Hey lads I was just wondering what the D40 auto owner’s fuel economy is like and what mods you have done to improve it? I have a 2008 D40, EGR blocked, 3" system with DPF, 265/75/r16 cooper stt's and getting about 14l/100km the best I have ever got is 11.9l/100km, I'm currently playing around with the DPF delete but having issues with white smoke if anyone has done the DPF delete please any info would be appreciated.
D40 AUTO fuel economy
- Thread starter westy350
- Start date
Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:
I have an 08 TD Auto and am currently getting an average of about 12 to 13 l/100, mostly city with a bit of freeway driving, still have the standard tyres and rims on it, std exhaust etc. I'm thinking about the EGR mod Westy, did you notice any difference after the EGR mod?
Keen to hear about the DPF delete as well from anyone
Arty
K
KraftyPg
Guest
Mate there is already a thread about D40 economy, I know it's not specific to the auto and not specific to any particular mods but it's there and with a bit of reading you'll find a wide variety of people giving out economy figures for their D40's in different stages of modification, not really any need to start a completely different thread which covers pretty much the same stuff.
Mate, this thread is designed to supply information to the Auto D40 owners on their shocking fuel economy and the mods they have done to improve it if you don't have any useful information don't bother posting it!
Mate to be honest I didn't really notice that much difference the turbo did spool up a bit quicker but not a hell of a lot I also did a lift and the cooper stt's at the same time so that might have made it a little harder to tell. I would defiantly do it tho its a cheap mod, takes about half an hour to do ad at least stop's the exhaust going back into your motor.
Leprechaun
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,792
- Reaction score
- 2
Blocking the EGR would be a good start, As westy350 said it's a cheap and easy mod to do. But don't expect miracles, I think the best way to approve economy is with the right foot.
nismo4x4
Member
god iv heard so much rage from d40 auto fuel economy its a pitty..i heard DPF makes the big diff from manual transmission d40. iv got td man and get 9-10L/100 city...havnet tested highway yet.
A
ants_oz
Guest
This forum is also a democracy - people can add information to threads as they feel they want to.
If you don't want to read it, don't go hammering members who have contributed good information over a long period of time. Seems to me, Krafty was trying to guide you towards what is already a very good source of information on a very large and comprehensive thread and you go jump on the poor bloke.
Maybe once you have earned your stripes here you can start chipping people - in the meantime, maybe some manners are in order.
Geez...
Last edited:
nismo4x4
Member
concur
i would prefer to search threads so i get the info right there n there rather posting and waiting...thats just me..no patience at all.
T/\C
Member
yeah i get about 450 to 500km (town driving) before the fuel light turns on any help on getting better fuel economy would be very appreciated
Fella's I have been through every post on the forum tried numerous things on my own car, just want some info specific to the diesel sucking auto to try and improve mine and others that have the same problem.
I agree that the auto diesel is unique in the range of Navaras and may indeed deserve its own thread - in any event, we're here now so let's make the most of it!
I have one of these. I'm about 380Kg over nominal weight now, so I should expect around 12.5LPHK. I'm doing better than that (when not towing).
Some of you on this site might know I don't mind throwing spanners at my car in the name of trying stuff out so I can say "Well, I tried this". As an experiment, I grabbed a piece of stainless steel and made me a decent EGR gasket that wasn't missing the great big mass of stuff in the middle (bloody cheap gasket manufacturers). As a result, there's no EGR heading into my engine at the moment.
I've run a few tankfuls like that now, and can say - definitively - that the EGR mod alone seems to have improved fuel economy by around 0.5LPHK.
I have again begun adding 2-stroke to my fuel. I am now using 300ml of Valvoline Racing 2-Stroke in each tankful, as it is also JASO-FC rated. I seem to have further improved the average economy but as I've only run two tanks so far (with EGR blocked and 2-stroke added) I can't say with any precision what the improvement is. Over these two tanks, it looks to be like another .3 or .4LPHK, but it's early days.
I did notice, when trying to move the vehicle slowly last night, that a gentle tap on the accelerator made the vehicle lurch forward from a standing start. It's like suddenly there's more torque from idle. I may be imagining things, but the vehicle feels more responsive with more power. I have no dyno results (and am unlikely to bother getting any) but there's a perception that it's mildly better.
It's not a great improvement, but "a little better" is better than nothing at all.
FYI, the last tank gave me 11.01LPHK. That includes extended driving at 110km/h using cruise control, plus about 100km of city/town driving. Both of these (>95km/h and city driving) cause fuel consumption to rise. I might try and restrain myself and see if I can make further gains, which I know are possible - I am not sure how much I'll gain, but if I can consistently be under 11LPHK I'd be happy.
I have one of these. I'm about 380Kg over nominal weight now, so I should expect around 12.5LPHK. I'm doing better than that (when not towing).
Some of you on this site might know I don't mind throwing spanners at my car in the name of trying stuff out so I can say "Well, I tried this". As an experiment, I grabbed a piece of stainless steel and made me a decent EGR gasket that wasn't missing the great big mass of stuff in the middle (bloody cheap gasket manufacturers). As a result, there's no EGR heading into my engine at the moment.
I've run a few tankfuls like that now, and can say - definitively - that the EGR mod alone seems to have improved fuel economy by around 0.5LPHK.
I have again begun adding 2-stroke to my fuel. I am now using 300ml of Valvoline Racing 2-Stroke in each tankful, as it is also JASO-FC rated. I seem to have further improved the average economy but as I've only run two tanks so far (with EGR blocked and 2-stroke added) I can't say with any precision what the improvement is. Over these two tanks, it looks to be like another .3 or .4LPHK, but it's early days.
I did notice, when trying to move the vehicle slowly last night, that a gentle tap on the accelerator made the vehicle lurch forward from a standing start. It's like suddenly there's more torque from idle. I may be imagining things, but the vehicle feels more responsive with more power. I have no dyno results (and am unlikely to bother getting any) but there's a perception that it's mildly better.
It's not a great improvement, but "a little better" is better than nothing at all.
FYI, the last tank gave me 11.01LPHK. That includes extended driving at 110km/h using cruise control, plus about 100km of city/town driving. Both of these (>95km/h and city driving) cause fuel consumption to rise. I might try and restrain myself and see if I can make further gains, which I know are possible - I am not sure how much I'll gain, but if I can consistently be under 11LPHK I'd be happy.
JPMC
Member
My 2007 auto with DPF and no modifications I carry about 600kgs of extra weight and average 11L/100km open road and 12.5L/100km around town. The best I've done is 9.95L/100km open road with no hills.
Downsized
Member
Fuel economy
Mines 5000km old, I picked it up in May.
The economy has improved over time and I get 11l/100km.
The thing that concerns me with the quest for better economy is you spend more on the add ons (chip & exhaust $3000) and achieve a 1l/100km gain.
Maybe its just the strange way I think but its a fairly poor return on the money spent.
Mines 5000km old, I picked it up in May.
The economy has improved over time and I get 11l/100km.
The thing that concerns me with the quest for better economy is you spend more on the add ons (chip & exhaust $3000) and achieve a 1l/100km gain.
Maybe its just the strange way I think but its a fairly poor return on the money spent.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
Different people do things for different reasons, some mod their vehicles for certain tasks, others mod them because someone else suggested it was needed but all our Nav's are different. No two will return the same figures because no two Nav's are identical. I'm not interested in more power, more noise or better economy because for me my Nav does exactly what I ask of it but that doesn't mean everyone would be happy.
What really pisses me off is the unformed people who will bad mouth any number of things just because they have heard someone else say bad things about it. D40's don't all have crappy econ figures, sure they don't run the same figures as a Micra but the Nav is a 2 tonne wind break and it's going to use fuel. DPF's don't kill either the car or the economy, sure they will use extra fuel at times but they aren't going to effect the fuel economy of every vehicle at all times (and lets not forget auto Nav's aren't the only vehicles running DPF's some manufacturers have been using them for over a decade). Big tyres will alter economy, adding extra weight will effect economy, everything we do will change economy but bagging one item out over another is pointless.
One of the biggest effects to economy is the right foot, many people will say their car has crap economy and that the car must be built wrong or that it shouldn't have certain parts on it but if you're right foot is heavy your economy will be crap. It's easy to suggest things like "I'm not heavy footed" or "I drive sedately" but no two people can compare how they put their foot down over the internet and definitely say our two vehicles should get the same figures and since mine is higher the DPF and auto box are effecting it.
My D40 auto with a DPF averaged 11 l/100 from new and has been averaging 10's since it's first service (with some tanks in the mid 9's) and my figures aren't the best quoted on this site. However I am still happy with that crappy economy that my Auto Nav is giving me
What really pisses me off is the unformed people who will bad mouth any number of things just because they have heard someone else say bad things about it. D40's don't all have crappy econ figures, sure they don't run the same figures as a Micra but the Nav is a 2 tonne wind break and it's going to use fuel. DPF's don't kill either the car or the economy, sure they will use extra fuel at times but they aren't going to effect the fuel economy of every vehicle at all times (and lets not forget auto Nav's aren't the only vehicles running DPF's some manufacturers have been using them for over a decade). Big tyres will alter economy, adding extra weight will effect economy, everything we do will change economy but bagging one item out over another is pointless.
One of the biggest effects to economy is the right foot, many people will say their car has crap economy and that the car must be built wrong or that it shouldn't have certain parts on it but if you're right foot is heavy your economy will be crap. It's easy to suggest things like "I'm not heavy footed" or "I drive sedately" but no two people can compare how they put their foot down over the internet and definitely say our two vehicles should get the same figures and since mine is higher the DPF and auto box are effecting it.
My D40 auto with a DPF averaged 11 l/100 from new and has been averaging 10's since it's first service (with some tanks in the mid 9's) and my figures aren't the best quoted on this site. However I am still happy with that crappy economy that my Auto Nav is giving me
I'd have to agree with both previous posters.
Spending large sums of money that require 10 years to recoup through savings in economy is really a false economy for the vehicle.
As for actual economy - Krafty is spot on the money. It's how we deal with the vehicle that makes the difference. Allowing the cruise control to manage vehicle speed isn't perfect either, because up a hill the CC will let the vehicle lose too much speed and will then hammer the thing to get back up to where it was set. Bye bye economy.
I've noticed that anything over the point where the max torque comes in (about 2,000rpm) and my economy is impaired, so over 95km/h and I'm just wasting fuel.
I enjoy these discussions. We all do things a little differently and there might be something in the way someone else does things that I could try, sort of adapt to my way of driving. I might also learn what I should probably NOT do, too!
Spending large sums of money that require 10 years to recoup through savings in economy is really a false economy for the vehicle.
As for actual economy - Krafty is spot on the money. It's how we deal with the vehicle that makes the difference. Allowing the cruise control to manage vehicle speed isn't perfect either, because up a hill the CC will let the vehicle lose too much speed and will then hammer the thing to get back up to where it was set. Bye bye economy.
I've noticed that anything over the point where the max torque comes in (about 2,000rpm) and my economy is impaired, so over 95km/h and I'm just wasting fuel.
I enjoy these discussions. We all do things a little differently and there might be something in the way someone else does things that I could try, sort of adapt to my way of driving. I might also learn what I should probably NOT do, too!
Biscuits
Ginger Ninja.
Listen to the wise men. they know things.
Well said lads. I'll be taking my right steel cap off from now on. Although my economy ain't shit, it can only help right?
Well said lads. I'll be taking my right steel cap off from now on. Although my economy ain't shit, it can only help right?
2008 auto diesel, canopy, bull bar, larger tyres (BFG AT). 50,000 k's
city rate = 5 k drive to work, car doesn't even get warm.
ave 13-14 L/100km
Trip rate = 100 speed zone at 100-110 kph usually 2-3 hours or 200-300 k's
No modifications done at all. 9.96L/100km.
Biggest drive: Echuca to Newcastle with 900kg load in the back and two passengers with luggage. standard tyres at the time. Canopy and bull bar.
Ave fuel usage on the trip = 8.97L/100km.
I'm happy with this result, and although around town i think it's a bit much, I think without it even getting warm I should expect so! Trip figures are in my opinion, Excellent.
city rate = 5 k drive to work, car doesn't even get warm.
ave 13-14 L/100km
Trip rate = 100 speed zone at 100-110 kph usually 2-3 hours or 200-300 k's
No modifications done at all. 9.96L/100km.
Biggest drive: Echuca to Newcastle with 900kg load in the back and two passengers with luggage. standard tyres at the time. Canopy and bull bar.
Ave fuel usage on the trip = 8.97L/100km.
I'm happy with this result, and although around town i think it's a bit much, I think without it even getting warm I should expect so! Trip figures are in my opinion, Excellent.
