Ford Fiesta ECOnetic, Falcon XR6 meet Global Green Challenge
October 27, 2009 by Matt Brogan
The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic and Falcon XR6 taking part in the Global Green Challenge are achieving better than expected fuel economy figures.
There was a change in regulations at the end of day one (Alice Springs) requiring the results to be recalculated across the board. This caused a hold to the official day three fuel economy results until half way through day four.
By day two the Fiesta ECOnetic continued to be the most fuel efficient car in Australia, it’s fuel economy figures were 3.19L/100km on day one and 3.13L/100km on day two. This is a big improvement over official ADR fuel economy figures of 3.7L/100km.
The Falcon XR6 achieved 7.09L per 100km on the second day, almost a 40 per cent improvement over its official ADR fuel economy figure of 11.7L per 100km.
The teams have battled 40-degree temperatures, dust storms and long stretches of road without a single bend.
Day four is a nine hour drive from Alice Springs to Cooper Pedy covering around 685kms, this is the longest distance of the whole Challenge.
With: Ford Australia
Print it: 
WOW – those are stupendously low figures for the Fiesta ..
Wonder how close all the various diesel cars in the challenge.
looking forward to the completion of the challenge and getting all the various fuel figures.
Shouldnt the article read that its a XR6 turbo not just an XR^, big difference in performance!
Awesome figures there for both the Fiesta and XR6! Just goes to show that the ADR figures are the very worst senario of every situation. Brink on the diesel Terry + EcoBoost Falc!!!!
VERY impressive figures from the Fiesta, but full Kudos to the XR6T.
The fact that the Holden 3.0 SIDI is doing an avg. of 6.75L/100KM compared to a 4.0L Turbo-charged 6 Cylinder doing 7.30L/100KM is classic :)
Close to 40% Better than it’s ADR and beating a supposed “green solution” from it’s opposition? Priceless.
I thought it just said XR6, not Turbo?
It’s a Turbo ;)
Well I am not surprised one bit. I owned a 2004 BA SR Falcon and the figures in that I achieved were around 9.0 L/100km. I now own a Territory and its figures are stupendous as well for a 2tonne car. Go Ford and this is where marketing needs to come in for this superbly refined vehicle which is not only bang for your buck but easy on the wallet……are you listening FORD OZ !!!
Unless your Terry’s running on E10. I get 2L/100km worse in my territory compared to my wife’s running on unleaded in the school/work run around the suburbs. Can’t wait till the state govt mandatory E10 to really blow my fuel bill.
Yeah the economics of E10 just dont stack up for being 2cpl cheaper.
Any decent mechanic will tell you not to touch the stuff aswell. I also have never found one who will even touch regular unleaded (91)
Oh and I wonder how many clicks the Falcon had on it before the challenge????
Good to see that CarAdvice is completely unbiased in any way, shape or form towards Ford.
Where are the results from the other cars? Oh, that’s right, they aren’t Fords.
I expected better from Caradvice, but it seems you’re all Ford Fan boys. I’m not biased towards Holden or Fords, it’s just that CA’s Bias is very visible.
Actually they were drumming up the kia the other day.
At least the Ford story is worthy as they can claim the out right leader….
Anon…
Have you considered that Ford actually do make a quality product in the Falcon?
For Ford CEO, Alan Mulally to say the G6E-T was one of the best fords in the world let alone best car’s in the World is a Huge call…there must be something special about it. Ford AU can’t afford to make a dud. The Current market would crucify them and we’d be driving FWD Taurus’s from the US.
The Fiesta has also won a number of awards not Just from CA.com.au…because they rate it means they’re biased too? Get your facts straight before jumping on the soapbox next time ;)
Go out and drive a G6ET and you will see exactly why Marin thinks is so special. It is a truly fantastic car.
Agreed also, I test drove one recently and it ticked every box, I mean every box. Loved every aspect of the car. Only gripe was lack of LSD but if you want a LSD buy the XR6T with Lux pack.
The hell do you need a LSD for?
It is a luxury car, if you hadnt realised already
hear,hear i agree 100%
Wow, I see why you’re anonymous, you are going to get slammed to the max for daring to cast a shadow over perfect ford in these comments.
But you are 100% correct, you will never read a good word about holden on this website, I wonder what they did to p*ss off ca so badly?
Maybe ford ads could be copied from here, they sure need the help in their marketing.
Mazdaman,
CA Do say plenty of good things about the commodore…when it was released. but lets face it, they should have done a facelift and then some. As Holden said, the drivetrains should have been in the VE when it was released.
SO, lets sum up the things they’ve fallen behind in:
-Drive trains: Only now are they releasing something competetive. SIDI seems to be the Hero but it appears over-rated. Gearboxes are better but still no ZF. Even the Ford 5 Speed is better..220Kw Engine is the only standout
-Design: A-Pillar is shocking, that blind spot it creats is appalling
-No face lift, nothing. Thats right…some colours, SIDI badging but thats it.
-Interior, while pleasent is falling behind.
- Detuning the HFV6 even more to increase Fuel economy…FAIL. At what point do they realise a car with less power and torque has to work harder to accelerate let alone pull the car up a road
- Releasing AFM in the V8’s that lowers the power output and really…does nothing at all for economy. FAIL.
- Holden’s Money doesnt seem to go as Far as Fords. Holden had the FG sitting in their shed from the day it was released, probably earlier and they still didnt manage to outdo the Falcon. Only match it in some areas. They rely on marketing to give the perception of superior quality and competition.
I’m sure the Holden engineers are working their butts off to come out with some gangbusters material but blame upper management for holding back would should have been a cracking update.
Thanks for summing up your supposed ‘failings’ of the Commodore.
SIDI appears over-rated? Only in Ford fanboy world. Every review *apart from here on CarAdvicefordworlddotcom* says different. The Courier Mail tested the 3.0 SIDI last week, and obtained consumption figures lineball with Holden’s advertised figures without employing ‘economical’ driving.
Which reviews are you reading?
Actually, only Drive and Wheels praised the SIDI. CA, GoAuto, TGA, CarsGuide and just about everyone else who tested it agrees that the hype wasn’t matched by the finished product. It is also very obvious whose pockets Drive and Wheels are in. Compared to the old I6, the Fords engine felt stronger, and had more driveability. Most tests even showed the Ford fitted with a 5 speed auto beat the SIDI to 100 also, while using equal or less fuel.
Bucks summation of Holdens failings are fully accurate, and only a Holden fanboy can deny it.
Really? Every review i’ve read claims the 3.6 feels and performs better than the I6. Also found the Falcon I6 used more fuel than the 3.6 if I recall.
Only a Ford fanboy would claim otherwise.
Bent 8, Whatefa,
I’m not arguing that the 3.6L Engine is great, It is.
What I’m saying is that the VE MY10 Is matching the FG, not surpassing and in some cases, still not ahead (Calais, V. G6E/G6E-T). This can’t be avoided. Holden finally bought the engineering on par if not a (bit better) with the rest of its competition but its fallen behind in everything else. I am stating the obvious here.. Call me a fanboy if you will.
Motor and Wheels have both rated the Falcon and VE MY10 Equally in most reviews (and then the FG still surpassed the VE in others, G6ET- as expected). I think the only place you’ll find them beating Ford is in the HSV/FPV battle but even then I think the majority of Buyers will be Fanboys from either camp. Very few Euro Car drivers will jump ship.
I believe it was Motor who said they expected bigger things from the 3.0L SIDI then what it offered, some what a deflated response you think? The point we come back to is that the XR6T is doing a 7.30L/100Km on this test (a FAMILY performance car with far more power when it’s needed) and in apractically new platform. Something that Holden nor it’s fans can avoid.
Oh and as for the Courier Mail, are they really the Authority on reviewing cars? Personally, I stay away from most Newspaper Car Reviews, they tend to be hit and miss. I read a lot of others mind you. It’s interesting to see how they all compare.
Actually,
It was Motor who praised the 3.6 as being more responsive than the I6, with better consumption. It’s in the latest issue. On a news stand near you.
I’m not claiming newspaper reviews are the duck’s guts, I just pointed out the fact the the consumption figures returned on the 3.0 were consistant with Holden’s claims.
In fact, the only reviews I take seriously are Wheels, Top Gear and Motor, most website reviews are amateurish at best.
Would you like to provide some balance by pointing out the Falcon’s failings?
Hmmm, (Please note I am A Ford fanatic and openly so) but did not drive recently do one thousand kilometers at the speed limit on a reasonably average sort of country road and find that the I6 was more economical than both the SIDI motors?? Has not Toby Hagan (a self confessed red team supporter and fan boy) recently conceded that the FG is actually a better car to drive?? The only things he finds fault with are the V8 and the fact that the car gets 5* without curtain bags….
Have not CA’s reviews on the Fords of recent times had a slight towards the Holden?? Read the review of the XR6 Turbo ute and tell me that was written with Bias towards the Falcon!! For Real?? He critised the DSC for letting the tail of a sport orientated vehicle to drift before taking control! Unlike the Holden unit that takes control sooner with less force??? (a bloody sorts orientated car should let the driver take control) Does not CA bag the whatsits out of the XR8 because it’s a poofteenth slower 0-100 than the much larger capacity GM V8??
Bent 8, Read my post closely…
I said the 3.0L (Not 3.6) was the one that left Motor a bit deflated, I clearly remember them saying they expected more then what It delivered and it didn’t. They rated the Omega 3.0 Less than the falcon and then it’s 3.6L Peers equally for the rest If I remember correctly. I was surprised they didn’t manage to surpass the FG outright.
The FG’s early releases (in the XT) apparently felt cheap and the drive train was a bit harsh in some builds compared to others. I think they ironed most things out since then. If they hadn’t, I’m sure we’d hear about it.
Bent 8, the point I’m making is that Holden have left the Aesthetics behind in turn for Mechanical and this level of revision should have been in the previous model cycle. Now the Aesthetics are falling behind. They will fill the void left with the “Australia’s Favorite Car” Marketing.
Watefa, I think you need to actually read some reviews before commenting about them. Even Wheels recently did a comparo between the XR6 and the SV6 with the 3.6 SIDI, and found that the Ford was faster, the engine felt lighter and more powerful, and on fuel economy, their test showed the commy come in better, but only as it spent more time on the highway, and with less luggage in it. If your memory serves you to think that the commies always used less fuel, then you might be suffering from altziemers. Some reviews had the Ford come in lower, some had the Holden come in lower, but there was never a significant difference, showing that they are about on par. But only 1 review (MOTOR) had the Holden go faster, and no review thought the new engines lived up to their hype.
Only a Holden fanboy would try to claim false comments.
For reference:
NZ Autocar October Edition
These guys found the Ford with a 5 speed faster, and more refined. Unfortunately, they didn’t test fuel consumption
MOTOR November Edition
These guys found the SV6 to be the fastest (in a time that no-one else has even come close) but in fuel consumption it was a mere 0.3L/100Km better, but they also found that the Falcon was 2 whole seconds faster around winton, showing the engines true power.
Wheels November (?)
Ford was faster, Holden better on fuel, but spent more time on highways with less luggage (as mentioned above). In the pro’s and cons, both cars had the engine listed as a pro, but in the con it stated that the SV6 can’t match the XR6 as a sports sedan. That was from Wheels, a known Holden biased magazine.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/44.....omparison/
These guys found the commodore to be a joke as usual, and returned nearly 12L/100Km!!! I’ve gotten better than that out of a BF XR8!!! (11.5 :P)
http://www.smh.com.au/drive/mo.....-gqou.html
Toby Hagon. Self confessed Holden fanboy, and possibly the most biased person in the automotive media… The Ford positively FLOGGED the Holden in economy… and lets have a few quotes:
“After more than eight hours and 60 laps, it’s clear there’s already a favourite among our team of drivers and it’s not the car that has dominated the sales charts for the past 13 consecutive years.”
“The Falcon is emerging as the more rounded package and it has nothing to do with the fuel gauge. The superior driving feel of the Falcon is making it the car our drivers are looking forward to sitting in.”
“There’s no way to sugar-coat it. The Commodore was thirstier. Despite the new direct injection technology, the Holden’s new 3.0-litre engine used 11.09L/100km of fuel (almost identical to the trip computer’s claim of 11.0L/100km). That’s not only 19 per cent more fuel than its official claim but 10 per cent more than the Falcon.”
“And enthusiast publication Wheels, recently recorded near identical fuel use for the 3.0-litre Commodore and the more powerful 3.6-litre version, with the Falcon only slightly thirstier.”
Is it all coming clear now? Are you starting to see the point that we have been making? The Holden is not catching the Ford in a hurry. These new engines are a step up from the old ones, but face it, a tightly wound rubber band would have done a better job than the Alloytecs, and engine that even Holden fanboys that I know regard as inferior to the ecotec it replaced.
So next time, before shooting off your mouth about facts you don’t know, read a few articles.
Wow Buck you have devoted a lot of time to this.
Get a life.
that is unless you are a bored ford salesman with vested interest to push, there\’s enough lame attempts to guerilla market skoda on here without ford adding to it.
I just love the irony that ford fan boys are far more obsessed with holden than holden fans are.
Welcome to 2009, in todays world market the ford vs holden debate belongs back in the 70s
Is that why I have every Tom Dick and Harry in their worked Commy try and drag me off in my Ford? For the record, Ford fans aren’t obsessed with Holden, Holden is just our comic relief.
Wow, jp you’re the man, but you forgot to let us know if you succeeded in dragging off the worked Commies in your lowered lime green XD fairmont…have you got extractors on your falcoon mate?
they probably watched Bathurst this year
Mazdaman,
I won’t get into a mud slinging contest with you.
You seem more interested in dropping your remarks here and there without actually putting anything decent together to debate.
Hell, if you’ve been reading anything from the UK about Skoda, you’ll find they think they’re a very good thing too. They’re essentially using all VW running gear.
I’m not obsessed with Holdens, that your interpretation.
I’m passionate about cars full stop, Euro’s, Japs, Americans, Aussies.. I’m not some Bogan who drives a Falcon either.
Put simply, I’m critical of Holden’s marketing to push cars out the door. I’m critical of any maker that makes stupid claims, including Ford…
I don’t normally get into debates about cars on here, its a waste of time but I felt strongly about this one. It proves a Hi-Po Falcon doesnt have to suck fuel like a hong kong hooker up the highway. 6.98L/100KM from a 270Kw/533Nm car is superb, as is the Maloo’s effort.
I’m signing off on this debate.
Anonymous, don’t be so naieve.
This and every other “Report” that CA have done on the Green Challenge is a reworded extract from press releases of the event. No press release, no report.
Thats the way the media works.
Bucks says:
October 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The fact that the Holden 3.0 SIDI is doing an avg. of 6.75L/100KM compared to a 4.0L Turbo-charged 6 Cylinder doing 7.30L/100KM is classic :)
Close to 40% Better than it’s ADR and beating a supposed “green solution” from it’s opposition? Priceless
Got to agree. Fords highest rated performance model is only 3/4s of a litre worse. I wonder how GM-H marketing will feel when even their performance arms (Quassi) work truck is proving more efficient….. :p
Would be a scarry thought as to what consumption a ZF equiped G6 would be returning..
Exactly, NOW…if Ford could capitalise on this to market the Falcon…like “live on location with the Drivers of the XR6T” or something, that would be fantastic.
dare to dream hey????
are you playing the role of the resident comedian???
I dont know whether to laugh or cry at Fords marketing department.
Lol. What the marketting boffins really need is some woman talking in a stupid monotone voice making it sound all warm and fuzzy with some images of kids climbing into the car and a couple snuggling up next to their little baby (the car)… argh I feel sick already! Go better, lol. :P
Oh and while we’re on the topic of marketing, I like the way Toyota have a dig at the Ford and Holden people in their latest ad.
Its just a shame that the resale value of Falcons aren`t better for consumers. I mean White BF Falcons with 35k on the clock going for 6k at a recent auction in Newcastle is ridiculous.
And you think a white VZ Exec, or a white Aurion, or any of those sort of cars are going to go for any more? Face it, the car was clearly a fleet car, so it would have been a pov pack, and auctions always fetch a lot less than the car is worth.
I work in auctions and there is no way they were going that cheap with those kms
Ha Ha Ha Sammy, some of the keyboard warriors on here have access to some fantastic Auctions….. I mean I would buy every single one of those BF’s at an AU3 price you could get me…….. :p
Actually I’d settle for BA’s in that description and Milage, plenty of Taxi drivers I know would grab them off me fr a couple large on…… I Regularly roflmao at the Resale arguement that goes on in these blogs, it starts my day off well. :-)
Well it was my mechanic that told me, he is a absolute Ford nutter and he couldn`t believe it himself. But that is what he told me while servicing my parents BA Falcon. I mean I wasn`t there but I can`t think of one reason he would lie about it.
When are they going to do a test in a built up area, Cause driving to Chatswood and back today in my TDi Golf, I averaged 4.9L/100km which is well below the quoted 5.7 ADR, The trip of 25 kilometres in both directions took me 35 minutes each way from Berowra. 11 K’s of that was motorway and I did that in 8 minutes, so gauge for your self how many times I had to stop and the level of traffic. Put me in the Alice and I bet I can get under 4L/100 Km. Incidentally I have 103Kw version not the dinky 77Kw.
Still a decent effort for Ford.
Didnt know you owned a Golf, feel free to rave on about it, you must be a real party starter rattling off how you drove 11k’s of motorway in 8 minutes whar whar whar. Id say your as funny as cancer
I find cancer quite funny, especially if you had it, BOOM BOOM
Please..someone…put this guy in the Alice
I think 1000km’s test around the mount at legal speed is more of an indication of litres used per 100 km’s than 1000’s of km’s of flat straight driving. It is however interesting to see how far you can go in a near perfect environment for economy though.
Hmm….. Something stinks about this story. Have to agree with Anonymous.
Not just this story…the ‘large car comparo’ result stinked to high heaven.
ps I think the Maloo is the biggest surprise out of the lot of them re comsumption.
Yeah it all stinks… this story presents facts that prove how good the fuel economy of both the ECOnetic Fiesta and XR6 TURBO is, showing that theres a small margin even between a 270kw /533nm BEAST vs a gutless wonder 290nm ‘latest tech commie engine’, and drive’s comparison also proved just how crap the 3.0L SIDI really is when even a standard 4.0L falcon can beat it by a large margin in terms of fuel economy (conducted by a confessed HOLDEN fan no less!)…
Hmmm yeah.. it all stinks…. man theres something fishy going on around here…. different sites all coming to the same conclusion….. hmmmm yeah, what do you think could explain all this.. global conspiracy? The whole of Australia has it in for the good old beloved scummadore and is lying about the Falcon being superior? yeah for sure… you guys are on to something!
Frenchie, don’t be so naieve.
This and every other “Report” that CA have done on the Green Challenge is a reworded extract from press releases of the event. No press release, no report.
Thats the way the media works
Nah mate, obviously youre not in the know. It stinks and its all a big conspiracy against HoldenWoo.
if you comparing Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo figures should be compared to hwy cycle not to combined. The hwy cycle figure is 8.8L/100km which is 19% improvement not 40% as the article saying.
Since all the cars are being compared to their combined cycle fuel figures. The 40% claim is quite accurate.
I know the Ford can be much more frugal than the biased figures returned in the ADR fuel testing. It just takes a different approach to driving them.
This challenge is pointless anyway, it’s all highway driving. If you read the text ‘long stretches of road without a single bend’ it’s obvious there’s not much acceleration happening which would be where the highest rate of the fuel consumption would occur. How often do you get the scenario on a daily basis where you get long stretches without a bend, let alone roads not clogged with stop-start traffic.
That’s the map of the route they’re taking.
http://globalgreenchallenge.com.au/ggc/?p=map
I have a 2009 XR6T (June, with ZF) and it is averaging 7.3L/100KM on highway trips with only 6K on the odo…nothing to complain about there.
Also have a combined of 11.7L/100KM with about half and half highway and city…my 2004 Mazda 6 Sports Luxury did about 10.1L/100km for the same.
Have no brand allegance having owned a lancer, then pulsar sss, then mazda 6 luxury sports…but have to say soooo impressed with the xr6t. A pleasure to drive every day.
I’d assume it’s because Ford sent a press release out rather then any supposed bias, if you pay attention they do it regularly for all manufacturers.
Taken from the SMH…Review of the 3.0 SIDI Berlina Vs. G6 4.0L FG Falcon..
After more than eight hours and 60 laps, it’s clear there’s already a favourite among our team of drivers … The superior driving feel of the Falcon is making it the car our drivers are looking forward to sitting in. The Falcon is emerging as the more rounded package.
From a performance perspective, the FG Falcon has an edge. the Falcon was quickest in the 0-100km/h sprint, taking just 7.7 seconds, the Commodore reached 100km/h in 8.9seconds.
CLAIMED FUEL ECONOMY
Commodore claimed 9.3 litres per 100 kilometres fuel use is 6percent better than the 9.9L/100km claimed by the most frugal of Falcons (XT) thre G6s claimed fuel use is 10.1L/100km, almost 9per cent more than the Holden.
ACTUAL FUEL ECONOMY ON TEST
The Holden is using more than 11.0L/100km around Mount Panorama, meaning the fuel needle is dropping—fast.
There’s no way to sugar-coat it. The Commodore was thirstier. Despite the new direct injection technology, the Holden’s new 3.0-litre engine used 11.09L/100km, the Ford used 10.02L/100km
(Commodore used) not only 19 per cent more fuel than its official claim but 10 per cent more than the Falcon.
And enthusiast publication Wheels, recently recorded near identical fuel use for the 3.0-litre Commodore and the more powerful 3.6-litre version, with the Falcon only slightly thirstier.
For this great race, it’s a shock victory to the Falcon.
I view SIDI as a waste of time because its essentially their ace card, and it has only brought them up to the competition at best.
Ford is about to updae their engines, then what for holden??
Dropping cubes is a bad idea. Even the old 3.8L is/was better on fuel.
I find it funny that people seem to think large cars need to drop the engine size to save fuel, yet many small cars are upping engine size and saving fuel.
The old 3.8 is/was better on fuel?
ROFL okaaay
3.8L VY Commodore on combined consumption = 8.2L/100k official
3.6L VZ Commodore on combined consumption = 11.1L/100K official
You can pick yourself up off the floor now………
How could it have gone from 8.2 to 11.1? You’re not looking up the highway cycle by accident, are you Andrew M? It can’t be right, but the only thing I can find to verify it is WHEELS’ September 2004 comment that, at 11.1, the new Alloytec uses slightly less fuel than the VY II.
VY Commodore with the now outdated 3.8L…………….
Fuel Urban (l/100km) 11.0
Fuel Extra Urban (l/100km) 6.6
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 8.2
VX………
Fuel Urban (l/100km) 11.5
Fuel Extra Urban (l/100km) 6.8
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 8.5
VT………..
Fuel Urban (l/100km) 11.5
Fuel Extra Urban (l/100km) 6.8
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 8.5
VS…………
Fuel Urban (l/100km) 11.5
Fuel Extra Urban (l/100km) 7.4
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 8.9
VR…………
Fuel Urban (l/100km) 12.0
Fuel Extra Urban (l/100km) 7.6
Fuel Combined (l/100km) 9.2
Having owned a VY in the past, those figures are plain lies. In the city cycle it averaged 15l-16l/100km at most times and 13l/100km if your gentle. On the highway the best achieved was around 8.5l/100km.
Now thats real life figures not some dodgy Holden fuel economy rating test!
Well lucky you didnt buy a little later when they started putting the 3.6L engine in the Commy then.
That would have made you proud of the VY’s economy
Following this event with interest and found this on the hsv website written by journo Josh Dowling who is driving an E2 Maloo. Good read and sounds like the Maloo is doing well.
http://www.hsv.com.au/hsv/pres.....px?ID=1115
After stage 4:
Vehicle Fuel VFACTS Class Comb Cycle Fuel Used Dist L/100Km % Imp
Suzuki Alto GLX Manual Petrol Light 4.8 87.32 2205 3.96 17.50
Hyundai Santa Fe SLX Diesel SUV – Medium 6.7 108.84 2205 4.94 26.33
Hyundai Santa Fe SLX Diesel SUV – Medium 6.7 118.47 2205 5.37 19.81
Holden Sportswagon Petrol Large 9.3 141.11 2205 6.40 31.19
Kia Sorento Diesel SUV – Medium 6.7 113.09 2205 5.13 23.45
Kia Sorento Diesel SUV – Medium 6.7 116.01 2205 5.26 21.47
HSV Maloo Ute VE2 Petrol Ute 15.1 167.25 2205 7.59 49.77
Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo Petrol Large 11.7 153.98 2205 6.98 40.31
Ford Fiesta ECOnetic Diesel Light 3.7 68.33 2205 3.10 16.25
Skoda Superb Diesel Large 6.9 101.46 2205 4.60 33.31
Mini Cooper D Diesel Small 3.9 80.46 2205 3.65 6.44
Mini Cooper D Diesel Small 3.9 74.13 2205 3.36 13.80
Mini Cooper D Diesel Small 3.9 74.22 2205 3.37 13.69
^^ Layout looks crap but you can get the point.
XR6T doing 6.98L/100KM??
*rubs eyes*
HSV’s unlikely entry, the V8-powered E-Series II Maloo ute has so far achieved a remarkable average fuel consumption of 7.35 l/100km – a 51 percent improvement on its official 15.1 l/100km rating.
*rubs eyes*
Bent 8,
And the Maloo is a Family car that all Australians will aspire to own… o_O
We are comparing the 3.0L SIDI to the Turbo 6, the V8 isn’t in the picture at the moment. You seem to be floating all over the place with your Argument bent 8…first you mistake me for bringning the 3.6 SIDI into the debate and the you go and bring the V8 in.
The V8 is doing a great job, no doubt but c’mon- its not a familty car, its a ute that can’t even carry a decent load over its rear axles.
“Here at HSV, we see what the average cashed up aussie want when he spends 60K on a Hi-Po V8…economy is on the top of the shopping list…fo sho.” Now if we want to debate the GTS or R8, it would need to be running in the competition to compare wouldnt it :)
If this proves anything, Both cars are more powerful but yet seem to use not much more fuel then the the much smaller 3.0L SIDI.
Torque and gearing come into play hear methinks
What is the average speed of every vehicle against their respective consumption figures???
Have a look at monday and the report was on the Kia… News is very scratchy from the organisers of this event, I’ve tried following it on their own site and they have less news….Have a read of sites before you bleat…….
A Mini D with the same engine as the Fiesta ECOnetic
…would still be thirstier, it’s not as aerodynamic.
Would probably be considerably more expensive too, so you’d be able to buy an ECOnetic and run it for 20 years on the savings, all the while still using less fuel.
Maybe if you’d finished reading the article you would read that the figures quoted were taken the day after that:
“However, after our day of Murray River Valley exploration, the two cars’ figures could be compared without equivocation, and the Commodore was still clearly ahead; 11.1L/100km to 12.0L/100km.”
You should really look at articles before you ‘go on and talk about them.’
And this is where I leave this discussion.
You’re not going to convince me to rush down to Ford and purchase a Falcon…nor am I going to convince you to buy a Commodore.
Enjoy!