how good is that - Page 3

kbekl · 22-11-2010, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muckypup

Not bad mate!

I always work things out as how many miles you get to a tenner. Makes it easy to compare differences between petrol / diesel / gas as they are all different prices and consumptions.

According to my working you got 56.71 miles to £10 of diesel.

On a run I used to get about 70 miles to £10 of gas in my old Maverick, but then gas is half price of petrol, so had I been running on petrol i'd have got about 35 miles to £10... That makes yours look pretty impressive!

DAVED - I'm with you on the big engine, auto box, light foot thing! Last week I did a couple of lengthy runs. Filled up to start with and afterwards. Did exactly 160 miles on £29 of gas...

THATS 55 MILES TO £10.

With an empty car transporter trailer on the back!

Dont know how that converts to mpg etc but if its costing me a similar cost to Karls Derv Trooper but i'm running a 4 litre auto... i'm happy with that!!!

thats qite good on gas but what would that be in petty lol

i am thinking of running bio at 80p/ltr at a local place which would have cost me £27 which would mean i wold get 83 miles to £10

i am starting to like this bio lol

Muckypup · 22-11-2010, 13:42

Err I wouldnt lol I mean seriously I WOULDNT!!!! Everyone I know who has run on bio regrets it! But then I have never tried it myself... and never will!
It was supposedly old cars that couldnt run on it and new could... yet all the new diesels come with "no bio" stickers...
What will you do to keep your valves lubricated pal?

Gas systems should have a "flash lube" system fitted to do that exact job. Bio fuel has the same effect as it does not lubricate the valves and seats properly. On an old engine that aint good so you will have to think of a way of doing the same otherwise you could burn them out pretty quickly resulting in another expensive engine job!

Anyway read my post again properly and you'll see the answer is there re. petrol consumption!
And it dont come into it anyway as I didnt pay for the conversion... My motor costs me the same as a diesel to run, yet is 4.0 and a million times better to drive!

I'm absolutely convinced its the way forward, until the government increase revenue on it. They have already started by changing LPG's status from a by-product of petrol production to being a recognised product. This put the price up a couple of years back by around 10p a litre

kbekl · 22-11-2010, 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muckypup

Err I wouldnt lol I mean seriously I WOULDNT!!!! Everyone I know who has run on bio regrets it! But then I have never tried it myself... and never will!
It was supposedly old cars that couldnt run on it and new could... yet all the new diesels come with "no bio" stickers...
What will you do to keep your valves lubricated pal?

Gas systems should have a "flash lube" system fitted to do that exact job. Bio fuel has the same effect as it does not lubricate the valves and seats properly. On an old engine that aint good so you will have to think of a way of doing the same otherwise you could burn them out pretty quickly resulting in another expensive engine job!

Anyway read my post again properly and you'll see the answer is there re. petrol consumption!
And it dont come into it anyway as I didnt pay for the conversion... My motor costs me the same as a diesel to run, yet is 4.0 and a million times better to drive!

I'm absolutely convinced its the way forward, until the government increase revenue on it. They have already started by changing LPG's status from a by-product of petrol production to being a recognised product. This put the price up a couple of years back by around 10p a litre

that was for the maverick lol i was on about the yank tank lol as i would anticipate it being better than the mav on long journeys

so just read through again the mav was better on gas than the yank tank, so it would have been better to go in the mav lol

so that comment about bigger engines being better on cruising speeds is not a good one as you used more

i would have thought you would have done better than the mav in all honesty

but may be you havnt got over that rasping exhaust yet

i thought the bio has a better lubricating properties than derv, i am sure i have read that on here before now

also thought the older engines prefered bio over the newer ones especially when like mine and the td27 are mechanical and both are pushrod engines (well remember reading mine is)

Muckypup · 22-11-2010, 14:24

Do your research on the bio mate thats all

And I can see where you got confused with the figures lol, one was towing the other wasnt.

The Mav used to do about 50 miles around town to a tenner and up to 70 on a constant cruise, but towing it went through the floor it was bloody awful! It also ate a tenners worth of petrol a week on start ups and running till change over.

The G.C does over 40 miles around town and I have yet to get a proper figure for cruising at a constant speed, say on the motorway. Last week the long trips I took were over the blubberhouses road to Harrogate and back a couple of times. The road takes you up and down dale at speeds of 30-60 mph and there were plenty of slow moving vehicles to overtake. It was driving this whilst towing the trailer that I managed to get the 55 miles to a tenner.

I expect doing 70 at a constant speed and revs of 1900rpm I can tell it will beat the Maverick hands down, but the Mav was a little better around town for mpg. Its basically costing me the same to run as the Mav though as it does not use petrol the same. I have never had to put any in since buying it...

When I went to Michaelstow last year in the Mav, I did 350 miles on about £55 which resulted in roughly 64 miles to £10 gas. This was fully loaded and at about 75mph. The G.C would beat that I think

Especially with the cruise control and over-drive switched on!

Muckypup · 22-11-2010, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbekl

so just read through again the mav was better on gas than the yank tank, so it would have been better to go in the mav lol

but may be you havnt got over that rasping exhaust yet

No the Mav would not have made it there and back, unreliable piece of shite!

Had the Cherry up on the ramp at the weekend to have a look at the rasp. blow on the downpipe to manifold connection and another behind the cat. Also cat has collapsed inside and is rattling and not allowing gasses to flow...
This will result in loss of power and increase fuel consumption!

So...

Its in for it sorting not this weekend as i'm away but the weekend after! Oh and a nice new de-cat pipe also

So i'll have even more power MMUUWWWWAAHHH HAA HAA HAAAAA

kbekl · 22-11-2010, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muckypup

No the Mav would not have made it there and back, unreliable piece of shite!

Had the Cherry up on the ramp at the weekend to have a look at the rasp. blow on the downpipe to manifold connection and another behind the cat. Also cat has collapsed inside and is rattling and not allowing gasses to flow...
This will result in loss of power and increase fuel consumption!

So...

Its in for it sorting not this weekend as i'm away but the weekend after! Oh and a nice new de-cat pipe also

So i'll have even more power MMUUWWWWAAHHH HAA HAA HAAAAA

aint that an mot failure on the petrol, i bought one with a decat on and it failed the mot because of it even tho the emissions were fine

ah forgot the bit about trailer lol i was thinking about a powerflow but the problems that you were on about made me think twice

Muckypup · 22-11-2010, 14:56

Yes MOT failure. All cars manufactured after Jan 1992 have to have a cat fitted by law...

Had one on the Mav!

There is a number of ways around it... one is swap it back for the cat at MOT time, another is knock the middle of the cat out, make a pipe to go through cat and weld together. Looks like a cat but is free flowing...

I did neither... I just put my old cat in the boot and gave the car to the MOT tester. He's a mate so I said I need you to swap the cat over for the MOT then swap it back afterwards, i'll pay you for the labour time.
It came back with a certificate, the de-cat fitted and a bill for £40. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!

As for your powerflow exhaust, speak to DCMS on t'other forum. He'll be able to advise you honestly as hes our local powerflow guy

22-11-2010, 13:42	#32
Muckypup Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Lancs Vehicle: Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0 Posts: 485	Err I wouldnt lol I mean seriously I WOULDNT!!!! Everyone I know who has run on bio regrets it! But then I have never tried it myself... and never will! It was supposedly old cars that couldnt run on it and new could... yet all the new diesels come with "no bio" stickers... What will you do to keep your valves lubricated pal? Gas systems should have a "flash lube" system fitted to do that exact job. Bio fuel has the same effect as it does not lubricate the valves and seats properly. On an old engine that aint good so you will have to think of a way of doing the same otherwise you could burn them out pretty quickly resulting in another expensive engine job! Anyway read my post again properly and you'll see the answer is there re. petrol consumption! And it dont come into it anyway as I didnt pay for the conversion... My motor costs me the same as a diesel to run, yet is 4.0 and a million times better to drive! I'm absolutely convinced its the way forward, until the government increase revenue on it. They have already started by changing LPG's status from a by-product of petrol production to being a recognised product. This put the price up a couple of years back by around 10p a litre

22-11-2010, 14:24	#34
Muckypup Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Lancs Vehicle: Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0 Posts: 485	Do your research on the bio mate thats all And I can see where you got confused with the figures lol, one was towing the other wasnt. The Mav used to do about 50 miles around town to a tenner and up to 70 on a constant cruise, but towing it went through the floor it was bloody awful! It also ate a tenners worth of petrol a week on start ups and running till change over. The G.C does over 40 miles around town and I have yet to get a proper figure for cruising at a constant speed, say on the motorway. Last week the long trips I took were over the blubberhouses road to Harrogate and back a couple of times. The road takes you up and down dale at speeds of 30-60 mph and there were plenty of slow moving vehicles to overtake. It was driving this whilst towing the trailer that I managed to get the 55 miles to a tenner. I expect doing 70 at a constant speed and revs of 1900rpm I can tell it will beat the Maverick hands down, but the Mav was a little better around town for mpg. Its basically costing me the same to run as the Mav though as it does not use petrol the same. I have never had to put any in since buying it... When I went to Michaelstow last year in the Mav, I did 350 miles on about £55 which resulted in roughly 64 miles to £10 gas. This was fully loaded and at about 75mph. The G.C would beat that I think Especially with the cruise control and over-drive switched on!

22-11-2010, 14:56	#37
Muckypup Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Lancs Vehicle: Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0 Posts: 485	Yes MOT failure. All cars manufactured after Jan 1992 have to have a cat fitted by law... Had one on the Mav! There is a number of ways around it... one is swap it back for the cat at MOT time, another is knock the middle of the cat out, make a pipe to go through cat and weld together. Looks like a cat but is free flowing... I did neither... I just put my old cat in the boot and gave the car to the MOT tester. He's a mate so I said I need you to swap the cat over for the MOT then swap it back afterwards, i'll pay you for the labour time. It came back with a certificate, the de-cat fitted and a bill for £40. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!! As for your powerflow exhaust, speak to DCMS on t'other forum. He'll be able to advise you honestly as hes our local powerflow guy