Ford Territory Diesel to sip a miserly 6.5L/100km

Article
Gallery

By Paul Maric | March 04th, 2011

Although Ford is yet to officially reveal any details about the new engine to feature in the upcoming diesel Ford Territory (sans the engine size and capacity – 2.7-litre V6), a marketing billboard has let fuel consumption details slip and backs up the estimated calculations in our previous story.

The billboard reads, “1000km, one tank? Get out of town.” The fine print states “Based on High Series RWD 6.5L/100km ADR81/02 (extra urban cycle).

Our previous story suggested that if the Territory weighs in at around 500kg less than a Land Rover Discovery4 with the same engine, it’s likely to consume around 20% less. This results in highway fuel consumption of 6.5L/100km and city fuel consumption of 9.82L/100km, resulting in an estimated combined fuel consumption of 8.16L/100km.

8.16L/100km is in stark contrast to the numbers obtained during our recent Territory Turbo test, which saw the car averaging almost double that figure.

To see more information about the new Ford Territory, check out our recent Territory post, which reveals all the official details.

wxthree

Too little too late . . . sad

matt

so the kluger and CX-9 just get off the hook coz…. why?

aaron

cx9… its a joke.

a mate has a petrol and CANNOT get it below 19L per 100km

crazy!

MF

really==? CX-9 only weighs 2 tonnes. 19L/100 km sounds like what a tank wwould use.
mmmmmm

well it does use a ford motor

Stu

I own a CX9, purchased in Sept last year. It has 16,250k on the clock as of 15 mins ago and my average consumption according to the trip computer since NEW is 12.7 / 100ks. I never reset the thing

I live in Far western Sydney and travel the m4 to work 3 days per week in traffic. The car has also done a Brissie trip and two trips to ACT.

BTW, we have two, our first one is driven by my wife and has slightly higher 13.7/100ks but mostly does the school runs and shops etc.

19/100k IMO would mean all peak hour or a heavy foot maybe?
Stu

Sorry, forgot to disclose we only use 98RON

http://Audi Robj

Actually, its very good for vehicle size. This can sell well.
nickdl

That’s pretty good. Won’t find too many other good SUVs of that size and price that can achieve those sort of figures. I’m sure Ford regrets not making this in 06 instead of the turbo…

http://caradvice OSU811

trust me if they could of had it in 06 they would of,
but the turbo was a bolt in job, and they didnt have the money at that stage to engineer the diesel engine or to buy it to fit!, they had to wait for the upgrade model to get some development cash out of head office!
hopefully this might help save Ford Australia-)

Shak

Well, the only way Ford’s sales will increase is if they actually hire a marketing department.

jeremy

They have a marketing department. They need a NEW marketing department.
Get the Peter Schreyer of the marketing world into Ford now!

Steve

Get the Sam Kekovich of Bogan Marketing™. That’ll get peoples attention. “BUY this F**kn car, if you buy foreign i’ll show you to the airport!”

Why?

If only Ford would give us the 3 litre 180kw 600Nm twin turbo diesel from the higher end Discovery rather than the low tech 140kw 440Nm 2.7 litre single turbo model. The 180kw diesel is actually even more economical than the 140kw version in the Discovery.

Why?

Not to mention also over 3 sec to 100km/h faster.
jeremy

Why – WHY?
The 2.7L is adequate – more than adequate in fact for the new Territory.
Sure the 3L would be nice but the costs of implementing it in the Territory would put it in the price range of the X5, Q5 ect.
The prestige market is not going to be looking to buy a Ford. It simply isn’t a good business case but the 2.7 is going to sell in droves.

Why?

Jeremy, you’re kidding right? A 3 litre diesel Territory would increase the price to $100K if you say it would be in the X5 range. You seriously has no idea!

Martin

Even if it’s not the 3L those are still impressive fuel economy figures for such a vehicle. What’s the bet the petrol model will still sell more though…
Golfschwein

I’m very impressed!

MF

more so than your VW?

Chilliman

6.5L/100km from a large SUV is fantastic in any one’s books…..except maybe those who bought a Craptiva!
http://zuboora.com mohamad is right when he

RIP Captiva
Pat

Too little, too late.
The equivalent Captiva diesel is about $10,000 cheaper which is a big deciding factor for alot of families

Swordsman

Yes but it also drives like its worth $10000 less. Nice enough car the captiva and good value after the recent update but it is niether as big, as safe or as comfortable as the new territory. Holden’s sudden drop in the price is a sign they are worried….why else slash your profit margin on new model that is already selling well?

JEKYL & HYDE

1.seen the aussie dollar swordman 2.the new motor doesn’t come from vm motori(cheaper?)3.gm has really gone to town on the suspension of the new model.while it’s not rwd,the market isn’t really after a sportscar,more a feature packed,cheap to run,family mover.its also 5star (euro) encap rated now(now safe to you want)?…

aaron

not really. i see more 100K landcruisers on the road than craptivas.

people who want things these days, usually just buy them. People with the money will buy a territory. people borrowing and scraping every cent, will buy a captiva.

look around. theres PLENTY of money around.
tw

There is no equivalent Captiva.

Joe

I doubt very much that there will be a $10,000 difference. More likely around $5-$6,000 difference. Regardless of the difference in price I think that we all know how much better the Territory will drive than the Captiva. Not to mention tow, handle, stop etc.

MattW

The Captiva is in a different category to the Territory anyway. Park them next to each other and try to tell me they aren’t. It’s like comparing a Commodore to a Cruze
Ron R

I’ve always felt that the Captiva is smaller more of an Rav 4/ Tiguan / X3 size that the size of a Territory. besides I’d prefer to support Australian manufacturer than a Korean one.

Swordsman

CarAdvice has done some fudging in its estimated figures. A 20% reduction over the disco combined figure gives 8.16 its true, but once you go into the break down of the figures it doesn’t quite add up. That would give 6.8L/100km extra urban and 10.5L/100km urban. If i had to guess i’d say the RWD model has a combined average of about 8 neat…unless its urban burn is quite poor… Also because of how the ADR break down works the 9.82 figure is not right niether….
Everybody

Sure…drive the vehicle at less than 40kmph and you will get these figures…

KinFungL

Drive on the highway and stay at 80km/h you’ll better these figures.

Valet Dabess

then why do i get better fuel econony when i do 120 on the highway then when i do 100. according to my car computer

Sam 300TD

What kind of car? It’s fairly well accepted that a car traveling at 120km per hour will use 25% more fuel that than if it were doing 90.

MF

it depends heavily on the engine and car’s weight and shape too. When my car goes at 100 k/h it seems to use the same as on 80 k/h.
The Original Stevo

My 95 Fairmont seems to get it’s best fuel economy of around 7.5l/100km on LPG at 120kph – according to the trip computer.
Robert

Ever seen the topgear episode with the prius and the M3/M5 racing around the track. it all depends on the the car, the engine and the transmission. the higher the gear the lower the revvs. the veyron could be a very fuel efficient car at 250km/hr compared to a fpv/hsv etc

Macca

I’d say there’s something wrong with your car computer dude!

Hendrik

Hahaha Macca, was thinking the same thing man

Acfsambo

Probably because your car is in a higher gear and therefore at lower revs and therefore using less fuel.

sean

kinda right, but also the air drag above 90 kays brings the fuel consumption back up, no matter what
Dave S

I was thinkiing the same thing. Fuel consuption is much more complicated than: bigger engines = more fuel or faster = more fuel use. When you drive an auto, the gearbox often prefers lower revs, but there is much less torque available lower in the rev range.

I think at slightly higher revs, the engine can operate better.

http://www.caradvice.com.au Goose

Putting ads for the new model up ain’t gonna help clear stock of the old ones.Now people are going to put off purchases.shouldn’t this wait until May? I don’t understand this strategy. I hope this thing kills Craptiva.

Joe

What stock’s of the old SYII model? When was the last time that you drove past a Ford Dealer and saw more than a few Territory’s on display? From what I have heard the Dealers can’t wait for the new model so that, apart from the obvious, they will have some stock to sell.
jeremy

With the release of the new Captiva, Ford must advertise so people know there is an alternative in the not too distant future.

JackyBear

And a bloody good one too!

Doctor

Mmmmm, seems like Captiva fans are thin on the ground

Fordy Wordy

haha whatever amusing as usual watching the fordophiles cream their jeans over another ford that will probly sell in single digits.
Captiva will sell bigger than this thing simply because ford will price it too high, and the market doesn’t want fords anymore anyhoo
Have a nice day

birdie

this is australia’s only home grown suv .it sold very well in the past and it will sell very well with this new model, which is more than i can say about holden’s poor excuse for a suv when they released that jacked up wagon that could’nt cut the mustard,and had to be replaced by aIMPORT

Fordy Wordy

Adventra was never intended to be anything more than a stop gap. Unlike Ford, Holden put an actual functioning 4wd system under it. Ford’s half assed response was to jack up the Falcon ute and put an LSD under it and pass it off as competition. Oh and Falcon + Territory are soon to be replaced by an IMPORT, or as you put it aIMPORT
Have a nice day

Smithy

Bluddy expensive waste of money for a “stop-gap”. Reality is it was a failure.
Devil’s Advocate

I didn’t know the Adventra had low range “Fordy Wordy”….
Joker

The Adventra wasn’t a stop gap…Holden Just made a crappy excuse of an SUV to try and claw some sales back from Ford when they saw how successful the Territory was and they were to late.
The Adventra became a stop gap because it wasn’t good enough.
Ford heavily tested the Territory all over the place not to mention Icy Northern Europe.. Hundreds of Millions invested…
The Jack-up falcon Ute was never a competitor to the Adventra, it was directly aimed at the Tradies.
I.e leaf spring suspension which can actually hold a load..
Get your facts straight Fordy Wordy.
Joker

One more thing…If the Adventra was a stop gap (referring to its replacement?) until the Captiva arrived…you might just be the biggest comedian on Car Advice today!
Robin Graves

Holden fans. Wading the shallow end of the gene pool since 1948
Fordy Wordy

aw you guys are funny, and that’s why i lurve ford fanboys…you all got such a great sense of irony.
You know denial is not just a river in Egypt, yes?
Have a nice day
Joker

@Fordy Wordy, Nice try at covering up your ignorance.
Talk to almost anyone in the industry and you will hear the same response on the Adventra. It sold but a fraction in comparison to the Territory. It was a half baked solution to Australian buyers wanting an SUV, thrown together in around a year using off the shelf Hummer AWD running gear.
You call us Ford Fan Boys… I’d like to think its just because we expected more from Holden than what’s been delivered..
Same reason we lost respect when they threw Daewoo’s on the road with a Holden Badge in an effort to save money. You can’t defend a 2 Star ANCAP rated Barina
You can’t defend a Captiva that drinks like a V8 and falls apart within 2 years. We should rightfully be tearing into Holden for dishing up crap in the past.
Thankfully they’ve improved quality and we’re finally seeing some better products..still not there IMO…not compared to the European stuff.. but better than 1-2 years ago.
Fordy Wordy

Now Joker, you know that the original 2 star Barina was carry-over Daewoo product? Do you know the difference between the older Daewoo product and the new and upcoming GM product? Would you like me to go into greater detail?
ps news flash: Holden doesn’t need either your respect or the respect of a bunch of ford fanboys on an internet forum. And if you are tearing into manufacturers for dishing up crap, how about we start with the subject of this article, Territory…rusty pillars *check* ball joint problems *check* crap fuel consumption *check* brake problems *check* bored now have a nice day
Joker

Fordy Wordy, thats my exact point- I know it was a Daewoo carry over. Did you pass reading and comprehension in School? Your answer would tell me otherwise.
I pay close attention to the GM-DAT (now minus the DAT) products being churned out in Korea.
As for Holden needing My respect, you’re right…they don’t need it but they disrespect the Australian Public by throwing cheap and nasty products onto the road that were a far cry from the Vauxhall products.
Sure, Territory has had some recalls and issues rectified but How do you rectify an entire Captiva? That’s how bad it is with past models. Most Car’s experience recalls… Take Holden for example recalling 9000 Commodores for Airbags that could go off with out an impact occurring..
86000 Commodores recalled because of a fuel line leak that could set fire to the engine bay…No brand is safe in that regard. You’re bored? I’m having a blast!

Daniel D

Well as a current Territory owner, this car will have to live down the current cars reputation for engineering faults, poor build quality, rust and lousy after sales support from Ford, before I would consider.

Not that any of these can’t be overcome, but the jury is out whether Ford see it as a priority. In the past they have let good products under-perform in the market (including Territory), because their corporate culture wasn’t focussed on keeping the customer happy, but rather, on saving a few bucks on warranty claims and avoiding recalls at all costs.

birdie

I thought it didn’t have much @ all, which would explain 2yrs of slow sales on its release

Nick K

This is a welcome and long overdue development by Ford. This should sell well. My only reservations are that the Terry is not an all new design and unlike when originally released there are excellent 7 seat diesel competitors priced lower. I have a suspicion that the commanding lead the Terry had can no longer be made up. Ford will have to look at an LPi option as well to broaden the market for this car. Reliance on diesel as the main stratgy to achieve the required volumes may not work in the current market. In any case this is a worthy product.

Doctor

I’m not sure that LPG would be popular in the Territory. Ford seems to think the same and that LPG is a better option for the Falcon, where a diesel would have limited appeal.
Time will tell… diesel is better for towing and LPG for taxis.

jeremy

All true yet personally I’d prefer the 2.7TD in the Falcon over LPG any day.
Perhaps a TD with LPG injection is what the doctor ordered!

Joe

One of the main reason’s that Territory sales have slowed down in the past few years is that the car has not changed. A 2010 model is hard to tell from a 2005 model, so if you owned an ’04-’09 model and wanted a new SUV, unless you really loved the Territory, you would probably buy something else, something that looked new and different.
This factor alone would have severly limited the Territory’s sales recently, and the new look will guarantee more sales even without any other changes.

ohyea dats it

I really hope that Fords Marketing department splash out to market this,
Lets go for 2 or 3 billboards!

let the public know about this great product!
Nick K

Seems odd that LPG is ok for Falcon and not for the Terry. I for one would prefer an LPi Terry over the diesel… Cheaper to fuel, more power and low CO2 emissions. LPi systems give similar power and economy to petrol and with a conformable tank under the car means no packaging compromises. New gen LPG properly implemented is a better option in my view than diesel. I agreed old tech LPG systems suck… New gen LPG is a totally new ball game.

jeremy

I hear what you are saying but the Territory drinks more than the falcon. This consumption would be even worse with LPG, particularly when you consider the torque output is lower than the petrol.

Andrew M

LPG actually gives more torque

jeremy

I quote from CA 2009 Ford Falcon Review and Road Test:

“Engine power is some 39kW down on the petrol version at 156kW, likewise with torque, which is down 20Nm to 371Nm.”

This deficiency would be exacerbated in a heavier vehicle where high torque is vital.

Andrew M

The only reason the Last E-Gas was down on torque was because it still used tech from 1990 whereas Petrol tech had improved big time.

At the time when E-Gas first came out, only some 10 years ago, the E-Gas had more Torque.

I would expect that when the new LPI comes out, it will once again show the Torque advantage when tech levels are equivalent between petrol and LPG.
Also to note, even though the latest E-Gas drops 20nm or torque, it receives all its torque earlier than petrol.

It is also just commonly known (or maybe not) that LPG does have higher torque opportunities
jeremy

I hear you Andrew but by the same token, the I6 petrol isn’t direct injected. There are big gains for petrol engines with DI both in efficiency and power.
So with new LPI – better power and torque, same goes if they had DI tech.
Regarding earlier arrival of torque, DI would also change this dynamic and also have a wider power band.
You speak of E-Gas tech, why is it they use such old tech in the current Falcon? Which system do you think they would use in the Territory?
So that’s just petrol vs gas.
Diesel vs gas –
The increased consumption of any gas system on the Territory (compared to a Falcon) would mean either the adoption of a massive tank which would compromise useable space, or reduced range. I’m guessing it would be north of 20L/100kms. To match the diesel’s range you would need greater than a 200L tank! Try to tow anything and it only gets worse and quickly. Diesel towing has a much smaller effect on consumption.
As much as I know you are a big fan of the latest LPI systems and as good as they will be in certain applications, I really don’t think it’s feasible on the Territory. Otherwise – Ford would be doing it instead of diesel. Different fuels are optimal in different applications, eg. you cannot get LPG in prime movers but you can get diesel with LPG.
I do wonder just how good the new diesel Territory could be if it was augmented with a LPG system. Cleaner running, longer life, greater range, more power!
Andrew M

LPG wouldnt even need to be an LPI system to see the comparible results I speak of, the old mixer type is just as advanced as a typical Carby petrol set up.

Its true that LPG wont deliver more Torque than Diesel, Ive never claimed that, Ive claimed more torque from LPG than Petrol, as well as earlier arrival of torque.

And above all, at the end of the day, LPG will be cheaper to run than Diesel, and many times cleaner even if it does use double what this whiz bang new Terry is said to use.

Also, people seem to forget that Diesel motors are Turbo assisted. Throw a Turbo on an LPG motor if you really want apples with apples
jeremy

“resulting in an estimated combined fuel consumption of 8.16L/100km.”
I’ve just been crunching some numbers (for anyone that is interested in LPG Vs Diesel).
The current LPG Falcon’s consumption is officially listed at 14.9L/100km.
That is to say the diesel Territory would consume approxmimately 60% as much as the LPG per 100km.
LPG today in Brisbane had a best price of 64.9c/L
Diesel, 136.9c/L meaning today LPG costs 47% as much as diesel per Litre.
Comparing the Falcon’s cost over 1000Km is 149L x $0.649 = $96.70
Diesel territory 81.6L x $1.369 = $111.71
This means there is roughly 15% cost benefit using a LPG Falcon as compared to a Diesel Territory, assuming consumption figures are somewhat accurate.
The Falcon weighs 1754KG, current Territory, 2037kg. Add 100kg for a diesel engine and the Territory weighs 18% more. LPG consumption in the Territory would likely increase by a similar margin, negating the cost benefit of LPG.
Granted, there are lots of assumptions here and granted this is not LPI vs Diesel. But the figures I’m looking at still point to diesel being superior and with substantially more torque available would make the Territory a much more flexible vehicle running diesel as when compared to any LPG version.
Of course there are lots of other factors to consider. LPG would seem to have lower emissions. Diesel would go a lot further between refils and would tow a lot easier.

I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this (feel like I should be on a damn Ford forum!).
But please, if you want to give thumbs up or thumbs down, fine, but please give a reason and your thoughts.
Andrew M

Nice debate Jeremy, nice to see some thought out arguments rather than just slamming one or the other.

In 2005 there was a show down between an LPG Territory, Petrol Terry, Prius, petrol Astra and Diesel Golf to see what was the cheapest to run.

The LPG fitted Territory came out on top of even the Prius. Yes fuel prices have changed a little since 2005, but the gap between prices stil remains pretty relative.

The winning Terry was fitted with an aftermarket Vapour injection system which returned an average fuel consumption of 13.36, just shy of 1 litre more than the Petrol Terry at 12.4L.
It has been done, and its certainly not north of 20L like you expected

Now bear in mind that this was a Vapour injection system used, not the reportidly much better Liquid Phase Injection system which is more comparible Tech wise to the average Fuel injected motor, and it was a dual fuel vehicle which means there was still a slight compromise in the tuning. Unless Im understanding it wrong, I dont believe the LPI is the equivalent of Direct injection as it still gets dumped into the inlet manifold (once again unless Ive read about it wrong).

I also see the Torque advantage of Diesels not so great when you are talking of an LPG motor with its original form being 195kw / 400nm-ish to start with.
With LPI on the Falcon motor its quite possible to expect around 420nm, and at about 500rpm lower than the I6′s already low down grunt.

We are not talking about a 300nm V6 motor put on Gas, or a 4cyl 200nm vehicle so Torque certainly wont be lacking versus a Diesel.
The I6 in current form already out Torques some popular V6 Diesels let alone power.

Dont write the LPI system off just yet, I think it will be quite a surprise package when figures are finally released. LPG has great potential, its only now that people are seeming to give it the light of day

The Falcon was trying to get newer LPG tech 6 years ago, but they hit a snag in the final stages relating to copyrights, it was originally meant to come to market with the BF

Also keen to hear what your LPG experiences have been aswell as your current diesel

Cheers

Who Knew

Nick, I’ve not heard of these “Conformable tanks” that you refer to. Any further information and can you tell me how they would fit in the space available in the Territory? Remember that you need to fit in 7 seats and a full size spare. The petrol tank on these is quite shallow, but long and narrow. For LPG I think you would need a usable volume of at least 90L to compensate for the increased consumption or does LPI have comparable consumption to petrol?

Andrew M

LPI does have comparible consumption.

There are tanks approved for the territory that are located underneath, but the spare tyre loses out.

Who Knew

That’s what I was referring to in another post. There are small toroidal tanks that fit in the spare wheel well underneath and you then have to have another option for the spare, if you want seven seats. None of the spare tyre options are, IMO, any good. A can of tyre repair goo, a non-standard space saver or hang the tyre off the back of the car on a frame mounted on the tow-bar. Some even suggest putting it on the roof rack!
The only sensible options for the Territory are petrol I6, diesel V6 & maybe the EcoBoost 4.
However, I wouldn’t object to the supercharged Coyote V8 either.

Kieran

What is Car Advice’s estimate of 0-100 kmh time?
http://Stig paulb

A billboard is a great form of advertising.Great fuel economy in a big safe vechle
Bryan

Why is everybody comparing the ford to the Captiva? The Captiva is an x-trail size vehicle while the for is the size of a falcon wagon – not really a fair comparison.

I have a couple of friends with Captivas and they are very disappointed with the fuel economy which isn’t anywhere near the “official figures”. It will be interesting to see if a car of the Territory’s weight can actually get <7 litres per 'hundred K's – sometimes the official figures can be a bit optimisitic…
Andrew M

So Ford has Australias most economical vehicle, A 2 tonne SUV that will drink 6.5L, and also an updated Falcon to come which drinks only 8L.

I reckon unless they get some good advertising behind their very underrated vehicles people will still be hell bent on the idea that Ford builds fuel guzzlers.

If they have really knuckled down on upcoming Terry and Falcon, I cant wait to hear expected figures on the new LPI versions, they really are kicking some big targets at the moment.
Lets hope this slump due to getting the products spot on pays itself back to them big time.

On the diesel Donk, why does it need to be bigger if its reaching high targets as is.
I would say the 3.2 5cyl Diesel in the ranger might stand a better chance of seeing a Terry than the 3L landrover

bangel

ANDREW iam with you on this one , seems odd to get the 2.7l out of europe when the 3.2 is available in the family , and its a very good motor .

The land drover motor was a joint ford /peugeot effort and must be higher in price , then again it has been dumped by land rover and peugeot , maybe they do get it cheap .

TMG

The main issue of not getting the 3L is cost, work it out,
The I6 cost Ford next to nothing to make.
The 2.7L 3-5 years ago would have been expensive to buy from PSA group, and would have been only available on AWD (6sp auto) add 4K for AWD and 4K for the TDCi and you have a base model TX AWD TDCi for about 48K on the road who would buy it?
Now the 2.7L is peanuts to buy and the 6sp is std, you can now sell it at a competitive price point.

Would the general public (who thaks to Holdens marketing dept think it’s the same class of vehicle) pay an extra 20K for a base model Terry over a Captiva.

Most of you are smart enough to work it out, it is all about what you can sell at what price, Yes the Terry should have been diesel years ago but the math just didn’t add up. now it does but not for the 3L and the tests vehicle that ran the 3.2 5ycl didn’t cut the grade.

On LPG they should invest, lack of Wagon in the Taxi fleet, means more territories have been dual fueled, and a lot of large LPG fleets are due later this year to change over.

Who Knew

The reason that Ford do not and will not build an LPG Territory is quite simple. There is no room for the LPG tanks, 7 seats and a full size spare. Many people have done aftermarket conversions and they are very compromised. You put the tanks in the back and there is then no third row of seats. Your put a toroidal tank in the spare wheel well and you have a small tank with limited range and what do you do with a spare? You either have a repair kit, a space saver in the back or hang it on an external frame. There is no room for the LPG tank under the car either where the petrol tank is either. Diesel is a much better option for the Territory but I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw one day the EcoBoost 4, they are using it on the Explorer in the USA, so it must be OK for that size of vehicle.
Nick K

Guys, LPi systems cannot be compared to the old factory LPG system… LPi gives similar power and torque to the petrol version and also has similar fuel economy. As for the packaging issues with LPG… There are none with a conformable LPG tank. New gen LPG can be a no compromise system with much lower fueling costs than diesel. Peoples opinions on LPG are based on old school LPG.

Andrew M

Agree, and a lot of opinons are just that, and not based on experience

jeremy

True, I have not experienced new LPI. I have had lots of experience with LPG and it wasnt good. The new LPI looks promising for a few applications.
As to opinions and no experience, the same is true with diesel. There are lots of people here that have never owned or driven a modern diesel. Once you have, you become very aware of its traits both good and bad.
My fav is the massive torque that means you can accelerate hard in gear. Its also a treat to fill up almost half as often as you do with petrol and LPG.
The biggest drawback with diesel is the lag! They are lazy as all get out until the turbo spools.

Andrew M

Fair comments….

Not trying to discount your LPG experiences, but out of interest what were the vehicles that gave a poor experience??

Also dont forget the Diesel motors have a Turbo, remember the days where many were not Turbo charged???

Whack a Turbo on an LPG motor to level the field.

Also, What Diesel do you drive?

Rumps

Realistically, you probably won’t get 6.5 per 100km unless you turn the air-cond off, you don’t use cruise control, etc.

You’re looking at 8-11L per 100km, but still is an amazing effort for a big, heavy, comfortable SUV.

Petrol or diesel, doesn’t worry me so much, I’d buy a Territory simply because it looks good, probably drives well and is made decently.
Krish

I a blue Territory TDCI driving around Parramatte (had VIC plates), got behind it and it really didnt sound very refined at all. The guy had 4 people in the car including himself, and took off hard from the lights; have to say it was pulling away very quickly.
Andrew M

In more ways than one.

Firstly its size puts them in a different league

Secondly, Holden sources products that they can market with a low price point as they are geared for volume sales not so much quality because that closes off part of the market due to price limitations.

I dont know, But I’d guess the Terry might pull double the margin of a Captiva.
there are 2 very different stratogies out there between Ford and Holden.
Unfortunately Ford is taking a bullet at the moment as it takes longer to get better products to the market than outsourcing medium level products
http://caradvice Casey

territory is way better than the captiva!!. but the cost of it, the captiva will win.
BK

Say bye bye to the commodore and falcon in 2014

James

Why? You want to see the dismantling of long serving institutions and the heart break it would bring to hundreds of thousands who lose their jobs? Nice of you to wish this upon Australia.
birdie

well from what i heard in a statement from the top brass in the us, is that the next gen falcon will be sharing the same platform with the next gen mustang from 2016

Frenchie

I don’t believe it and neither will the buyong public.

James

But you would believe someone else? Mazda perhaps? Toyota? Holden? Get over yourself… Don’t debunk it just because it is sensitive to your fanboy psyche…

DWS1

The clown who said the Territory came out as an answer to the Holden Adventra, was wrong. The Adventra was a half jacked up 2003 Commodore wagon which was put out by Holden to get in first before the 500 Million dollar developed Ford Territory surfaced the following year.

If the new one can get below 9.0L/100k then I want one. Love the size and flexibility of a big wagon. Just would like to not use so much juice.
*No wonder Toyota are pushing the Kluger so hard at the moment.

birdie

did you hear that fordy wordy

mmmmmm

5 years too late
there just aren’t enough ford fans left, who can actually afford to buy a new car for either of their local products to survive

James

So buy your logic people only buy the same brand time after time

Des

Well he does bat for the RED team, so it’s understandable that he believes that.
Holden buyers are so rusted onto the brand that Holden could sell a whole heap of rebadged Deawoo cr*p and the fools would still buy them in droves like blind sheep.
What’s that? ….. Oh ….. right!

mmmmmm

not being a ford fan does NOT automatically make me a holden fan,
there are actually other brands available.
the ford vs holden mentality belongs back in the 1970s

mmmmmm

frequently that is the case
by your logic people change brands every time – they don’t

http://Stig paulb

mmmmm,you are right there is not enough Ford fans left.Trying a Toyota finance arrangment would be handy.
8 years ago Falcon sales where double of today,new Terratory+FG2 CAN BRING THEM BACK

http://Neptune Rabbit

They’re talking about an average Fuel per KM in a PERFECT environment.

Australia’s roads, traffic synchronization and varying speed limits alone will DOUBLE this average consumption without even a doubt.

phase3

that’ll be like holden claiming 9.1 l/100km for the commodore?
what’s your point? everyone knows that these figures are all tested and calculated in a lab and that real-world figures will be different.
but they’re all tested under the same conditions, so at least they’re comparible.

http://Neptune Rabbit

You should be asking the author of this article what the point is.

My point is that advertisements like this, and articles like this are false advertising because a true average fuel consumption should be done to accurately reflect the consumption for those who are green concious.

Me personally, I dont give a flying frack about consumption and live by the Asshole song driving a V8.

I’m not picking on any car company in particular, just getting tired of inaccurate unrealistic figures being displayed and taken as gospel.

Shak

if you are angry at inaccurate fuel consumption labels, blame the ADR tests, not the car company because they are all subject to the same laws and regulations that regulate their advertising. This is one industry where false facts are very quickly clamped down upon.
Andrew M

Actually if you look at reviews versus official fuel ratings, the Ford Products ofetn do achieve the rated consumption

Jack

Agree. Our Territory – SY AWD is currently reading a computer overall of 11.3L/100km (less by manual calculations of actual litres) when the sticker says 11.2. Spot on, that’s combined use too.

Robin Graves

It’s pretty ironic that a Holden fan is whining about unrealistic adr figures when Holden are by far the most inaccurate in the game. The allowtorque 3.0 can’t even match a falcon in real situations.

Ron R

Real world figures – show that the 4.0l Ford engine in a Falcon is more fuel efficient that the GM V6′s in the Commodore. The ADR rules are a std test.

Millatime

You, like all rabbits, are completely dazzled by the high beam of the rapidly approaching brilliant new diesel Territory, and are blurting out all sorts of rubbish to save yourself. But it’s too late, the diesel Territory is almost upon you, and very soon you will be steamrolled, like all rabbits playing on the road and making comments that they shouldn’t, into very flat roadkill.

dimka

Official engine specifications should be coming out very soon … lets all not make any fast conclusions until they are released …

Personally I think that the new Territory is a significant improvement over the older model … wether the market will share that view and buy them in large volumes only time will tell (i.e. sales figures) …

Andrew M

There are no fast conclusions here, this economy stated IS the official rating.
The only figures not released yet are what power they have been able to drag out of it, noone is speculating anything

DWS1

How come the Territory has 190 kW and the Falcon engine has 195 kW?

…and surely the fuel consumption on a Petrol RWD Territory would drop if they put the 6 speed auto in it.

P.S. hope they bring out a couple of new colours.

Adrian

“How come the Territory has 190 kW and the Falcon engine has 195 kW?”

Probably indtake or exhaust differences

6 speed will be standard accross the range for the new Territory.

Surfing Bill

I am interested in the Diesel Territory but the 140kw worries me a little. I have an 05 Terri and its acceleration is fine but not exactly staggering, and that’s with quite a bit higher kw rating than the 140kw the diesel will have. The figures always seem to quote power though at some ridiculous level of revs. I am wondering how the kw on this new diesel engine compares to the old one across the rev band that I actually mostly use in everyday driving, like from 1500 to 2800 rpm? If the kw ratings are much the same as the old one in the rev range where it matters then I will be quite happy I think. I suppose the 6 speed box will make a difference too, as my ’05 was before the 6 speed was brought in.