FG fuel economy
- Thread starter kerry
- Start date
mog
Kodiak Buckaroo
D'oh sorry about that.
A 2002 Fuso FG, as Kerry said, I stole last month from Colorado.
Here is a photoshopped picture of it when it has had the roof lowered 12 inches, and is lowered 6 inches on the frame.
(I wish the real work could be done that quick/easy).
mog
Kodiak Buckaroo
3.9 liter (238 cu-in)
Well the Mog I had was a ’66 404 DOKA, so not a fair comparison, as it was last used during the Spanish Inquisition to get people to talk.
The only ‘modern’ Unimog I’ve spent a fair amount of on-road driving/riding is an ex-military U1300. A hundred times more comfortable then my 404, and not a bad ride.
The best comparison I can make to the Fuso, is my 2002 Ford F-250 crewcab. I just got home last night from a 700 mile trip in the F-250, so a fair comparison to the Fuso trip I made last month. The Ford is quieter, and softer, BUT the Fuso has a 14,000 lbs rating and was at 8990 lbs, while the Ford is rated at about 9,000 lbs and was at 7,700.
I think with added sound damping in the Fuso’s cab, and customs springs/shocks set for its final weight, the Fuso will be on par with the F-250. Two things I like more about the Fuso are the upright driving seat position (bus like), this is just a more comfortable position for me. And the Fuso forces me to drive 55 mph (or less). Will the F-250 (mine has the V-10 gas engine), I always seem to be going fast to ‘get home sooner’. The Fuso driving is at a relaxing pace, and as my dad would saw “it is better to be the traffic, then trying to pass the traffic”. A more relaxing, not trying to pass every ‘slow poke’, worrying about Johnny Law and his ticket book drive. And at the end of the day, it is only a half hour or so that was ‘saved’ by going ‘fast’..
I had a 12 hour day, and a 14 hour day driving the Fuso home, and at the end of both, I was fine, not stiff, or worn out. This was completely stock, with a driver’s seat that could uses some new seat foam. Overall much-much nice then I expected. It is no Cadillac, but it sure is no 404.
DEFENDERBEAM
strategic command
RPM/speed example with SRW 34.9" Toyos. 2006 SWB FG84
Based on my garmin GPS, the speed is correct.
(With the stock wheels and tires the speedo was off about 5mph. When I singled it out and added tire diameter, the speedo corrected itself.)
westyss
Explorer
That is what I noticed too, I found the speedo is corrected much closer to actual speed, the odometer is off a little, I cant remember what I had calculated it out by but not much, I like that you got a shot of the mph vs rpm, nice, I will have a look at what I get at 2800 rpm with a taller tire,, 35.6" as I'm using it as my daily driver now.
DEFENDERBEAM
strategic command
Just think of how much Mitsubishi saves on warranties running out a bit sooner than they should.
Could be by design?
I think the CEO or another Mitsubishi exec went to prison over a commercial bus crash incident in Japan where the factory should have had a recall out that could have prevented the crash.
They are no less slimy than any other high level cost-cutting big wigs.
Could be by design?
I think the CEO or another Mitsubishi exec went to prison over a commercial bus crash incident in Japan where the factory should have had a recall out that could have prevented the crash.
They are no less slimy than any other high level cost-cutting big wigs.
Bajaroad
Adventurer
Me too. I have the 315-16" M/T Toyos, and the speedo is now accurate, meaning stock is reading high. The odometer on the other hand was measuring accurate with the stock tires/wheels.
I usually get 12-13mpg (diameter corrected) b/w 60-63mph if my tires are at 60psi. If I forget to air-up or forget to unlock the hubs it goes down 1-2 mph.
On a recent trip down the entire length of the Oregon coast I averaged about 12.5mph despite a lot of starting and stoping in towns, view points, campgrounds, etc.
SkiFreak
Crazy Person
That's 18.1 to 19.6 L/100 Km for those who want/need a conversion to metric.
(quote) I think the CEO or another Mitsubishi exec went to prison over a commercial bus crash incident in Japan where the factory should have had a recall out that could have prevented the crash. (unquote)
Two Mitsubishi execs got suspended prison sentences after an incident involving wheel separation from a failed hub on a Fuso truck in 2002. A woman in Yokohama was killed by the loose wheel. Fuso trucks were subsequently banned in 42 of Japan's 47 prefectures including Nagasaki where Mitsubishi's main plant was located. That's pretty much why Daimler ended up owning the Fuso division. They had just bought a stake and loaned them a bunch of money when TSHTF.
Two Mitsubishi execs got suspended prison sentences after an incident involving wheel separation from a failed hub on a Fuso truck in 2002. A woman in Yokohama was killed by the loose wheel. Fuso trucks were subsequently banned in 42 of Japan's 47 prefectures including Nagasaki where Mitsubishi's main plant was located. That's pretty much why Daimler ended up owning the Fuso division. They had just bought a stake and loaned them a bunch of money when TSHTF.
yabanja
Explorer
So I just charted everyone's reported economy from this and the other thread listed and averaged them. There were 22 people who reported. Average economy 12.69 mpg/5.4km per liter.
My 2000 FG639 with 37" tires, flatbed, suspension lift, and 9000 pounds is getting 13.64 miles to the gallon in mixed driving.
Allan
My 2000 FG639 with 37" tires, flatbed, suspension lift, and 9000 pounds is getting 13.64 miles to the gallon in mixed driving.
Allan
Last edited:
DEFENDERBEAM
strategic command
that's pretty good with 37's. I bet the older trucks are a little better on fuel, plus I was using California fuel which is most likely worse than fuel available in other states such as Utah.
yabanja
Explorer
I firmly believe that increasing the size of the tires improves fuel economy due to the poor gearing.(particularly in my year 5.7 final drive) One of the other higher economy numbers reported was from Amesez00(Spelling) who was running 38 inch tires!
