Was wondering if anyone could share their experiences in regards to different camshafts on the VL,
I was thinking about getting a camshaft and chip package through Chiptorque/Surecams and was thinking about what this mod would do to fuel economy,
I have a stock RB30 with 5spd, Extractors, 2.5" system (no cat) and cold air intake,
Ive been told that a particular package should get me from around the 85rwkw to 105rwkw,
Just curious as to what kind of fuel economy i would be getting after this mod, some people have told me its up to a 1/3 worse than stock!!!
i have the same mods as u and will be getting my cam put in in a week. will let you know how much better it goes and how much more fuel it uses it's a stage 2 crow cam btw.
cheers.
Some original photos have not been recovered yet.
Yeah, i was thinking of the Stage 2,
Some folks have said its 30% worse than stock!!!
That seems alot for a 20% increase, of course the RB30 is going to be worse on fuel, but not that much you would think???
hmmm yeah i think it's a fair bit worse. just have to make sure it's running the right fuel mixture and it's got a good tune. but realistically most engine mods use more fuel because they use more air (bigger throttle body.. cam.. turbo etc). the only things that don't really use more fuel are mods that improve the efficiency of the engine such as port and polish.. air filter (apparently) etc.
i have a cam and chip package from chiptorque
i made 100rwkw but i have an auto which means more drivetrain loss than your 5spd
i get 300 - 350kms per tank as a guide for you
i was thinking of puting a cam in a bit further down the line but it sounds likes the fuul effiency takes a dive though if the performance is a bit of a leap i guess its worth it
"i have a cam and chip package from chiptorque
i made 100rwkw but i have an auto which means more drivetrain loss than your 5spd
i get 300 - 350kms per tank as a guide for you"
Factory ratings for a VL is between 10.5 and 11.5L/100km's,
At the moment, i get about 1L worse - about 11.5L/100kms and i have a manual, so if you had the auto, you would be getting 12.5L/100km, based on my current fuel consumption,
For the 63L tank, you would get about 500km's out of the tank,
To get 300-350km's out of the tank, you are using 18 to 21L/100km's,
Thats 30-40% worse of fuel economy wise, driving around with old school carby V8 petrol consumption,
That is f#cked for 100rwkw!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRb30ett
"i have a cam and chip package from chiptorque
i made 100rwkw but i have an auto which means more drivetrain loss than your 5spd
i get 300 - 350kms per tank as a guide for you"
Factory ratings for a VL is between 10.5 and 11.5L/100km's,
At the moment, i get about 1L worse - about 11.5L/100kms and i have a manual, so if you had the auto, you would be getting 12.5L/100km, based on my current fuel consumption,
For the 63L tank, you would get about 500km's out of the tank,
To get 300-350km's out of the tank, you are using 18 to 21L/100km's,
Thats 30-40% worse of fuel economy wise, driving around with old school carby V8 petrol consumption,
That is f#cked for 100rwkw!!!
Which means.......
.. dont get a cam and chip lol
and as you said in your first post 'upto 1/3 worse fuel economy'
and you say 30 - 40% worse so that is your 1/3
Some original photos have not been recovered yet.
Quote:
Factory ratings for a VL is between 10.5 and 11.5L/100km's,
At the moment, i get about 1L worse - about 11.5L/100kms and i have a manual, so if you had the auto, you would be getting 12.5L/100km, based on my current fuel consumption,
For the 63L tank, you would get about 500km's out of the tank,
To get 300-350km's out of the tank, you are using 18 to 21L/100km's,
Thats 30-40% worse of fuel economy wise, driving around with old school carby V8 petrol consumption
glad to se someone using their head and actually working stuff out but there is a problem with your math. there are very few vls around which would get 500 kms to a tank, im sure its more like 400 or possibly 450, so making the economy more like 20% worse with the cam and chip, so i think it actually aint too bad (emphasis on too). if you dont already have extractors, get them and that will help use less fuel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlthunter
glad to se someone using their head and actually working stuff out but there is a problem with your math. there are very few vls around which would get 500 kms to a tank, im sure its more like 400 or possibly 450, so making the economy more like 20% worse with the cam and chip, so i think it actually aint too bad (emphasis on too). if you dont already have extractors, get them and that will help use less fuel.
I don't wish to be the fly in ointment , but my VL gets consistent 650 k's+ a tank, and it's a five speed, which is good as I do upwards of 4-5 thousand k's a month and in comparison to my previous ford the economy is surprising, mind you that is hyw cruising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vl power
I don't wish to be the fly in ointment , but my VL gets consistent 650 k's+ a tank, and it's a five speed, which is good as I do upwards of 4-5 thousand k's a month and in comparison to my previous ford the economy is surprising, mind you that is hyw cruising.
Do you have an 83ltr tank?
How long ago did you rebuild your motor?
What gear ratio?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munro-
Do you have an 83ltr tank?
How long ago did you rebuild your motor?
What gear ratio?
standard 63 ltrs, this motor has never been rebuilt, came out of a rear-end totaled car, the old gentleman who owned it, bearly went far in it, genuine 82000k's, been in the car about 2yrs now and I've done approx 160000k's previous motor did 375000k's and has been rebuilt and is waiting to get another go.
So what your telling me is that you get better fuel economy from a standard motor, than what holden claimed? If what you say is true 650km/63lt then that equates to 9.69/100km. To which I would say you were full of it.
Unless you have work done to your motor of which you have stated not. If you had an 83lt tank I would htink this was feasible. You could of done some extreme litening, but I doubt it. Basically on an old motor I doubt your getting better fuel economy than the day it came off the factory floor.
Im getting about an honest 300-320klm per tank and thats if i fill it all the way to the filler neck. Its an na calais auto wether that makes a difference or not being a little heavier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munro-
So what your telling me is that you get better fuel economy from a standard motor, than what holden claimed? If what you say is true 650km/63lt then that equates to 9.69/100km. To which I would say you were full of it.
Unless you have work done to your motor of which you have stated not. If you had an 83lt tank I would htink this was feasible. You could of done some extreme litening, but I doubt it. Basically on an old motor I doubt your getting better fuel economy than the day it came off the factory floor.
to my knowledge it is a stardard 63 tank, at near empty I've never had to fill up more than sixty litres to full, so I've only ever worked it out over 63 litres, you mean I could have still have 20ltrs left? is there a way to tell what size tank one has? if it is a larger tank then my feul gauge has to be well off when it tells me that it is near empty,and if it is not normal then I'm certainly going to miss the economy if she gets thirstier, might try to run it further when it says nearly empty and see how long she'll go before she hunts for feul, I know the previous motor was not as economic. by the way from memory gearing is 3.08 not 3.45
Quote:
Originally Posted by vl power
to my knowledge it is a stardard 63 tank, at near empty I've never had to fill up more than sixty litres to full, so I've only ever worked it out over 63 litres, you mean I could have still have 20ltrs left? is there a way to tell what size tank one has? if it is a larger tank then my feul gauge has to be well off when it tells me that it is near empty,and if it is not normal then I'm certainly going to miss the economy if she gets thirstier, might try to run it further when it says nearly empty and see how long she'll go before she hunts for feul, I know the previous motor was not as economic. by the way from memory gearing is 3.08 not 3.45
there's another thread that also deals with petrol consumption, and there's afew that also claim 600-650 k's to the tank, and some a lot less, but it must be possible, as I stated at least 90% of my driving is country hyw's and I do not thump the motor, I've been driving since 1968 and not I don't drive at a snails pace but steady hyw speed limits. all I know is this motor is a treat and I hope it goes this way a lot longer. By the way I'm also a qualified aircraft motor engineer, so running and tuning a motor vehicle is well within my abilities as is the mathematics of working out feul usage, so the only time I'm full of it, is when I'm at home with the family, downing afew browns, because I'm not on the road and enjoying it , cheers
I would be curious to know what gear ratio you have. Because the only way I can pull 600k's is by having 3.08 gears and thats cos Im doing 110 at roughly 1500RPM. Also most of these guys quoting that they get 600+ have a head work done and I would also bet they would have 83lt tanks. 550 sounds about right for a VL with 345 gears.
i would dead set cry if i only got 300km to a tank . i get roughly 125km's to a 1/4 or around 150kms to a 1/3 something around 450-500km to a tank i think.
n/a 5spd with zorst extractors. pretty good on fuel.
