Comments on: Holden & Ford most petrol-hungry

By: Tomas79

Tomas79 — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:44:55 +0000

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”

By: Boggy

Boggy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:53:54 +0000

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.

By: Glen

Glen — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:16:30 +0000

A corolla is only $600 a year cheaper to fuel up than a Falcon??? Thats less than $2 a day.

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:19:32 +0000

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

By: George

George — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:33:07 +0000

dual knock sensors are one thing but direct injection would mean absolutely no 91, unless there is an emergency.

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:14:18 +0000

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!

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:10:01 +0000

oh btw usually get around 9-9.5L/100km out of my ‘08 lancer, which is done through heavy morning and afternoon traffic driving too and from work. When i drive it normally i get around 8L/100km and on the highway between high 6 and low 7L/100km

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:08:15 +0000

i use 98 octane in my lancer and i do notice a difference in its performance and fuel economy. Not sure if its because it has dual knock sensors like the FG or if its just tuned that way to begin with, but it’s a good enough reason for me to keep using it.

By: 2tow

2tow — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:49:25 +0000

My maxima always gets 10 to 11 per 100 around town all the time no matter how i seem to drive it.Its great on fuel for big lux sedan

By: alec

alec — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:47:06 +0000

The FG has been setup with dual knock sensors to run on 91,95 & 98 octane with power and apparent economy increases when using those premium fuels

By: George

George — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:41:56 +0000

Stupid report.

Holden and Ford should actually be commended for the supurb fuel economy on 91 RON considering the size of the cars. If Aussie motorists stopped bitching about fuel prices maybe Holden/Ford could tune cars for 95RON+ and implement things like Direct Injection. Then maybe we could enjoy european figures like BMW’s 530i which does combined 7.7l/100km albeit on Premium.

Bang for buck, Commodore/Falcon/Aurion are the best big sedans in the world.

By: The Axe

The Axe — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:31:00 +0000

I’m now driving a 5spd auto G6 with factory 19inch wheels, Sat Nav and Technology pack. And so far with an odo of 1000km and city driving only too and from work I average 11.8l/100km.

Now while that seems “highish” compared to Corolla etc, they are real city figures. I have a child seat in the back seat, a pram in the boot along with my big umbrella plus CD collection in the front.
Considering all that and with only just on 1000km, I think that is brilliant.
I will not be able to sit 2 people either side of the child seat (which I do on a regular basis), have room in the boot despite the pram and take the wife, son and inlaws out to the blue mountains like I do every other week in a Corolla or Mazda 3.
If I was a single bloke, I still wouldn’t be caught dead in a Corolla or Yaris. I’d probably look at a Mazda 3, Golf, Focus, and even a i30.
But that is just my choice.

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:40:48 +0000

yep Alec not dissagreeing that the FG is very good for a big aussie 6 in terms of fuel economy, infact its very good full stop! But having people claiming 8.5L/100km without disclosing how they acheived such a figure, ie highway driving, is very missleading. And thats what i was trying to say

By: alec

alec — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:13:00 +0000

Richo, I have that issue & I think that was correct for the turbo in wheels, I was more thinking of the Nat-Atmo versions though.
But I think in that article they did mention they still gave it a bit so 12.3 is still pretty good I would say.

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:06:14 +0000

I’m just going off memory there though Alec, quite happy to be corrected by someone who has the mag in front of them.

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:05:29 +0000

Alec, wheels got 12.3 from memory from the XR6t

By: alec

alec — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:37:33 +0000

Richo,
While I agree with what you are saying, majority of the car reviewers are achieving under 10l/100km for the FG when driving in city conditions. And are stating how surprised they have been with the economy.
These include Wheels, Motor, Herald Sun and other online publications.

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:15:15 +0000

Car 1 you do realise that pretty much ANY car will get good economy on the open road yeah? My V6 magna use to pull around 7.5-8L/100km on the highway, but in the city it used around 13L/100km, and that was using the exact same driving style i used on the highway. Thats the point i was trying to make.

By: Richo

Richo — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:12:02 +0000

Car 1, i am not a tool, you are the one who is trying to make out you get 8.5l/100km out of your XR6t without admiting that you get these figures doing mainly open road driving. Hey if where you live in a location that allows you to do predominantly open road driving then good luck to you, but clearly as you stated you had a car full of luggage and with 4 on board indicates that you where on holidays and therefore on the highway. So offcourse you got good fuel economy. My point remains that if you drive your FG in city traffic a more realistic figure will be 12l. If your lucky enough to not live in the city and therefore you don’t have to put up with city traffic then that’s great for you, but most of the population DOES live in the city and in the city 8.5L/100km out of a falcon, or commodore, or magna, or aurion, whatever, its just not a realistic figure. That’s the point I was making, if that makes me a tool Car1, then I guess I’m a snapon.

By: alec

alec — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:26:59 +0000

Finally able to view the link & what a ridiculous set of figures!!! I don’t care how they worked out the points system but the question is……

How the hell did a Camry and Aurion rate higher that a Mazda 3, Ford Focus, Mazda 2 etc etc etc when the camry’s consumption is up to 3 litres more per 100km than these smaller cars.

Also how is the Aurion 4 start vs the Falcon 3???
Is 0.5 litres worth a full star???????

Doubt it