D40 Fuel Economy
- Thread starter Dazza
- Start date
Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:
ozsnow
Member
In reality that will be about 11 or so as the dash reading is pretty optimistic. I also found that my economy worsened after the first few thousand k's. Will get low nines on a trip but shorter trips (less than say 20 ks) and towing the boat (1800kgs) sees 14 or so.
Still better than what the previous 2.5 was doing and gets there faster!
harryx5
Member
Bloody hell guys, I'm getting around 13-14L/100km around town and 9L/100km on the highway.
It's a 2012 ST auto, 140kw engine, totally stock (including tyres) except for a 50mm lift. I had the torque converter replaced under warranty recently. It hasn't even done 15,000km yet.
My around town fuel use seems pretty high. Should I be seeing the dealer to check it out?
Cheers,
Harry.
It's a 2012 ST auto, 140kw engine, totally stock (including tyres) except for a 50mm lift. I had the torque converter replaced under warranty recently. It hasn't even done 15,000km yet.
My around town fuel use seems pretty high. Should I be seeing the dealer to check it out?
Cheers,
Harry.
It's within spec, is what they'll say. Unfortunately it takes a bit to get 2T+ moving, and as it gets older, it gets more gunk in the intercooler ( = less efficient) and more muck in the intake manifold. We add things to our cars and it takes more fuel to get that going.
Doesn't help when Hiluxes pull up alongside at the lights waiting for the green, either. Oh, no.
Blocking the EGR helps a little. Cleaning the intercooler helps too. Fitting a catch can will help to keep both the intercooler and intake manifold cleaner.
Some say that different fuels provide different results. I've got some evidence that says if I hold my RPM during acceleration at 2000 I'll take x amount of time to reach a certain speed and use a certain amount of fuel in total yet if I increase it to 2500rpm I'll not only reach the speed faster, I'll use less fuel overall (because it's nearer the stall speed of the torque converter).
Doesn't help when Hiluxes pull up alongside at the lights waiting for the green, either. Oh, no.
Blocking the EGR helps a little. Cleaning the intercooler helps too. Fitting a catch can will help to keep both the intercooler and intake manifold cleaner.
Some say that different fuels provide different results. I've got some evidence that says if I hold my RPM during acceleration at 2000 I'll take x amount of time to reach a certain speed and use a certain amount of fuel in total yet if I increase it to 2500rpm I'll not only reach the speed faster, I'll use less fuel overall (because it's nearer the stall speed of the torque converter).
harryx5
Member
Thanks for the reply Tony.
I'd hoped that with less than 15,000km on the clock it wouldn't be clogging up already.
I read of someone who had their auto transmission reprogrammed or reset or something... I'll ask the dealer about it anyway.
I'd hoped that with less than 15,000km on the clock it wouldn't be clogging up already.
I read of someone who had their auto transmission reprogrammed or reset or something... I'll ask the dealer about it anyway.
Depends on a number of factors, including peak RPM, load and engine oil level. 15,000km is a baby in diesel terms that's true, but they start accumulating muck from the first turn of the key.
With all that said, figures of 14LPHK for purely around town - particularly if it's heavy traffic - aren't unreasonable. You're getting 9s on the highway and that's pretty good.
With all that said, figures of 14LPHK for purely around town - particularly if it's heavy traffic - aren't unreasonable. You're getting 9s on the highway and that's pretty good.
Malicious
Member
I get around 9.1 - 10.4 I have switched from Caltex vortex to shell diesel and my economy is about .5 to .8 better and its cheaper.
This is with a canopy tradesman rack and a 42" led light bar on the rack 2.5ltr manual 15000 klms.
This is with a canopy tradesman rack and a 42" led light bar on the rack 2.5ltr manual 15000 klms.
Black Beautie
Member
Hi everyone on the Nissan Navara. I don't know if anyone has notice but when I fill up the turbo is very responsive, as it gets down to about quarter empty it starts getting noticeably sluggish. Then when I refill it goes to power.Has anyone come across this at all.
Sundowner2
Member
This might be a rehash of an old posting but I have just completed a 6000km trip towing a 2028kg pop-top behind my 2012 D40 2.5L RX (402 nm engine) and my fuel consumption was a woeful 17.72L/100km. The vehicle has a 5 speed auto, 5th gear is overdrive, this is fine when travelling on a flat road with the engine sitting on around 1800rpm at my normal cruising speed of 85/90 km/h, problem is that when the slightest hill comes along the thing will drop out of 5th and back to 4th and the rev's will jump to 2500 or 3000. I contacted Nissan and was told that I should avoid driving in OD as when it 'slogs' it will use more fuel...I cant see the logic in that statement; firstly, it never 'slogs' in OD it simply changes down to 4th and how will driving with 2500 rpm on the tacho use less fuel as apposed to driving in OD at 1800 rpm?...I wished I had done a bit more research and I may have brought a Dmax instead.
vornar
Member
I have a 2012 140kw auto, with canopy and steel bar.
I get 17 to 18 per 100 towing the van which is 2.2 tonnes.
I get around 11 around town, with very short trips to work.
I get around 9 on a trip when unloaded.
I'd love the towing figure to be a bit lower, but it is what it is...
I get 17 to 18 per 100 towing the van which is 2.2 tonnes.
I get around 11 around town, with very short trips to work.
I get around 9 on a trip when unloaded.
I'd love the towing figure to be a bit lower, but it is what it is...
siringo
Member
I'm not 100% sure if the old adage of more revs equals more consumed juice is valid anymore with these new type diesels, I could be wrong, probably am.
Maybe you could trade the 40 in on something else while it's still newish, just a thought.
I'm fairly sure I get better economy when I drive faster, I like sitting on around 90-95, but I reckon if I sit on 100+ my economy is better.
Here's an idea, whenever you see a hill coming up, give her a kick in the guts and get up to 100+, you may find the momentum helps in getting up hills easier.
Maccad40
Member
My fuel economy sits about 11L/100km on long runs which i've been trying to improve by blocking egr but i noticed little difference. i also tow long distance and get about 12.5l/100km with my 1 tonne tool trailer . Was wondering if any body else with a 6 speed manual gets better fuel ecconomy towing in 5th or 6th. cheers
Siringo's observation is spot on. The more revs, the more fuel. Fuel rail pressure will be higher and the number of injector pulses per minute is (obviously) higher so the fuel consumption will follow the trend.
My own 2009 D40 STX has the same powerplant (126kW/403Nm) and we're towing 2.5T nowadays. We managed high 17s on a recent trip to Dubbo and back - and we're stoked with those figures. It's actually quite reasonable for these engines and unless you get more hp/torque, you're not going to improve the economy much. If you pursue an increase in hp/torque with a chip, chances are you'll get even worse economy.
I drive similarly - sitting around 90-95 km/h. I use overdrive, because the gearbox's TCC will lock and engage the drivetrain 1:1, whereas if I slipped it into 4th the TCC woujld be unlocked and I'd be wasting 500-800rpm just turning the gearbox over (and that's a waste of fuel).
It's worth looking around the caravanner's forums to see what economy figures people are getting with their setups.
My own 2009 D40 STX has the same powerplant (126kW/403Nm) and we're towing 2.5T nowadays. We managed high 17s on a recent trip to Dubbo and back - and we're stoked with those figures. It's actually quite reasonable for these engines and unless you get more hp/torque, you're not going to improve the economy much. If you pursue an increase in hp/torque with a chip, chances are you'll get even worse economy.
I drive similarly - sitting around 90-95 km/h. I use overdrive, because the gearbox's TCC will lock and engage the drivetrain 1:1, whereas if I slipped it into 4th the TCC woujld be unlocked and I'd be wasting 500-800rpm just turning the gearbox over (and that's a waste of fuel).
It's worth looking around the caravanner's forums to see what economy figures people are getting with their setups.
Sundowner2
Member
Thanks Tony, it seems that the Navara 2.5 with the 5 speed auto is a guzzler with 16 - 18L/100km towing a caravan the norm.....it p**ses me off to sit around the Happy Hour campfire and hear others, the ones with DMax's and Hiluxes raving on about their low 12's!! Mind you I did chat to one bloke who has a 6 speed auto BT 50 and his drops back 2 cogs whenever a small hill pops us!. Regarding chips, the RACQ reckon not a good idea on these already stressed high tech CRD engines, they feel the engine life would be compromised...plenty of people disagree with this I guess.
It's true that the smaller Navaras do use a little more fuel, and I have to point out that it's a little unfair to compare a 2.5L Navara with a 2.8L D-Max simply because the more cubes do mean the engine will produce more output.
However, let's ignore that (leaving it in the Isuzu's favour) and let's take a big trip as an example, and some notes from the Caravanner's forum that I've just been reading - seems the D-Max when towing around 2.5T will use 14.5-15LPHK. I'm going to call that 14LPHK to give them even more of a head start.
I know for a fact (done it myself) that on flat ground I can get 15.51LPHK (towing 1.8T, refuelled at the Shell in West Port Augusta, drove for 540.3km and used 63.82L) but with the new van climbing hills (a better comparison, similar weight of 2550Kg) we did 394.2km on 68.99L or 17.5LPHK. So we're talking 3.5L per hundred difference - and recall the advantageous position I've placed the Isuzu in.
On a trip like ours to Uluru (call it 7,000km) that amounts to 70 * 3.5 or 245L = about $400 in today's terms.
Let's look at it from a whole year perspective (average of 20,000km a year, let's assume a third of that is towing, or that 7000km trip = towing and the 13,000km balance isn't). 13,000km with a difference of (12LPHK in ours, 8LPHK in the D-Max) ends up being a cost difference of 4LPHK * 130 = $520 plus the $400 = $920 a year more to own a Navara just in fuel. Bearing in mind that this whole thing is done in the Isuzu's favour and really, the Navara isn't looking so bad.
Is that sufficient to jump from the Navara so that you can own a vehicle that locks into 3rd gear while climbing hills and has 3 fuel pumps (and good luck if one of them fails)? It's not for me. The STX550 has a greater difference in economy (it's capable of 12LPHK when towing heavy) and it's still not enough to justify me buying one - but then I am quite happy with what I have, despite having to go slow on hills.
I'd rather enjoy the trip, and not regret the decisions I've made just on the basis of what really is a small difference in the greater scheme of things.
Would I buy a D-Max if I was just starting out and needed a new ute? I'm not sure. For the $, I'd look at a 3.2L 5-cyl Ford Ranger, or the 140kW D40-ST Navara. If money wasn't an object, it'd be the STX550 without a second thought. Holden Colorado/Isuzu D-Max don't come to mind at all, and I wouldn't touch the Mazda because I don't like things on my trailer changing shape while I'm driving (I saw that on TV so it must be true).
However, let's ignore that (leaving it in the Isuzu's favour) and let's take a big trip as an example, and some notes from the Caravanner's forum that I've just been reading - seems the D-Max when towing around 2.5T will use 14.5-15LPHK. I'm going to call that 14LPHK to give them even more of a head start.
I know for a fact (done it myself) that on flat ground I can get 15.51LPHK (towing 1.8T, refuelled at the Shell in West Port Augusta, drove for 540.3km and used 63.82L) but with the new van climbing hills (a better comparison, similar weight of 2550Kg) we did 394.2km on 68.99L or 17.5LPHK. So we're talking 3.5L per hundred difference - and recall the advantageous position I've placed the Isuzu in.
On a trip like ours to Uluru (call it 7,000km) that amounts to 70 * 3.5 or 245L = about $400 in today's terms.
Let's look at it from a whole year perspective (average of 20,000km a year, let's assume a third of that is towing, or that 7000km trip = towing and the 13,000km balance isn't). 13,000km with a difference of (12LPHK in ours, 8LPHK in the D-Max) ends up being a cost difference of 4LPHK * 130 = $520 plus the $400 = $920 a year more to own a Navara just in fuel. Bearing in mind that this whole thing is done in the Isuzu's favour and really, the Navara isn't looking so bad.
Is that sufficient to jump from the Navara so that you can own a vehicle that locks into 3rd gear while climbing hills and has 3 fuel pumps (and good luck if one of them fails)? It's not for me. The STX550 has a greater difference in economy (it's capable of 12LPHK when towing heavy) and it's still not enough to justify me buying one - but then I am quite happy with what I have, despite having to go slow on hills.
I'd rather enjoy the trip, and not regret the decisions I've made just on the basis of what really is a small difference in the greater scheme of things.
Would I buy a D-Max if I was just starting out and needed a new ute? I'm not sure. For the $, I'd look at a 3.2L 5-cyl Ford Ranger, or the 140kW D40-ST Navara. If money wasn't an object, it'd be the STX550 without a second thought. Holden Colorado/Isuzu D-Max don't come to mind at all, and I wouldn't touch the Mazda because I don't like things on my trailer changing shape while I'm driving (I saw that on TV so it must be true).
