Good Tow Cars?

[MBS206]

shouldn't be a problem for the turbo. turbo diesels sit on boost constantly on the highway even when not towing. turbos last alright there... Mine sits on a constant 4psi at 100-110kph just cruising by itself. And did 4500km over 2 weeks earlier in the year towing the camper trailer and all loaded up sitting on a constant 10psi @ 110kph for most of that. And modern turbo diesels run alot more boost than that. I wouldn't worry about the turbo.

But I'll never be a fan of towing with passenger vehicles. Monocoque construction is crap to tow with compared to a ladder chassis 4WD. You can feel the trailer pulling the car around all over the place, whereas you don't feel a thing with 4WDs. Its about the mass of the vehicle and the strength of the chassis. So while falcon may pull it OK, I always think a 4WD is always going to be the better tow vehicle.

I 100% agree with you about not towing with a light vehicle.

But by the time I add me, fuel, a couple of things in the boot, and potentially a passenger, the falcon is knocking on the door of 2T.

Trying to get my car down to 1300KG minimum (If not lower), and trailer with spare wheels, and tools, 600KG... Car is still sitting 100KG heavier...

Although, I'd rather have a 4WD to tow with, more pracitcal with loading stuff up etc, but no where near as practical as a daily driver.

[FineLine]

I 100% agree with you about not towing with a light vehicle.

But by the time I add me, fuel, a couple of things in the boot, and potentially a passenger, the falcon is knocking on the door of 2T.

Trying to get my car down to 1300KG minimum (If not lower), and trailer with spare wheels, and tools, 600KG... Car is still sitting 100KG heavier...

Although, I'd rather have a 4WD to tow with, more pracitcal with loading stuff up etc, but no where near as practical as a daily driver.

I dont know where you're comin from with this. I've used a patrol as a daily for the last 27 years and they are fine. I would rate them over a falcadore any day of the week.

Far safer, far better visibility and you hardly even feel smart cars when you run over them.

If soccer mums like Fatz can drive around in a 4b surely you can.

[fatz]

patrol are great tow cars have had 4 of them of every generation

just their td is shit

and soccer mums love the audi

anyone who goes a falcon over a patrol is f**ken stupid

[No Crust Racing]

well best thing for the OP, and anyone else, to do is take their hard earned 5-6k and drive both cars. If it only got used for towing 5% of the time you were behind the wheel I couldn't see myself picking a 5-6k GQ over a BA. From a financial standpoint you'd have to think that the BA would be the cheaper car all round to own.

Drive and tow with both though, see which one ticks all your boxes.

[hrd-hr30]

Its no contest for me because I like 4WDing, beach camping (Fraser, Double Island etc), and the odd long trip to places like Daintree, Simpson, Vic High Country... I don't tow cars anymore, but I'd never be without a 4WD.

I also like annoying the global warmists who think 4WDs are the end of the world despite diesels using no more fuel than falcadores, and those who think they don't belong in the city for various stupid 'reasons'.

[No Crust Racing]

Harry: What's the fuel econ like in a modern TD these days? When it comes time to part ways with the BF I was toying with the idea of twin cab something (Hilux/Navara) as I've borrowed a ute from work a few times and it's friggen handy to have (dog, tip runs etc).

[Simon-S14]

D4D powered hilux is around the 8.6-9 L per 100

[hrd-hr30]

haha, mine's anything but modern! Good old fashioned rotary pump injected, pre-combustion chambered, cast iron lump of TD42 in an 89 GQ with aftermarket DTS turbo. I've often thought about upgrading to a newer Patrol but they're the same truck under the skin, only with worse engine options...

I prefer the smooth, quiet TD42 over those horrible modern clacky alloy turbo diesels anyway. The toyota 4.2 twin cam TD is nice too. That's what I'd have when I eventually upgrade - 100 Series Cruiser 4.2 TD. Unless Nissan put a decent TD in the GU body soon...

Edited January 6, 2012 by hrd-hr30

[MBS206]

D4D powered hilux is around the 8.6-9 L per 100

Highway, Towing or around town?

From what I've heard of Cruisers they're more in the 14L/100KM range in diesel. No experience myself, just what I've heard from other owners.

[No Crust Racing]

D4D powered hilux is around the 8.6-9 L per 100

I'm assuming this is in a new model Hilux cruising on the highway? Pretty good I reckon but not quite as good as the Falcon which easily pulls 7.0-7.5 on the highway (6spd)

haha, mine's anything but modern! Good old fashioned rotary pump injected, pre-combustion chambered, cast iron lump of TD42 in an 89 GQ with aftermarket DTS turbo. I've often thought about upgrading to a newer Patrol but they're the same truck under the skin, only with worse engine options...

I prefer the smooth, quiet TD42 over those horrible modern clacky alloy turbo diesels anyway. The toyota 4.2 twin cam TD is nice too. That's what I'd have when I eventually upgrade - 100 Series Cruiser 4.2 TD. Unless Nissan put a decent TD in the GU body soon...

Wasn't it you saying they were on par fuel economy wise? Or do you mean when towing as the Falcodores get thirsty when asked to work.

[mad082]

my brother in law has a 4.2L diesel patrol that has had a turbo fitted. he gets pretty ordinary fuel economy. highway towing his boat (which isn't that big, only about a 4m tinny) and it gets about 15L/100kms. to put that into perspective, i could tow it with the pulsar and get around 10L/100kms.

[fatz]

hilux and the words "modern diesel" should not be used in the same sentence

they are quite frugal on the open road though... mainly because they are shitfull underpowered slow as f**k POS's... if they made any power they may use some fuel, even towing they will only use 15l per 100km but f**k they are slow

most td pootrols and 4.2 crusiers use around 16-18 towing 2.5-3t ( modified 120-140rwkw ones use the same amount)

petrol versions use around the 25 mark

[hrd-hr30]

I'm assuming this is in a new model Hilux cruising on the highway? Pretty good I reckon but not quite as good as the Falcon which easily pulls 7.0-7.5 on the highway (6spd)

Wasn't it you saying they were on par fuel economy wise? Or do you mean when towing as the Falcodores get thirsty when asked to work.

congrats! I don't know anyone else who beats the claimed l/100 figures. I don't know anyone who even equals them, but you beat them by a full litre! good work.

and around town you'd be getting the 12-14l/100 I get - yes? and more towards the 14...

plus my km are actual km, not the 5-6% inflated odometer kms.

and my usage is actual litres over whole tank, not the bs figure the trip computer spits out while under optimal cruise conditions that people often quote as being real...

on the highway mine is handicapped by weight (normally over 3500kg anytime I go for any sort of decent run on the highway), the frontal area (being the high roof model which is easily a foot higher than normal Patrols), plus roof racks on top of that (which I know cost me 1l/100 on the hwy alone), the 33" tyres (can't remember what I used to get with 31s), and the increased rolling resistance of muddies. But all that stuff has other useful purposes which I'm happy to pay a few l/100km for, so that I have them when I need them. f**k I'm surprised your car is better on the hwy!

Edited January 6, 2012 by hrd-hr30

[No Crust Racing]

congrats! I don't know anyone else who beats the claimed l/100 figures. I don't know anyone who even equals them, but you beat them by a full litre! good work.

and around town you'd be getting the 12-14l/100 I get - yes? and more towards the 14...

plus my km are actual km, not the 5-6% inflated odometer kms.

and my usage is actual litres over whole tank, not the bs figure the trip computer spits out while under optimal cruise conditions that people often quote as being real...

on the highway mine is handicapped by weight (normally over 3500kg anytime I go for any sort of decent run on the highway), the frontal area (being the high roof model which is easily a foot higher than normal Patrols), plus roof racks on top of that (which I know cost me 1l/100 on the hwy alone), the 33" tyres (can't remember what I used to get with 31s), and the increased rolling resistance of muddies. But all that stuff has other useful purposes which I'm happy to pay a few l/100km for, so that I have them when I need them. f**k I'm surprised your car is better on the hwy!

I don't use the fuel computer for those figures, i simply calculate how much fuel goes back into the tank by how many k's I've done. And anyone who isn't getting in the 7's per hundred in a 6sped BF(auto, dunno about the manual) on the flat-arse hume between here and Melb must be carrying 5 passengers and luggage. It does it quite easily and repeatedly, 2 passengers basic weekend luggage, air con on if needed.

My average for each full tank of "normal" driving fluctuates between 8.4 and around 8.8 or so litres per hundred. My trip to and from work is 23k's, 11 of which is on the highway here between Wodonga and Albury, the remainder is basic 60km/h roads that rarely require you to stop if you actually have half a brain and watch the traffic ahead. I drive like a grandpa and always with fuel economy in mind - the nickname amongst the boys in Grandpa Dan, apparently I just need the bowls hat on the parcel shelf. If you honestly think that cars cant achieve and exceed the fuel econ figures plastered on those little stickers then you might possibly be type of driver who will take off from a stop light with at least 3/4 throttle despite the fact that there's another red light in 80 meters - the amount of people that do that astounds me. After re-reading that, it seems a bit rude, sorry if that makes me sound like an arse, my point is just that the fuel figures are indicative only (I also used to write for and review cars for The Motor Report and we regularly managed to beat fuel figures, it's not unheard of)

I fully admit that my driving style is definitely not the norm in terms of rate of acceleration (but I will always make sure I'm not impeding traffic) and the longevity of my brake pads is testament to that as I've throttled off well before the exit ramp and can take the next corner at the speed limit usually without having needed to brake, the traffic is such here (at my times to and from work) that you can drive fairly unimpeded if you're looking ahead.

It will get up into the high 9's and 10s if I am exclusively driving around town and stop starting, I can quite easily see it doing 11s and 12s in the city, but not here. A mate's basic tuned XR6T does 12s here without too much hassle.

Even the SS (VY 6spd man) I had was quite easily getting 10s on the to/from work leg and 8's on the highway.

Towing however, that's a diff story, BA falcon first time towing without the trans cooler (so towing in 3rd as per user manual) got around 16L per hundred, woeful. Down to 13 or so towing in 4th once I had the trans cooler on, I'm yet to tow in the BF but expect slightly better figures considering I can tow easily in 5th and possibly 6th, and it makes more torque earlier than the BA did - thanks to VCT.

I'm not sure what you mean by your km's are actual not the 5-6% inflated ODO figures? did you mean speedo? as I can't imagine any car would intentionally be counting faster on the ODO than the car is actually covering those k's, what would be the point? Artificially lower the resale value? So I'll assume you mean speedo? In which case I drive at an indicated 112 on the GPS and Speed Check sign (which is actually about 117km/h on the Falcon speedo).

Wow, what a friggen rant lol As you can see, fuel econ on the humbel Falcon is something I've put a lot of thought and effort into over the last few years of driving them and I'm not out to win any prizes for best econ (there are guys on the Ford forums smashing me but doing all kinds of stupid shit to do so) just want others to know that the economy in a Falcon can be pretty tame.

ALL that said, my car will not ever do what yours will do off road, will never tow as easily in terms of dynamics (and indirectly, safety) so it's understandable that your car will run higher fuel figures for those advantages. My point is simply that for the OP Kieran, and Jake who chimed in afterwards, that a Falcon for 5-6k would make a better daily/tow car than a 5-6k GQ as an all rounder, but as I mentioned earlier. They should drive both and make that call themselves - plus I already noted that I'll likely be going to a dual cab "something" after this car for the versatility (but only because I'd be spending more cash, no way would I have traded the BA for a GQ, but that's because the GQ is not a good fit for me).

</end_rant>

[mad082]

hilux and the words "modern diesel" should not be used in the same sentence

they are quite frugal on the open road though... mainly because they are shitfull underpowered slow as f**k POS's... if they made any power they may use some fuel, even towing they will only use 15l per 100km but f**k they are slow

most td pootrols and 4.2 crusiers use around 16-18 towing 2.5-3t ( modified 120-140rwkw ones use the same amount)

petrol versions use around the 25 mark

sorry to point holes in your theory, but if they were underpowered then they would use more fuel as you would have to floor it everywhere.

my boss has a 4wd TD hilux that's a few years old (probably mid 00's) with over 200,000kms on the clock. i took it for a drive a few months ago and was suprised at how well it went. as for why they get better economy than a pootrol, it may have something to do with them weighing a few hundred KG's less and a smaller engine.

I don't use the fuel computer for those figures, i simply calculate how much fuel goes back into the tank by how many k's I've done. And anyone who isn't getting in the 7's per hundred in a 6sped BF(auto, dunno about the manual) on the flat-arse hume between here and Melb must be carrying 5 passengers and luggage. It does it quite easily and repeatedly, 2 passengers basic weekend luggage, air con on if needed.

My average for each full tank of "normal" driving fluctuates between 8.4 and around 8.8 or so litres per hundred. My trip to and from work is 23k's, 11 of which is on the highway here between Wodonga and Albury, the remainder is basic 60km/h roads that rarely require you to stop if you actually have half a brain and watch the traffic ahead. I drive like a grandpa and always with fuel economy in mind - the nickname amongst the boys in Grandpa Dan, apparently I just need the bowls hat on the parcel shelf. If you honestly think that cars cant achieve and exceed the fuel econ figures plastered on those little stickers then you might possibly be type of driver who will take off from a stop light with at least 3/4 throttle despite the fact that there's another red light in 80 meters - the amount of people that do that astounds me. After re-reading that, it seems a bit rude, sorry if that makes me sound like an arse, my point is just that the fuel figures are indicative only (I also used to write for and review cars for The Motor Report and we regularly managed to beat fuel figures, it's not unheard of)

I fully admit that my driving style is definitely not the norm in terms of rate of acceleration (but I will always make sure I'm not impeding traffic) and the longevity of my brake pads is testament to that as I've throttled off well before the exit ramp and can take the next corner at the speed limit usually without having needed to brake, the traffic is such here (at my times to and from work) that you can drive fairly unimpeded if you're looking ahead.

It will get up into the high 9's and 10s if I am exclusively driving around town and stop starting, I can quite easily see it doing 11s and 12s in the city, but not here. A mate's basic tuned XR6T does 12s here without too much hassle.

Even the SS (VY 6spd man) I had was quite easily getting 10s on the to/from work leg and 8's on the highway.

*snip*

to say that it "easily gets 7.0 to 7.5L/100kms" in your first post is more what he was refering to. it doesn't easily get that, but it is possible. some flat highway driving and most modern 6 cylinder cars will get close to that. even my vt commodore would do that. i often get high 8's as my average economy over a full tank of mostly highway driving with probably 20% city driving on my way to work. it isn't the flattest drive (rolling hills most of the way) and there is a 1.2km long 10% climb at 80km/h about 4kms from work (and the car isn't quiet up to temp by the time i get there) which it drops back to 3rd to go up. on a flat drive i could get better economy. pretty sure that the official highway fuel economy for it was 7.2L/100kms, same as the BA falcon (based off ADR tests of course). my old v6 magna used to get under 9L/100kms on the highway too. pretty sure that on my trip to willowbank to go to a test and tune i got low 9's and that included about 5 or 6 runs, plus the stop/start when moving foward in the line up, plus i hadn't been taking it that easy on the way as i was running late, as well as a car load of people

[No Crust Racing]

That is what I'm saying though, highway driving climate control on, 2 passenger, weekend luggage etc, it easily gets those figures on the highway. Add a person or two and it gets up to high 7s low 8s, that's nothing spectacular by any stretch though when compared to say the turbo diesel focus at work which will take 4 people down the Hume quite comfortably in the 5s (albeit with less leg room). Not to mention any other number of cars (including I imagine some newer TDs that would have superior towing capability and still return good figures on the highway cruising.

Anywho, I think I've thrown in more than my 2 cents on this one so the people on the hunt for daily/tow cars should be armed with more than enough banter from us to have some idea of what to do.

Plus the idea of a bunch of guys online on a Saturday night talking about pulling big loads is enough to make me unsubscribe

Cheers

Dan

[hrd-hr30]

I'm not sure what you mean by your km's are actual not the 5-6% inflated ODO figures? did you mean speedo? as I can't imagine any car would intentionally be counting faster on the ODO than the car is actually covering those k's, what would be the point? Artificially lower the resale value? So I'll assume you mean speedo? In which case I drive at an indicated 112 on the GPS and Speed Check sign (which is actually about 117km/h on the Falcon speedo).

you answered your own question there - according to that your speedo is 4.5% fast. And therefore so is your odometre. When it tells you you've done 117km, you wil have actually done 112. Its just the way they make cars - speedos always seem to be around 5% faster than actual speed.

If you honestly think that cars cant achieve and exceed the fuel econ figures plastered on those little stickers then you might possibly be type of driver who will take off from a stop light with at least 3/4 throttle despite the fact that there's another red light in 80 meters

nah, I'm the kind of person who knows those figures come from a rolling road test in controlled laboratory conditions with a stipulated series of simulated driving conditions. They're not real world figures.

Eg the city cycle test goes for 13min and the car is stopped and idling for 4 of those minutes. Max speed resched inthe test it 50kph and the avg speed is 19kph. In my real world commute in peak hour traffic through the suburbs of Brisbane is my average speed is 75% higher than that 'urban' test, and I'd have exceeded their max test speed by about 50% before the car is even at normal operating temperature.

Its a similar story in their extra urban test which lasts all of 6 minutes and the avg speed is 63kph. Again, that doesn't simulate real world conditions in extra urban driving - that would make Brisbane to Sydney about 15.5hrs drive. No-one gets the claimed figures. If you are, there's a good chance your calculator is broken

[fatz]

less power uses more fuel cause you floor it the whole time

lol that is farken gold!

love ya work Mad

[MBS206]

you answered your own question there - according to that your speedo is 4.5% fast. And therefore so is your odometre. When it tells you you've done 117km, you wil have actually done 112. Its just the way they make cars - speedos always seem to be around 5% faster than actual speed.

nah, I'm the kind of person who knows those figures come from a rolling road test in controlled laboratory conditions with a stipulated series of simulated driving conditions. They're not real world figures.

Eg the city cycle test goes for 13min and the car is stopped and idling for 4 of those minutes. Max speed resched inthe test it 50kph and the avg speed is 19kph. In my real world commute in peak hour traffic through the suburbs of Brisbane is my average speed is 75% higher than that 'urban' test, and I'd have exceeded their max test speed by about 50% before the car is even at normal operating temperature.

Its a similar story in their extra urban test which lasts all of 6 minutes and the avg speed is 63kph. Again, that doesn't simulate real world conditions in extra urban driving - that would make Brisbane to Sydney about 15.5hrs drive. No-one gets the claimed figures. If you are, there's a good chance your calculator is broken

In regards to fuel consumption, I get below them all the time.

2008 FG XR6T, pure city driving, stop start everywhere driving on cold maps most of the time, 14.3L/100KM. Now under what is stated, I'm 2.2 L below the claimed city usage, even if I remove 5% kays to make up for your shit about odometers being out (why yes, speedo is, odometer isn't on new cars. You can test this by resetting the odometer driving exactly 5km at those odometer checks and seeing it hits 5kms when you reach the end... ) then my fuel is still 15L/100km... Which is still below stated...

Not to mention add around 100 to 150km of freeway driving, sometimes 200kms and my fuel Econ sits at 10L/100 for combined I'm pretty sure that puts me below the claimed figure again, an means I'll drop well into single digits on pure Hume highway driving, but I haven't put a tank of pure freeway through it yet.

Oh and my driving isn't grandpa spec either, I actually do come on boost alot, and I use cruise moat of the time which chews more fuel.

Maybe all fords have their consumption figures inflated, what do you think Dan?

Also, my part in brackets, go test it, or mark out exactly 100kms and drive it. Just make sure you drive right beside the line you marked as changing lanes adds distance to your trip, and I'm sure you took this into account when you worked out your odometer is inaccurate, right?

[Adriano]

In petrols that is the case somewhat, but certainly not diesels.