Fuel Consumption on 3.0

[bass_straitener]

the point i'm getting at is it's only 100RON E10
not E100

Agree no issue using it without a tune, especially in a H6.

But we're living in such a tune aware society these days..

If you're not tuning you're not living..

[bradr]

Just spent a week driving Adelaide to Glen Innes (in northern NSW) and return. I have a stock tuned 3.0 SpecB and averaged 8.8l/100km over the 3,700km trip with a range around 650km per tank (sometimes up to 680 and sometimes as low as 610km when I got to the mountains). Only used 91 fuel.

Also used a litre of oil.

cheers,

bj

[jay.ritchie]

Only used 91 fuel

Was it tuned on 91?
You should probably start using 98 or at least 95 (what Subaru recommend as a minimum).
Not to mention that 98 is more economical than 91 even if its 18c more per L

[bradr]

So what you're saying, Jay, is that I would have got something like 12% better economy by paying 12% more for my fuel? Somehow I don't think so as that would put me up around 750km a tank - it would be nice, though...

Actually, having another look at the receipts, some of it was 95, anyway.

cheers,

bj

[alessandro132]

So what you're saying, Jay, is that I would have got something like 12% better economy by paying 12% more for my fuel? Somehow I don't think so as that would put me up around 750km a tank - it would be nice, though...

cheers,

bj

bj,

The economy gains by running 98 more or less cancels out the premium you pay for it over 91, but looking beyond just the financial argument, you're possibly doing more harm to your engine by running a less octane-rich fuel which the car was not designed to run on...

[Robbks]

The economy gains come from not having to replace the bottom end of your motor or smashed the ring-lands off the pistons after it's pinged itself to death from using junk fuel.

[jay.ritchie]

So what you're saying, Jay, is that I would have got something like 12% better economy by paying 12% more for my fuel? Somehow I don't think so as that would put me up around 750km a tank - it would be nice, though...

cheers,

bj

bj,

The economy gains by running 98 more or less cancels out the premium you pay for it over 91, but looking beyond just the financial argument, you're possibly doing more harm to your engine by running a less octane-rich fuel which the car was not designed to run...

Today tonight did a report on it- it's obviously legit.
Yeah i feel bad for your motor..
A different motor, but i know theres been countless Sea-Doo (jetski) Rotax supercharged engines that have failed due to running on 91 instead of 98.
I'd imagine the effects would be similar to those being experienced by your H6

[<GB>]

The economy gains come from not having to replace the bottom end of your motor or smashed the ring-lands off the pistons after it's pinged itself to death from using junk fuel.

This is gold and right ha ha I guess an iam drop may fix this issue

[bradr]

Today tonight did a report on it- it's obviously legit...
A different motor, but i know theres been countless Sea-Doo (jetski) Rotax supercharged engines that have failed due to running on 91 instead of 98.

Today Tonight!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Yes!! Of course!! Obviously legit!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

And a supercharged jetski motor, yes, well....If I was driving a supercharged car then, yes, I would use 98 RON, too, but the H6 is not supercharged.

95 is fine and is what I use most of the time, I used 91 a lot on the trip I did but I'm pretty sure that half a dozen tanks of 91 are not going to rip the bottom out of my engine (have a read of the owner's manual, too, it says anything 90 and above is fine in lieu of 95 - it's not going to fall apart). Even the NRMA has stated that 98 RON is a waste of money unless you have an engine specifically designed and tuned for it - use it otherwise and you're satisfying your ego, not your car.

Don't get too precious, Jay, it's only a Liberty. It's an average car that does an average job of the tasks it's designed to do. It's certainly not a supercharged jetski designed for dickheads to do spins in the water at the beach.

As to fuel consumption, the 3s are thirsty as. The point of my initial post was simply to show that it is possible to get reasonable economy on long trips.

cheers,

bj

[jay.ritchie]

Today Tonight!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Yes!! Of course!! Obviously legit!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Note: clearly doesn't understand the basically principals of sarcasm.
We're not arguing with you mate, its your car not ours- chill.

edit* you said it'd be nice to get 750km's out of a tank.
If you go back through some pages in this thread you'll find that 750km's is very possible, (on 98 of course), even for the un-tuned car.

[dawesy]

Not attacking just adding
In most cases yeh 91 would be "ok" but with a high comp engine why risk it
And as probs half the h6 are tuned here and some tuners tune ignition rather aggressively I wouldn't be running anything but 98 and only few cents more a little if you can't aford that then sell thr liberty and buy a vl commo.

Would you use public health over private health if given the option?

As for fuel usage I can say the differnence over the same trip I do regularly normally sit on 8.6 per 100 same reading each trip last trip got a bad batch of 98 from caltex car pinged its head off and did 10.2 per 100 and same on tje return trip

[<GB>]

dont talk about vl badly

[dawesy]

i clocked 710k's (75% hwy) when the light came on today with 60k's range showing

[XP05UR]

Well I wouldnt have believed this if I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes .. Travelling to the airport on early Saturday morning from the Central Coast I filled up at Wahroonga Shell. The photo below was taken in the Harbour Tunnel of my average consumption after 26km of driving down the Pacific Hwy.
I usually average 9.2l/100km with a combination of city/highway (70%/30%) driving which I'm pretty happy with but would have loved it to stay at 6.0l/100km

[patrickbateman]

Well I wouldnt have believed this if I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes .. Travelling to the airport on early Saturday morning from the Central Coast I filled up at Wahroonga Shell. The photo below was taken in the Harbour Tunnel of my average consumption after 26km of driving down the Pacific Hwy.
I usually average 9.2l/100km with a combination of city/highway (70%/30%) driving which I'm pretty happy with but would have loved it to stay at 6.0l/100km

So on a highway, I literally get 60% worse economy than you for no apparent reason (I get about 9.50-10 cruising at 110km/h). We have almost identical cars, other than tuning and exhaust mods on mine which should make it more economical. Grrr.