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.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:15:27 +0000

Hey No Name,
My point is that many motorists, including many on this website think cars today are getting more fuel efficient and they are NOT. I don’t think driving an old car is cool or desirable BUT just don’t tell me my car is more fuel inefficient (compared with present day model). And don’t tell me the Australian car industry has done anything about fuel efficiency ,despite the huge sums of cash the Federal government gives them to research these things.

You sound like a nasty piece of work No Name. I hope your family is safe with you at the wheel. Take care my friend.

By: Oh What A Feeling ...

Oh What A Feeling ... — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:49:19 +0000

Realcars … Carsguide recently published some CO2 emmissions per car. Refer Carsguide liftout (Courier Mail) March 22-23 2008.

Toyota Aurion – 237g /km
Ford falcon – 256g /km
Holden Commodore – 260g /km

Says it all really … !!

And more :

Toyota Prius 104g /km
Honda Civic Hybrid – 110g /km
Mazda3 Diesel 160g /km
Toyota Corolla 175g /km
Holden Astra 177g /km
Ford Fiests XR4 177g /km

ps. Do we really need 300kw FPV’s and HSV’s ??

Gee … i wonder what thier emmissions g/km are ??

By: No Name

No Name — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:37:07 +0000

Whats your point, yep you drive an old smelly car with no crash protection for you or your occupants. Yeh thats really well done congratulations. And you have an idea pffffh doubt it. Next time i’ll see you in the side of the road the emergency services will be cutting you out your old ropey corolla with your kids impaled on the windscreen.
Yeh you look soooo cool now.
and I wasn’t even having a go. Dirk!!1

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:06:10 +0000

To show you that Mainworry, TP and No Name have NO IDEA I will present figures below from Drive.com and Toyota’s website ! In all three cases below, with very similar base models, the older car is MORE efficient!
Not faster, better, safer etc… BUT they use less fuel.

92 Camry base model (4sp auto) – City 9.5, Hway 6.8
08 Camry base model (5sp auto) – Combined 8.9
94 Corolla 1.8 (5sp man) – City 8, Hway 6.6
08 Corolla 1.8 (6sp man) – Combined 7.4
94 Comode base model (4sp auto) – City 12 , Hway 7.6
08 Comode base model(4sp auto) – Combined 11

Do I need to go on? I don’t think so. For those of you “Euro” driving yuppies out there that think you know motoring because you read car blogs and magazines – think again !

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:56:39 +0000

Your father’s 1964 Worsley sounds pretty bad but that story is hardly a coherent argument.
Take any 1990 4 cylinder camry, corolla, V6 commodore or I6 falcon (to nam a few) and they will beat their 2008 models in a fuel efficiency challenge. My Fairlane achieves 7.5 on the highway all the time and this is the quoted efficiency.
The fact that you don’t know anything about recent automotive developments should not give you encouragement to ridicule me.
Technology is great but I just want the Ford and others to add lightness to their cars instead of another few stereo speakers.

Hey TP, I think you said it best when you said..”I dont know…..” fool!

By: realcars

realcars — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:26:47 +0000

With some makers having 200 killer wasps in just about every model of late we will soon be on the climb again.
I don’t know of any old toyotas with better consumption than the later but then again old toyotas are rather thin on the ground aren’t they TP ha ha ha.

By: No Name

No Name — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:25:42 +0000

Gotta get up early to catch the Captain out! Easy to say Australian emissions have gone down when car buyers are buying significantly smaller cars of course congratulations all the same. I guess the reason Europe has not altered is probably due to the fact were actually driving engined larger cars than twenty years ago. You do not see many 1000 or 1300cc cars around. Your 1300 Astra is now a 1600 Astra, probably due to all that crash protection and goodies, along with the fact that the UK economy has boomed over the last 15yrs so peeps are driving a plethora of big enined german marques.

By: TP

TP — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:15:22 +0000

Correct Captain Mainwaring. I dont know to many older vehicles that have better fuel consumption then their modern rivals, especially a Falcon… at best you can get similar consumption… for far LESS power etc.

By: Captain Mainwaring

Captain Mainwaring — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:10:49 +0000

Hell, I’ve started something here. My Accord Euro weighs the same as my late father’s tank-like 1964 Wolseley 6/110, but it does 0-100 in 7.6 seconds instead of about 17, and uses about 7 litres per 100 on the highway instead of 12. It will also do 225 km/h where legally permitted where the Wolseley was all out at 160.
So there is an element of technology overcoming weight, but I suggest that this has reversed a bit in the last 10 years.
Maybe Tony needs to install his 1990 Fairlane in the automotive hall of fame because it’s clearly capable of economy feats that defy the laws of physics.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:25:49 +0000

Hey Joober, weight is more than enough to cancel out technology ! A 15 year old falcon gets better fuel consumption than a new one. A 15 year corolla gets better fuel consumption than a new one.
My 1990 Ford Fairlane weighs 1450kg. It has a 4 speed auto and on the highway it will average 7.5L/100km.
Why are new cars so heavy ? The obvious answer is to say airbags, ABS and other gadgets that people expect BUT this an easy answer from the manufacturers. Many of the components in the cars are still made from cheap materials and/or designed poorly.
Manufacturers can either buy better materials and reduce their profit margins OR design more comprehensively (like the new Mazda 2).

ADD lightness !!