Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

202 Fuel Economy

Started by _NOI53Y_ , Feb 14 2006 01:35 PM

Next

Please log in to reply

28 replies to this topic

#1 _NOI53Y_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 01:35 PM

Hey folks,

I was cruising along in my 202 powered beasty of an LX and was wondering what sort of economy others get out of theres.

I was wondering if people could state what they have done to the motor/gearbox/diff and what it's like on fuel, giving a rough L/100.

I just put fuel in mine yesterday so i'll be able to work mine out in a couple of days but I think mine is pretty good because mine is completely stock. Stock strommy and exhaust at the moment, stock ignition. The works

Back to top

#2 _Yella SLuR_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 01:43 PM

There was a really good thread on this on the old forums. Maybe if we ask the Mods nicely they'll drag that one back from the grave!!!

Please???

Back to top

#3 _Herne_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 01:56 PM

To the best of my knowledge 202's were never any good for fuel economy!

Cheers
Herne

Back to top

#4 _sourbastard_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 02:19 PM

Hey folks,

I was cruising along in my 202 powered beasty of an LX and was wondering what sort of economy others get out of theres.

I was wondering if people could state what they have done to the motor/gearbox/diff and what it's like on fuel, giving a rough L/100.

I just put fuel in mine yesterday so i'll be able to work mine out in a couple of days but I think mine is pretty good because mine is completely stock. Stock strommy and exhaust at the moment, stock ignition. The works

If your car is modified correctly, economy is a word that will never be used.

The corrective terms should be.
Horsepower
Torque
Air Fuel Ratio
Timing

I havent used the word economy when referring to my own cars in years!

Back to top

#5 _gm3300_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 02:28 PM

i took my GTR to the AFPCNats at Bathurst over the Aus. day
weekend it did 26 mpg, or around 10.6 l/100km on the return
trip, its a stock 202, low-impedance air filter, single branch exhaust,
M20 4 speed, 3.08 diff, 185 70 13 tyres, and in was running on
95 octane (Vortex) with Lucas Fuel Conditioner added as an
upper cylinder lubricant.
grant

Back to top

#6 _HardleyNormal_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:06 PM

Hey,
I run a 202 with 1 3/4 tripple SUs with yella terra head, stage 3 crow cam, genie extracors 13inch tyres and a m20 manual box. I get approx 450 KMs per tank full whateva that makes it. It has a stock tank in it with a 3.08 diff. It is my daily driver and a tank will last me a week or close to it. So yeah i dunno specifics but hope this gives you an idea.

Cheers Tim

Back to top

#7 Heath

I like cars.

Administrators
18,401 posts

Name:Heath
Location:Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
Car:Heavily Modified UC Sunbird Hatchback
Joined: 07-November 05

View Garage

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:19 PM

Not sure about hatches, but LH/LX sedans had 55L tanks. I'm guessing that was carried onto UCs. I'm also guessing Hatches are the same but I be wrong. Those figures sound pretty inviting actually...

Back to top

#8 MRLXSS

The Render Garage

Members
12,415 posts

Name:Matt
Location:Upwey, Melbourne
Car:355 LX Hatchback, DeLorean DMC-12, LX SS Hatch, VY Cross8 Crewman
Joined: 09-November 05

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:38 PM

It all really depends on how you drive it, and how well the motor has been tuned etc, there are minor adjustments that can be done to fix economy...

Most 202s ive heard of get similiar economy to a 253...

Back to top

#9 _TORANASS_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 04:25 PM

depends on your motor, eg: condition, if its regularly serviced etc...

My LX had a stock 202, genie extractors and a 2" exhast.. the rst was stock and ran real nice and was very healthy... trimatic with 3.08 diff and stocky 13"s on the back and it drank about 17ltr to 100km round town and 15ltrs to 100km on the hwy..

I beleive thats a GUZZLER!!!!

John

Back to top

#10 Heath

I like cars.

Administrators
18,401 posts

Name:Heath
Location:Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
Car:Heavily Modified UC Sunbird Hatchback
Joined: 07-November 05

View Garage

Posted 14 February 2006 - 04:33 PM

That is a bloody big guzzler! bloody oath. Sounds like an injected 304.

Back to top

#11 Tiny

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Administrators
10,018 posts

Name:Tiny
Location:Sydney
Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 14 February 2006 - 04:37 PM

I worked out the fuel consumption on the monaro...

Sydney to lithgow and back... 25L per 100Kms.... Highway...

*sigh*

(Notice i didnt use the word ECONOMY hehe )

Back to top

#12 _Herne_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 04:53 PM

hehehe, wisely so eh Tiny lol

Ya cant really have both those of us who have been around a while now this

Some like it slow, others like it fast furious and sideways, I know which I prefer but have to admit age does slow you down even if only by a tad lol.

What we lose in age/speed we make up for with knowhow/cunning

Cheers
Herne

Back to top

#13 Tiny

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Administrators
10,018 posts

Name:Tiny
Location:Sydney
Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:00 PM

hehe well said Herne...

I see it like this... I'm employing people and making this place a better place...

I burn the fuel that is created by thousands of hard workers right from building the drilling rigs, to the dillers, the transport people, the rifinery staff, again the transport people and the annoying indian guy at my local BP that cant speak english....

All for my Buck 30....

Killing trees? Poisoning the atmosphere... or keeping hundreds of thousands employed... Same Same

Back to top

#14 _sourbastard_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:06 PM

hehehe, wisely so eh Tiny lol

Ya cant really have both those of us who have been around a while now this

Some like it slow, others like it fast furious and sideways, I know which I prefer but have to admit age does slow you down even if only by a tad lol.

What we lose in age/speed we make up for with knowhow/cunning

Cheers
Herne

What I lose in age i seem to make up for in weight. But the donuts are so sweet...... mmm donuts....

Back to top

#15 _Yella SLuR_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:09 PM

From memory, figures quoted before ranged from 13L/100km to 18L/100km. Ole Yella gets about 17L/100km on the highway, NFI around town.

Back to top

#16 _Keithy's_UC_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:14 PM

The old 202 in my UC used to pull about 12.5l/100km city and 8.5l/100km highway. This was slightly modified - 350holley, electronic ignition, pacemakers and exhaust on 95octane unleaded, 4spd manny and 3.08:1 diff ratio...

And the UC sedans also have 55l tanks!

Back to top

#17 _devilsadvocate_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:58 PM

One of my UC's was stock(202, 3.08auto) while on petrol, but alas an 18yo motor at the time. It did about 13L/100km at suburban speeds and 11-12L/100km on the highway, so one would figure they did slightly better than that when new.

I agree, use the term fuel consumption, not fuel economy, or more annoyingly the term fuel efficient . How often do you hear someone say they are getting a smaller car because it is more fuel efficient, there's lots of ways one could measure efficiency in different vehicles. Just better to say getting a smaller car because of lower fuel consumption........my sermon for the day.

Back to top

#18 _WYLDLC 6_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:58 PM

WYLDLC has a 202, tripple webers, M20, 3.45 diff on 15" wheels and it uses around 18lt/100km as we found out on our way to Hanging Rock on Sunday.
Expensive trip from near Cranbourne, but fun to drive.

Back to top

#19 _lexa_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 07:03 PM

wat is more fuel efficient, triple webers or 350 holley?

Back to top

#20 _Bomber Watson_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 08:15 PM

wtf is fuel economy???

Back to top

#21 _CHOPPER_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 08:32 PM

My HJ had a stock ( except for extractors ) 202, M20 4 speed, 3.55:1 diff and 225/65R14 tyres all round. If I took it easy, I could get 28 MPG ( 10 litres/100 KM ) around town. 25 MPG was easy to get anytime.

Back to top

#22 rodomo

To advertise here, call 13TORANA

Members
18,050 posts

Name:R - O - B Dammit!
Location:Way out west of Melbourne Awstraylya
Joined: 10-December 05

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:02 PM

202 (red)divided x small valves + small exhaust and retricted aircleaner = don't breath: therefore - economy.

Add bigger valves + tripple webbers + exhaust (inc. cam and dizzy mods) divided by good luck and a bit of wet weather = win Bathurt against Ford V8's :spoton:

RACV MAN

Edited by rodomo, 14 February 2006 - 09:09 PM.

Back to top

#23 _TORANASS_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:08 PM

202 devided x (some fukd up reason) = broke johno

Back to top

#24 _LX CHAMOIS HATCH_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:31 PM

mild 202-bored out 60 thou, extractors, solid cam (not quite an xu1 but far from stock) twin point dizzy, ported head with a ww stromberg gives me bout 15L/100kms highway mostly, but i cant get it tuned right yet (runs rich in cylinders 1 & 2, rest are perfect)

previously my 100% stock 202 did bout 12L/100kms so not much difference

next experiment is getting a 465 holley on there and seeing what happens.

both engines were mated with a trimatic and 2.78 banjo. means that it is the slowest piece of shit off the line imaginable. that'll change when the new diff goes in.

daily- Shitron (Citroen) Berlingo van does bout 8L/100kms, the torana will never be that good.....

cheers

Back to top

#25 _CHOPPER_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 10:04 PM

Don't need to stick the 465 Holley on to find out what happens, I can tell you it will run like shit. A 465 is probably as big as you need to go with a 253, which obviously means it will be way too big for a 202. Install it if you wish, it's your car not mine.