Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

my commo this week daily driving is 8.7l/100 :)

using my mates Navara 4.0L 08 model to wakefield 2 weeks time - will see how that goes.

Oh Fats, talking about hills, the ultimate hill is near Tamworth on the new england hwy...my instant fuel screen was showing around 80l per 100 just to get up that hill, I could see the fuel gauge moving down! and that was with the fag car on the back. then when you think the hill is over....there is another 2km of hill after that!

worst.

hill.

ever.

Ask duncan and Matt about Neils falcon going down that hill with no trailer brakes and GTR on back!

lol, are you sure they put the turbo engine in your XR6T???

Turns out Ford claims 11.7l/100km city cycle for the 2008 XR6T. I had NFI they had got so economical. http://www.themotorreport.com.au/3729/2008-fg-falcon-revealed

The new 270 kW I6 Turbo engine, coupled with the ZF six-speed automatic transmission, produces an ADR 81/01 fuel figure of 11.7 L/100km

But the thing that started it all was me saying I can get the same economy around town in my big old 88 diesel Patrol, and like I said, I get 12-14l/100 around town, pretty much like you do with 11.6 to 14.3...

Edited by hrd-hr30

lol, are you sure they put the turbo engine in your XR6T???

Turns out Ford claims 11.7l/100km city cycle for the 2008 XR6T. I had NFI they had got so economical. http://www.themotorreport.com.au/3729/2008-fg-falcon-revealed

But the thing that started it all was me saying I can get the same economy around town in my big old 88 diesel Patrol, and like I said, I get 12-14l/100 around town, pretty much like you do with 11.6 to 14.3...

Yeah, but my 14.3 comes at the fun leaving pretty much everything for dead at the lights... Lol...

The XR6T are economical, quite surprisingly! But I don't think it will be as good as te TD when towing, but the gains I make $$$ wise daily driving will far out weigh the TD benefit when towing.

As to that hill Chubbs, it was mrs interesting going up it and having to google what a certain flashing light meant... Turns out we had to stop and let the trans cool down... Least the ford told us it was hot... The same vintage commodore would have just had the gearbox implode...

OK I can't stay quiet anymore :D

God I'd have some good laughs from this thread.

I've just filled the tank and am heading to and from Melbourne tomorrow to collect a car for the missus and was going to do what Matt did but he's beaten me too the punch!

The question remains, have the people who were looking for tow cars actually done anything about it or have we all wasted considerable amounts of time? :D

Is that humble pie you are eating now Harry?

nup. when people say they're supposed to get 16l around town but actually get 11, I don't think its my fault if I didn't believe it. turns out its actually supposed to get 11...

Or when they say i get 14 around town, but 10 if there's 100km of highway... which doesn't ad up.

Or the "easy 7-7.5l/100" which didn't turn out to be so easy - a passenger or two and its low 8s which is a whole litre more... 14% worse economy because of a passenger...

there was alot of bullshit going around.

Edited by hrd-hr30

lol and it starts again...

I think you have misread or misunderstood what I was saying. That and the fact that upon re-reading it, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

"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"

And by that I mean add a person or two and their luggage for a weekend trip and trundle off down the hume with climate on and it'll then do high 7's to low 8's at worst.

So if the very best it ever sees is a between 7.0 and 7.5 (average of about 7.25 for the whole trip) then averaging closer to 8L per hundred after adding a couple of people and luggage is still quite good. We're talking close to 2T at that point. I'm not sure how much the luggage would weigh but with 4 of us in the car we fill the 510 litre boot easily enough.

I'd have thought the comments about the hire cars and regularly seeing numbers on par with those would have convinced you.

Let the laughs continue!

Edited by ActionDan

and the story changes slightly again...

the very best it ever sees is a between 7.0 and 7.5 (average of about 7.25 for the whole trip)

I'm only interesting in what it gets for a tank, not the best l/100 you see on the trip computer on the highway.still, its excellent fuel economy - as good as many 4cyl econoboxes manage.

Edited by hrd-hr30

You make me laugh Harry :D I reckon you'd be good to have a few beers with.

I'll let you know when I next drive up to QLD getting 16L per hundred, you can shout me the first round because I'll obviously be broke.

Have a good weekend guys :)

Edited by ActionDan

and the story changes slightly again...

I'm only interesting in what it gets for a tank, not the best l/100 you see on the trip computer on the highway.still, its excellent fuel economy - as good as many 4cyl econoboxes manage.

Sorry I sent my reply before you edited your post so I missed the second bit.

That is an average figure for the whole tank of highway driving. Calculated the old fashioned way, not based on the average fuel consumption figure on the computer. Though as was said before if you reset it right before a trip it's only .2-.3L out at most. As I mentioned earlier my average per tank of mixed driving is 8.4-8.8L

In comparison to 4 bangers we've done long trips in the Falcon does use more fuel. Our other car (2010 Mazda3) does mid 6's on the highway with the two of us and luggage but it's doing plenty more revs at those speeds and is only a 4spd Auto, the seats are also far less comfy.

Turbo Diesel Focus at work is mid 5's in the same conditions and has a crap load more torque to work with (6spd Man). we also have a Prius here which is not much better than the focus, and worse to drive.

I get the impression that you won't be convinced unless you see it first hand and I can respect that as I'm exactly the same.

Edited by ActionDan

lol and it starts again...

I think you have misread or misunderstood what I was saying. That and the fact that upon re-reading it, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

"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"

And by that I mean add a person or two and their luggage for a weekend trip and trundle off down the hume with climate on and it'll then do high 7's to low 8's at worst.

So if the very best it ever sees is a between 7.0 and 7.5 (average of about 7.25 for the whole trip) then averaging closer to 8L per hundred after adding a couple of people and luggage is still quite good. We're talking close to 2T at that point. I'm not sure how much the luggage would weigh but with 4 of us in the car we fill the 510 litre boot easily enough.

I'd have thought the comments about the hire cars and regularly seeing numbers on par with those would have convinced you.

Let the laughs continue!

Close to 2Tonne? Are you packing chiauhuas as people?

Supposedly they're 1750 odd empty, throw 68 litter of fuel in plus the Ther extra weight that ends up in them, and only 2 people with out luggage an you breach 2T... 4 people and luggage is easy 2.2T I reckon. Maybe I should put mine over the weigh station...

where are the soccer mum pics wtf!!

Dan, ive had a few beers with Harry, it was XXXX, beer was ok, but Harry is good to have a beer with.

only issue there was Druncan wouldnt buy us shouts cause he was saving for rebuild # 43

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...