Holden & Ford most petrol-hungry
July 20, 2008 by Alborz Fallah
The federal government has released its Green Vehicle Guide online, naming and shaming a variety of popular vehicles for their average fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
The Holden Commodore has been named as the most “petrol-hungry” of Australia’s big-selling cars, closely followed by its rival, the Ford Falcon.
“More than ever, it’s important to consider not only the car’s ticket price but also its ongoing running and environmental costs,” Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said.
On average, a Holden Commodore will cost $2430 in petrol to run per year and will put out 3.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide doing so. The Ford Falcon does the same distance costing $2272 in fuel and releasing 3.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The most surprising news however, was the Mazda 3, which came third, costing $1845 in petrol. Meanwhile Australia’s most popular car, the Toyota Corolla came fourth with a $1672 yearly petrol cost.
Out of all the cars tested, the Green Vehicle Guide recommends the Toyota Yaris as the cheapest option for getting around (not including hybrids). The Yaris costs $1350 a year.
The Prius was the cheapest hybrid car to run, with a total bill $990 in fuel each year. CO2 emissions for the ‘revolutionary’ Prius where half of the Commodore’s at 1.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
For more information you can check out the Green Vehicle Guide at www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au (which ironically, is currently off-line with “Server too busy” errors).
CarAdvice recently conducted a fuel economy test with a new VE SS Commodore to find out if the era of big V8s is coming to an end. The results will be released before the end of next week.
Print it: 
Axe – right on mate! Thats why i think a big aussie 6 is STILL the best form of family transportation! I just couldn’t afford the purchase price :( but the lancer is a nice alternative, still room enough for 3 plus a baby seat and the boot easily swallows our pram, so that’ll do!
dual knock sensors are one thing but direct injection would mean absolutely no 91, unless there is an emergency.
i am now “Dumber” for having heard this report on the radio this morning
basiclly i agree with all those laughing at the surprise of a corolla running for less then a falcon,
and also agree with those asking why to trade 2L/100k for the loss of safety, comfort, power, enjoyment.
its like buying homebrand baked beans and convincing yourself they are exactlly the same
one question though,
why wasnt the E-Gas falcons fuel costs listed?
and didnt you people know that most of the fleet falcons are E-gas models?
perhaps its best we not educate the public that a falcon can run for less than a corolla……SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
i easily get 15 L/100k out of my E-gas falcon towing 1 tonne of gear around, and with speeds rarely over 60 kmh.
on the Hway and un loaded its hello to an easily achievable 10L range.
Realcars,
ill answer your question for Tomas,
yes i agree you make for pretty economical motoring over there
A corolla is only $600 a year cheaper to fuel up than a Falcon??? Thats less than $2 a day.
I agree .. Falcon is in every way a far better car than a Corolla for such a big country.. All those benefits for less coin than a take away coffe a day, and the money stays in oz keeping locals employed.
Andrew M, Thanks for answering for me, but i too had 4.0L Petrol/LPG Vehicle. The Problem was the LPG totally stuffed up the petrol fuel system. It clogged up the injectors, and when running on petrol caused the motor to severely shutter. Similar things started to occur on a mates old falcon, once he fitted a gas system to it. A backfire also broke apart his filter box. And the 60L gas tank could barely last 300km, when going down south. Offroad, i could empty a whole 60L fuel tank within a hour!! Sure the lpg, might be significantly cheaper, but it also Burns 2 or 3 as much under load!!
But I do agree with “why wasnt the E-Gas falcons fuel costs listed”