Diesel territory review(s)

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by stevz

This is rather disappointing after all the hype. I was going to recommend one to a relative but now I am having second thoughts. Spending $3k+ to save $540 a year hardly seems viable to me. The turbo lag also sounds like a bit of a drawback. I cannot help but think an LiLPG version would have made better sense.

You can also tell your relative about the new EcoLPI Falcon

[NudgE^SIKBRO]

Melbourne to Sydney on a single tank, my 4.0L BA did FRANKSTON to Sydney on a single tank 66L it used...

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

Good point, we havn't heard the aftermarket potential of the Diesel as yet, a new tune etc could see more power and better economy to boot.

I've posted some information on tuned TDV6 2.7L in previous threads.

http://www.kraftwerk.com.au/car_selector_2.php?id=624
140kW/440Nm > 169kW/510Nm

http://www.chipexpress.com/products/1072/
140kW/440Nm > 170kW/520Nm

http://www.diesel-performance.co.uk/....7-tdv6-190-ps
140kW/440Nm > 171kW/530Nm

[stevz]

Originally Posted by Brazen

You can also tell your relative about the new EcoLPI Falcon

If there was a wagon available, yes. Unfortunately a sedan simply doesn't suit their needs.

[deesun]

The problem with the carsguide article is that a squillion more people will read it vs the go auto article.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

I'm always amazed after passing a car in our 2.0L Diesel Peugeot how fast I'm going when I pull back in the correct lane, in 6th gear too. No down shifts required.

Is it because you have fallen asleep waiting for the overtake to be completed before you wake up and realise you have actually made it past :-)

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by NudgE^SIKBRO

Melbourne to Sydney on a single tank, my 4.0L BA did FRANKSTON to Sydney on a single tank 66L it used...

Done it a few times in the F6 ute.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Is it because you have fallen asleep waiting for the overtake to be completed before you wake up and realise you have actually made it past :-)

Nope, once the turbo spools up then you're off and flying, although it doesn't feel like it. One of the characteristics of driving a modern turbo diesel.

[GK]

Typical Car's Guide Ford bashing.

It will sell very well, as will the new LPG Falcon.

GK

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Done it a few times in the F6 ute.

Doesn't the ute have the largest fuel tank.

Edit: Ute 81L, Sedan 68L and Terry 75L

[mcnews]

Good review of the Territory in this morning's Drive.

[stang65]

Link?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by stang65

Link?

Territory Vs Territory


RWD TDCI Titanium Territory

Log book

Total distance: 7666km

Time taken: 6.5 days

Total driving time: 79 hours, 39 minutes

Fuel use: 694 litres

Average fuel use: 9.1L/100km

Best fuel use: 7.0L/100km (Ararat to Melbourne)

Worst fuel use: 10.4 L/100km (Darwin to Daly Waters)

Most expensive fuel: $1.94 (Daly Waters)

[Flat Top]

i think theres a good aftermarket opening here?? chips chips chips

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Flat Top

i think theres a good aftermarket opening here?? chips chips chips

More like intercooler intercooler intercooler...you should see the size of it, it looks like a postage stamp

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by deesun

The problem with the carsguide article is that a squillion more people will read it vs the go auto article.

Yes. The whole liftout was bereft of any advertising for Ford cars (and Holden for that matter). And the main thing that stuck out about the Territory write up was the "under performance of the engine" and the fuel economy. But just to rub it in a bit more, the author went onto to say, it would take 6 years to get back the extra money one would pay for the Diesel engine.

It takes alot of good publicity in a 50,000 readership magazine (or expensive television ads) , to counteract bad publicity in a 2 million readership newspaper.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

Yes. The whole liftout was bereft of any advertising for Ford cars (and Holden for that matter). And the main thing that stuck out about the Territory write up was the "under performance of the engine" and the fuel economy. But just to rub it in a bit more, the author went onto to say, it would take 6 years to get back the extra money one would pay for the Diesel engine.

The Drive article came to the same conclusion, so it's not 'carsguide ford bashing' as you are implying.

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by stevz

The Drive article came to the same conclusion, so it's not 'carsguide ford bashing' as you are implying.

I wasnt implying anything. It was just how I read the article. As I dont buy car magazines, and I probably wont see any Ford advertising contradicting the article, then its the only impression of the new territory that is going to stick in my (and I assume quite alot of others) heads.

The author has driven the car, I havent. When I mentioned the line "But just to rub it in a bit more, the author went onto to say, it would take 6 years to get back the extra money one would pay for the Diesel engine", I was commenting not on the authors view, but the way in which any potential buyer is going to view the benefit of buying a diesel. ie Its hardly a money saver fuel wise (which was going to be one of its main selling points), if it takes 6 years to get the fuel savings back..

And in all reality, if you have to pay an extra $3000 upfront for a diesel, then you are losing an extra $360 a year in extra interest payments (or opportunity lost), so the costs are actually greater than $3000, so their will probably never be a payback period.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

I wasnt implying anything. It was just how I read the article. As I dont buy car magazines, and I probably wont see any Ford advertising contradicting the article, then its the only impression of the new territory that is going to stick in my (and I assume quite alot of others) heads.

The author has driven the car, I havent. When I mentioned the line "But just to rub it in a bit more, the author went onto to say, it would take 6 years to get back the extra money one would pay for the Diesel engine", I was commenting not on the authors view, but the way in which any potential buyer is going to view the benefit of buying a diesel. ie Its hardly a money saver fuel wise (which was going to be one of its main selling points), if it takes 6 years to get the fuel savings back..

And in all reality, if you have to pay an extra $3000 upfront for a diesel, then you are losing an extra $360 a year in extra interest payments (or opportunity lost), so the costs are actually greater than $3000, so their will probably never be a payback period.

If what the journos are saying is true then I have no problem with it. Maybe Ford shouldn't be making unrealistic claims in their advertising.

[1TUFFUTE]

i dont hear them mentioning that ALL diesels have a premium. Its them jumping on some stupid notion that its an extra so you have to make the money back.Never mind the driving experience of diesle tourque the whole time. Idiots. Ive read numerous comparoes where the captiva was clearly the bottom feeder and not once do they bag it out. there a pack of biased whingers. ITs Australian..Its Diesel...Its an amazing car...Great value..looks great. Toools

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

I wasnt implying anything. It was just how I read the article. As I dont buy car magazines, and I probably wont see any Ford advertising contradicting the article, then its the only impression of the new territory that is going to stick in my (and I assume quite alot of others) heads.

The author has driven the car, I havent. When I mentioned the line "But just to rub it in a bit more, the author went onto to say, it would take 6 years to get back the extra money one would pay for the Diesel engine", I was commenting not on the authors view, but the way in which any potential buyer is going to view the benefit of buying a diesel. ie Its hardly a money saver fuel wise (which was going to be one of its main selling points), if it takes 6 years to get the fuel savings back..

And in all reality, if you have to pay an extra $3000 upfront for a diesel, then you are losing an extra $360 a year in extra interest payments (or opportunity lost), so the costs are actually greater than $3000, so their will probably never be a payback period.

You really are a Troll !!

No post you make is in any way positive towards the Ford Brand

Why are you here, what is your agenda ?

[Chilliman]

The payback period for a diesel's premium price rarely makes sense for any make or model where equivalent petrol and diesel models are compared purely on savings at the bowser. What tips the equation in favour of diesel in so many instances is the superior resale value.

[vztrt]

If you read the drive article the 6 year payback was worked out in doing 15,000k's a year. Thought the average k's is higher then that.

It also states that if Fuel prices go higher then Diesel will be even more attractive.

The only thing it doesn't talk about is that the car would have a better resale when it comes time to trade up.

[stang65]

Originally Posted by stang65

Link?

Thanks for the link awesome reading.
I tried a search earlier with google and couldn't find it.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by vztrt

If you read the drive article the 6 year payback was worked out in doing 15,000k's a year. Thought the average k's is higher then that.

It also states that if Fuel prices go higher then Diesel will be even more attractive.

The only thing it doesn't talk about is that the car would have a better resale when it comes time to trade up.

i think what should be happening if they want to whinge about diesel costing...is add the option and then start comparing costs to its competitor diesel suvs. Option smotion..ha

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

i think what should be happening if they want to whinge about diesel costing...is add the option and then start comparing costs to its competitor diesel suvs. Option smotion..ha

I personaly would like to see one test with a RWD petrol and a RWD diesel.
All these articles don't actually compare the two models and see how much less fuel you use.

Using real world figures and comparing with ADR derived figures seems really pointless and makes the article complete rubbish. But why should things be done properly its easier to do a ACA/TT style of report get to drive a new model and go home.

[mcnews]

The new Territory also has the updated petrol too? So yes would be interesting to put the two head to head, overtaking time splits, 0-60, 0-100, 80-120, 60-100 etc. etc. And also compare fuel economy, highway and city.

[bmorris]

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/516...-diesel-review

A good review for the new Territory

[Buntz]

By the way. New Territory officially on sale today.

[SM1DY]

Biggest disappointment of 2011 - Diesel Territory

Originally Posted by Some Hack

And the Ford Territory diesel: sorry, it’s not as good as the Koreans.

Last year it was the new GT, this year it's the Territory

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2011...ear-2011-28131