Fuel Consumption (merged topic)

[Guest gctaylor]

:festive: My manual is averaging 14.2 litres/100km. Mostly city and suburban driving (27000km to date).

On country trips the consumption improves to the 8's and 9's

Safe driving/riding to all

[sport]

I drove mine auto ute in "granny Mode" for one tank and the best I could get was 14.9 so I just drive normally (giving it a reasonable squirt most of the time) and get about 16.5 which I reckon is OK. I am happy to blow 2 extra l/100k and enjoy having the turbo grunt. I am not ready for "granny mode" yet.

[teebone]

Thanks for the info guys - what I was really looking for some answers on from any of the techheads out there, was why the auto T gives better economy results under controlled testing than the manual, whereas with the V8's the expected outcome is achieved (ie manual better than auto).

[ducatijb]

On the Geelong Tour I was sitting on 115kph in a line of 6 cars

Mine is auto sitting on 2200 rpm and the manual behind me was sitting on 2400rpm(cramorr) Maybe the answer is here More revs= more fuel

[trbo 6]

Is anyone with the APS II kit installed recieving wrong reading from their fuel consumption.

Before the installation I was getting an average of about 15L/100k's, which equates to 466L to about 70 Litres of fuel.

Now the reading is more like 12L/100k's which in theory should be 588L from 70 Litres, and I'm definately not getting that much.

Peter maybe you can answer this one. And maybe offer a quick fix?

Cheers

[Adam]

Here's a link that may help answer some of your questions:

L/100km Before And After The "chip" what's happening with the chipped cars ?

[trbo 6]

  alxr6t said:

Here's a link that may help answer some of your questions:

L/100km Before And After The "chip" what's happening with the chipped cars ?

Thanks answered all questions and then some.

[aps]

  trbo 6 said:

Is anyone with the APS II kit installed recieving wrong reading from their fuel consumption.

Before the installation I was getting an average of about 15L/100k's, which equates to 466L to about 70 Litres of fuel.

Now the reading is more like 12L/100k's which in theory should be 588L from 70 Litres, and I'm definately not getting that much.

Peter maybe you can answer this one. And maybe offer a quick fix?

Cheers

Trbo6, the trip computer makes its calculations from the duty cycle of the fuel injectors. When larger injectors are installed the fuel flow increases for the same amount of injector duty cycle.

This is the reason as to why the trip computer makes the incorrect calculation for fuel economy. We currently do not have a method to rectify this issue. This problem applies to any xr6t fitted with larger than stock fuel injectors. :(

The injector duty cycle is the rate at which the injector opens and closes, the higher the duty cycle the longer duration that the injector stays open. :

APS

[TURBO4LT]

HI Peter,

This error in readings should remain fairly constant? I assume that it will be the percentage of increase in injector size or am I totally off in which case ill duck for cover, by the way im enjoying the new found power the car hasnt missed a beat

Cheers Frank

[Guest DEVO]

Just recently put in a K&N panel filter and have noticed fuel consumption has gone up dramatically- contrary to everyone's opinion of what happens when you put a K&N in. I was usually getting about 15l/100km, even with the lead foot. Now, after about 600klm with it in, I seem to be getting about 16.7l/100klm (of course maintaining the lead foot). This seems pretty high to me, I mean I have not changed anything else, still run Optimax every tank, still like to get to 60klm/h as promptly as possible.

Does anyone have any suggestions? apart from the obvious changing back. I have heard you can get the chip "flashed" to erase the fuel/ignition curves so it learns faster- anyone know?

Thanks.