Isuzu pick-up does 61 mpg?

[niky]

Isuzu D-Max (Chevy Colorado) does 61 mpg?

Might actually be "Corral" material. Not that I don't trust the drivers who did it, and they claim to have driven normally...

It's just that I had to chuckle when I got to the part where they justified the figure. It went 1,985 kilometers on a full 76 liter tank. Not having been present there, myself, I can't say how the tank was filled on the first fill-up and how they verified results on the second.

Seems to me that you can fit a whole lot more than 76 liters in a standard "76 liter" tank. Just an extra dozen liters would bring that figure down to a more believable 50 mpg. I've driven the truck in question... 48 mpg is perfectly possible with normal driving at a piddling 40 mph.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Sounds too good to be true. Well, maybe an extensively-modded 2WD single-cab could be managed to that mileage, but would still require lots of work...

[niky]

I'm beginning to think they did something massively wrong while measuring fuel.

Been mulling ideas on how to measure fuel consumption, to minimize errors. You can fill a car to the top, shake it, fill it again, shake it, fill it again... and then let it sit overnight and the next day it will still take more fuel.

Unless you have a good source of cheap temporary installation fuel cells, it's hard to get accurate numbers.

Perhaps if you could unbolt the tanks to weigh them...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by niky

Isuzu D-Max (Chevy Colorado) does 61 mpg?

Might actually be "Corral" material. Not that I don't trust the drivers who did it, and they claim to have driven normally...

It's just that I had to chuckle when I got to the part where they justified the figure. It went 1,985 kilometers on a full 76 liter tank. Not having been present there, myself, I can't say how the tank was filled on the first fill-up and how they verified results on the second.

Seems to me that you can fit a whole lot more than 76 liters in a standard "76 liter" tank. Just an extra dozen liters would bring that figure down to a more believable 50 mpg. I've driven the truck in question... 48 mpg is perfectly possible with normal driving at a piddling 40 mph.

They do a disservice to themselves by not providing specific data as to the test route,meteorological data,
summer' or 'winter' blend fuel,travel velocity,yields,full stops,idle time:whether cold-start,hot-start,etc..
I seriously doubt that their average speed was over 35-mph.
I'm at around Cd 0.16 with my T-100 and can't best 37 mpg at 65-mph.My frontal area would be similar and weight isn't an issue with HWY mpg.
Even with a modern TDI powerplant I'd be lucky to break into the low 40s.
I just don't believe their claim.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

A non-hybrid Isuzu D-Max set to get 61MPG would probably not be deemed economically-viable with all the tuning and custom fabrication it would require to do so in a regular basis.

[Cobb]

A turbo charged 3 liter diesel 4x4 truck getting 61 mpg on top gear?

[Arragonis]

A 3 litre TD with only 144hp and 213 lb/ft ?

Oh it has an older engine. The newer one has 163 hp / 295 lb/ft and claims 38 MPG (imp) on the combined cycle.

[niky]

The low output means that the motor actually matches or beats lower-displacement diesel pick-ups in real-world usage. I've sean mid-40's out of it at a steady fifty mph on the highway.

Been mulling asking for a test-drive to verify results. Just have to pitch it to a gas company to get fuel vouchers for the drive (doing multiple controlled tests would be financially ruinous)

[Arragonis]

A full on "independent" test by an Ecomodder would settle things, for us anyway