Vaporate Fuel Saving System

[Cubes]

Sounds like a good excuse as to 'why' I need that new turbo upgrade for the missues. Better fuel economy.

[Tommyk]

haha

how do u think i justified it ?

[PTR33]

i was reading the paper today and looking at some new whiz bang 2006 2.4l turbo with 190kw (at flywheel) getting a 11.2l/100k's as stated by manufacturer and 11.9l/100k's proven on road. i put that against my 1994 190kw (at wheels) 2.5l turbo getting a proven 11.2l/100k's on road(even better if i could control my right foot). why bother with gizzmos that do crap and cost the earth to fit.

my 2 bob's worth anyway

I know what you mean

new whiz bang 2006 2.4l turbo with 190kw (at flywheel) getting a 11.2l/100k's as stated by manufacturer and 11.9l/100k's proven on road

My 1989 2.0L Turbo with 180something KW (at Flywheel) gets 10.8-11.2km/100km proven on the road and that's "normal" driving not economy run sh1te, It's got a turb for a reason... to run boost. 1bar in my case.

So why bother with all the gadgets indeed?

My bro had a EL falcon that did about 20mpg round town and 30mpg on the highway, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE 1970 model XW falcon he had nearly 20 years before.

Are we being conned or what? over two decades of R&D work and the same size car uses the same amount of fuel to drive the same distance??? Bu||$hit.

Edited June 1, 2006 by PTR33

[Big Rizza]

I know what you mean

new whiz bang 2006 2.4l turbo with 190kw (at flywheel) getting a 11.2l/100k's as stated by manufacturer and 11.9l/100k's proven on road

My 1989 2.0L Turbo with 180something KW (at Flywheel) gets 10.8-11.2km/100km proven on the road and that's "normal" driving not economy run sh1te, It's got a turb for a reason... to run boost. 1bar in my case.

So why bother with all the gadgets indeed?

My bro had a EL falcon that did about 20mpg round town and 30mpg on the highway, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE 1970 model XW falcon he had nearly 20 years before.

Are we being conned or what? over two decades of R&D work and the same size car uses the same amount of fuel to drive the same distance??? Bu||$hit.

XW FALCON

Engine: 3.1 Litre 88kw 6cyl

Length: 4689mm

Width: 1869mm

Height: 1417mm

Wheelbase: 2819mm

Front track: 1496mm

Rear track: 1486mm

Kerb weight: 1348kg

EL FALCON

Engine: 4 litre 6cy with 157kw (up 0.9 litres and 69kw)

Length: 4906mm (up 217mm)

Width: 1861mm (up 6mm)

Height: 1453mm (up 36mm)

Wheelbase: 2791mm (DOWN 28mm)

Front Track: 1566mm (up 70mm)

Rear Track: 1547mm (up 61mm)

Kerb Weight: 1536kg (up 188kg)

So the falcon has a considerably bigger engine, the car is bigger in every direction (although wheelbase is shorter) weighs in at nearly 200kg heavier, and the difference in kw's could power another car. Plus the XW Falcon had the advantage of higher octane leaded fuel. Plus the EL has numerous ancilliaries which would require fuel to operate - aircon, CD player, central locking, a catalytic converter (due to efficiency drop), electric windows etc.

The way I see it is over two decades of R&D between the 1970s and mid 1990s allows us to have a bigger, faster, safer, more luxurious vehicle with no penalty to fuel consumption, and pay less money for the privilage of ownership (after adjusting for inflation of course ).

And in the 10 years of R&D since then, things have gotten REALLY good, I reckon. The Astra SRi Turbo for example. A 0-100 km/h time in the mid-low sevens - and yet the ability to gain open-road fuel economy in the high sixes. One hundred and forty seven kilowatts from a turbo 2-litre - and yet peak torque is available from 1950 - 5600 rpm. Plus the official government test figures show that the turbo 2-litre is actually more fuel-efficient than the naturally aspirated SRi around the city - 8.5 litres/100km for the turbo and 9 litres/100 for the naturally aspirated.

And no I don't work for Holden. Nor do I own an Astra. Although I think I might have just convinced myself to take one for a test drive

Edited June 2, 2006 by Big Rizza

[PTR33]

XW FALCON

Engine: 3.1 Litre 88kw 6cyl

Length: 4689mm

Width: 1869mm

Height: 1417mm

Wheelbase: 2819mm

Front track: 1496mm

Rear track: 1486mm

Kerb weight: 1348kg

EL FALCON

Engine: 4 litre 6cy with 157kw (up 0.9 litres and 69kw)

Length: 4906mm (up 217mm)

Width: 1861mm (up 6mm)

Height: 1453mm (up 36mm)

Wheelbase: 2791mm (DOWN 28mm)

Front Track: 1566mm (up 70mm)

Rear Track: 1547mm (up 61mm)

Kerb Weight: 1536kg (up 188kg)

So the falcon has a considerably bigger engine, the car is bigger in every direction (although wheelbase is shorter) weighs in at nearly 200kg heavier, and the difference in kw's could power another car. Plus the XW Falcon had the advantage of higher octane leaded fuel. Plus the EL has numerous ancilliaries which would require fuel to operate - aircon, CD player, central locking, a catalytic converter (due to efficiency drop), electric windows etc.

The way I see it is over two decades of R&D between the 1970s and mid 1990s allows us to have a bigger, faster, safer, more luxurious vehicle with no penalty to fuel consumption, and pay less money for the privilage of ownership (after adjusting for inflation of course ).

And in the 10 years of R&D since then, things have gotten REALLY good, I reckon. The Astra SRi Turbo for example. A 0-100 km/h time in the mid-low sevens - and yet the ability to gain open-road fuel economy in the high sixes. One hundred and forty seven kilowatts from a turbo 2-litre - and yet peak torque is available from 1950 - 5600 rpm. Plus the official government test figures show that the turbo 2-litre is actually more fuel-efficient than the naturally aspirated SRi around the city - 8.5 litres/100km for the turbo and 9 litres/100 for the naturally aspirated.

And no I don't work for Holden. Nor do I own an Astra. Although I think I might have just convinced myself to take one for a test drive

The XW that my brother had was a 3.6L not 3.1. In fact I had one myself about the same time and it was a 3.6 as well. I never saw one with the 3.1 "taxi pack" motor in it.

And anyway, the major factor in highway fuel economy is nothing to do with maximum power and very little to do with weight, it is how much power it takes to push the damn thing through the air at 100km/h.

Have a look at the shape of a XW. Big blunt front end, pi$$ poor Cd (Coefficient of drag) compared to the (slightly) more streamlined front on the later model and the much better underbody airflow treatment. Total drag should be much lower on the EL and the injected motor should be far more efficient than the old Solex carby equipped 221ci.

Both did about 30mpg. IT'S A CON I TELL YOU.

If you can't see that you are either blind or stupid.

[eMsta]

hmm...bet it doesnt do better than my 1982 honda civic! 1.2ltrs, <25kW @ the front wheels, 40ltr tank, roughly 500klms per tank (maybe a bit more) and the price??? $600!!!

All Im saying is, rather than put something in that might damage a beautiful skyline, why not just get something that takes less fuel to do your daily driving (i.e to uni or to the train station or to work even)

[Big Rizza]

The XW that my brother had was a 3.6L not 3.1. In fact I had one myself about the same time and it was a 3.6 as well. I never saw one with the 3.1 "taxi pack" motor in it.

And anyway, the major factor in highway fuel economy is nothing to do with maximum power and very little to do with weight, it is how much power it takes to push the damn thing through the air at 100km/h.

Have a look at the shape of a XW. Big blunt front end, pi$$ poor Cd (Coefficient of drag) compared to the (slightly) more streamlined front on the later model and the much better underbody airflow treatment. Total drag should be much lower on the EL and the injected motor should be far more efficient than the old Solex carby equipped 221ci.

Both did about 30mpg. IT'S A CON I TELL YOU.

If you can't see that you are either blind or stupid.

Even the 3.6 litre engine is at least 50kw down on the EL. The total drag difference of the EL and XW probably wouldnt be as great as you've suggested due to the increased frontal area of the EL. But no doubt the EL would still be ahead in that respect. But meh, Falcons get shit fuel economy anyways. If you think the EL is bad, wait until you try the BA. They hover at around 13-14 litres per 100km in normal driving. I don't think a falcon is a good representation of how modern technology is coming along. No one buys a Falcon for economy - That's why they have an LPG option.

hmm...bet it doesnt do better than my 1982 honda civic! 1.2ltrs, <25kW @ the front wheels, 40ltr tank, roughly 500klms per tank (maybe a bit more) and the price??? $600!!!

All Im saying is, rather than put something in that might damage a beautiful skyline, why not just get something that takes less fuel to do your daily driving (i.e to uni or to the train station or to work even)

That's how my Toyota Yaris found its way into my driveway

[eMsta]

That's how my Toyota Yaris found its way into my driveway

Hi 5 brother!!

(ok i couldnt find a hi 5 emoticon)

[PTR33]

If you think the EL is bad, wait until you try the BA. They hover at around 13-14 litres per 100km in normal driving.

Actually I had a BA MkII XR6t from brand new for 6 months, did 18000km in it and drove it like it should be driven (Use the boost Luke), NEVER reset the trip computer from new and when I stepped out of it the average fuel consumption was 13.3L/100km.

I am sure that a "normally" driven BA XT or non turbo XR6 would be a bit better than that.

on a lighter note, I did see instantaneous L/100km figures in the 90's with full throttle 2nd gear 5000+rpm

now THAT is crap fuel consumption

[Big Rizza]

Actually I had a BA MkII XR6t from brand new for 6 months, did 18000km in it and drove it like it should be driven (Use the boost Luke), NEVER reset the trip computer from new and when I stepped out of it the average fuel consumption was 13.3L/100km.

I am sure that a "normally" driven BA XT or non turbo XR6 would be a bit better than that.

on a lighter note, I did see instantaneous L/100km figures in the 90's with full throttle 2nd gear 5000+rpm

now THAT is crap fuel consumption

Wow, you did well with your XR6. Would it be a manual by any chance? The autos I have driven fair much worse I am afraid! I drive the base Falcon XT's on a regular basis when commuting up to site where I work. I recieve the vehicle with a full tank of fuel. I set cruise control to 110km/h, aside from the odd overtaking manouver, and I get similar fuel usage to yours. Bearing in mind I am only cruising, that is shockingly bad! That's about 2 litres/100km worse than I average in a Commodore on the same trip.

My Dad has a BF Fairmont Ghia. It's an old mans car, driven by an old man like an old man. The BF updates to the engine management, plus two extra gear ratios mean reduced fuel usage over the BA, and his trip computer shows 13.6 litres/100km.

Maybe I have just had thirsty experiences? Or maybe your trip computer was a little off?

Edited June 3, 2006 by Big Rizza

[342Four]

our bf territory is really bad aswell

they reckon with all the new engine management and 2 extra gear ratios fuel consumption for a 190kw all wheel drive 2 tonne car is about 12.8L/100km

what shit is that?

we get about 14 sometimes 15L/100km

now that is shit

[scathing]

Maybe I have just had thirsty experiences? Or maybe your trip computer was a little off?

Don't forget the locals' generous factory tolerances, and variable build quality. After all, Motor Magazine has dyno'ed several SS Commodores that have pulled higher numbers than a HSV Clubsport R8.

It could just be that he got one of the XR6T's that were made properly. Must have been a Wednesday car.