Just curious, why is there so much hate on big car fuel economy?

[2011G6E]

Before the G6E, we had a 100 series Landcruiser. Before that we had a VX Series II Lumina, before that, a VS series 2 Berlina...both V6's.

When we had the VS Berlina (Ecotec and four speed auto), I had got a promotion at work and was making a lot better money. We decided it was time for a new car, and for once, it would possibly be a "new" car. We started looking around the dealerships...this was in about 2005...and looked at Imprezas, Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans, all four cylinder sedans and hatches. We were limited to an auto, as the wife only has an auto licence.

On driving them, I was pretty much underwhelmed...we'd had a string of large cars, and I wasn't impressed with the space inside these cars. I then started researching the actual fuel economy we could expect, and again, it was either equal to, or in a couple of cases actually less than, what we were getting out of the VS Berlina.
So in the end we bought a 2001 VX Lumina, V6 auto, with space and all mod cons, for way less than the brand new four cylinders we looked at, and which used even less fuel than the VS did on a trip.

Then we went to the Landcruiser (4.2 six cylinder turbo diesel) and it got similar economy to some of the four cylinder auto sedans we looked at.
After we decided to buy a brand new car when I got my new job, we again looked around all the four cylinder autos (and a few manuals), including the amazing Suzuki Kysashi Sport AWD...the only problem with it was a dire lack of power...really needs a turbo.
Again, we were struck by how heavy these small cars were, and less than amazed with the fuel economy...to get stunning fuel economy, you have to go really small to the small hatchbacks it looks like.

So we ended up looking at both the VE Commodore and the FG Falcon...both of which in six cylinder auto form were approaching or, in a few cases, surpassing the economy of a lot of four cylinder automatic vehicles on the market.

After a coin toss and because of a stunning trade in deal from Ford, we got the G6E...why cramp yourself into a small car when, if you do your sums about how you will really drive it, you will probably pick up a half a liter per hundred kilometers if you had bought a medium/large four cylinder auto...?

Next year we are considering getting a Toyota FJ Cruiser. They are all powered by the excellent 4 ltr V6 with a five speed auto. The fuel economy on the highway (not constant four wheel drive, so just driving the rears like a car) is down about 9ltr/100km. People I have spoken to who own one also say it is down there or a little better if you drive economically and smoothly on the highway.

Anything is better now than the way it used to be. "30 miles per gallon" (9.4ltr/100km) used to be the benchmark for car makers to try and achieve or, if possible, beat with a four cylinder car. My 1982 Celica, powered by a 2ltr and five speed manual, honestly uses way more fuel on the highway than our G6E does, even driving economically.

Hell, I've got a motorcycle in the shed (a 1974 Kawasaki H2-750B two-stroke three cylinder Mach IV) which, ridden carefully, can get maybe 25 to 30mpg ridden sedately (11.3 to 9.4ltr/100k), but ridden in a "spirited manner" that will drop to about 18mpg (15.7ltr/100k), or, if you really cane the hell out of it, it's possible to drop it down to 10mpg (28.2lt/100k)...so many years ago "fuel economy" was the last thing on makers minds...

[Olbucko]

I can't work out why people are getting so worked up over the price of petrol.
Petrol at $1.40l is only slightly more expensive than it was 45 years ago. Back then if you bought 60 litres @ 8c per litre it would have cost you aprox $4.84, the basic wage for a working man was aprox $1 per hour, so it took him aprox 4.5 to 5 hours work to fill the tank .

Today at $1.40 a litre the same tank would cost about $84 to fill, the equivilent wage today is about $16 per hour, time needed to earn $84 is still about 5 hours.

Considering that todays large cars are more economical, more powerfull and better in just about every other way than the cars of 45 years ago why are we trying to cram ourselves into little buzz boxes.

People are squashing themselves into small high tech cars that might save them 3 or 4 litres of petrol a week without realising how much more they are going to cost to service and insure.

It was demonstrated by Top Gear a few years ago that a large powerfull car was more economical driven gently than the small car driven flat out trying to keep up.

[Franco Cozzo]

Old mans 1.8L 2003 323 averages around 7L/100km all highway work regardless of 91/95/98.

My 2010 TDCI Focus, around 5.5L/100km 90% highway with an average speed of 54km/h over the tank.

My 97 EL Fairmont Ghia, well it was showing 25L/100km when I bought it off the previous owner, it was showing 8L/100km when I drove it home, since then I've used about 80L of fuel idling it in the driveway over the last year LOL.

When you think about it, fuel doesn't really cost that much, bottled water costs like $5/L and it tastes like crap, I don't get as much enjoyment out of water and I do petrol or diesel .

[Mr Brooksy]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

The F6 hits the highway almost everyday, albiet for a short period of time but combined figures are 14.3L/100km via the trip meter.

58L gets me about 420km so if my maths is correct that's ~14.5L per 100km.
That's with the Mrs driving 70%, me driving 30%. When she's driving 100% of the time it's around 450km per tank, me driving 100% is about 370-380km.

It's about $15-$20 more per week than an econobox but considering it's putting out about 200rwhp more it's kind of expected. You play you pay.

Wow, your F6 uses allot more than mine around town (albeit more powerful and a younger model, not accounting for mods).

The BFII F6, around town will easily do sub 12L/100kms according to the computer which is always a little high, I would need to get up it very regularly to hit 14s.... Which was the case this past week hehehe. On the freeway it uses 7.8L/100 kms.

But back to the question... Isn't that what car companies are telling us anyway. Bigger is bad, smaller is cool, young and fresh (kinda like botox injections). Just compare each manufacturers ads for their cars.

[irish2]

G6ET 11.8l/100k's average speed 41km/h. Did a run down to Yamba which showed 7.4l/100k's.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

I always go my the "Mrs" test...

If I point to a car and if she says "It's so cute" it's all over red rover.

If I point to a car and she says "I like that" it's a keeper.

If I point to a car and she says "It's ugly"... she's can shut up because I like my car and it's beautiful on the INSIDE

[My poor XF]

My BA is averaging 10L per hundred km's. but my average speed is 61kmh. 95% highway

Downside is i do 200km a day and fill up twice a week.

[2011G6E]

All hail those who don't have a missus who ever says "How about we get a nice little hatchback, there's just the two of us after all".

Mine said, getting the Commodore, "the boys (our daughter had moved out) aren't getting any smaller". When we bought the Landcruiser (even though there were, by that time, just the two of us) she said "I'd love to own a four wheel drive, and what about when the kids come to visit? We'll need the room". When we bought the G6E, she was the one who spotted it in the lot and asked the guy about it. Now she's perusing brochures and asking me to look up info on things like the FJ Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol for next year...she wants to go back to a four wheel drive.
When I suggested maybe something smaller like a Suzuki Grand Vitara, she just laughed...

We're going down to Bundy for the weekend, and we're going to take the Celica just to give it a good long run. I know for a fact it will use more fuel than the G6E, even on a highway trip, but not dramatically more fuel, and it's a bit of fun.
We knew our 253 V8 WB ute will burn more fuel than, say, a nice old Hilux or Rodeo, but the missus is the one who seems really excited about getting it on the road. I would even hazard a guess that when fully loaded, the lazy little V8 will use about the same fuel...possibly a little less...than a fully loaded four cylinder ute with the same amount of gear on it...

[Phil B]

I'd much rather feed the Clevo in my Coupe than buy a $5 decafe-soy-light-skim-half strength trendy coffee in a biodegradeable cup each day

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Next year we are considering getting a Toyota FJ Cruiser. They are all powered by the excellent 4 ltr V6 with a five speed auto. The fuel economy on the highway (not constant four wheel drive, so just driving the rears like a car) is down about 9ltr/100km. People I have spoken to who own one also say it is down there or a little better if you drive economically and smoothly on the highway.

Are you sure?? These things use the same platform and V6 as the Prado and by all accounts the petrol Prado 120 series is a goddamn fuel hog. My boss reckons his is at like 20L/100 all the time.

Originally Posted by Big Damo

When you think about it, fuel doesn't really cost that much, bottled water costs like $5/L

I've never understood how filtered water can cost 10 times the price as a product that has to go through so many processes and scientific analysis just to make it usable (petrol)

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

All hail those who don't have a missus who ever says "How about we get a nice little hatchback, there's just the two of us after all".

My Mrs wants an XR6, tried to con her into the turbo but she gets scared of the boost

When she first said it I nearly got down and proposed right then and there!... except for the fact we're already engaged

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Are you sure?? These things use the same platform and V6 as the Prado and by all accounts the petrol Prado 120 series is a goddamn fuel hog. My boss reckons his is at like 20L/100 all the time.

Yes indeed...the petrol Prado sucks fuel like there's a hole in the tank. The FJ however has selective four wheel drive...when you're just tooling along the highway or smooth dirt, you are only driving the rear wheels, just like a normal sedan. Lots less mechanical losses and energy that way, reducing fuel use markedly.
Our 100 series Landcruiser was a constant all wheel drive model...you couldn't select to drive just the rear wheels or all four as needed. There were kits on the market that allowed you to modify the system so that you could only drive the rear wheels and disengage the front drive system, and it made a massive difference to fuel use.

The Impreza (all Subarus actually that are AWD) use a lot more fuel than a similar sized and engined front or rear wheel drive car because of the extra mechanical stuff having to be driven.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes indeed...the petrol Prado sucks fuel like there's a hole in the tank. The FJ however has selective four wheel drive...when you're just tooling along the highway or smooth dirt, you are only driving the rear wheels, just like a normal sedan. Lots less mechanical losses and energy that way, reducing fuel use markedly.

It also has a 2T kerb weight and the aerodynamics of a housebrick.

Then again my boss's car is probably used 100% for suburban driving so economy was always going to be in the shitter.

[Brazen]

We used to have an old auto GQ petrol Ford Maverick here on the farm, it would use the same amount of petrol whether town or highway- 20l/100km. Aerodynamics and resistance from wide tyres were shocking.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I drove my big V8 300c from Newcastle - Sydney CBD - Newcastle on the weekend and average just over 9L/100
I also recently drove it from the Mid North Coast - Newcastle and averaged 9l/100km
I also have previously done calculations while filling up and my trip computer shows a worse consumption then I actually get. So if it was showing low 9s I was probably getting high 8s
So I am getting similar consumption to a 4 pot Subaru? I know which I would prefer to drive.

People buy small fuel efficient cars which are too small for their needs so they can save $10 a week on fuel. They then use that $10 to buy two $5 cups of coffee from a coffee shop, while they could make a coffee themselves for probably 20 cents.

Mate I love a big V8 sedan as much as the next guy, but the whole "I'm a sick c*** cos I drive a big car, and people who drive small cars are losers" bit I keep reading on these forums (from multiple members) is getting old.

Assuming your 300C could run at 9L/100km on the same route I take to work every day, my Fiesta would still be ahead by 3L/100km, in a week (600kms of travel) thats 18L of juice. At $1.55 (for premium) that's $27.90 a week, $111.60 a month, $1339.20 a year. I highly doubt you could manage 9L on the route I take however.

I bought a small fuel efficient car which is the perfect size for my needs (inside and out) and I'm saving a lot more than $10 on fuel per week. I also pay less for insurance. It does everything I need it to do AND I love driving it.

With more congestion on the roads, smaller parking spots, expensive petrol and insurance (and general cost of living) who wouldn't buy a well priced, well equipped, well designed small car that isn't that big on the outside but fairly spacious on the inside and is inexpensive to own?

I'm sure there are many who make the mistake of downgrading to the wrong car for their needs just to save money on fuel, but the vast majority of small car owners are buying cars that are more than up to the task at hand: getting one person to work and back safely, comfortably, and cheaply. If they have a well sorted chassis and are fun to drive, that's just a bonus.

And what they do with the money they save is up to them.

[buickman]

[QUOTE=
I bought a small fuel efficient car which is the perfect size for my needs (inside and out) and I'm saving a lot more than $10 on fuel per week. I also pay less for insurance. It does everything I need it to do AND I love driving it.[/QUOTE]

The saving on insurance costs bit has me beat as the 2011 Mazda3 Neo costs nearly $200 extra to insure than the 2010 FG 50th XR6 connected to the same policy with the same nominated drivers on rating 1. I somtimes wonder why a car that is smaller and more basic can cost extra to insure.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Safety rating, repairs, manbag tax?

In all honesty I'd take a Mazda 3, they're not a bad car (sedan) and if my needs didn't include seating a family comfortably + baby seat in the future + pram etc I'd get one... as a second car.

[RG]

Originally Posted by buickman

The saving on insurance costs bit has me beat as the 2011 Mazda3 Neo costs nearly $200 extra to insure than the 2010 FG 50th XR6 connected to the same policy with the same nominated drivers on rating 1. I somtimes wonder why a car that is smaller and more basic can cost extra to insure.

This is an easy one.

There are many 3's that have been pranged and had insurance claims due to the average driver (lowest common denominator, the car is from a-b so I don't care) therefore insurance premiums are high.

[2011G6E]

I think...in Queensland at least...the decision to own a V8 is not really a fuel economy thing for many people. I mean, a friend of mine owns a 2005 Monaro with the older 5.7 V8 and six speed manual. On the highway at 100kph the engine is dribbling along at something like 1400 rpm. When he bought it, we owned a 2001 VX Lumina, and he was equalling the fuel economy we were getting on the highway, and not that much more around town unless his right foot got a bit heavy. A workmate out here last year bought a new SS with the six liter and six speed manual, and it too does some ludicrously small amount of revs on the highway, and gets the same fuel economy as our G6E with the four liter six.

The choice in Queensland is the difference in rego...it costs us about $802 a year for our G6E, $647 for our four cylinder (and $416 for my motorbike, for farks sake!!! ), but a V8 costs well over a grand a year to register, and insurance costs are more as well as you move up the cylinder count. That's what people do their sums over, and I don't know about other states, but here in Queensland, it's usually the first thing on a buyers mind..."A V8 huh...that will hammer you with the rego..."

[strobe]

There's nothing cool about efficiency. 19.9l/100km. Avg Speed 25kmh. Wish I spent more on fuel.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

Mate I love a big V8 sedan as much as the next guy, but the whole "I'm a sick c*** cos I drive a big car, and people who drive small cars are losers" bit I keep reading on these forums (from multiple members) is getting old.

Assuming your 300C could run at 9L/100km on the same route I take to work every day, my Fiesta would still be ahead by 3L/100km, in a week (600kms of travel) thats 18L of juice. At $1.55 (for premium) that's $27.90 a week, $111.60 a month, $1339.20 a year. I highly doubt you could manage 9L on the route I take however.

I bought a small fuel efficient car which is the perfect size for my needs (inside and out) and I'm saving a lot more than $10 on fuel per week. I also pay less for insurance. It does everything I need it to do AND I love driving it.

With more congestion on the roads, smaller parking spots, expensive petrol and insurance (and general cost of living) who wouldn't buy a well priced, well equipped, well designed small car that isn't that big on the outside but fairly spacious on the inside and is inexpensive to own?

I'm sure there are many who make the mistake of downgrading to the wrong car for their needs just to save money on fuel, but the vast majority of small car owners are buying cars that are more than up to the task at hand: getting one person to work and back safely, comfortably, and cheaply. If they have a well sorted chassis and are fun to drive, that's just a bonus.

And what they do with the money they save is up to them.

Sorry but I missed the part where I said "Im a sick **** for owning a large car, small car owners are losers"
I do prefer a bigger car, that is just my preference, I never hate on people who own small cars. Many people in my family own small cars including the missus. I drive her car occasionally and I do not enjoy it at all.
If you own a small car and it's right for you, then I'm happy for you.
The reason for my previous post was because I found it interesting that my large sedan with a V8 had similar consumption to a smaller car with an engine less then half it's size. I don't know if that is a common problem for said model or if that particular one was having problems.
A mate at work has a 3 year old 4 cylinder Forester and he is definitely not impressed with his consumption. He said he drove from Newcastle to Melbourne and averaged about 10L/100km while his mate who drove with him in his diesel BMW X3 and averaged about 5L/100km. He knows diesels are more efficient, but he still wasn't impressed he couldn't get under 10L doing mostly highway driving.

I didn't buy my car to be fuel efficient, although I am happy when I get good consumption.
The 4 cylinder I had previously was cheaper to run, except that insurance was much more.

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The Impreza (all Subarus actually that are AWD) use a lot more fuel than a similar sized and engined front or rear wheel drive car because of the extra mechanical stuff having to be driven.

Quite right, and not just the extra drivetrain losses, but also the extra weight of the added drivetrain components.

[EATHSV]

Mostly it comes down to HOW you drive. Go easy in a big car and she'll be apples. Rev the nuts off a 4cyl and you suck up the tiny tank in no time.

I never think about fuel economy when choosing a car (having always owned older falcons it can only get better from here)

[grandpa_spec_F6]

The lazy V8's are great on the highway. My old VY SV8 (LS1 with M6 gearbox) would do around 1200rpm on the highway and after a quick airbox mod I was returning 8.4L per 100km on the open road.

Around town that shot up to 16L+ on average though... but that being said I wasn't gentle with it.

All in all, there are three sorts of people when it comes to choosing a car.

1. Those who think with their heart (me)
2. Those who think with the mind
3. Those who think with their wallet

I stress the difference here between mind and wallet, it's fine to skimp out on a large car due to fuel costs, but you DO lose functionality, comfort (for me at least as I'm tall) etc.

At the end of the day those who buy large cars because they love them aren't looking at the bowser price and going "I really wish I'd bought a 4 cylinder", they just write it off as the price you pay for enjoyment... and I get that every, single, day... not a lot of hobbys you can say that about.

[flooded one]

the arguement on big versus small could also be put as do you think your any safer after buy a smaller car?? yesterday that was a good point. seen a crash yesterday where the front end of a current model mazda 2 was just completly leveled after an collision with an FG Falcon. both modern cars. after what i seen yesterday. i'd would rather of been in the FG!! the FG had damage at the front as well but no where near the amount of damage the mazda 2 had. cheaper "fuel effecent" cars dont always mean the better like some people think. the bigger cars seem too last longer with the bigger engines then the little ones

[Franco Cozzo]

I find that Falcon/Commodore ride much smoother and their AC is actually cold compared to the small hatches on the market.

My EL Fairmont Ghia is a much nicer cruiser compared to my 2009 WS Fiesta and 2010 TDCI Focus.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Sorry but I missed the part where I said "Im a sick **** for owning a large car, small car owners are losers"
I do prefer a bigger car, that is just my preference, I never hate on people who own small cars. Many people in my family own small cars including the missus. I drive her car occasionally and I do not enjoy it at all.
If you own a small car and it's right for you, then I'm happy for you.

This sounds like hating on people who own small cars:

Originally Posted by Ben73

People buy small fuel efficient cars which are too small for their needs so they can save $10 a week on fuel. They then use that $10 to buy two $5 cups of coffee from a coffee shop, while they could make a coffee themselves for probably 20 cents.

Talk about tarring a large group of people with the same brush.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

All in all, there are three sorts of people when it comes to choosing a car.

1. Those who think with their heart (me)
2. Those who think with the mind
3. Those who think with their wallet

I stress the difference here between mind and wallet, it's fine to skimp out on a large car due to fuel costs, but you DO lose functionality, comfort (for me at least as I'm tall) etc.

Out of interest, do you think it's not possible for one person to consider all those things when they make a purchase? I cross referenced those exact 3 outcomes when i bought my car:

1. Those who think with their heart (me)
It has to be fun to drive and a good looker (inside and out)
2. Those who think with the mind
It has to suit my lifestyle
3. Those who think with their wallet
It has to be inexpensive to purchase and own

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

At the end of the day those who buy large cars because they love them aren't looking at the bowser price and going "I really wish I'd bought a 4 cylinder", they just write it off as the price you pay for enjoyment... and I get that every, single, day... not a lot of hobbys you can say that about.

The other side of the coin is that there are also those who buy small cars because they love them, and those people aren't looking at the bowser and going "I'm really glad I didn't buy 6/8 cylinder", they're indifferent to the price they pay for enjoyment... and they get that every, single, day...

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes indeed...the petrol Prado sucks fuel like there's a hole in the tank. The FJ however has selective four wheel drive...when you're just tooling along the highway or smooth dirt, you are only driving the rear wheels, just like a normal sedan. Lots less mechanical losses and energy that way, reducing fuel use markedly.
Our 100 series Landcruiser was a constant all wheel drive model...you couldn't select to drive just the rear wheels or all four as needed. There were kits on the market that allowed you to modify the system so that you could only drive the rear wheels and disengage the front drive system, and it made a massive difference to fuel use.

The Impreza (all Subarus actually that are AWD) use a lot more fuel than a similar sized and engined front or rear wheel drive car because of the extra mechanical stuff having to be driven.

I know someone who owns an FJ and economy is in 14s - being select RWD helps economy but not as much as halves it. It is probably 10% to15 % better than Prado.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

This sounds like hating on people who own small cars:

Talk about tarring a large group of people with the same brush.

More like tonge in cheek comment about some people who go to stupid levels to save fuel, but waste money on other things.