Good Tow Cars?

[hrd-hr30]

OK let me get this straight - Falcons get an easy 7-7.5l/100km for a tank on highway trips, unless you have a passenger or two, then it can be low 8s? a litre worse just for one or two people being in the car??? 14% worse economy for carrying a person or two cruising down the highway?

and XR6T's go from 14.3l/100km to a frugal 10l/100km combined if you do just 100-150km on the highway?

yep, the credibility of these claims has convinced me.

[benm]

Went to the Summernats on Saturday, ve ss auto with afm pegged on 116kmh cruise the entire way, 275km highway and 10km of 80kmh each way and my mileage was 8.2-8.6L/100km.

[33GTRV]

just do what handbrake did, turbocharge a patrol

[mad082]

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

lol that is farken gold!

love ya work Mad

so you are saying that if you detune a car you will use less fuel? like to see you explain that one. go and back your timing right off and see how your fuel economy goes. or lower your compression. it isn't really that much different to adding the weight of a loaded trailer onto the car to ruin the fuel economy. or even just loading the car up with a heap of weight. you are altering the power to weight ratio which affects how much fuel is required to move the car.

modern cars are a prime example of how higher tuned engines are more fuel effecient. things like the modern falcons and commodores are heavier and more powerful than the older version yet more fuel effecient. in most cases, more power = more effecient use of fuel, so less fuel is required to make the same power. and when you factor in that it takes a set amount of power to move a car at a specified speed, the engine that runs the most effecient (makes the most power from the smallest amount of fuel) will give the best fuel economy.

you might also want to tell the thousands of tuners around the world who take stock ecu's and lean them out (make them use less fuel!!!) and raise the timing, resulting in both more power and better fuel economy, that they are doing it wrong. obviously if you lean it out past stoichometric levels then you will start losing power and getting better fuel economy (as shown in many racing categories such as f1, v8 supercars, etc), but this comes at the expense of engine life.

another prime example of less power = more fuel is e85.

now yes, diesels are somewhat of an exception to the rule given that they have no throttle body and simply inject more fuel to make more power, so most of the above means very little, however the fact still remains that it takes a set amount of power to move a car at a given speed. the amount of power required is different for every car because of so many variables, but for a set car in set conditions if you get 2 identical engines running 2 different levels of tune, the engine that is more effecient in how it makes its power will give the best fuel economy and most power. this is why modern engines, both diesel and petrol, are able to make so much more power than the older versions without using 2 or 3 times as much fuel.

[MBS206]

so you are saying that if you detune a car you will use less fuel? like to see you explain that one. go and back your timing right off and see how your fuel economy goes. or lower your compression. it isn't really that much different to adding the weight of a loaded trailer onto the car to ruin the fuel economy. or even just loading the car up with a heap of weight. you are altering the power to weight ratio which affects how much fuel is required to move the car.

modern cars are a prime example of how higher tuned engines are more fuel effecient. things like the modern falcons and commodores are heavier and more powerful than the older version yet more fuel effecient. in most cases, more power = more effecient use of fuel, so less fuel is required to make the same power. and when you factor in that it takes a set amount of power to move a car at a specified speed, the engine that runs the most effecient (makes the most power from the smallest amount of fuel) will give the best fuel economy.

you might also want to tell the thousands of tuners around the world who take stock ecu's and lean them out (make them use less fuel!!!) and raise the timing, resulting in both more power and better fuel economy, that they are doing it wrong. obviously if you lean it out past stoichometric levels then you will start losing power and getting better fuel economy (as shown in many racing categories such as f1, v8 supercars, etc), but this comes at the expense of engine life.

another prime example of less power = more fuel is e85.

now yes, diesels are somewhat of an exception to the rule given that they have no throttle body and simply inject more fuel to make more power, so most of the above means very little, however the fact still remains that it takes a set amount of power to move a car at a given speed. the amount of power required is different for every car because of so many variables, but for a set car in set conditions if you get 2 identical engines running 2 different levels of tune, the engine that is more effecient in how it makes its power will give the best fuel economy and most power. this is why modern engines, both diesel and petrol, are able to make so much more power than the older versions without using 2 or 3 times as much fuel.

mad082, normally you make a bit of sense, but this post, you're looking like a fuel.

The amount of power an engine makes does not determine how efficient it is.

If that were the case my old Jazz would have drunk the fuel... But it didn't...

If you run two engines, that are tuned equally, yet one makes less peak power, when cruising on a freeway, you will use the SAME AMOUNT OF FUEL.

If a car takes 50KW to hold it self at cruise, and you drive one car down the freeway that makes peak power of 200KW, and another car that makes peak power of 700KW at the 50KW mark, if they're tuned equally (Engines are equally as efficient, just one gets less air in at the top end) then they'll burn the same fuel at cruise.

Remember, you only add the right amount of fuel in, determine by how well the engine can draw air.

Take a look at Jap engines for example, back in the mid 90s, and compare them to the mid 90s V8s from America (Compare V8's to V8's) and you will find, that per litre, the Japs actually make more power, why? They get more air in per litre, this means they're more efficient, and better on fuel. Yet the Americans still make more peak power, but they use more fuel.

The Commodores/Falcons of today make more power and use less fuel as both companies (And basically every other manufacturer) because they're been forced to lower emmisions, best way to do this, MAKE SOMETHING MORE VOLUMETRICALLY EFFICIENT!

By detuning a vehicle (By pulling timing) yes you've lost power, and will use more fuel, but you've also made the engine less efficient in the process.

And Harry, mate, if you're not willing to accept what people are getting in real world terms, maybe you should buy one of these cars and go report your findings? Either that or just stop arguing. I'm giving you REAL WORLD FIGURES, not some bull shit that I read on the internet.

[mad082]

mad082, normally you make a bit of sense, but this post, you're looking like a fuel.

The amount of power an engine makes does not determine how efficient it is.

If that were the case my old Jazz would have drunk the fuel... But it didn't...

If you run two engines, that are tuned equally, yet one makes less peak power, when cruising on a freeway, you will use the SAME AMOUNT OF FUEL.

If a car takes 50KW to hold it self at cruise, and you drive one car down the freeway that makes peak power of 200KW, and another car that makes peak power of 700KW at the 50KW mark, if they're tuned equally (Engines are equally as efficient, just one gets less air in at the top end) then they'll burn the same fuel at cruise.

Remember, you only add the right amount of fuel in, determine by how well the engine can draw air.

Take a look at Jap engines for example, back in the mid 90s, and compare them to the mid 90s V8s from America (Compare V8's to V8's) and you will find, that per litre, the Japs actually make more power, why? They get more air in per litre, this means they're more efficient, and better on fuel. Yet the Americans still make more peak power, but they use more fuel.

The Commodores/Falcons of today make more power and use less fuel as both companies (And basically every other manufacturer) because they're been forced to lower emmisions, best way to do this, MAKE SOMETHING MORE VOLUMETRICALLY EFFICIENT!

By detuning a vehicle (By pulling timing) yes you've lost power, and will use more fuel, but you've also made the engine less efficient in the process.

And Harry, mate, if you're not willing to accept what people are getting in real world terms, maybe you should buy one of these cars and go report your findings? Either that or just stop arguing. I'm giving you REAL WORLD FIGURES, not some bull shit that I read on the internet.

you seem to have misunderstood what i was saying. i was more meaning that power was a by-product of economy. so if you take an engine and make it more efficient then you will gain power as well.

[MBS206]

you seem to have misunderstood what i was saying. i was more meaning that power was a by-product of economy. so if you take an engine and make it more efficient then you will gain power as well.

Well yes, that's a given, but the argument that was being raised and Pete rebutted, was that purely because a certain vehicle made less power (peak) meant it would use more fuel...

[Simon-S14]

he does have a point to some degree tho. if you have an engine with low power and large loads and you have to floor it everywhere to get anywhere then you will use more fuel. same loads but with a more efficient/powerful engine will use less fuel as it will pull the load easier

[hrd-hr30]

And Harry, mate, if you're not willing to accept what people are getting in real world terms, maybe you should buy one of these cars and go report your findings? Either that or just stop arguing. I'm giving you REAL WORLD FIGURES, not some bull shit that I read on the internet.

the reason i don't belive your claim is simple math.

if the falcon takes 70l at a fill when the fuel light comes on.

@ 14.3l/100km you'd have done 490km

but if you did 150km of hwy running in that tank you claim that changes to 10l/100km. Well that's 700km from 70l. Which is 210 f**king km further than you normally go. Man that was a good 150km of hwy driving - not only did you get those km free, but you also scored an extra 60km somewhere as well!

lets say it normally takes 50l to fill

@ 14.3l/100km you'd have done 350km

with the 150km of hwy running that improves your combined economy to 10l/100km, means you'd have done 500km from that 50l. That's 150km futher than normal. Congrats, you got 0l/100km on that 150km of hwy cruising! Man, these Falcons are good on the highway!

real world my arse.

Edited January 8, 2012 by hrd-hr30

[frozenwaffles]

just on a side note: dont tow a race car on a trailer with an xtrail.

[MBS206]

the reason i don't belive your claim is simple math.

if the falcon takes 70l at a fill when the fuel light comes on.

@ 14.3l/100km you'd have done 490km

but if you did 150km of hwy running in that tank you claim that changes to 10l/100km. Well that's 700km from 70l. Which is 210 f**king km further than you normally go. Man that was a good 150km of hwy driving - not only did you get those km free, but you also scored an extra 60km somewhere as well!

lets say it normally takes 50l to fill

@ 14.3l/100km you'd have done 350km

with the 150km of hwy running that improves your combined economy to 10l/100km, means you'd have done 500km from that 50l. That's 150km futher than normal. Congrats, you got 0l/100km on that 150km of hwy cruising! Man, these Falcons are good on the highway!

real world my arse.

How about this, when I fuel this week, I'll show you my kaya and fuel taken, but do note this tank has been hounded, multiple runs out to redline on full boost. Then when I do my trip to Melbourne down the Hume (with 3 mates in the car luggage and AC) I'll do the same again.

And sorry 14.3 is the WORST economy I've seen, but that was a tank of ONLY city driving and not taking it easy.

[hrd-hr30]

maybe I'm a bit behind the times, but those seem absolutely amazing figures for Falcadores. I've seen QFleet's actual data from its fleet, admittedly from about 6 years ago, but it was in the 14s for the Commodores and Falcons.

quotes like this from caradvice on the 2010 XR6 (not XR6T) suggest nothing much has changed...

"On a freeway route, the XR6 was onboard computer showed a fuel consumption reading of 9.9 litres per 100km and for shorter suburban trips it came in around 12 litres per 100km. My calculations at refuel come in at around 14 litres per 100km based on kilometers travelled for a city based test cycle"

So when I hear about people blowing that right out of the water, I'm very sceptical. At any rate, it certainly doesn't seem to be what most people achieve from them.

[warps]

I've hired about 50 Falcons in the last 3 years (usually do between 300-1000km per trip - mostly highway driving). Lately (last 18 months) I normally end up in the high 7's for average fuel economy on all of my trips (7.5 - 7.8). This is the average that the trip computer shows (which I have set to display constantly, as I like to keep an eye on fuel consumption). Every time I fill the car, I calculate the consumption, and it normally comes to within 0.2 - 0.3 L/100 of what the computer shows (depending how full the tank was before I got the car, compared to how much I fill it, etc.)

About 2-3 years ago I found that the Falcons were in the 9's most of the time.

The Commodores I've driven (about 30% of hire cars I get) have struggled to get much below about 8.5 L/100

Note I have not kept detailed records of these figures - it's just what I note each time I drive a hire car. Certainly not conclusive proof, but the consistency of the figures I regularly see give me the confidence that the Falcions aren't too far off the high 7's for highway driving.

Last week the trip from Sydney to Mudgee (via Bells Line of Rd) had the average in the mid 9's by the time I got to Mudgee. I'll admit I forgot to set the computer before I started, so I have no idea what it was reading before I picked up the car. I reset it in Mudgee, and by the time I returned the car at Sydney Airport (via hunter Valley, Wollombi, Peats Ridge etc) the average was showing 7.8.

Make of that what you will - perhaps it's just confirmation bias, and if I kept detailed records the numbers cold be very different. I don't think that they'd change significantly though.

Interestingly when Ford were pensioning off the Fairlanes (about 3-4 years ago IIRC), I managed to get mid to high 7's from them each time I got one (they were actually about $4 a day cheaper to hire than the Falcon at the time, too). Note this is the 6 - the V8's while sounding much sweeter - chewed a lot more fuel, and didn't actually feel any faster. At the time, I couldn't get any better than 9L/100 from the equivalent Falcon. I had about 7-8 Fairlane hire cars, and about 6 Falcons in that same time.

[benm]

all this talking shit about fuel economy on your tow cars yet take a look how much fuel your race cars use.......does it really matter if your tow car gets 8L/100 when your race car gets 40?

[MBS206]

all this talking shit about fuel economy on your tow cars yet take a look how much fuel your race cars use.......does it really matter if your tow car gets 8L/100 when your race car gets 40?

When i drive my tow car daily... YES!

[fatz]

lol this shit is gold

key things people should be talking about are the seats in these cars

cause when your towing for 12 hours a comfy seat is vital

oh and hilux's are shit!(good resale though)

[MBS206]

XR6T wins on comfy seat. Not hard like most sports cars, lumbar support is good, electrical tilt and height and blah blah blah.

Is good... Lol

[Simon-S14]

lol this shit is gold

key things people should be talking about are the seats in these cars

cause when your towing for 12 hours a comfy seat is vital

oh and hilux's are shit!(good resale though)

how come they are shit? genuine question

[fatz]

haven driven a bucket load of them they are quite underpowered and stuggle up hills with a load on

everyone seems to think they are awesome but i put this down to toyota fanboys and a reputation of reliability from the older model

realistically they have been behind the times for the last ten year, interior is shit( have not driven the lastest model which apparently has slighlty better seats) and the auto is shocking crap

far better 4wd's out there for alot less money

[fatz]

mainly i like to rub sand in the v@g of huilx fanboys as well because they are easily baited

they get all defensive went someone says they are a 60k rip