Page: 1 2 3 ... 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
DogTrail
X-TRAIL FANATIC
Date Registered: 05-2012
Location: Sunshine Coast
TOTAL POSTS: 481
|
 | 
|
|
Re: Re:
Well done!
For fully loaded at highway speed, that is exceptional fuel economy.
Did you also take note of of the fuel consumption for the climb up the mountain to Kosi?
It would be interesting to see the difference as cars (like people) get thirstier when climbing hills but it can be hard to quantify unless on a long climb like yours.
Last edited by DogTrail, 5/Apr/2013, 7:50 pm
---
2011/12 Australia:- 2.5 litre petrol 4WD, Series IV ST, CVT with Nissan bonnet & headlight protectors, mats + after-market HD towbar with added step for old dogs. ;) Garmin GPS, K&N air filter, DashMate, Black Pearl Tint , Dirt. X-2429(c).
|
|
5/Apr/2013, 7:41 pm
|
|
|
|
Re: Re:
quote:
dugsuth wrote:
I just did a trip down to Kosi NP and back, return leg which was predominantly cruising at 120km/h, including 3 guys and 3 backpacks on board, I got 8.1L/100kms. I calculated using kms since last fill up (I always reset each time I refuel), and litres of fuel required to fill back up.
so what were the actual fill-up figures against the trip km reading?
I ask this because the fuel consumption figure you have provided is "hard to believe" and I have never managed to get this on a highway run with an empty xtrail let alone fully loaded and doing 120kms/hour!
|
|
5/Apr/2013, 8:18 pm
|
|
DogTrail
X-TRAIL FANATIC
Date Registered: 05-2012
Location: Sunshine Coast
TOTAL POSTS: 481
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re:
quote:
I have never managed to get this on a highway run with an empty xtrail let alone fully loaded and doing 120kms/hour!
Nor have I done even close to that at highway speed on level ground, but I read that post as saying that was what he got on the downhill run from Mt Kosi to Sydney.
Fair enough, but it is only in one downhill direction.
That is why I asked about the uphill run.
The fuel and distance figures when provided for both the uphill and downhill runs will be definitive.
For 400 km + each way, Sydney to Mountain and return, that becomes a usable statistic.
I can see the added mass of 3 bodies + backpacks as an advantage for the downhill run. Not so good for the uphill to get there.
The numbers for each direction over such a long run will be interesting - how much energy does it take to raise an X-Trail to reach a mountain top?
Hopefully the raw figures will be made available.
Last edited by DogTrail, 6/Apr/2013, 1:09 am
---
2011/12 Australia:- 2.5 litre petrol 4WD, Series IV ST, CVT with Nissan bonnet & headlight protectors, mats + after-market HD towbar with added step for old dogs. ;) Garmin GPS, K&N air filter, DashMate, Black Pearl Tint , Dirt. X-2429(c).
|
|
6/Apr/2013, 12:22 am
|
|
DogTrail
X-TRAIL FANATIC
Date Registered: 05-2012
Location: Sunshine Coast
TOTAL POSTS: 481
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re:
Excellent economy on the 98 octane 5qu33ky - still plenty of fuel left after 666 km!
Obviously everything is in tune and she's running well.
My thoughts on E10 are probably well known. I don't like it. May as well put 10% less fuel in the car - but you only get a 1% discount at the bowser (on 91 RON price).
If I read it correctly, in your case E10 used 10% more fuel with less power, less response and a lesser driving experience.
I've been using 98 in the last few tankfulls after being quite happy with 91 - however, the handbook is quite true.
Handbook states the 2.5L motor will run on 91 but with less power.
I am now addicted to the extra power from the 98.
All-in-all it may cost me about 2% more to have that power on tap (98 costs 10% more than 91 but gives 8% better economy in my car), but part of that 2% cost increase is because I now serendipitiously use the increased'surge of power' from the right foot - Why? - because I can.
It makes the driving experience much more enjoyable.
Last edited by DogTrail, 9/Apr/2013, 8:07 pm
---
2011/12 Australia:- 2.5 litre petrol 4WD, Series IV ST, CVT with Nissan bonnet & headlight protectors, mats + after-market HD towbar with added step for old dogs. ;) Garmin GPS, K&N air filter, DashMate, Black Pearl Tint , Dirt. X-2429(c).
|
|
9/Apr/2013, 5:43 pm
|
|
DogTrail
X-TRAIL FANATIC
Date Registered: 05-2012
Location: Sunshine Coast
TOTAL POSTS: 481
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re:
I apologise if I seem to be monopolising this thread but I tend to be a bit obsessive about optimising efficiency and I see it as possibly useful to someone if I share my experiences.
My latest Highway run (Sunshine Coast to Gold Coast and return) for about 380km Highway + 40km Urban in the 2.5L CVT, after refuelling at 424.2 Km with 33.5 L of Caltex 98, returned 12.66 Km/L or 7.97 L/100 Km .
The second cut-off from the pump only showed 32.9 L but I could still hear some gurgling so I gave it a third pump after that had settled to brim the tank to overflow point at 33.5 L refill.
When the car was brand new, it was very difficult to get below 10.2 L/100 Km for the first couple of thousand Km.
As the engine was progressively run in and things loosened up a bit, the fuel economy improved in a linear fashion.
Now at 20,000 Km, the engine is probably at its peak efficiency, or alternately, as good as it will ever get.
Driving style has a lot to do with Urban economy.
As an aside: I drove to the GPS display of speed limits which are 5 KPH lower than the indicated Speedometer readings (115 speedo vs 110 GPS). As one is going faster, there is disproportionately more wind resistance at the GPS indicated (but actual) speed.
But on a 2 way trip on the same highway at either 100 or 110 KPH .locked in to the Cruise Control, then the achieved economy is not dependent on the individual driving style.
On that highway run using cruise control, it becomes more dependent on the individual car's wind resistance and the quality of fuel. (+/- variations in rise and fall of the other compared roads )
I was pleased to see that this car seemed to be exceptionally economical on that particular highway run with Caltex 98 at 7.97 L/100 Km.
The previous trip on the same highway using Caltex 91 returned 8.66 L/100 Km
The contoured step I've added to the tow point was there for both those runs but maybe it has beneficially altered the airflow to help with the overall fuel efficiency which is now showing an average of less than 8.6 L/100 Km in the life of the vehicle.?
Inserted Edit: Since the first trip, I have added a finer mesh to the original radiator gaps in order to protect the vulnerable and expensive radiator/heat exchange parts from insects and stones - which will naturally force a different airflow at the pointy end of the car. That and the shaped rear step might have combined to lower the drag co-efficient.
My best highway run was nearly as good as 5qu33ky, but not quite.
So Aaron, you still have the edge for a highway run.
Last edited by DogTrail, 1/May/2013, 12:58 am
---
2011/12 Australia:- 2.5 litre petrol 4WD, Series IV ST, CVT : + some gadgets and cosmetic add-on's. Dirt, (it protects the paintwork) X-2429(c).
|
|
30/Apr/2013, 9:13 pm
|
|
DogTrail
X-TRAIL FANATIC
Date Registered: 05-2012
Location: Sunshine Coast
TOTAL POSTS: 481
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re:
quote:
return leg which was predominantly cruising at 120km/h, including 3 guys and 3 backpacks on board, I got 8.1L/100kms.
Apologies, It was open to misenterpretation that it was the downhill run which gave that economy.
Clarified with your next post.
That query is resolved.
I am intrigued, that although average fuel consumption for the petrol version 2.5L X-Trail motor seems to sit above 10 L /100 Km on Spritmonitor, there seems to be a growing number of people on this forum who expect to use a lot less than that in their petrol X-Trail.
That s a good thing and there should be a lot more of it.
Sometimes, up to 20% better than that alleged average.
What is the common factor among those who always expect to get better than 9.5 L/100 Km?
Last edited by DogTrail, 4/May/2013, 12:14 am
---
2011/12 Australia:- 2.5 litre petrol 4WD, Series IV ST, CVT : + some gadgets and cosmetic add-on's. Dirt, (it protects the paintwork) X-2429(c).
|
|
3/May/2013, 10:17 pm
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 ... 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
|
