Fuel Consumption
- Thread starter carbon60
- Start date
Fully loaded numbers
My fully loaded 2004 FG camper (weight between 12000 -13000 lbs) gets 9-11 mpg at highway speed (62mph -- 100kph) depending on the number of big climbs and wind conditions. On improved dirt roads (like the Dempster HWY) at moderate speeds the mileage jumps to 12-14 mpg depending hills and wind again.
Tom
My fully loaded 2004 FG camper (weight between 12000 -13000 lbs) gets 9-11 mpg at highway speed (62mph -- 100kph) depending on the number of big climbs and wind conditions. On improved dirt roads (like the Dempster HWY) at moderate speeds the mileage jumps to 12-14 mpg depending hills and wind again.
Tom
westyss
Explorer
Hi Tom, is that in imperial or us gallons? Not sure where you are located? Maybe even state the type of camper, ie, mine is a rising top so when down its almost flush with the cab, I thought it would be the closest type for the original poster's question. i will guess that you are stateside with those numbers?
Wind makes a huge difference, same as speed, except my last big trip I got better mileage at 65-70mph than putting along at 60mph... wierd!
Bandicoot
Adventurer
I'm getting between 16 and 18 litres per 100 km, running at "full expedition weight" which for my SWB EarthCruiser is 5.2 tonnes (includes all gear for 2 persons for extended expeditions, 220 litres fresh water, 245 litres diesel, 15 litres flushing water in Thetford, etc, etc).
16 l/100 km would be for 80 kph driving. 18 l/100 km would be 100 kph.
Most lower speed off-road work doesn't seem to make it any worse than 18 l/100 km, no doubt because all these vehicles have all the aerodynamics of a house brick so low speed work hasn't got the big aerodynamic drag losses.
Kym Bolton reported hard sand dune work (hundreds of km over big dunes, no tracks, soft tyres) at up to 21 l/100 km, which I'd certainly believe as accurate.
rick
16 l/100 km would be for 80 kph driving. 18 l/100 km would be 100 kph.
Most lower speed off-road work doesn't seem to make it any worse than 18 l/100 km, no doubt because all these vehicles have all the aerodynamics of a house brick so low speed work hasn't got the big aerodynamic drag losses.
Kym Bolton reported hard sand dune work (hundreds of km over big dunes, no tracks, soft tyres) at up to 21 l/100 km, which I'd certainly believe as accurate.
rick
DEFENDERBEAM
strategic command
the best I have heard of is around 20mpg with a modified ECU, exhaust, SRW, etc.
my 2006 SWB FG84 gets about 13mpg at 70mph. That is with SRW that are just under 35" OD. no load. it goes up to 75mph +. I am sure it would get better at a slightly lower speed, but I have a heavy foot.
When it was totally stock it got as low as 10mpg on the freeway driving full bore in an extremely hot day with the AC also full bore. The tires were also worn down quite a bit.
my 2006 SWB FG84 gets about 13mpg at 70mph. That is with SRW that are just under 35" OD. no load. it goes up to 75mph +. I am sure it would get better at a slightly lower speed, but I have a heavy foot.
When it was totally stock it got as low as 10mpg on the freeway driving full bore in an extremely hot day with the AC also full bore. The tires were also worn down quite a bit.
mpg
hello all
my 08 fuso fg gets 13-16 mpg empty or loaded, with the camper on being closer to 14 mpg. it seems true that lower rpm makes a big difference and can get 16 mpg steady if i stay under 2400 rpm even with a load. keep in mind i am running swr and 285/70-19.5 tyres and have not adjusted speedometer for increased tyre diameter so my numbers are alittle off.
i typically run 60-65 mph when traveling with the camper at 14-15 mpg average. the camper is a cabover and has more windage than a rig like earthcruiser so i would expect alittle better with them.
intersesting to hear so many running these trucks at such high speed which i assume will be at redline or close to. even with the larger tyres i wouldn't want to constantly run at 70 mph for long at 2800 + rmp with redline set at 3000 rpm
cheers lehel
hello all
my 08 fuso fg gets 13-16 mpg empty or loaded, with the camper on being closer to 14 mpg. it seems true that lower rpm makes a big difference and can get 16 mpg steady if i stay under 2400 rpm even with a load. keep in mind i am running swr and 285/70-19.5 tyres and have not adjusted speedometer for increased tyre diameter so my numbers are alittle off.
i typically run 60-65 mph when traveling with the camper at 14-15 mpg average. the camper is a cabover and has more windage than a rig like earthcruiser so i would expect alittle better with them.
intersesting to hear so many running these trucks at such high speed which i assume will be at redline or close to. even with the larger tyres i wouldn't want to constantly run at 70 mph for long at 2800 + rmp with redline set at 3000 rpm
cheers lehel
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Hi Lehel..........,
To the original poster, .....I got what I considerred to be a very accurate fuel reading on a brand new FG84 about 12 months back. Had to deliver it about 2000kms away in central Australia and basically sat on the speed limiter the whole way. It was bus and limited to exactly 98 kph. Bigger wheels so the rpm was lower too remember. Here's a pic.
You can see that apart from the bullbar it is quite "aero" and the Wind Deflecter (W.D) fitted to the cab roof definitely does help because I noticed if a road train went past in the opposite direction there was virtually no buffetting at all. The vehicle weighed roughly 4600kg (tare) with only 20 litres of fuel onboard, max height was 3.3 metres to the top of the air/con pod and wheelbase was out to 3900mm. Absolutely standard engine and exhaust but there is a little bit of a ram on the air intake ( see poking up from the roofline in the pic). Fitted with 285 / 70 R / 19.5 tyres and over the 2000kms, averaged 20 litres/100km or 5 kms/litre or 14.1 miles/gal (Imp) or 11.8 miles/gal (US). Certainly nothing to brag about but remember that it was a big vehicle overall. Notably it was brand new too having a tight engine with basically zero kms on the clock at the start of the trip. I've heard of these trucks still improving fuel consumption up to 100,000kms but I would guess this would average out to only another 1 km/litre (2.4 miles per US gal) ......1.5 tops.
Carbon60 and others in North America, our FG 84 model is slightly diffrerent and although has the a 4.9 litre, multi-valve, common rail, turbo/ intercooled engine with EGR , there is no DPF. Incidently, have been promised a drive in the new 2012 3 litre model which does have a DPF this coming Friday if anyone's wants to ask questions.I am willing to guess the new engines will be a vast improvement on fuel consumption but we'll wait and see by how much...not because of the DPF but the power curves for such a small engine are staggering. Efficiency must be way up.
The earlier model FG 649 was considerably better on fuel. These had the old 3.9 litre engine but were also less powerfurful. .........and to throw weight to the "aero" vs weight issue, one of the best fuel consumption figures I've heard was from a FG649 driver (and trusted friend) who averages 7.5kms/litre and once recorded 8kms/litre in "expedition" trim which although not condoned is often up around 7ton GVM. Tsk, tsk , tsk. I mean 2 x trailbikes, RIB and outboard motor, enough battery power to run my house, and enough water and supplies to last him 3 or 4 months in the desert, big genset, air-con, espresso machine, etc, etc. etc, etc............now despite all the gear carried it is probably one of the cleanest FG's ever built in terms of aerodynamics and I would therefore say that must weigh heavily on the performance figures.......he finds himself cruising slightly under 100kph though on the highway......more like 90 or 95kph. Exhaust was standard other than a shorter tailpipe and no chip......also runs very tall 930mm diameter tyres. He has since fitted LPG and tells me that fuel consumption has improved even further. (Note: They tell me LPG makes a bigger difference on less efficient engines without common rail injection).
To the original poster, .....I got what I considerred to be a very accurate fuel reading on a brand new FG84 about 12 months back. Had to deliver it about 2000kms away in central Australia and basically sat on the speed limiter the whole way. It was bus and limited to exactly 98 kph. Bigger wheels so the rpm was lower too remember. Here's a pic.
You can see that apart from the bullbar it is quite "aero" and the Wind Deflecter (W.D) fitted to the cab roof definitely does help because I noticed if a road train went past in the opposite direction there was virtually no buffetting at all. The vehicle weighed roughly 4600kg (tare) with only 20 litres of fuel onboard, max height was 3.3 metres to the top of the air/con pod and wheelbase was out to 3900mm. Absolutely standard engine and exhaust but there is a little bit of a ram on the air intake ( see poking up from the roofline in the pic). Fitted with 285 / 70 R / 19.5 tyres and over the 2000kms, averaged 20 litres/100km or 5 kms/litre or 14.1 miles/gal (Imp) or 11.8 miles/gal (US). Certainly nothing to brag about but remember that it was a big vehicle overall. Notably it was brand new too having a tight engine with basically zero kms on the clock at the start of the trip. I've heard of these trucks still improving fuel consumption up to 100,000kms but I would guess this would average out to only another 1 km/litre (2.4 miles per US gal) ......1.5 tops.
Carbon60 and others in North America, our FG 84 model is slightly diffrerent and although has the a 4.9 litre, multi-valve, common rail, turbo/ intercooled engine with EGR , there is no DPF. Incidently, have been promised a drive in the new 2012 3 litre model which does have a DPF this coming Friday if anyone's wants to ask questions.I am willing to guess the new engines will be a vast improvement on fuel consumption but we'll wait and see by how much...not because of the DPF but the power curves for such a small engine are staggering. Efficiency must be way up.
The earlier model FG 649 was considerably better on fuel. These had the old 3.9 litre engine but were also less powerfurful. .........and to throw weight to the "aero" vs weight issue, one of the best fuel consumption figures I've heard was from a FG649 driver (and trusted friend) who averages 7.5kms/litre and once recorded 8kms/litre in "expedition" trim which although not condoned is often up around 7ton GVM. Tsk, tsk , tsk. I mean 2 x trailbikes, RIB and outboard motor, enough battery power to run my house, and enough water and supplies to last him 3 or 4 months in the desert, big genset, air-con, espresso machine, etc, etc. etc, etc............now despite all the gear carried it is probably one of the cleanest FG's ever built in terms of aerodynamics and I would therefore say that must weigh heavily on the performance figures.......he finds himself cruising slightly under 100kph though on the highway......more like 90 or 95kph. Exhaust was standard other than a shorter tailpipe and no chip......also runs very tall 930mm diameter tyres. He has since fitted LPG and tells me that fuel consumption has improved even further. (Note: They tell me LPG makes a bigger difference on less efficient engines without common rail injection).
Last edited: