Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

Fuel consumption



Hi all
I don't know if anyone read about my 100 series week before last but since
having this 'tuning box" (see below) fitted I can report quite an
improvement in fuel economy. When I filled up last week having only done
local trips some only 2-3 miles, no motorway and a few fast B road runs
enjoying the improved power and torque! I calculated and average of 21.5
mpg. Doesn't sound great but considering the best I had seen before was
19mpg and no more than 17mpg around town I would say It's quite an
improvement. We are off to Switzerland on Friday with a top box on so I'll
let you know what we achieve on that run.
I was trying to find Van Aaken developments to optimise it but they went
bust in January. I did however find one of their staff who is offering
diesel tuning =8Cboxes=B9 for the LC and I had one fitted last week. It has made
quite a difference to say the least! Bags more torque, smoother
acceleration, feels much quicker and seems to be using less fuel. 80 mph now
with only a whisker of throttle. I will know just how much better economy is
when I fill it up this weekend.
If anyone wants their details: [Email address removed]
Gary Feakins South East Motorsport Ltd Tel: 01189 344 500 Fax: 01183 244 500
( I don=B9t work for them or have any interest in their business, they seem to
be genuine and experienced people)
On 18/8/08 15:35, "Jon Wildsmith" <[Email address removed]> wrote:
> I was having a rummage through our car paperwork folder trying to make
> space for our new (to us!) 100 series stuff and came across a Toyota
> 'official fuel economy information' leaflet supplied with Steph's 80 when
> it was new (93) dated October 93. It makes very interesting reading and I
> thought I'd share.
> It shows figures for simulated urban, constant 56mph and constant 75mph.
> VX Manual 24.8 / 31.0 / 19.8
> VX Auto 20.6 / 30.1 / 19.0
> Of course there's a disclaimer against you not being able to match their
> figures!
> I know we've seen 26-27mpg on long runs in Stephs before big tyres and
> suspensions lifts etc went on but I don't think I've ever heard someone
> claiming 30 for a 12 valve auto?
> Also on this subject, we did 650 miles in our petrol auto 100 series last
> week mostly with our 1900Kg caravan on the back at 60mph and averaged
> 15mpg which was much higher than expected and only very slightly more
> expensive than using Steph's diesel 80 series but with all the fun of a V8
> ;-)
> Jon
> --
> European Land Cruiser Owners Mailing List
> Further Info:
On 18 Aug 2008, at 15:35, Jon Wildsmith wrote:
I'm seriously looking at the 100 series 4.7 V8 with an LPG
conversion. Big petrol 4x4's a crashing in value here in the UK and I
think it could be a good way to go if you need a big vehicle. If you
could get one returning the equivalent of 30 mpg on gas, that would
be pretty good.
Then if you can get the cats removed and remap the ECU for gas, it
would possibly be very good indeed.
Neill W
| Then if you can get the cats removed and remap the ECU for gas, it
| would possibly be very good indeed.
Is that legal? I can often tell when I'm following something running on LPG because of the smell of the (presumeably unburned) gas, so I find it hard to believe that it would pass the emissions test without the cat.
But then maybe the cats don't "eat" gas, so there is no point in having them anyway.
Interesting question!
As far as I can tell the Ozzies are the ones who have done most on this front as parts of Australia actually gave about =A31000 towards the cost of conversion. Apparently there can be a problem with the valves burning, and some people run with a drip feed of oil lubrication into the inlet manifold for this reason. They definitely remap the ECU for gas, and I think you can have a dual-mapped one that switches between petrol and gas settings.
The big unknown is, of course, the big clunking fist in No 10 and his poodle next door...
Christopher Bell
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
On 19 Aug 2008, at 10:21, Christopher Bell wrote:
So I've been told - would need to check
I believe that's the case - I was told that if it's running on gas,
the cats aren't needed for MOT
There are valve lube kits that some fit - don't know if the 4.7V8
needs one
That would be the plan, ideally. Don't know if it's possible with
this motor, as Toyota are very good at encrypting apparently and I
think it has drive-by-wire throttle.
Correct, but I'll show my ar%e in a shop window if they get back in,
but that's another thread...
Also, can the road fund licence be re-classified once the LPG is
fitted, so that you don't pay higher rates of duty?
Just me thinking aloud at the moment.
Ideal spec would be:
4.7V8 running LPG with no cats, 3" exhaust and remapped ECU
Big tank underneath, so not having to stop to refill
Extreme valve body from Australia to sharpen the gearshift
Remove roof rails and fit big rack for shooting photos from and
loading my son's kayaks onto...
Then bugger off on holiday around France, lots of room for red wine
and Confit d'Canard.... :)
Neill Watson
| Also, can the road fund licence be re-classified once the LPG is
| fitted, so that you don't pay higher rates of duty?
Apparently yes, see (look for "VED") it seems that if you have a certificate of installation you pay =A315 less per year if it was first registered after 2001.
I suppose that might buy one confit de canard ...
I think I'll stick to my smelly old diesel until it falls apart! Its most recent tankful was 28.6 mpg which I can live with.
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
I'd be interested in the answer to this. I've never before heard that cats
are not needed for the MOT with an LPG conversion.
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
I just found this quote, no idea if it's accurate:
I own a Honda CRX Civic Del Sol 1992 K reg and I am having a stainless steel
exhaust built and fitted. The fitter has said to me because the car is a
1992 model and the law that governs the catalytic converters for the MOT
came into effect in 1993, the car does not fall into this law, and I could
remove the cat and it would still pass the MOT. Is he correct or will it
fail the emissions Test. Thanks, Ben.
Your fitter is not quite correct. The MOT regulations say nothing about a
vehicle having a catalytic converter. They merely set emission levels which
have to be achieved if the vehicle is first used after a specific year.
Certainly some cars with every efficient engines could achieve the required
emission levels without a catalytic converter. However in your case, if your
vehicle's year is before the break year, then should the cat be removed, in
all probabilty it should not affect the MOT.
A quick google reveals nothing in the MOT regs about any vehicle having to
have a cat fitted, only that emissions must be within a certain range.
This is from the mottester website:
"Exhaust system
Test Description
The exhaust system will fail the MOT if:
Part of the system is missing or excessively deteriorated
A mounting is missing or damaged so it does not support the system
There is a major leak
The system is excessively noisy.
These are checked using specialised equipment, the details of the check
depending on the year that the vehicle was first used on the road. Excessive
smoking (checked visually) is a reason for failure.
Diesel smoke emissions are checked by using a smoke meter"
On 19 Aug 2008, at 16:57, Peter Browning wrote:
That was my thinking.
I used to have a 1993 Porsche 911, modified. It had no cats, but
provided the engine was nice and hot, it never failed an MOT.
Neill W