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