Gen 2 or 2.5 MPG?
- Thread starter raysobi
- Start date
raysobi
Adventurer
Kyle, what app are you using??
Don't mind highway/city split. It's prob 50/50 in reality.
31" bfg at's. Speedo is dead nuts on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like the fuelly app. Personally, I use the website myself 
.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/mitsubishi/montero/1998/nicenslomo/321026
Man I want some cheap Texas gas!
.http://www.fuelly.com/car/mitsubishi/montero/1998/nicenslomo/321026
Man I want some cheap Texas gas!
Last edited:
nckwltn
Explorer
I've regeared, and run the same size tires on my '99 (4.636 gears), I can get 19 high way driving around 70 mph.... I end up getting 17ish with a 50/50 mix of city/highway... and more like 14/15 city only
tires and gearing a probably your issue for sure.... with the 4.636 gearing, my speedo is exactly on with GPS.
tires and gearing a probably your issue for sure.... with the 4.636 gearing, my speedo is exactly on with GPS.
Raysobi I fueled up today with a quarter of a tank left. Going by the cluster which we know is wrong I got 14.9 MPG now I recalculate with the gps an a distance for every 1.5 miles on the cluster the truck actually moves 1.8 miles, then with those numbers added I get 17.86 MPG which is pretty good I believe since I drive between 65-75 mph most of the times. I think most of it is due to highway driving, slowly work my way up to speed, little to no stop and go, and we'll I still have yet to install my manual hubs which should be on tomorrow. Even if it's .01 mpg increase I will be happy since the main reason for getting them was to take away wear and tear of the CV axles.
I did noticed that when the cluster reads 60 mph I'm actually doing 65 mph.
I did noticed that when the cluster reads 60 mph I'm actually doing 65 mph.
Last edited:
JohnnyBfromPeoria
I'm Getting Around To It
First, figure out how much of a PERCENTAGE your speedometer is off. Obviously, this relates directly to how much your odometer is off. Then pay attention to how much gas you actually put in, not the tank size. I guarantee you, you're not using all 24 gallons. Then just use your correction factor to figure how many miles you actually traveled and divide that by the number of gallons you put in. If you need an app for that, I have to wonder a bit about the analytical skills that you employ (J.K.). I was quickly able to determine that my '86 is now off a whopping 25%, since it originally had the three speed auto with something like 3.90 gears and 29" stock tires, but it now has the four speed auto and 33" tires with the same staggeringly stupid 3.90-ish differentials. I checked the speedo vs. actual with my 10 year old Garmin GPS handheld and saw indicated 60 as being actual 75! With my '95 now riding on 35", I can't remember, since I haven't driven it in so long, but it's something like 12% off, as I recall.
Since the subject is up, think about what taller/wider tires do, not only for rolling resistance, but for aerodynamics. A wider tire doesn't cut through air as easily as a skinnier one, plus it raises the truck up, further increasing coefficient of drag. The manual hubs gave me about a +1 mpg on the highway. The 2" body lift probably promptly took that away. Watch your tire pressure, too.
Hope that helps.
John B.
Since the subject is up, think about what taller/wider tires do, not only for rolling resistance, but for aerodynamics. A wider tire doesn't cut through air as easily as a skinnier one, plus it raises the truck up, further increasing coefficient of drag. The manual hubs gave me about a +1 mpg on the highway. The 2" body lift probably promptly took that away. Watch your tire pressure, too.
Hope that helps.
John B.
nckwltn
Explorer
Yes. 33x15x10.5
4D55 Performance
Explorer
From talking to other owners over the years the Gen 2.5 seems to do a bit better than the Gen 2 Montero's when it comes to MPG's. I have had 3 Montero's over the years and the 2000 Endeavor was the best on MPG's. It easily achieved 23-24 mpgs on the open road. I am certain it could have done much better if I would have tried to hyper-mile it. I had big plans to modify it but after seeing the MPG's it got in stock form I did not dare mess with it. I have talked to at least a half dozen other owners who have seen similar MPG's out of their Gen 2.5's so I know I am not alone. I have also talked to many other owners who get 17-19 mpg's so who knows what is causing this discrepancy in MPG's among Montero's.
BEG
Adventurer
Could it just be the rear end ratios making difference? Gen 2s ran 4.63 and gen 2.5s had 4.27. I've only had gen 2.5s so I can't compare, but most online accounts seem to favor the performance of the lower gears despite the drop in MPG.
4D55 Performance
Explorer
raysobi
Adventurer
Is that with a stock tire?