Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2009, 11:44 AM   #1
dogwatch2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 139
Default Ford 6 uses less fuel around Bathurst

Extract out of Sydney Morning Herald article today comparing fuel economy of 3 litre Berlina and G6 six speed autos, doing 161 Bathurst laps at 60kmh/hr or less. The FORD WINS!!

"And the winner is . . .

Now for the really interesting bit— crunching the numbers. On paper, the Commodore has a significant economy advantage, smacking the Falcon to the tune of more than 8 per cent.

According to the trip computers, the Falcon has delivered a surprise result. The Falcon’s trip computer is claiming it has used just 9.9L/100km, which is less than the official government claim of 10.1L/100km. It’s an impressive result for a car with a big, less advanced engine.

The petrol pump backs up the claim, with our calculators suggesting the Ford used 10.02L/100km.

There’s no way to sugar-coat it. The Commodore was thirstier. Despite the new direct injection technology, the Holden’s new 3.0-litre engine used 11.09L/100km of fuel (almost identical to the trip computer’s claim of 11.0L/100km). That’s not only 19 per cent more fuel than its official claim but 10 per cent more than the Falcon".

dogwatch2 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-10-2009, 11:51 AM   #2
dogwatch2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 139
Default

Oops!!, already posted yesterday, sorry.
dogwatch2 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 08:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL