Excellent Gil,

All too ofton the hire company will try to fill in a few extra liters.
This is so they can drive it for 100km, using it almost as a run ' bout, before the needle moves, thus cheating the hirer' out of fuel.

They are wide, there is no mistake, and off road is where they shine, or on long strait tarmac roads.

I would imagine the smaller petrol engine to be more thirsty than the bigger diesel.
Little engine always working it's butt off to keep a heave body rolling.

So all said and done, we are still, overall, better with the Land Cruisers?

20 liters per 100km, THAT IS HEAVY !
My LC will easily do 10 liters per 100km, so 20 l / 100km will be an overland killer, esp. with just a small 70 liter tank.

Well, youv'e been there, done that, got the teeshirt and the invoice.

Good on ye!

Graham

20L/100km out of a 3.5-4.0 tonne vehicle is shocking: that's 5.0L/100 tonne-km,
My U500 camper does 26 L/100km, or ~2.04L/100 tonne-km at ~12.8 tonnes (760L capacity).
I am astounded that GM can't come up with something fuel efficient like a 3.0L 4 cyl turbo-intercooled diesel; NOT some 4.5-6.6L V6 or V8 behemoth that puts out 360-650 ft-lb of torque and 250-350hp. Which is what they have/had planned.
GM shows an amazing absence of "thinking on one's feet", especially in a forwards direction. It will not surprise me in the least if they go bankrupt.
Ford, likewise. The 1.6L diesel Econetic diesel that does 73mpg (US gal) highway and 51 city won't be sold in the US for "business reasons". Even though in the current economic conditions they'd be a huge seller IMHO.

Charlie