely to the increased weight of the bigger wheel/tyre combo?

I can't see how 10kg or 20kg extra weight can cause a 2l/100km increase in fuel usage.

Or is it down to increased rolling resistance due to increased tyre contact patch? Or something else?

Another related 'urban myth' that intrigues me is the idea that standing start acceleration suffers badly as you go up in wheel size. Apparently a 380 on 20s (like mine) is a lot slower off the mark than one on 17s, and for max accelration and best 400 metre times you need small diameter wheels, as small as 13s if you could find them. Something about the inertia of a big heavy wheel/tyre combo making it hard to get a decent launch.

Sounds like BS to me, but I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

KJ.

Where did you get all this from; MCA?

Where did you get all this from; MCA?

Yeah, mainly, but I think I've seen mentions of both these things on AMC as well.

wheels magazine drove a 6l gen IV calais going the other way on 1 tank last year

can't find the wheels review, but plenty of others who reckon it was a crock of sheet......

Happy to be proven wrong though...


The car-sales review was thus:-

"At a steady speed of 100km/h -- the Commodore will use just 7.0L/100km or thereabouts, according to the instantaneous fuel consumption readout from the trip computer. During the week we drove the car, it only averaged as low as 17.2L/100km, but that was a week in which the car did very little in the way of open-road driving.

Holden claims 9.5L/100km for the AFM V8 on the open road and 18.7L/100km in town. The new combined fuel economy figure for the car is 12.9L/100km. This compares to the non-AFM V8's combined number of 14.1L/100km. "



That is also completely consistent with my brother in laws economy, he just bought one.

It will never use as little fuel as a 380.


.




.

Just wondering how bigger wheels effect fuel economy.

I've seen a few comments on other forums that as you go up in wheel size, fuel economy drops, and drops quite a lot.

Is that really true?

If so, is it due solely to the increased weight of the bigger wheel/tyre combo?

I can't see how 10kg or 20kg extra weight can cause a 2l/100km increase in fuel usage.

Or is it down to increased rolling resistance due to increased tyre contact patch? Or something else?

Another related 'urban myth' that intrigues me is the idea that standing start acceleration suffers badly as you go up in wheel size. Apparently a 380 on 20s (like mine) is a lot slower off the mark than one on 17s, and for max accelration and best 400 metre times you need small diameter wheels, as small as 13s if you could find them. Something about the inertia of a big heavy wheel/tyre combo making it hard to get a decent launch.

Sounds like BS to me, but I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

KJ.

It isn't bs. The wheels are unsprung weight so every kg you save in unsprung is about 5 times sprung weight.

So if your rims and tyres weigh 5kg more per corner that is essentially carrying another passenger who weighs 100kg. Some say the ratio is only x2 rather than x5 but either way - it does make a difference.

Might just explain why my fuel economy hasn't improved at all, and if anything is slightly worse, after fitting the Chiptorque Xede and leaning out the AFRs. I never really did see the expected improvement in fuel economy. I went from 18s to 19s a few months before fitting the Xede, and then 20s a month ago, and both the 19s and 20s are heavy mofos compared to the earlier 18s.

Any takers on the other 'urban myth' - much worse 400 metre times, and epecially 0-100 km/h times as you go up in wheel size?

KJ.

having changed my wheels this week back to the stockies i've noticed a big difference im fuel economy. I usually burn around the 14 mark with my driving style with the 20's on, now with the 17's on an no difference to my driving style and two of the 20's in the boot no matter how i drive i can't get th average above 12 litres per 100 being the highest. At the moment its hovering around 11.3, so quiet a difference in consumption and thats around town.

Might just explain why my fuel economy hasn't improved at all, and if anything is slightly worse, after fitting the Chiptorque Xede and leaning out the AFRs. I never really did see the expected improvement in fuel economy. I went from 18s to 19s a few months before fitting the Xede, and then 20s a month ago, and both the 19s and 20s are heavy mofos compared to the earlier 18s.

Any takers on the other 'urban myth' - much worse 400 metre times, and epecially 0-100 km/h times as you go up in wheel size?

KJ. you can defiantly tell the difference in take off speeds mines alot slower on take off with the 20's but then i think it compensates for when the 17's are on even with the new michellins they just wanna spin off the mark, something i never get with the 8.5 wide kumho ku31 in the 20's

Might just explain why my fuel economy hasn't improved at all, and if anything is slightly worse, after fitting the Chiptorque Xede and leaning out the AFRs. I never really did see the expected improvement in fuel economy. I went from 18s to 19s a few months before fitting the Xede, and then 20s a month ago, and both the 19s and 20s are heavy mofos compared to the earlier 18s.

Any takers on the other 'urban myth' - much worse 400 metre times, and epecially 0-100 km/h times as you go up in wheel size?

KJ.

That's an easy one man. Unsprung weight again. It's simply physics, the heavier an object is, more force is required to move it, in this case it's engine power. Heavier with no power increase = slower.

I went from 16s to 19s and didn't notice any difference, for better or worse. Didn't try any take-off comparisons though.

That's an easy one man. Unsprung weight again. It's simply physics, the heavier an object is, more force is required to move it, in this case it's engine power. Heavier with no power increase = slower.

Still doesn't seem right to me.

I'm talking half a second, one second slower 0-100km/h times. Well according to the 'urban myth' that is. No way possible that an extra 20kg of unsprung weight can make that much difference by itself.

Unless maybe the multiplication factor is at least 5 like rprodrive suggests.

can't find the wheels review, but plenty of others who reckon it was a crock of sheet......

Happy to be proven wrong though...


im sorry to prove u wrong

http://motoring.ninemsn.com.au/reviews/carreviews/1021379/bent-rules-holden-afm-calais


It will never use as little fuel as a 380.

i know for a fact my 2 ton 4 speed terri uses heaps less fuel than my 380 so it doesn't suprise me that a 6l gen IV can beat it.

Hey Kif... why did you change back to stock wheels?

Here's an interesting one. Went down south, nice cool air. 500km round trip. Full tank/reset, couldn't get lower than 10L/100km :(

back to air flow sensor cleaning... my experience talks for its self - fuel consumption from 16,5l to 10.7l just by changing snorkel, putting Kn Filter and cleaning sensor... the question if dirt can pass the airfilter will be left for your own consideration

this is a filter causing 16.5l - i think it was never changed... and because of this i cleaned the airflow sensor

the side of the filther from snorkel
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6608/picture183p.jpg

the back of the filther leading to airflow sensor
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/763/picture184w.jpg

Just modded the rubber strip across the front of the car that retards the airflow into the snorkel. Yet to test drive it but dont expect big gains. A lot of little improvements do add up though.
This should improve air flow into the air box. I have cut the strip and siliconed it to the underneath of the bonnet and held it in place with masking tape whilst it set.

hi - i was thinking about this long time and came up with theory... the both rubber strips are to create a space leading to the snorkel.... the air is not inducted thru the bonnet but thru the mesh.. .therefore not need to cut the rubber strip... there is a whole(white circle on the pic) that is inducting air into the snorkel... and i my thinking the air is rather sucked in from the space created instead of forced in thru the bonnet space... further its the volume created that helps engine breath better (bigger snorkel and fully opened air box)... if you look at the original snorkel... it has long pipe going into the box... even more restring area (volume) there fore breathing thru one bloked nostril and one lung... ;-)

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2122/picture188ha.jpg

im sorry to prove u wrong

http://motoring.ninemsn.com.au/reviews/carreviews/1021379/bent-rules-holden-afm-calais

.

Sorry for the late reply...just noticed you replied....lol

They use the Melb-Sydney distance as the emphasis for the claimed epic fuel economy improvement.

(a) Most cars don't take 80 litres of fuel...The article says they put 79.6L in to bring it "back to where it was when they started".

(b) They drove the entire distance at 90 km/h ( non stop 899 km/s in 10 hours) ....plenty of cars can get better economy, outperform, be just as spacious and safer.

At the end of the day the car gets 9L/100km with half the engine switched off.

Nothing to brag about......Sure there are thirstier cars but they are usually from the same manufacturer or a close American cousin.


EDIT: they didn't do the entire distance, I drive it regularly and I make it to be 970kms Melb to Sydney....maybe they didn't want the first hour along Parammata Rd to count?...lol

i agree with Black star - they dont like meassuring along Parramatta road ;-)... they compared new Falcon and Commodore on the more advance trip Sydney - Melbourne and not that Falcon had better fuel economy - the Commodore was reading wrong km (distance)...

I have been reading the AMC forum for over 6 months now, and it is full of good information. It's not until reading this fuel consumption thread from start to finish that I decided to make my first post!

There are some very interesting myths floating around about fuel economy, power and mods which defy the laws of physics.

First of all, let me say I have a manual series 3 with the 90mm intake and Berklee muffler (which both sound great). The car now has a bit more torque across the range (as the New Zealand 380 graphs support) and a great low down burble, particularly when you take your foot off the accelerator above about 3000rpm.

There has been absolutely no change in the fuel economy, and there is no way there could be. Intake and exhaust modifications seem all the rage at the moment - they are quick, easy, give a great sound and the engine will (and does) pull a bit harder. But the car isn't able to suddenly convert fuel energy any more efficiently. It goes harder because you can get slightly more air/fuel mix into the cylinder each revolution - because the exhaust gases were removed a little more completely from the last cycle, and because the air can flow a little more freely up the intake and into the cylinders. The logic that more power available must mean more economy is completely false. A bigger air intake and free exhaust will give more power, but won't change economy.

A higher octane fuel will generally provide slightly better consumption. I use BP 98 for this reason, and also to keep the fuel system as clean as possible. It makes a bit more of a difference in a car like the 380 because it has a fairly high compression ratio. The octane rating refers to a fuel's ability to resist detonation under high pressures. An engine management system uses two things to avoid detonation - firstly, richer mixtures and secondly, retarding the timing. Both of these affect power and fuel economy. A car with a lower compression ratio will be less susceptible to detonation on poor quality fuel, and hence will see much less benefit from 98 octane.

Flashing the ECU may result in slightly better fuel consumption, but for only for people who do hard accelerations all the time. During normal driving, oxygen, rpm, crank angle and knock sensors control the air/fuel ratio. It is only under medium to heavy acceleration that the ECU's stored maps are used to deliver a set quantity of fuel.
The time a car spends under heavy acceleration is very limited - even a hoon might find it to be less than 5 or 10% on public roads. So flashing the ECU will only really improve your economy for about 5-10% of the time you are driving. If reflashing were to improve your fuel economy 30% while under full acceleration, you would see no more than about a 2-3% improvement in economy (unless the car was on a race track and under full throttle acceleration for a large percentage of the time).

There are many people here talking about the Mitsubishi ECU maps being very rich on the dyno. They are. And they are on all cars. Mitsubishi figure the car will spend very little time under such huge loads, and so protect the engine (and their 10 year drivetrain warranty) by running it rich. Mitsubishi were not stupid when they set up a rich AFR under heavy load - they were very, very smart. Firstly, rich mixtures protect against detonation with high combustion chamber pressures (and protect your engine). Secondly, they cool the engine. Excess fuel which remains unburnt removes heat from valves and cylinder walls. If you were to run a 6g75 at full load for a long time at lean AFRs, the engine would simply let go because the oil and cooling systems would not be able to remove heat from those components quickly enough.
Air cooled piston aircraft engines are a magnificent example of where rich mixtures are the only way to ensure adequate cooling during high demand times.

So, in my humble opinion, altered AFRs with a piggyback get very little gain for the average driver and with constant punishment will cause more engine wear and fatigue. If I could afford a piggyback, I'd use it to alter timing, not AFRs. And it does appear the stock ECU adjusts for 98 octane fuel quite well.

If you want good economy:
1. Use good quality fuel for a long period of time - it cleans your injectors, causing even spray patterns and even combustion through the entire cylinder volume. The ECU will, over a long time, adapt and start advancing the timing and reducing the richness.
2. Service your car regularly. I would recommend (and do) get the intermediate oil changes.
3. Tire pressures (probably the most influential thing you can do) - ensure they are equal on all corners and not too low - I use 38 around town, 40psi on the highway.
4. Drive sensibly. It is not so much about how much you accelerate, but how much you brake. If you brake a lot, you are wasting energy. If you are driving towards a set of lights, and they go red when you are 500m away, take your foot off the accelerator immediately and coast up to them. Braking kills fuel economy.

My trip computer consumption recently Adelaide to Darwin was an average of 8.8L at 110km/hr in the manual. Probably would have been a bit lower with longer gears or in the auto. Went up a bit with aircon or the 130 limit in the NT.
Best I can do around town with lots of stop start driving is 12-13. Best I can do instantaneous on a flat road is about 5.8L in 5th gear at 60km/hr.

Well that's enough ranting for me - I love the 380. Why anyone would ever buy a stock Falcon or Commodore while the 380 was in production completely baffles me!

So, in my humble opinion, altered AFRs with a piggyback get very little gain for the average driver and with constant punishment will cause more engine wear and fatigue. If I could afford a piggyback, I'd use it to alter timing, not AFRs. And it does appear the stock ECU adjusts for 98 octane fuel quite well.


Can't agree with you there. AFRs typically sit around 10 - 10.5 for the 380. Even adjusted by piggyback they can only reach around 11.5 maybe 12 - that's hardly cause for concern over the long term.

It has made quite a difference for me as measured over the last few years where I typically average 8.8 city and hwy driving. Basically it smooths the heavy acceleration loads and is particularly useful if you are towing, which I do.

Also you've missed the fact that a piggyback actually releases more power and torque with improved AFRs (from more advance than you can get with stock AFR). That is what most of the aim of installing a piggyback for modders is about.

What it comes down to, is you don't want to improve what are VERY conservative AFRs because you think it's somehow risky. OK - but most of us don't think it's that big a deal.


BTW - Welcome!

Hi Knotched - thanks for the welcome! Feel like part of the family already :)

I completely agree that the piggyback will improve power and torque. More advanced timing and leaner mixtures (to a point) will definitely achieve that. If I wasn't concerned about the warranty and could justify the cost, I'd happily get a piggyback to look at fine-tuning the advance on the ignition (provided I could guarantee getting good quality fuel everywhere I went!).

I also don't think that slight leaning out will suddenly cause a problem and I'm not saying it puts the engine at immediate risk. While you might think the stock AFRs are way too rich, Mitsi's did things for a reason - perhaps with only a 5 year warranty on the engine they wouldn't have been so concerned. But to warrant an engine through to ten years requires them to be conservative in managing heat and fatigue - and probably the majority of 380 owners on this forum would be looking at keeping the car for that long. While it won't make an engine blow up today or tomorrow, it will cause more wear. Leaner mixtures means more heat, and more heat causes fatigue - that's inescapable. Maybe not enough to concern you or others, but it will shorten the life of the engine if it spends a long time in that zone with higher combustion chamber temperatures.

My main point was that for the average driver, even significant leaning through a piggyback would not vary the fuel consumption by more than a bee's proverbial - and if they were doing it for economy alone, it simply isn't worth it. If they are a bit of extra power and torque and don't want to keep the car long term like I do (ie >8-10 years), then go for it.

Several people have stated (on the dyno threads from memory) that they were a little disappointed in the benefits of the piggyback. That's obviously because the stock ECU adjusts to higher octane fuel quite well.

This (http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af28/kj380/kj380s%20Mitsubishi%20380/kj380SKRdyno17-4-10run1.jpg) graph from the dyno thread shows some interesting points. Firstly, there is no power/torque gain from this piggyback until above 4000rpm. One's engine probably spends less than 1% of it's entire operating life above 4000rpm.
Secondly, the mitsubishi AFR gradually richens up to very rich at high rpm. This is important. Obviously Mitsi's were quite happy with the 13ish up to a point... as the rpm increases above about 3500rpm, the mixture starts gradually richening to help with cooling. If they didn't think the engine needed extra fuel to help with combustion chamber cooling at higher RPM, why did they map it to gradually get richer with RPM?

It is also not in a car manufacturer's interests to make the AFRs ridiculously conservative. Fuel consumption figures sell cars, so I don't think Mitsi's would have made the figures "conservative" if they didn't think it important.

Looking at coming along to the SA meet and greet at some stage, just have to find a night when my work roster allows :)

Can't agree with you there. AFRs typically sit around 10 - 10.5 for the 380. Even adjusted by piggyback they can only reach around 11.5 maybe 12 - that's hardly cause for concern over the long term.

I'm curious as to where you get those AFR figures - measured?

The 6G74 fuel maps I've been able to identify in several different stock Magna ECUs don't show anything less than 11.3 and that's at over 6000rpm (less than 6000rpm, the lowest AFR is 11.5).

Once the OEM ECU is in open loop the piggyback should have more control, however there's a catch-22: adjusting any sensor signal associated with calculating engine load (e.g. MAF, TPS) downwards to induce the OEM ECU to reduce fueling and lean out the mixture has the net effect of increasing the effective closed loop threshold :facepalm

Theoretically good for economy, but less than optimum for many other reasons...

Can't agree with you there. AFRs typically sit around 10 - 10.5 for the 380. Even adjusted by piggyback they can only reach around 11.5 maybe 12 - that's hardly cause for concern over the long term.

!

None of my 380's run that rich....

Again Welcome FLyboy
I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other points. I agree that there is no economy gain to be had out of the muffler. I put a Redback on mainly to free up the exhaust for top end and load. As you would know the exhaust steps down from 2 1/2" just before the rear muffler ( God alone knows why they did this). I had the "restrictor" removed and a new flange welded in.
I disagree about the 90 mm intake and economy. I am somewhat a bit anal when it comes to monitoring fuel consumption and I can empirically prove with my vehicle that there was a significant improvement in fuel consumption with the 90mm intake and resonator mod. The K and N does stuff all but is a cheaper long term option for an air filter as long as you don't live in a dusty environment in which case stick to paper.
You run exactly the same tyre pressures as myself and funnily enough I agree with you there too. If you haven't tried putting your tyre pressures up to 38 psi try it. It is perfectly ok and your car will feel like a different critter altogether.

Welcome flyboy, good to see another SA 380 member. Especially an all too rare manual punter!

Like others on here I agree with most of your points. That dyno chart you linked to is one of mine, possibly the final run by Steve Knight on my car compared to a run with the piggyback (ChipTorque Xede) bypassed.

I agree, the gains in torque & power don't arrive until I hit 4,000rpm.

And despite early promising signs, my fuel economy really hasn't improved at all with the Xede.

Still around 10l/100k in the country (admittedly cruising at 113km/h with the odd burst of WOT while overtaking) and around 12.5l/100 around the city & 'burbs, mainly in peak hour traffic.

I also get around 6l/100k at a steady 60km/h in 5th gear on the flat, but obviously that's damn near impossible to do for any length of time unless you're driving in the wee hours and/or crawling along way under the speed limit. And one thing I never do (traffic permitting) is crawl along under the speed limit!

I agree with your tips about braking too, I'm convinced I brake less than 50% as often as the 'average' driver and less than 50% as hard as the 'average' driver. A set of front pads usually lasts me 200,000k+, and I've never had to replace a set of rear pads in 37 years of driving. Trouble is the average Australian driver is very very average and has no clues about reading the road & traffic ahead and knowing when to ease off the throttle and cruise to a halt with little or no braking. Most of them drive by whatever the muppet in front of them is doing, and then brake way too late and way too hard.

KJ.

I'm curious as to where you get those AFR figures - measured?

By Chip Torque at their Nerang HQ. I have the graphs and the AFRs were measured by another tuner six months before to be the same.


None of my 380's run that rich....

Interesting - what do they run at?



I agree, the gains in torque & power don't arrive until I hit 4,000rpm..

My gains start at 3000rpm (have to check - at work ATM).

I maintain that the piggyback is a worthwhile investment from a power perspective and consistent improved fuel economy gleaned from two years of experience.

Another point to make is the ECU's interference in the advance curve in hot temps. My car feels consistent in all temperature ranges whereas before the piggyback, the acceleration depended on whether the ECU thought it was fair to give me full advance if the temperature was over 30C.

And Flyboy -

I intend keeping the car post 300K - I do around 40 000km per anum - so if it dies at 200K you can post my picture here with associated abuse and told-you-so's!

I wouldn't be saying told-you-so's, I wouldn't wish that on anyone!

It is probably more likely I'd be annoying the **** out of you with PMs full of questions when you manage to rebuild with the MIVEC head ;)

MiVEC....I wish!

A nice set of cams would be good - but you wouldn't approve of those either :P

Interesting - what do they run at?



11.5 -13 (Both are supercharged and one on LPG) 11.5 at idle then 13 at 5500 rpm)

11-12.5 for two others 11 at idle, 12.5 at 4000 rpm...12.5 stays quite flat.


fuel economy is pretty damned good at 110k's in the blown cars...(about 9l/100km)

about 8.5 in the NA cars


that's no pussy driving either....

Just thought I'd add some good figures I've had over the last few weeks. I haven't even seen 10 litres! Its all 9.7-9.9, and I even had my very first 9.9 at fill up (fill ups have always been low-mid 10s). Fuel is BP 95, and driving is normal same stuff (which is mostly motorways with no weekend driving). It could be the cooler weather I guess, but we've had cool/cold weather before and I've not seen these consistently low readings. Considering rising fuel prices I was about to dump 95 for 91... but I'll stay with it until the dream run ends.

Hi Guys,

Been keeping details of kms per tank and L/100kms for a while now (have 2 x 380's) - to be honest I think most people who estimate their mileage without recording it properly tend to overestimate how good their economy really is.

I think the Galant intake and changing the muffler don't make as much difference to economy as people claim, once you settle back into a normal driving style (just gives the car a little more poke). Your average speed is the single biggest determining factor if you ask me... it's hardly rocket science.

Here's my results:

380 # 1
http://380pics.byethost13.com/White.jpg

380 # 2
http://380pics.byethost13.com/Red.jpg

The L/100km indicated on the trip computer in both 380's is always 1/2 to 3/4 lower than reality, i.e. 13.0 indicated works out to 13.5-13.75 when measured properly.

I did the same for 2 of the Commodores I have owned previously (VT and VZ) - the 380's definitely use more fuel (about 1L extra per 100 kms on average). Here's what the VZ did over the last few tanks:

VZ
-------------------------------------------------------
95 ron: 257.00km / 32.50L = 12.65 L/100km
95 ron: 218.40km / 28.54L = 13.07 L/100km
95 ron: 215.80km / 28.01L = 12.98 L/100km
95 ron: 288.30km / 35.08L = 12.17 L/100km
95 ron: 384.30km / 51.53L = 13.41 L/100km
98 ron: 208.60km / 26.25L = 12.58 L/100km
98 ron: 229.40km / 31.15L = 13.58 L/100km
91 ron: 454.50km / 57.59L = 12.67 L/100km
91 ron: 442.21km / 57.76L = 13.06 L/100km
91 ron: 685.00km / 87.37L = 12.75 L/100km
-----------------------------------------
TOTAL: 3383.51km /435.78L = 12.88 L/100km
-----------------------------------------

Cheers,
Adam.

I do a lot of stop start driving during the week. I average 13.5. On a trip to Riverland 400k round trip I would get 9.8.
My old SS would return 21 in town but 9 on a run.
I never noticed any improvement in fuel consumption after the new exhaust and air intake cos I reckon I drove it harder.

i've been using my mates GT for the last week while mines getting re sprayed, i think his may use a little more then mine his got the 90mm air intake as do i his one is on 19's im on 20's and his done work to the exhaust from the cat back. Driving behaviour is the same as in my car and i think it uses about a litre of fuel more then mine per 100k's mine will sit usually 11 flat around town his about 11.9

i've been using my mates GT for the last week while mines getting re sprayed, i think his may use a little more then mine his got the 90mm air intake as do i his one is on 19's im on 20's and his done work to the exhaust from the cat back. Driving behaviour is the same as in my car and i think it uses about a litre of fuel more then mine per 100k's mine will sit usually 11 flat around town his about 11.9

If they are cheap wheels they would be heavier than your 20's which would use more fuel

If they are cheap wheels they would be heavier than your 20's which would use more fuel his got Osaka something or rather

Fuel economy... Yeah I get some of that. 11.5/100km, average speed ~55kmh. Driving at around midnight, 15km at half 70kmh, half 80kmh. Two sets of always red traffic lights and occasionally one or two sets more if I'm unlucky.

Hi Guys,

Been keeping details of kms per tank and L/100kms for a while now (have 2 x 380's) - to be honest I think most people who estimate their mileage without recording it properly tend to overestimate how good their economy really is.

+1. I think people claiming these figures of 8.5 - 9L are purely looking at the trip computer. Which I don't believe to be very accurate.

I get the same 14-15L/100km as you :)

I've been keeping ecomony figures for every single tank since I bought the car (almost five years - a long list!), and I calculate the economy against what the car physically did on that tank load (kms & ltrs), not by the displayed economy alone. I also get a higher average speed (usually 54-55) as most of my driving is on motorways at 110km/h (other roads have little traffic). And I never use the car on weekends (I have another car for that). Just recently I've had a few high-9litre readings (9.7-9.9) but my overall grand five-year average is 10.37.
Oh, and I'm also not claiming anything from my mods. I do have the Berklee muffler, US Galant intake, K&N filter, but did not see any difference to my overall economy since that stuff was fitted. I just have good driving conditions I guess.

Ok some of you may call BS on this but I drove back from Canberra averaging 10.8L/100KM. Oh yeah and there were 3 of us and we were towing a camper trailer. Damn that is good! I was also averaging over 100 kph. I thought that I would try it after a refill on Sydney's northern side just before the F3. Again I was able to replicate those figures even on the roller coaster F3, in fact slightly better around 10.6 in moderate traffic (when is it ever light on the F3?). I was hoping for less than 12.5 but was ecstatic at what I actually got. I reckon I can get better out of it on more level terrain. Possibly as low as 10 or in my dreams in the 9s.
edit> I have much the same set up as Grubco except a redback muffler. I also have stock rims and standard size tyres, so that counts out that angle of complaint. I was also running 95 octane and 40psi in car and 38psi in the trailer.

A lot of this depends upon each individuals driving style.
I could get better economy if I chose. I zip away from traffic lights. I spin the wheels sometimes pulling away. I may go a little bit too fast on my trips to the Riverland. Just cos I like to.I should know better at my age. My wifes Magna showed 11.1 on her way back from Loxton Last weekend and she is very sedate as she had both the Granchildren with her. PS we both use 91 RON

Too true Chris. If I had chosen to power up the hills it would have pumped out the figures heaps. However I just used a bit of down hill momentum (read sped up on the down hills a bit) and just held the same throttle position, perhaps a bit more, on the up hill side. Also if you roll out of the throttle completely on a decent down hill section it will shut down the fuel feed to 0.01. As I said we still managed an average slightly over 100kph so we weren't going that slow.

380matey, I'd totally believe that economy on a highway run - it only takes me doing some more freeway/highway driving and get my average speed into the 40-ish kmh mark to drop economy to low 12's or 11's /100km

The VT (v6) I owned years ago once did a late night Brisbane to Gladstone run at about 120 average, with frequent blasts to 140/160 and aircon pumping the whole time, yet returned 8.85L/100km (measured after refilling).

I wish the 380 could do that, but then it's a lot nicer car to drive than a VT... fair trade off in my book

+1. I think people claiming these figures of 8.5 - 9L are purely looking at the trip computer.

Err...no. First thing anyone does is check using fuel used etc.

I'm quite happy to post up my own schedule if ppl here want to see proof of a 380 running 8.8-9L/100kmh. But mine is chipped so it reduces the heavy usage on acceleration and my average is ~ 80kmh.

OK I have been running off the trip computer but prior to that I always did my own calculations, sooo I will do the "old school" way next time so that I can compare the two. I have another trip coming up soon towing the camper, so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

I am averaging 14 - 15l 100km - i am happy with that considering average speed between 25 - 30 km/h over week. I had much better average by traveling longer stretches like 10,6l/100km with air con on over 400km trip.

its a good car but in the start / stop traffic its what it is ;-)

in stop start I average 12-13L ATM

what is your average speed?

right now i am sitting on 35 km/h average speed returning 13.3l/100km - anytime i am getting between 28-30 km/h i am getting 15-16l/100km

I have just done a tank with the camper behind towing it from near Kiama to north coast NSW around 500kms. The trip computer stated 11.5L/100km. filled the tank to what I believe was full as I could and calculated it from there. It worked out at 10.8L/100km so there is a discrepency there but I will do it again on the next tank to see what happens there. It may balance out a bit.

sitting @ 13.9 ATM
avg round 25 KMs
Sigh

12.5 / 34kms ave. Better than 14.4 before reset. Only doing around 410 km a tank with 40kms left approx. Filled 59 litres

it does not help I am giving it the beans ATM after the 105k service

Ahhh city driving lol gotta hate that. So does the economy.

To go this far......


http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9342/totaldistance.jpg (http://img805.imageshack.us/i/totaldistance.jpg/)

Taking this many hours...


http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/4444/copyofdsc02246.jpg (http://img846.imageshack.us/i/copyofdsc02246.jpg/)

At this average speed....

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/6535/copyofdsc02243.jpg (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/copyofdsc02243.jpg/)


The total fuel used is this much....

http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/223/copyofdsc02244.jpg (http://img859.imageshack.us/i/copyofdsc02244.jpg/)

With this much average fuel consumption in L/100km.....

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9098/copyofdsc02245.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/i/copyofdsc02245.jpg/)


That's 25 miles per gallon in the old language.

It includes a mix of city and country driving.


Location travelled.....???

Melb-Adelaide-Broken Hill-Menindee-Broken Hill-Mildura-Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne.

Economy is more than acceptable with regard to the ocassional speed travelled...:happy:

Not too bad for at SC variant. I take it that is gas too? I am pretty happy with my towing economy then.

I am back to the low 11's after a refuel and reset

haha no you arent mecha. you still have stock wheels. as such 1km on the speedo isnt 1km on the ground so you are actually doing low 11s per 90-something kms lol

Ahhahahahahha yes I sit at 100 on speedo GPS says 94

so I go by GPS speed

Mmmm I can't remember if the 225's are larger or smaller diameter.

Hi guys, Probably will upgrade my intake to 90mm galant and berklee's in a week. Did you guys get any significant fuel economy results? Howmuch more km's on a full tank? Anyone got ANY answers they could help/provide me with?

10% was the benefit I got from the intake

I improved around 1L/100k

Thats super impressive for a cheap 50$ mod..

so for me it was 1.4L/per hundred as I was avg 14s

Just gonna chirp in, i've been getting 9L/100kms, with a few ks done on the m4 but plenty done in traffic (like most of the m4) and going up the hill i live on.

Just gonna chirp in, i've been getting 9L/100kms, with a few ks done on the m4 but plenty done in traffic (like most of the m4) and going up the hill i live on.
That is really good figures. Is that on stock rims and tyres?

That is really good figures. Is that on stock rims and tyres?

i've got galant intake and berklee muffler with deleted flange, intake resonator half hanging off, but everything is stock standard. Oh and i run my tyres at 38 psi

I got a 7.96 when it was school holidays and had most of the roads to myself... if only it was always like that.

Bout to throw a subwoofer and box in, could have slight adverse affects haha

I have a completly stock 380, apart from the galant intake mod and kn filter.
My work is only 7k away from me, so I barely get warmed up going to and from work. GEnerally I get 13l/100k, BUT when I do highway runs eg a trip to the coast on 110kph, I run at 7.9l / 100k

Might have to invest in the 90mm intake for Xmas, :D.

My trip computer is sitting on 9.5L/100km atm, which in actual terms is about 9.2L/100km. I do a mix of about 35/65 City/Highway. Economy driving FTW.

Economy driving FTW.

????? i thought this only happens when the petrol light comes on

can you please guys state with average fuel economy also the average speed as per your car computer... its quite misleading when you state mix of city and hwy drive... if you can state something like average speed of 35 km/h = 13.6 l/100km this would be very helpful to measure against each other ;-) thanks

I have average speed of 35 km/h = 13.6 l/100km; on average speed of 40km/h = 12.5 l/100km... an

I am running E10 - i did not notice difference when i put 95 and 98... and I am cheapo ;-)

I am getting at av spd 40.4 km/hr = 11.4 l/100 running on 98. My worse rate has been at 28.4 km/hr = 15.9 l/100 running on 95.

Is anyone running on 95 E10? What figures are achievable?

Last 3,000k average speed 58km/h = 11.6L/100k, also running on 98.
About 1/2 city (mainly peak hour stop stop go stop stop go stop stop go - you get the message) and1/2 freeway @ 110km/h.
Oh, and it's a manual.

My last fuel up yesterday was 8.8L/100km - Unsure on average km/h, probably around 70 or so. That was with a fair bit of highway driving. This tank so far the trip computer says 8.7L/100km average speed 83km/h. All highway.

I'm very surprised how economical this car is for such a big car, and being a petrol V6.

On highways it is so good (especially if they are flat)

Stop start traffic it is horrid

Yesterday I achieved a true 700km (702km/59L) out of one tank Normal driving on the highway.

Yesterday I achieved a true 700km (702km/59L) out of one tank Normal driving on the highway.

8.4L/100km, very nice. I reckon I can beat that. I'll update you in about 4 days when my current roster finishes.

8.4L/100km, very nice. I reckon I can beat that. I'll update you in about 4 days when my current roster finishes.

This tank of all highway: 665km / 54.17L = 8.15L/100km.

My last fuel log: 668km / 58.0L = 8.68L/100km

Mix of highway cruising, highway crawling, ruralish driving, and hooning up a steep hill each trip

This tank of all highway: 665km / 54.17L = 8.15L/100km.

OK, well you win.

I could go better :D but I just can't stand being extreme grandpa (even if only for one tank).

OK, well you win.

I could go better :D but I just can't stand being extreme grandpa (even if only for one tank).

I wasn't being extreme grandpa at all. It's just pure highway driving with the cruise control set to the speed limit.

This tank = 674km / 53.67L = 7.96L/100km. :D

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/5244/380fuelconsumption.jpg

[deleted...]

Aw, what did it say?

Bit worried you took the photo while doing 90 Kmh

Bit worried you took the photo while doing 90 Kmh

... It was a 90 zone. Gateway motorway, Brisbane. Most of my trip is 110/100.

i think he means that you maybe should have been driving rather than operating the camera? not sure?

i think he means that you maybe should have been driving rather than operating the camera? not sure?

Exactly!

Can't you do 2 things at once? lol.

Just on a side note .... If you're worried about full economy don't install a Supercharger, bigger injectors & 20" wheels lol

Just on a side note .... If you're worried about full economy don't install a Supercharger, bigger injectors & 20" wheels lol

Roger that.

If I get keen to completely ruin my car, I'll get right onto it! :P

Record for us. 2007 GT with 62000km. Tamworth to Gerringong via Putty road, M7, back to Windsor. 700km, 2 people, air con 80%. 8.1l/100km = 35 miles/gallon on old scale. Last leg fuel use rose to 8.9l/100 km. only difference was hotter so A/C worked harder.

Average speed 81km/hr so nice sedate, legal driving :happy:

Mine keeps getting better for whatever reason...

732km/56.95L = 7.78L/100km.

Edit: When I bought the car I put a bottle of fuel system cleaner / injector cleaner through it, and only ever run it on BP Ultimate. Wonder if that's the reason for the good economy.

Record for us. 2007 GT with 62000km. Tamworth to Gerringong via Putty road, M7, back to Windsor. 700km, 2 people, air con 80%. 8.1l/100km = 35 miles/gallon on old scale. Last leg fuel use rose to 8.9l/100 km. only difference was hotter so A/C worked harder.

Average speed 81km/hr so nice sedate, legal driving :happy:


Mine keeps getting better for whatever reason...

732km/56.95L = 7.78L/100km.

Edit: When I bought the car I put a bottle of fuel system cleaner / injector cleaner through it, and only ever run it on BP Ultimate. Wonder if that's the reason for the good economy.

Are you guys actually calculating on the fuel you put in the tank? or just what the trip computer says?
Ive found trip computer to be quite inaccurate. filled car up tonight, trip computer said id used 65.9L only took 62.7 to fill up.
also you need to make the adjustment for the difference between the kmson the speedo and the actual kilometers on the ground will be covering less distance on the ground than the speedo say while using stock wheels.

Are you guys actually calculating on the fuel you put in the tank? or just what the trip computer says?
Ive found trip computer to be quite inaccurate. filled car up tonight, trip computer said id used 65.9L only took 62.7 to fill up.
also you need to make the adjustment for the difference between the kmson the speedo and the actual kilometers on the ground will be covering less distance on the ground than the speedo say while using stock wheels.

I work mine out on liters filled at the bowser (always fill it till it comes out the neck) vs kilometers travelled as per the trip computer. At speeds above 100km/h, my speedo is only out about 2km/h, so if I set my cruise control at an indicated 112km/h, it's actually 110km/h. So even working it out off that, 2km out of every hundred extra, so 700km = 686km, it's not going to make much difference.

First click at the bowser for me and then info
goes into an Excel spreadsheet. I find the trip computer a little pessimistic ie reads slightly higher consumption than actual. Our 8.1l 100km trip read 8.3 on the trip computer.

Mine keeps getting better for whatever reason...

732km/56.95L = 7.78L/100km.

Edit: When I bought the car I put a bottle of fuel system cleaner / injector cleaner through it, and only ever run it on BP Ultimate. Wonder if that's the reason for the good economy.I've often wondered about system/injector cleaners but never decided to use one or not. What was the name of the one you went with?

Mine keeps getting better for whatever reason...

732km/56.95L = 7.78L/100km.

Edit: When I bought the car I put a bottle of fuel system cleaner / injector cleaner through it, and only ever run it on BP Ultimate. Wonder if that's the reason for the good economy.

Whats your average speed?

My car gets an injector clean each service. The most I have got out of a tank of 98 octane was 720Km. Adelaide to the Outskirts of Melbourne.

I got a 9.1L on a run back from Canberra this morning and it was lower but due to stopping at roadworks for ever it went up

I've often wondered about system/injector cleaners but never decided to use one or not. What was the name of the one you went with?

I can't remember the brand. It was a Fuel system / Injector cleaner duo type deal in the one bottle. I just got it from Supercheap Auto I think.


Whats your average speed?

My car gets an injector clean each service. The most I have got out of a tank of 98 octane was 720Km. Adelaide to the Outskirts of Melbourne.

Average speed of around 87km/h on the trip computer.

7.8 was what I was going to post but it wasn't over a full tank (around 250km) so you've done much better than that by doing it over a complete tank. I find these engines get better on economy as they get older - don't know why (same with the KE).

By the way, Foozr's car is brilliant, he didn't ruin it. It is is just as smooth and tractable as standard except when you put your foot down further. Then the torque really starts pushing the chassis so his coilovers are a natural progression. That might be difficult to live with around town everyday. I find my King SL (ex Foozr's) are enough.

You're talking to a guy who used to drive one of the stiffest cars ever made, but now drives a grandpa spec 380, lol.

I think the trick is 2 cars. One cruiser, one bruiser.

so I got 480kms out of a tank of e10

avg 13.5L Hmmmmmm will try another tank this week and report back

so I got 480kms out of a tank of e10

avg 13.5L Hmmmmmm will try another tank this week and report back

thats the average I am getting - trafficy travel with average speed around 35km/h... but i got the same result using regular or premium so i dont spend more... what was your average speed?

well filled up with 98 as I got 18c a litre off

Oh yeah I have power again

For way to long now I have been getting 15-16 /100km and that is around the city, mitsi dealer said nothing wrong every thing ok, hence now selling her after buying 2011 Serento SLi deisel and havent looked back around city get 9/100km.Sorry to say but as great a car to drive sometimes it all comes down to cost of running.
ps that around the city is I live on one side of town work on other and only way there is through city at peak time.

Yes I average the same around town, My old SS averaged 21 lol

i average about 12-13l/100 km ave speed about 40 km/hr (about 30% of driving time is highway - the rest suburban/city) regardless of type of fuel it seems. spoke with mitsu who said that's normal. service guy actually recommended running 95 RON fuel as opposed to 98...something to do with pre-ignition etc...can't quite remember ( but i thought the higher the octane the less preignition and better power deliver etc...so don't get it...)

i'm doing a bris-sydney drive today, fueled up (64L) last night with BP ultimate 98 octane. Car is full of gear gotta deliver to syd, but given it's highway driving shouldn't be too much extra drag on fuel econ... going to try to keep tyres slightly over-inflated (38psi) to help with minimisng rolling resitance...some ppl go harder with tyre inflation but i keep 38 as a good compromise between comfort and firmness...the king lows are quite stiff as it is...need the tyres to absorb some bumps on cr@ppy southside bris streets...

i've never used those fuel injector cleaner thingies...not sure if they're a gimmick or actually do work, but given some get 9l/100 kms and use them maybe i'll give it a go.

will report back when i get there what i averaged.

so I got 480kms out of a tank of e10

avg 13.5L Hmmmmmm will try another tank this week and report back

that's exactly what i got last tank of e10..ave speed 40km/h. was first tank of e10 for about a year tho so maybe computer chip in car took a bit of getting used to the dif fuel mix/quality??? (don't know how it knows what fuel you're using, but apparently it somehow does..or so i've been led to believe by the voices...)...

I seem to average 10-11 ltr/100k even if there is a high percentage of city driving. Granted I'm not flooring it everywhere buthaving said that I'm normally the one doing the passing and not getting passed :) I think the worst I've averaged for a tank is about 10.8 by the time I needed to refil. Generally the commute is 30km and about 60/40% 100kmh/50kmh zones. On longer trips it is normally sitting in the mid 8s. This was on 91. Am going to run 3 or 4 tanks of BP 98 Ultimate and see if it improves things.

Haven't used injector cleaner regularly on this car yet but have done on previous cars and noticed a difference which was enough to justify the cost.

Also getting bigger rims soon with 235 tyres. Will be interesting to see how that affects things.

okay got a chance to upload results of the drive.

Bris (southside) to Gosford (close enough to Sydney) distance: 845 kms, ave speed 87.5 km/h, 73.5 L used (BP ultimate 98 RON)(according to trip computer - needed to refill in Taree (had about 10L left in tank - could've pushed it further but got lazy) with Caltex Vortex 98 RON too), ave consumption 8.7 L/100 km (trip computer). Didn't refill after arriving in Gosford so can't tell how accurate the trip computer is wrt consumption.

It was sitting at about 7.9L/100kms up until i needed to slow down at roadworks areas along the way.

All in all I'm reasonably happy.

Going to use that fuel injector cleaner stuff while driving around gosford/sydney this week and see if it changes economy at all on the drive back to brissie on Sunday.

okay got a chance to upload results of the drive.

Bris (southside) to Gosford (close enough to Sydney) distance: 845 kms, ave speed 87.5 km/h, 73.5 L used (BP ultimate 98 RON)(according to trip computer - needed to refill in Taree (had about 10L left in tank - could've pushed it further but got lazy) with Caltex Vortex 98 RON too), ave consumption 8.7 L/100 km (trip computer). Didn't refill after arriving in Gosford so can't tell how accurate the trip computer is wrt consumption.

It was sitting at about 7.9L/100kms up until i needed to slow down at roadworks areas along the way.

All in all I'm reasonably happy.

Going to use that fuel injector cleaner stuff while driving around gosford/sydney this week and see if it changes economy at all on the drive back to brissie on Sunday.

Driving from armadale to kenwick, got 9.0/100km doing 105 on tonkin and 8.3/100km in the 60 zone on kenwick road.

Just completed a 790km round trip this weekend. Half way the trip computer was showing 10.8 but when manually calculated after filling up actual usage was about 10. Back home and the trip computer is showing 10.4 which looks like it will equate to 9.6 but I haven't filled up yet. 4 adults, a boot FULL of gear and a/c on the whole time. New Falken 912ZEs at 36psi. Average speed 81.5km/h. On BP ultimate.