|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: TresMon]
#835359
09/12/07 09:30 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,727
Web Wheeler
|
Pictured is some of the best 80's technology <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> On the right 2.6 Liter Solid Metal Beast 17mpg if your lucky On the left 1.6 liter go-cart 30 mpg if your lucky. All those "rumors" of 20mpg in a Montero was somewhere in Flatsville with a slight downward grade plus a tailwind <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ![[Linked Image]](http://www.users.qwest.net/~sginc6/pulsar7.jpg)
98 Montero with cold weather package 96 Toyota Land Cruiser, fully locked Mall Machine :-)
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: LRJ4x4]
#835360
09/12/07 10:38 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,231
Trail Leader
|
...with a slight downward grade... ...both ways!
?_________ |_|_|\____\___ l-----[O]≡≡≡≡[O] ()_)()_)-----)_) Stay the Trail!
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: CapnCrunch]
#835361
09/12/07 11:27 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,896
Trail Leader
|
My v6 raider in stock form got 20-23 hwy. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />
I broke 20 in my 93sr.
I have broken 20 in my 91, 15-17 lately.
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: sparkem]
#835362
09/13/07 02:42 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 122
Wheeler
|
So just to summarize its going to depend on your location, driving style, how good of upkeep on your vehicle, add-ons/offs, whether the moons are alligned right, etc.... Expect 15-20ish
1989 Dodge Raider 2.6L/5spd 2004 Honda Element EX 1989 Dodge Daytona Shelby Z 1993 Toyota P/U
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: EyeOnCy]
#835363
09/13/07 02:47 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,727
Web Wheeler
|
I got 10 MPG in Victorville with a 40 knot headwind <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/evil.gif" alt="" />
98 Montero with cold weather package 96 Toyota Land Cruiser, fully locked Mall Machine :-)
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: EyeOnCy]
#835364
09/13/07 12:33 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 479
Mudrunner
|
So far, I've been averaging 17 mpg but did get 20mpg once. Since my fuel gauge is broken, I calculate it everytime I fill up and reset my trip. I have the stock 225 tires. The 20 mpg was with more then average highway travel (at 60ish mph in 5th) and I rarely opened the secondaries on that tank. Disconnect your secondary diaphragm and watch the mileage climb! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> Of course it'll be a real slow climb. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/nana.gif" alt="" />
-Todd 1987 Montero 2.6l 5-speed (Sold...but I still miss her) 2008 Jeep Patriot Sport 4x4
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: toddstidham1]
#835365
09/13/07 01:39 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 77
Getting the Wheeling Fever
|
One thing to keep in mind when calculating your MPG too is tire size. If you have larger tires, you will show MPG that is higher, as you're recording less miles than you actually drive. Also, if the truck has smaller than factory tires, you would likewise show lower than actual MPG.
For comparison, my company vehicle, a 2006 Nissan XTerra 2WD will get a best of 21 on the highway, and that's if I'm nice. I usually average a combined 19.5. Of course it's much bigger, holds 5 people comfortably, and has a 267HP 4 Liter V6.
Just keep in mind that you're driving something made out of all metal, with a full frame, and it's as aerodynamic as a phone booth.
*************************************
TripleJack
85 GenI SWB 2.5/5-Speed on 33s
*************************************
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: TripleJackInGA]
#835366
09/13/07 02:32 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,607
Roll Me Over
|
I used to get over 20mpg on the highway with mine when stock. Now I just fill it up when it's low <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />
'97 Montero 'LSR' - 4.6 gears & factory rear locker, 33" Procomp muds on 15x8 steelies, 50mm coil spacers, T-bar crank, Airlift, sans rear sway, 50mm rear frame & fuel tank lift, Aisins, ARB front bumper + 10k lb winch, 50mm DIY body lift, rock sliders, cut rear quarter panels...
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: TripleJackInGA]
#835367
09/13/07 05:41 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,356
Trail Leader
|
One thing to keep in mind when calculating your MPG too is tire size. If you have larger tires, you will show MPG that is higher, as you're recording less miles than you actually drive. Also, if the truck has smaller than factory tires, you would likewise show lower than actual MPG. I think that's backwards. Bigger tires travel farther across the road for the same RPMs, and hence log less relative miles on the odo. (At least I hope that's the case. If not, then I'm getting 12MPG with 33s! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/zombie.gif" alt="" />)
Big Truck: 00, 3.5, Endeavor, 5-Spd drive line in hand! Little Truck: 87, 2.6T I/C, MT, LSDs, Tonneau Top Her Truck: 03, 3.8, 20th Anniv, 65k Daughter's: 06 Eclipse, Keeping it Mitsu! FSMs: MitsubishiLinks.com
|
|
Re: 2.6 Liter = 17.5 mpg!?!?!?!?!?
[Re: MontyMcV]
#835368
09/13/07 06:46 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,896
Trail Leader
|
Larger tires show less than actual miles.
I just want to tell you both good luck, and we're all counting on you.
|
|
|
|