Fuel economy

[mjc85]

Hmm first tank of Diesel through the new Automatic MN GLX-R.

Light came on exactly as I pulled in to fillup. I pumped exactly 60 litres in and did 502km so an economy of 11.95 L/100km. I have 31" Coopers ST tyres and nothing else. I drove very easy and didn't put the foot down at all. I ran the aircon probably 40% of the time and about 40% of the mileage done was highway on cruise at 100-110. The ute only has just over 600km on it now, do they use more fuel for a run in period? Can I expect a change after the 1500km service?

I think the advertised 8.3L/100km for Manual and 9.3L/100km for Auto (what a joke) is a longshot from the truth.

Cheers
Mitch

[daryn]

Welcome to the Daryn, Snowman club Mitch.

[sierra]

Hmm first tank of Diesel through the new Automatic MN GLX-R.

Light came on exactly as I pulled in to fillup. I pumped exactly 60 litres in and did 502km so an economy of 11.95 L/100km. I have 31" Coopers ST tyres and nothing else. I drove very easy and didn't put the foot down at all. I ran the aircon probably 40% of the time and about 40% of the mileage done was highway on cruise at 100-110. The ute only has just over 600km on it now, do they use more fuel for a run in period? Can I expect a change after the 1500km service?

I think the advertised 8.3L/100km for Manual and 9.3L/100km for Auto (what a joke) is a longshot from the truth.

Cheers
Mitch

Have you compensated for the tyre diameter? 11.55L/100km?
Did you fill it up when you picked it up or did the dealer fill it up for you?

[Tony]

These things seen to be all over the place with fuel usage. Mine a manual so doesn't count I guess. On another forum a member is complaining as he cant get under 13/100 in an auto
I went around the auto as we do big kay's (Approx 40 to 60 a year) and tow for most of it. Glad I did now How a we little 2.5 expected to turn a slush box with good fuel consumption beats me There is to much friction involved. The heavier the box the worse it is. I'd say why they reduced the torque out put and stayed with the lighter slush box would have been fuel usage.

It will all be fixed when they release the V6 DID soon

[UAV]

my fuel

Start 9931 kms

550km trip, 59.82l, 10.88 l/100
310km trip, 37.35l, 12.05 l/100
470km trip, 52.79l, 11.23 l/100
558km trip, 59.89l, 10.73 l/100
488km trip, 58.52l, 11.99 l/100
517km trip, 58.75l, 11.36 l/100

car is stock as a rock
few hundred kilos of tool in tub
id say average driver
combination of about 75% city driving and 25% hwy

is this good or bad? i had been hoping for better...

[Tony]

my fuel

Start 9931 kms

550km trip, 59.82l, 10.88 l/100
310km trip, 37.35l, 12.05 l/100
470km trip, 52.79l, 11.23 l/100
558km trip, 59.89l, 10.73 l/100
488km trip, 58.52l, 11.99 l/100
517km trip, 58.75l, 11.36 l/100

car is stock as a rock
few hundred kilos of tool in tub
id say average driver
combination of about 75% city driving and 25% hwy

is this good or bad? i had been hoping for better...

Manual or auto? I'd say good for an auto and average for a Manual compared to mine.

[marashkar]

my auto mn 9.8 not flogging but not babying either apart from bullbar stock standard you flog it straight to 11s if it stays the way it is i can live with it steve

[UAV]

sorry,

mine is a manual ml

[Naff]

few hundred kilos in the tub probably wouldn't help.. my best figures were with an empty tub - i started noticing a change with the compressor and dual battery setup i have (box included).. unless it was coincedence

[marashkar]

mine was horrendous when new 5thousand on it now 9.8 mainly highway don't go over 100ks and it behaves itself. another one out here in the 12s but it has a hiline canopy so little motor and wind resistance. it would appear that the mns to achieve the claimed figures it must be bog standard and driven by a granny steve

[sam]

This is what a few forum members said including myself re fuel economy on the MN's you have a small motor pushing basically the same weight as the ML so just couldn't see them really being any better

Once you start putting big tyres, bar work etc etc on it's going to to working pretty hard so not really surprised at some of these Lt / 100 Km figures for the 2.5's .

[sierra]

Here's a smaller motor than the MN pushing the same weight, producing well over 20% more power than the ML 3.2 and yet using almost 30% less fuel.
That seems a lot better!

Hyundai Santa Fe
Manual 6 speed
2.2CRD 145kw 421Nm
1954kg
6.7L/100km

ML GLX Triton
Manual 5 speed
3.2CRD 118kw 347Nm
1937kg
9.1L/100km

Mitsubishi could learn from Hyundai it seems?

[NTBB]

I think we should wait till Hyundai bring out a 1 ton ute before we use them as a example,they would have to change the gearing to suite the job at hand.

[sierra]

I think we should wait till Hyundai bring out a 1 ton ute before we use them as a example,they would have to change the gearing to suite the job at hand.

Has the Challenger got higher gearing than the MN Triton?

The manual Challenger is slightly lower geared and the auto slightly higher geared than the MN and that's taking the larger diameter Challenger tyres into the equation.

[jimmy]

hyundai have just strarted working on a one tonne ute, they have 2 very good diesels, 2.0 l 135kw 392nM and the r series 2.2 145kw and upto 436nM but they are both configured for east west mounting and running awd systems that predominantly drive the front wheels, (thats how they get the economy) with a centre difflock to provide 50/50 spilt, they do not have a lowrange transfer case option yet. both engines are brilliant though and so quiet, make my triton sound like a bloody old chaff cutter. would think an option from hyundai to the 4x4 market would still be at least 2 years away

[sierra]

The Triton and Challenger both have 2wd for normal road conditions and I doubt that RWD drive as opposed to FWD would account for the big difference in fuel consumption, it's only the prop shaft losses between them.
I think it's the Hyundai engines are more sophisticated and economical.

[NTBB]

The Santa Fe is imo in a completly different market to both mitsi modles,The Outlander is the closest in the mitsi range but they don't offer this in a crd

[NTBB]

Btw i got the best economy so far out of the triton 300km 0ltrs...... did help that it was on the back of a tilt tray tho
Might have to have a close look at a Hyundai one ton ute(with low range) if this keeps up

[sierra]

The Santa Fe is imo in a completly different market to both mitsi modles,The Outlander is the closest in the mitsi range but they don't offer this in a crd

Still similar weight, size, shape, tyres. What does the market matter, we're talking fuel economy on the road?
The smaller more powerful CRD gets much better economy and I bet if you stuck an inline version in a Triton or Challenger it would use much less fuel than the 3.2 or 2.5HP and do the job just fine.

Good economy but that's cheating a bit!

[NTBB]

Big diff in load capacities and no expects a Santa Fe to bang around a farm or work site all day having it's load capacities used and abused every other day

[sierra]

Big diff in load capacities and no expects a Santa Fe to bang around a farm or work site all day having it's load capacities used and abused every other day

Same load capacities for the Challenger and Santa Fe

Challenger payload 669kg max tow braked 2500kg
Santa Fe payload 666kg max tow braked 2500kg

We are comparing fuel consumption in normal use on roads.

[RHKTriton]

Biggest problem with traditional 4x4s is the mess underneath. I lose a min. of .5l/100 with just two ski bars on the roof. (Usually get around 9.2 - 9.6 cruising at around the real 100 - 110. Manual, 33k, EGR blocked, Waste lever wound up 2/3 further, Throttle disabled, about 100kg in closed tub. Bad week with ladders on top, around town about low 11s.)

Look at the cross members and rear axle and all the turbulence that probably results. Most euro and modern mono bodied SUVs are flat underneath and most of the air goes around or over them.

The large gap between the mud guard openings and the wheels also cause a lot of drag.

I just looked at the Challenger while waiting on my VR being serviced and the quoted fuel economy is no carrot. I still think the 3.2 sounds like bits are getting smashed around inside them while warming up but after hearing the 2.5 in the Challenger (when the dealer moved it), I don't feel so bad.

VW's 2.5 five cylinder diesel unit with a six speed double overdrive would be the unit to have in the Triton!

[NTBB]

Big diff in load capacities and no expects a Santa Fe to bang around a farm or work site all day having it's load capacities used and abused every other day

Same load capacities for the Challenger and Santa Fe

Challenger payload 669kg max tow braked 2500kg
Santa Fe payload 666kg max tow braked 2500kg

We are comparing fuel consumption in normal use on roads.

What's nomal to me may be extreem to you hence why cars are built to a market.

[sierra]

What's nomal to me may be extreem to you hence why cars are built to a market.

??????????
I've tried to keep it objective by comparing fuel consumption of vehicles of the same size, weight, load capabilities etc but with different size CRD motors. That's what this thread is about, fuel economy.
I feel I've proved my point and to respond anymore is pointless, over and out.

[jimmy]

sierra, i think the economy is obtained by the use of the new piezo injectors, they make for a very quiet efficient engine