1990 Montero or 1998 Montero??

[4D55 Performance]

Since purchasing my 2000 Montero back in November I have put 8K miles on it an I am yet to have a tank average below 19.9 mpg. I think I have the closest thing to a new Montero. It only has 34K miles and it's still riding on the original Yokohama Super Diggers. I could understand that as these vehicles get long in the tooth and they break down that the milage may suffer if they are not maintained properly. But I can attest that a properly maintained Montero in stock form will get 24mpg on the open road with out a tail wind or hyper mileing techniques. If you are not getting over 20mpg then I would recommend having the vehicle serviced. Looking back on it I probably should of had my first Montero serviced because it only got 17-18 mpg on the open road. My 1991 should have been getting better mpg because it had the lockup torque converter and a newer engine but it was my first Montero so I did not know what to expect. All I knew was 18 mpg was a whole lot better that either of my Fj80's got.

 

[eurosonic]

WOW! 20 MPG, thats crazy.Im a pretty conservative driver and most I can squeeze out of my Monty is 16 mpg and thats with manual locking hubs turned off. :Wow1:

 

[GrassCat]

WOW! 20 MPG, thats crazy.Im a pretty conservative driver and most I can squeeze out of my Monty is 16 mpg and thats with manual locking hubs turned off. :Wow1:

I see you're running 33's. Have you calculated for the difference in stock tires? I use my on board GPS to come up with the total miles driven per fill up.

 

[eurosonic]

I see you're running 33's. Have you calculated for the difference in stock tires? I use my on board GPS to come up with the total miles driven per fill up.

Yea, thats including the 12.19% tire size difference.

 

[skids]

I have a 1997 gen 2.5, 3.5L GDI running 285/75/16 BFG MUDs, and I getting 22-24 on a run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[off-roader]

Yea, thats including the 12.19% tire size difference.

Methinks you have an engine issue then... Oh and my other alias is 'captain obvious':ylsmoke:

 

[eurosonic]

Engine seems to be in great shape, recently did a full service on it.

 

[off-roader]

Engine seems to be in great shape, recently did a full service on it.

Maybe you're driving in an alternate universe then?

Seriously though, what did the full service consist of? It may feel like its running fine but there could still be something wrong with it...

I would think being that many miles off can only be accounted for by either drivetrain issues or driving habits.

 

[eurosonic]

Maybe you're driving in an alternate universe then?

Seriously though, what did the full service consist of? It may feel like its running fine but there could still be something wrong with it...

I would think being that many miles off can only be accounted for by either drivetrain issues or driving habits.

I got the timing belt kit done with all the belts, rollers, water pump, spark plugs, wires, oil, coolant.
Maybe its the fuel filter.

Also how much percentage are you guys adjusting for the larger tires to calculate the actual miles driven?

 

[off-roader]

Also how much percentage are you guys adjusting for the larger tires to calculate the actual miles driven?

I calculated the percentage as follows...Stock tire size is 265/70-15 which is a ~29.6" diameter tire. My upgraded tire size is 35x12.5-15 which is a ~35" diameter tire35/29.6=1.1824324324324324....This effectively tells me the 35's are an increase of 18.2% bigger than the stock tire. I use 15% cause it's an easier number to remember and is on the conservative side...

 

[4D55 Performance]

I got the timing belt kit done with all the belts, rollers, water pump, spark plugs, wires, oil, coolant.
Maybe its the fuel filter.

Also how much percentage are you guys adjusting for the larger tires to calculate the actual miles driven?

When was the last time you have the tranny, t-case, differentials and other fluids changed. Also I would look to see when the second cat was last replaced because it can get clogged. It is not monitored by sensors so it could be affecting your MPG's and not throwing a CEL. Another thing you may want to look at is the injectors and the injection system. If it has not been gone through I would start there first. Injectors are not good forever, they need to be rebuilt every couple hundred thousand miles.

 

[Monterorider]

I have a 1997 gen 2.5, 3.5L GDI running 285/75/16 BFG MUDs, and I getting 22-24 on a run.

Imperial or US. If former then it about 18-20 mpg US which corresponds well to promised up to 10% better efficiency running lean with GDI.

 

[Monterorider]

Since purchasing my 2000 Montero back in November I have put 8K miles on it an I am yet to have a tank average below 19.9 mpg. I think I have the closest thing to a new Montero. It only has 34K miles and it's still riding on the original Yokohama Super Diggers. I could understand that as these vehicles get long in the tooth and they break down that the milage may suffer if they are not maintained properly. But I can attest that a properly maintained Montero in stock form will get 24mpg on the open road with out a tail wind or hyper mileing techniques. If you are not getting over 20mpg then I would recommend having the vehicle serviced. Looking back on it I probably should of had my first Montero serviced because it only got 17-18 mpg on the open road. My 1991 should have been getting better mpg because it had the lockup torque converter and a newer engine but it was my first Montero so I did not know what to expect. All I knew was 18 mpg was a whole lot better that either of my Fj80's got.

Speed, altitude, tire inflation pressure? We have discussed it before. You are at about 4500 ft. meaning 20% less dense air, less air resistance, less pumping losses in engine. Ultimately less horsepower. All this translates into 15% or better improvements in mileage but you can't say everyone should be able to do that unless they live in similar conditions. Eurosonic is in Sacramento which is essentially at sea level (47ft). 24 mpg at seal level is pretty good mileage for minivan or mid size crossover.

To get proper tire size adjustment use what manufactures publish as revolutions per mile for example http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...&tireModel=Grabber+AT+2&partnum=67SR5GRAT2OWL
which for 265/70R15 is 704
for 33x12.5 - 636 meaning 10.7%
and for 35x12.5 - 600 - 17.3%

Rev per miles accounts for tire deformation (we are not rolling steel ball down the road) at proper inflation pressure.

 

[skids]

Imperial or US. If former then it about 18-20 mpg US which corresponds well to promised up to 10% better efficiency running lean with GDI.

Imperial, and I'm happy with that. In the England we have been up to £140+ a litre, but if I worried what it cost me to run it I would not have bought a 4x4!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk