Comments on: Australian car industry lowering emissions

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:35:56 +0000

thats right bret,
but tonys point is still true in that the stigma that old cars are fuel guzzlers isnt true

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:18:14 +0000

Andrew M
I guess there are cycles, actually thf XF was heavier on fuel than XD because they started to add power everything, also the change to unleaded increased consumption on most cars. The new EA series was better and the AU series better again.
Overall though the Falcon is an example where steady ecomony gains have been made over the years, but the EFFICIENCY gains are quite large, with as you said significant weight gains, almost all from luxury/convenience items and crash protection. Tha fact that the weights have not climbed as dramatically as the extras sheet points directly to more efficient design and exotic materials. I think that a BA has some 12kg more soundproofing material than an XF. (Sound & vibration damping materials are usually very dense).
Contempory cars offer much more than older models yet still get from a-b for similar fuel use.

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:49:03 +0000

both sides of the argument have some good points.

i totally see tony’s point in that the older models werent fuel guzzlers as people percieve.

take your XD argument and throw it forward a couple of years to the XF where there was fuel injection and an extra couple of gear ratios.
thats where the major gains are made. the current falcon has twice as many gears as an XD falcon. the other big player is fuel injection which has been around for donkeys but came out shortly after your XD example.

i agree with tony in that an AU and even EF will return similar figures to a BF

the BF has put on a bit of weight over the EF though and i assume thats brets point

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:21:34 +0000

Sorry – above comment is from Tony (not Bret – my fault)

By: Bret

Bret — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:20:11 +0000

Bret, You make some good points and you are right to say that in the end, consumers are pushing the weight gains by demanding so many features in \”standard\” cars.
However we must remember that car companies are not in business to make cars. They are in the business to make money.
They are not going to spend any money on any component if they think they cannot get a return on their investment. The engine block on the G6 is how many years old?
To some extent, fuel economy has not been a major focus for many consumers between say 1994 and 2005 due to the booming economy and the cost of fuel. Only now we are seeing that our cars have become good value but fuel inefficient.

By: Bret

Bret — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:31:28 +0000

Tont,
I didn’t go out looking for an example, just used a real life experience that highlights the point.
I could just as easily used a similar example of EF to AUII, which actually splits the economy diff of XD to AUII down the middle.
I think that you are being a bit naive to think that “efficiencies” have not improved (more with less) or that Aus designers are not addressing weight issues. Are you aware of the weight reduction efforts on the FG falcon? Do you know about the increasing use of composites and light weight alloys? Many engineering plastics have a specific gravity less than a third of aluminium alloy.
I can tell you the weight of an AU door trim is quite a bit less than that of an XD of EF falcon.

The problem is people want more and more in a std car these days and they all add weight (highlighted by the XD example).

By: TP has NEVER backed up the 25% diesel claim

TP has NEVER backed up the 25% diesel claim — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:15:54 +0000

Hey John you’re right I’ve no idea. Ha Ha having a laugh. see yah

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:44:14 +0000

Bret, yes you have chosen an example where the 20 years of technological advancement made efficiency and economical improvements.
However in the last 20 years the story is vastly different.
I could have chosen more than 20 major examples where the early 90′s equivalent is more fuel efficient than the 2008 model.
Many cars in the last 20 years could have become really fuel efficient with advances in fuel injection, engine management, more rigid chassis, alloy engine blocks, aero improvements etc…. but instead we have cars that have become bloated with thick plastic and thick mild steel components. Only now are some car companies like Honda and Mazda thinking about reducing weight in a serious way.

No Name, – sorry for saying you had no idea – I have reviewed your comments and you didn’t deserve that.

By: No Name

No Name — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:10:02 +0000

Tony, I don’t see why originally you said I had no idea. Safe motoring mate. apologies for getting ratty.

By: Bret

Bret — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:53:56 +0000

Tony,
Most are more “efficient”, but not necessarily more “economical”. That is modern cars do more with the similar energy.
Personal example:
1980 XD Falcon, 3.3 4sp man, no aircon, manual EVERYTHING, 11.3 l/100 km.
2001 AUII Falcon, 4.0 4sp auto, aicon, power steer/windows/mirrors, central locking, twin airbags, ABS, improved crash structure, 9.9 l/100 km

See the later model and 20 years worth of technology and development do make a difference. Particularly when you consider that the XD was the class leader by such a huge margin at the time.