Post by: Paddler Ed on October 09, 2016, 06:41:47 PM
Now a quick search implies that petrol weighs 0.75kg/litre, but at what point does carrying the extra weight when we go bush stop being an advantage? I have a 65ish litre stock tank, so full it weighs about 45kg - which won't make much difference, but a really big long range tank (say 160L, which weighs 120kg full) will start to impact.
Theoretically at what point does that extra weight start to imoact impact on the range of the vehicle? We know that extra weight affects fuel economy, but how much diffeeence does an extra 100kg ish make to fuel economy?
With that difference known, we should be able to work out what impact the extra fuel has, and then see if that negates the benefit of the extra range...
Does any of that make sense?
Post by: rags on October 09, 2016, 06:49:46 PM
Also makes those fuel docket deals worth while
Post by: Joff on October 09, 2016, 06:54:44 PM
Carrying the 180lts standard in my last Prado never effected my range but the 65 litres in my old triton certainly did. Now days I settle for 150lts in my current prado which travels as far if not further due to better economy than the last model.
Also makes those fuel docket deals worth while
270ltrs in my cruiser and the there us no ill effect. Maybe in girly cars it might be an issue, though ill never know >:D
Post by: achjimmy on October 09, 2016, 07:03:18 PM
270ltrs in my cruiser and the there us no ill effect. Maybe in girly cars it might be an issue, though ill never know >:D
Joff Iam thinking about a long range tank, I have the option between 270 or 220 with 50 of water, only penalty is its a heavier tank and obviously water is heavier too. keen on your or anybodies thoughts.
Post by: Hairs on October 09, 2016, 07:07:07 PM
I use from each alternatively, so over the time(11 years) I have owned the 80(1HDT 91), I haven't worked out if it is better to carry less weight.
I just live with.
I know putting on a roof rack, basket, Awning, Rear Draws(80 kilo with gear), Fridge and recovery gear as well as spares and tools added more Lt/100km,
8)
Plan is steel rear bar with wheel carrier, they'll add heaps. ;D
Post by: patroldude on October 09, 2016, 07:47:43 PM
270ltrs in my cruiser and the there us no ill effect. Maybe in girly cars it might be an issue, though ill never know >:DHa ha your all over it mate. Have 215L in the patrol - 145L Main tank and 70L reserve. Get around 1100Ks per tank, which runs in around 17L / 100Ks
Happy as 
So to answer the OPs question, I don't think it really matters. People will carry enough to get them from A to B, where ever they might be
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
Post by: jk on October 09, 2016, 08:00:06 PM
The point I think, is that you rarely fill them up completly unless on a big trip where fuel is expensive, hard to get, out in the desert or fuel in your local area is very cheap and your looking to save a few bucks.
But I can tell you it hurts when you fill them up and hand over $350+ :P
Post by: tombie on October 09, 2016, 08:59:49 PM
If you can carry enough to get between fuelling stops plus a margin then you're good to go..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: McGirr on October 09, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
Mark
Post by: Joff on October 09, 2016, 10:08:10 PM
Joff Iam thinking about a long range tank, I have the option between 270 or 220 with 50 of water, only penalty is its a heavier tank and obviously water is heavier too. keen on your or anybodies thoughts.
I'd always go for range over water under there. I dont like those two part tanks. I prefer a stainless tank inside the back where it stays relatively cool and you need no pump. Well baffled thou cos sloshing is annoying
Post by: prodigyrf on October 09, 2016, 10:17:12 PM
Post by: tk421 on October 09, 2016, 10:40:27 PM
The American EPA works on each additional 100lbs (45kg) reducing your economy by 1-2%. This effect is more pronounced in smaller vehicles so lets work on 1% for my Prado. 1 litre of Diesel weighs 0.85kg so my extra 90 litres weighs 76kg fuel (90litres*0.85kg) and decreases my fuel efficiency by 1-2%. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how-does-weight-affect-a-vehicles-efficiency/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how-does-weight-affect-a-vehicles-efficiency/))
Working it out another way - A 2008 report found that for every 100-kg reduction, the combined city/highway fuel consumption could decrease by about 0.4 L/100 km for cars and about 0.5 L/100 km for light trucks (MIT 2008). (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/16755 (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/16755))
So my AU spec Prado carries 180L diesel with its dual tanks over standard international Spec of 90litres
Using the 2008 report figures - if I didn't have the extra tank or only half filled the car to 90litres my fuel efficiency saving would be 0.5*(100/76)=0.38. Which means my extra 90litres diesel is costing me 0.38L/100km. But lets no forget that with each KM travelled the weight of the car is decreasing.
I'd get a better saving taking off the Pioneer Platform, awning and bullbar, or not running my aircon :)
Post by: tracker on October 10, 2016, 02:05:19 AM
Post by: gphcald on October 10, 2016, 08:21:11 AM
I really love the ability to do Syd-Bris on one tank as well as my other long trips i save the $ by filling up at cheaper prices rather than paying the higher prices in regional areas.
Fraser last year, Filled up at Gympie, topped up just before the barge and spentr the whole week driving around, my mate in his petty 60 filled up twice at Fraser prices
Just my 2c worth
Rgds
Gerry
Post by: Paddler Ed on October 10, 2016, 08:40:09 AM
Meh - I get about 1200km out of my Prado fully laden (14-15l/100km), give or take. I'd rather that range than stressing about fuel - (Maree to Alice via Oodnadatta, Binns and Old Andado Tracks without refueling :) )
The American EPA works on each additional 100lbs (45kg) reducing your economy by 1-2%. This effect is more pronounced in smaller vehicles so lets work on 1% for my Prado. 1 litre of Diesel weighs 0.85kg so my extra 90 litres weighs 76kg fuel (90litres*0.85kg) and decreases my fuel efficiency by 1-2%. (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how-does-weight-affect-a-vehicles-efficiency/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how-does-weight-affect-a-vehicles-efficiency/))
Working it out another way - A 2008 report found that for every 100-kg reduction, the combined city/highway fuel consumption could decrease by about 0.4 L/100 km for cars and about 0.5 L/100 km for light trucks (MIT 2008). (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/16755 (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/16755))
So my AU spec Prado carries 180L diesel with its dual tanks over standard international Spec of 90litres
Using the 2008 report figures - if I didn't have the extra tank or only half filled the car to 90litres my fuel efficiency saving would be 0.5*(100/76)=0.38. Which means my extra 90litres diesel is costing me 0.38L/100km. But lets no forget that with each KM travelled the weight of the car is decreasing.
I'd get a better saving taking off the Pioneer Platform, awning and bullbar, or not running my aircon :)
That's what I was looking for... those sort of numbers (1-2% per 45kg weight) make sense, and what I was driving at.
For example, the guy with 210L of diesel in his 'Cruiser is going to be carrying 155L more than me (so a 3% difference approximately in fuel economy) - at what point does that extra fuel load start to impact his range?
I have 159 ltrs (1400 kms to dry tanks approx) in my 95 series Prado TD, that gets me through 2 weeks of driving (commuting and running around) I normally have approx 45 litres at the end of the fortnight still in my tank.
I really love the ability to do Syd-Bris on one tank as well as my other long trips I save the $ by filling up at cheaper prices rather than paying the higher prices in regional areas.
Fraser last year, Filled up at Gympie, topped up just before the barge and spent the whole week driving around, my mate in his petty 60 filled up twice at Fraser prices
Just my 2c worth
Rgds
Gerry
I can get fuel cheaper in some regional areas than I can on the Central Coast, and whilst we did a 1700km round trip out towards Cobar, we never paid more than 1.20/L for diesel (and that was with no dockets). I don't always believe that regional is more expensive; I can get 95 for 1.27 at the moment here in Northern Inland NSW compared to ~1.40 around the Central Coast (NSW has great app/website (https://www.fuelcheck.nsw.gov.au/App/) run by the government)
Post by: GeoffA on October 10, 2016, 09:01:32 AM
Long range tanks are necessary for remote desert use, but that's about it.
The benefits are debatable anywhere else.
:cheers:
Post by: doc evil on October 10, 2016, 09:32:29 AM
270ltrs in my cruiser and the there us no ill effect. Maybe in girly cars it might be an issue, though ill never know >:D
Well said there Joffsta...............Who gives a toss, when the tanks are full (300 odd litres) means I'm outta here and on my way bush......................
Post by: austastar on October 10, 2016, 09:42:42 AM
If and when I get to do the Simpson or similar, my plan is a bit different.
Buy a couple of Jerry cans at the last decent town, fill them at the last decent roadhouse use them to do the distance, leave them at the next roadhouse once done.
Even giving them away to be sold second hand is way cheaper than a long range tank.
Cheers
Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
Post by: Joff on October 10, 2016, 10:05:33 AM
Hi,
If and when I get to do the Simpson or similar, my plan is a bit different.
Buy a couple of Jerry cans at the last decent town, fill them at the last decent roadhouse use them to do the distance, leave them at the next roadhouse once done.
Even giving them away to be sold second hand is way cheaper than a long range tank.
Cheers
Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
Sounds great until you have to do it a few times. No one who does big outback trips and has LR tanks would ever go backwards on purpose.
Post by: Joff on October 10, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
At around a grand for a tank, it'll take a LONG time before you come out ahead.
Long range tanks are necessary for remote desert use, but that's about it.
The benefits are debatable anywhere else.
:cheers:
'Necessary' for remote desert? They are not even 'necessary' there either as plenty can testify, but neither is most of the other stuff we all bolt onto our rigs. I once traveled part of the Canning with a mate who carried enough home made bio-diesel to do his trip (Newman, Wiluna, Kunawarritji, Newman) without a fuel stop. He carried it all in 20ltr plastic cube drums in the back of his 80 (Doc will remember Tim's 80 loaded with fuel). Every night he'd pull them all out and stack them so he could sleep in the back.
And, not everyone looks at things like long range tanks in terms of financial return on investment either. The minute you get to a fork in the road and you can turn away from the fuel browser instead of having your journey dictated by where the next fuel is then you have "come out ahead". If you want to do this one 20ltr jerry at a time then go nuts but if not then LR tanks are a good investment in your sanity. If you equate everything in terms of financial ROI then you would never leave home on a decent trip.
Post by: Bird on October 10, 2016, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Joff
Sounds great until you have to do it a few times. No one who does big outback trips and has LR tanks would ever go backwards on purpose.
I had a long range tank in the GQ.. no way I'd spend $1000+ again to gain 40 ltrs (got it through a mate who worked at ARB at the time)... 2-3 jerrys at $20ea will suffice.
Patrols have 96l std in the main, and 146l swapped to a Long range tank.. the price just doesn't make sense.
Post by: GeoffA on October 10, 2016, 10:46:27 AM
.....And, not everyone looks at things like long range tanks in terms of financial return on investment either....
I don't, but Paddler Ed's post ahead of mine seemed to be going down that path...
Post by: Rumpig on October 10, 2016, 10:57:44 AM
I had a long range tank in the GQ.. no way I'd spend $1000+ again to gain 40 ltrs (got it through a mate who worked at ARB at the time)... 2-3 jerrys at $20ea will suffice.unless you have a vehicle like Joff does which only has a 45 litre sub tank as standard, that gets replaced with a 180 litre tank, bringing it to 270 litre capacity....every vehicle is different, and thus there is no one answer for all.
Patrols have 96l std in the main, and 146l swapped to a Long range tank.. the price just doesn't make sense.
Post by: Joff on October 10, 2016, 11:03:08 AM
I had a long range tank in the GQ.. no way I'd spend $1000+ again to gain 40 ltrs (got it through a mate who worked at ARB at the time)... 2-3 jerrys at $20ea will suffice.
Patrols have 96l std in the main, and 146l swapped to a Long range tank.. the price just doesn't make sense.
If all I was getting was 40ltrs in a vehicle like that then neither would I but I bet you wouldn't take it out if it were there to save on weight would you?
Post by: The punter on October 10, 2016, 11:05:48 AM
Post by: tk421 on October 10, 2016, 11:17:05 AM
That's what I was looking for... those sort of numbers (1-2% per 45kg weight) make sense, and what I was driving at.
For example, the guy with 210L of diesel in his 'Cruiser is going to be carrying 155L more than me (so a 3% difference approximately in fuel economy) - at what point does that extra fuel load start to impact his range?
You are over thinking this. It doesn't impact your range negatively - Each litre of fuel always gives you extra range but at diminishing returns. Sticking with the Prado - the single tank altitude 150 has a posted efficiency of 8.5L/100km
Assuming each 100kg reduces efficiency by 0.5L/100km (all other things being equal)
an extra 117 litres diesel (100kg), gives you 9L/100 = 1,307km range
add 235 litres (200KG) = 9.5L/100km = 2,477km
353 Litres (300Kg) = 9.10L/100km = 3,529km
471 litres (400kg) = 10.5L/100km = 4,482km
....
2,118litres (1800Kg) = 17.5L/100km = 12,101km range.
....
Of course its a gross over simplification because in the real world, to carry that extra fuel you need bigger tanks/more tanks/bigger engines etc so the effect increases by more each time. But for the average 4wder the effect is negligible. You are still getting more range by carrying more fuel.
Post by: rossm on October 10, 2016, 11:43:14 AM
The Ranger has been moved on and I now have a 150 series Prado with 150 litres so the same trip probably wouldn't need a fuel stop so there is a saving there.
But the Prado isn't as economical so I would use more fuel but pay less per litre for it.
I would need McGirr's formula to work our whether I am ahead.
Saving say $50 when the total fuel bill was about a grand isn't a big issue. Not having to queue at a single pump at a remote location is a convenience thing which can't be given a monetary value.
Like wise having to refuel from a jerrycan. While stopped for a photo at Pentecost River a camper trailer passed with six jerrycans strapped to the top. That's taking budgeting to the extreme.
Post by: Beachman on October 10, 2016, 12:10:31 PM
Yes you would have to notice the extra weight when all tanks are full, but in reality how often would you fill the tanks? I understand if you have a long trip planned or fuel is cheap you fill them up, but the rest of the time I would assume you only half/quarter fill the tank depending on what travel is planned and how much money is in your wallet.
Post by: Bird on October 10, 2016, 12:32:46 PM
Quote from: rossm
... with six jerrycans strapped to the top. That's taking budgeting to the extreme.There was a dude (Polish from memory) whose name escapes me years back on few forums who had a rack made to carry 20 jerrys for his journey to remote WA with a few Prado people...
People do do it...
Post by: Joff on October 10, 2016, 12:55:41 PM
There was a dude (Polish from memory) whose name escapes me years back on few forums who had a rack made to carry 20 jerrys for his journey to remote WA with a few Prado people...
Morons do do it...
fixed :cup:
Post by: shanegtr on October 10, 2016, 02:22:37 PM
I’m assuming the people who fit long range tanks fit them for a reason and that’s they are planning on doing multiple outback trips.I fill up completly everytime Im refuelling - bit over 180L everytime. Saves going to the servo more often.
Yes you would have to notice the extra weight when all tanks are full, but in reality how often would you fill the tanks? I understand if you have a long trip planned or fuel is cheap you fill them up, but the rest of the time I would assume you only half/quarter fill the tank depending on what travel is planned and how much money is in your wallet.
Post by: Hoyks on October 10, 2016, 02:25:09 PM
I used to ride bikes as well as 4x4 touring. On the bike it was a bit of a pain only having 400km range, this could be boosted to 500+ by strapping on a 5L jerry, over and above that the cargo had to be sacrificed and the bike got really heavy, more so when it fell over. Economy was always pretty hopeless, or maybe that was how I rode it ;D.
With the BT50 I can get a bit over 800km out of a tank. If I don't fill it up then I don't go as far and have to fill it up more often. As this is inconvenient I just fill it up, run it until it needs filling again and repeat.
Does it affect my economy to a great degree? Don't know, probably no worse than my 50kg steel bar and roof racks.
There is certainly a point of diminishing returns where hauling more fuel burns more fuel and doesn't get you any further.
When I go away I carry 3 x 20L drums and fill them as required. I would like a long range tank, but can't really justify it. My jerries have been through 3 vehicles now, so I'm getting my monies worth out of them.
If I need fuel, then I buy fuel. I'm not so tight that I sweat on every cent. I don't get the idea of going away, spending $60 on fuel drums so you can fill them at home and haul them 1/2 way across the country just so you can save paying an extra $0.20L in a remote area. ???
Post by: Pete79 on October 10, 2016, 02:40:28 PM
There is an old aviation adage; The only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire
That's funny...
I was doing some research on bladders over the weekend. I saw this pic and my first thoughts where something along the lines of your quote!
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161010/ee247036bce457e71aa2b976759eff9a.jpg)
Post by: rossm on October 10, 2016, 03:46:13 PM
If I need fuel, then I buy fuel. I'm not so tight that I sweat on every cent. I don't get the idea of going away, spending $60 on fuel drums so you can fill them at home and haul them 1/2 way across the country just so you can save paying an extra $0.20L in a remote area. ???
I agree ... but beer is a different story. 😀
Post by: Hoyks on October 10, 2016, 04:22:28 PM
I agree ... but beer is a different story. 😀Oh, hell yeah!
At $80/carton I rapidly become a resistant consumer.
Post by: tk421 on October 10, 2016, 04:33:37 PM
Assuming a diesel car with a 59litre tank and an economy of 8.5l/100km and each extra 100kg reduces efficiency by 0.5L/100km:
If you carry double your normal fuel load (118litres or 100Kg - you will travel 77km less than if you filled up the 59 litre tank twice
If you carry 4 times your extra fuel load (235 litres or 200 kg) you will travel 291 km less than if you filled up the single tank 4 times
(again a grossly simplified example because each litre of fuel consumed reduces your weight by 0.85kg so your efficiency improves the further you drive.)
I even graphed it :)
Post by: listo on October 10, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
Would I get another long range tank again? Yes I would. I just won't get the same car again. I don't mind if they're a bit thirstier, as long as they have the goomf to justify it.
Post by: Spada on October 10, 2016, 04:57:11 PM
worth it...... ;D
If I'm on holiday, I don't give a rats nanny about fuel economy................If I have to worry about a penny pinching a couple of bucks worth of petrol, then it aint a holiday.
Post by: doc evil on October 10, 2016, 05:26:15 PM
If I have to worry about a penny pinching a couple of bucks worth of petrol, then it aint a holiday.
AAANNNNDDDD...............We have a winner.................... :cup: :cup: :cup: :cup:
Post by: Kangaron on October 11, 2016, 11:02:15 AM
If you look at the prices you shouldn't be there.
Post by: Muckinhell on October 11, 2016, 05:04:16 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
Very long non-stop flights suffer from the weight penalty of the large quantity of fuel required, limiting the number of available seats to compensate. For such flights, the critical fiscal factor is the quantity of fuel burnt per seat-nautical mile.[9] For these reasons the world's longest commercial flights were cancelled circa 2013. An example is Singapore Air's former New York to Singapore flight, which could carry only 100 passengers (all business class) on the 10,300 mile flight. According to an industry analyst, "It [was] pretty much a fuel tanker in the air.
I guess if you could offset the extra weight with lighter camping gear, taking less food/water on the main road trips etc then it wouldn't have an effect and you could make a saving getting the fuel at more price competitive stops as well, but unless your lucky enough to have car already factory fitted with sub tanks etc its prob not worth it unless like said you are planning some serious remote trips.
Post by: austastar on October 12, 2016, 09:52:44 AM
The RAAF Mirages could use large drop tanks that extended their range by a fraction.
Most of the external tank's fuel was burnt getting the load airborne.
Cheers
Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
Post by: Joff on October 12, 2016, 10:12:41 AM
I'm glad I read this, I was about to buy an old F111 to do the Cape in >:(
Post by: Cruiser 105Tvan on October 12, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Take off with all the gear and just fill the aircraft enough to get to the bowser in the sky + 25% for error.
Once at the bowser, fill it all up.
Who said 'pigs can't fly'?
Post by: Joff on October 12, 2016, 11:40:52 AM
Much better to have an airborne refueler.
Take off with all the gear and just fill the aircraft enough to get to the bowser in the sky + 25% for error.
Once at the bowser, fill it all up.
Who said 'pigs can't fly'?
why didn't i think of that. maybe i will get that F111. they are cheap these days. wonder if i could chop into a dual cab ;D
Post by: Fizzie on October 12, 2016, 04:18:35 PM
why didn't i think of that. maybe i will get that F111. they are cheap these days. wonder if i could chop into a dual cab ;D
Just put a hatch in so you can climb down into the bomb bay & you won't even need to chop it! ;D
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on October 12, 2016, 05:53:36 PM
The slow down factor, the starting off from scratch factor.
Also, allow for the wear and tear on brakes, tyres and steering, and of course, you then have to factor in a coke and mars bars or worse if the place has a maacas.
Oh hell, who gives a flying rats arse, just drive it like ya stole it.
Post by: Joff on October 12, 2016, 06:02:06 PM
If ya use smaller tanks, thus needing to stop more often, would you not have to factor in the fuel used in visiting more service stations.
The slow down factor, the starting off from scratch factor.
Also, allow for the wear and tear on brakes, tyres and steering, and of course, you then have to factor in a coke and mars bars or worse if the place has a maacas.
Oh hell, who gives a flying rats arse, just drive it like ya stole it.
What about all the extra bitching from the wife when she has to get out and get her hands dirty more often. >:D
Post by: Spada on October 12, 2016, 07:20:02 PM
The slow down factor,
What would you know about that ? >:D
Post by: IanS on October 12, 2016, 08:22:20 PM
If ya use smaller tanks, thus needing to stop more often, would you not have to factor in the fuel used in visiting more service stations.But remember that you will burn less fuel getting up to cruise speed as you weigh less.
The slow down factor, the starting off from scratch factor.
Also, allow for the wear and tear on brakes, tyres and steering, and of course, you then have to factor in a coke and mars bars or worse if the place has a maacas.
Oh hell, who gives a flying rats arse, just drive it like ya stole it.
On a more serious note I have watched this thread with interest and would make the following observations.
IMHO long range tanks are a convenient way of carrying extra fuel but not a very cost efective one, the initial cost of the tank is the killer in my opinion, I had the second tank in a Landcruiser and they were probably the only car that could justify having one as you didn't go very far on a tank full.
If you had the choice of driving around with a couple of 25kg bags of cement in the back of your car or not what would you do? I only filled the back tank if I was going to use it.
If you need the extra capacity for remote area travel you are better off having the extra fuel in separate containers, much easier to keep track of how much you have left and also its not a great idea to have all your eggs in one basket so to speak.
Most modern vehicles have a range of over 500km which means that even a full days travelling will only require 2 fuel stops.
Just my thoughts Ian
Post by: Redcherokee on October 12, 2016, 08:32:16 PM
Long range tank is nice and low.
Having done one trip with a small tank and having to worry about distances and decant fuel, it is a pain in the tail. Big tank is much less worry, and I'm happy to pay for that.
Post by: jk on October 12, 2016, 08:44:21 PM
I couldn't bring myself to pay around $1000+ or more for something we'll only use once every couple of years !! I think the purchase price is a major consideration !
Post by: Joff on October 12, 2016, 09:09:11 PM
If you need the extra capacity for remote area travel you are better off having the extra fuel in separate containers, much easier to keep track of how much you have left
Isnt that what fuel guages on the dashboard are for. ???
Bugger seperate containers. It's all under there nice and snug. I pump it in, press a button when one is empty and keep driving. For about 1800km ;D 8)
Post by: GeoffA on October 12, 2016, 09:44:38 PM
Post by: SimpleSi on October 13, 2016, 02:49:30 AM
To answer the OP, I'd imagine there's no specific point at which the extra fuel burn kicks in, it would be a linear cost of carrying that extra fuel (<1%?).
Post by: Joff on October 13, 2016, 06:54:40 AM
Did someone say GVM??...... :o ;D
What difference does it make where the fuel is to weight, aside from the tank itself, if you need 250ltrs to get somewhere
Post by: NewieCamper on October 13, 2016, 07:55:20 AM
Isnt that what fuel guages on the dashboard are for. ???
Bugger seperate containers. It's all under there nice and snug. I pump it in, press a button when one is empty and keep driving. For about 1800km ;D 8)
Pretty sure I'm going to be stopping a few times to stretch the legs and refuel myself in 1800km, let alone stopping for kids. It makes a bit of sense if the fuel stops are few and far between, but for regular highway stuff a fuel stop is a reasonable opportunity to 'stop revive survive'. Jerry cans would be my option if we were going somewhere there wasn't fuel.
Post by: jw2170 on October 13, 2016, 08:23:14 AM
Quote
I would need McGirr's formula to work our whether I am ahead.....you read it...LOL
two observations...
1. Did not take long for BEER to be entered into the equation...... :cup:
2. (alright, caravan, I know...) when my parents did their lap many years ago with a Cruiser, Dad just went to the wreckers and bought a small petrol metal tank from a wrecked car and mounted that on the roof rack....Probably only 10 or so gallons at the time...less $$$.
Post by: jr on October 13, 2016, 08:28:11 AM
Plenty of stretches and times where fuel is 3 hrs apart. Plety of small towns dont have fuel after 5 or 6pm, in addition some run out or have problems supplying it.
Can always be a way around it but not always time or freedom to leave or travel when you like
Post by: Footy Shorts Shane on October 13, 2016, 08:45:11 AM
But I'm too tight to buy one and after 300km in the crusty rusty Hilux, you want to stop and get out any way :D
Post by: GeoffA on October 13, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
What difference does it make where the fuel is to weight, aside from the tank itself, if you need 250ltrs to get somewhere
Did someone say "trailer"?
Post by: Paddler Ed on October 13, 2016, 10:31:11 AM
Interestingly (perhaps?), on the planes I fly, carrying an extra tonne of fuel on a 9hr flight costs an extra 250kg of fuel burn. However on a quick flight (1hr) the extra burn is only about 30kg.
To answer the OP, I'd imagine there's no specific point at which the extra fuel burn kicks in, it would be a linear cost of carrying that extra fuel (<1%?).
That's in line with my thoughts - so I wonder how much difference carrying 750kg of extra fuel would make... how much extra kg of fuel burn would there be for that? In effect, 25% of that tonne is wiped out... On the short flight it's down to 3%, so hear nor there (that's a couple of extra bags really)
I am suspecting a linear/exponential relationship - just not sure which way yet.
I've got a quiet spell with work, so my head goes into overdrive with other thoughts that satisfy my intellectual curiosity... the other day I was behind a red P plater, and was working out how much time I'd save if I overtook them and got past them for the remaining 8km of 100kmh road into town... I worked it out to be about a minute, so decided it was worthless... and then there was a set of roadworks which really would have rendered it a worthless exercise. Does that make sense now as to where these ideas come from?!
Post by: NewieCamper on October 13, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
Post by: scblack on October 13, 2016, 11:23:05 AM
I've got a quiet spell with work, so my head goes into overdrive with other thoughts that satisfy my intellectual curiosity... the other day I was behind a red P plater, and was working out how much time I'd save if I overtook them and got past them for the remaining 8km of 100kmh road into town... I worked it out to be about a minute, so decided it was worthless... and then there was a set of roadworks which really would have rendered it a worthless exercise.My workmate has a daughter who is on her P's. So restricted speed.
On a trip from Winston Hills Sydney to Nelson Bay her slow speed added just 12mins to the whole trip.
So overtaking someone for just another 5km/h is a pretty worthless exercise in reality. And then when you get to the end of a freeway and the next set of lights you sit next to each other anyway.
(Not that I ever overtake in such frivolous manner...) :angel:
Post by: Joff on October 13, 2016, 11:39:22 AM
Did someone say "trailer"?
Oh christ! now we have to have a trailer for our extra fuel hahaha. Can someone do the math on the break even point for towing a fuel trailer versus buying it at the bowser ;D, I sure someone here has enough nerd time on their hands :cheers:
Not all of us always have trailers in tow ya know.
Post by: Joff on October 13, 2016, 11:43:55 AM
I've got a quiet spell with work, so my head goes into overdrive with other thoughts that satisfy my intellectual curiosity... the other day I was behind a red P plater, and was working out how much time I'd save if I overtook them and got past them for the remaining 8km of 100kmh road into town... I worked it out to be about a minute, so decided it was worthless... and then there was a set of roadworks which really would have rendered it a worthless exercise. Does that make sense now as to where these ideas come from?!
Did you factor in the frustration of sitting behind a slow car?? I'll pass them with 2ks to go if it means I don't have to sit behind some peanut that can't carry a decent speed
Post by: Paddler Ed on October 13, 2016, 11:55:30 AM
Did you factor in the frustration of sitting behind a slow car?? I'll pass them with 2ks to go if it means I don't have to sit behind some peanut that can't carry a decent speed
4Runner doesn't always go that fast... "Runner" is a misnomer...
Generally I don't mind if they keep a steady speed (80+ is fine on the 100kmh roads around here at times) It's when they suddenly drop to 50 or 60 (Toyota Camry's are great at that... especially near a university town) that it's a problem.
Post by: Joff on October 13, 2016, 12:03:43 PM
Pretty sure I'm going to be stopping a few times to stretch the legs and refuel myself in 1800km, let alone stopping for kids. It makes a bit of sense if the fuel stops are few and far between, but for regular highway stuff a fuel stop is a reasonable opportunity to 'stop revive survive'. Jerry cans would be my option if we were going somewhere there wasn't fuel.
I don't have one for regular highway stuff. Come to think of it, I don't have a Landcruiser for regular highway stuff either. I have it for when I'm tooling around in remote areas heading up dead end tracks for 200km in the gulf or out to some obscure landmark in central WA. It is easy to used way more than std fuel capacity between fuel sightings out there when you are not looking for them
Post by: GeoffA on October 13, 2016, 12:05:53 PM
Oh christ! now we have to have a trailer for our extra fuel hahaha. Can someone do the math on the break even point for towing a fuel trailer versus buying it at the bowser ;D, I sure someone here has enough nerd time on their hands :cheers:
Not all of us always have trailers in tow ya know.
Really? How odd. I suppose it take all types....:P ;D
:cheers:
Post by: edz on October 13, 2016, 12:15:56 PM
By juuuuust getting 300km to a tank, I'd love a long range tank, 4 even ;DHah our old Slow runner isnt much better at just over 400km, But would love the grunt the V8 to justify it, instead of the gutless thirsty V6 ;D
But I'm too tight to buy one and after 300km in the crusty rusty Hilux, you want to stop and get out any way :D
Post by: Footy Shorts Shane on October 13, 2016, 12:33:52 PM
Hah our old Slow runner isnt much better at just over 400km, But would love the grunt the V8 to justify it, instead of the gutless thirsty V6 ;D
I considered removing the Chev to fit one of those 6's to increase economy, until I researched the consumption of the 6.
Was a quick and easy decision to keep the Chev ;D
Post by: edz on October 13, 2016, 12:55:32 PM
Post by: KingBilly on October 19, 2016, 05:59:52 AM
Post by: Fizzie on October 19, 2016, 07:26:23 AM
Knew Toy's were thirsty but didn't realise it was that bad! ;D
Post by: Pete79 on October 19, 2016, 08:51:48 AM
& is that a 44 in the back of the ute?That's so they can get to the servo to fill up the long range tank. ;)
Knew Toy's were thirsty but didn't realise it was that bad! ;D
Post by: Fizzie on October 20, 2016, 08:40:58 AM
That makes sense - the 160 / 200 l is just emergency back-up! >:D