VF's fuel savings an illusion ? - Page 3

MAD · 19-06-2013, 03:46 PM

Maybe they should have taken an FG with them on the 16,000km trip around Australia.

...or maybe not, depends what result they want to publish.

Rodge · 19-06-2013, 03:48 PM

What am I hearing that VF Holden's come with a can of goo instead of a spare tyre, surely not ??? Can anyone confirm ?

If so that makes a mockery of the 20 odd Kg's difference between the two cars on this test, (pretty much the weight of a spare tyre and rim).

News Flash !!! Ford release new FG3 updated models with 20 kg's weight reduction promising increased performance and decreased fuel consumption

MAD · 19-06-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodge

What am I hearing that VF Holden's come with a can of goo instead of a spare tyre, surely not ??? Can anyone confirm ?

If so that makes a mockery of the 20 odd Kg's difference between the two cars on this test, (pretty much the weight of a spare tyre and rim).

News Flash !!! Ford release new FG3 updated models with 20 kg's weight reduction promising increased performance and decreased fuel consumption

And jack

XR Martin · 19-06-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

your falcon is 300kg lighter.

Err no it aint.
AU VCT which had IRS as standard was around 1700kg

xtremerus · 19-06-2013, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

Geez, it annoys me when someone dosn't quite grasp a concept, and yet they still try to explain it, and it's totally wrong.

These two points are exactly the same.
If the speed is overstated, the distance must also be overstated, therefore the fuel used will be understated because the car thinks it's gone further than it actually has.

Wrong.
They are not 'out' by exactly the same %. Its a common mistake.
My FG odometer reads about 2% less than the actual Km travelled.
Speedo reads just a touch fast.

burnz · 19-06-2013, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Err no it aint.
AU VCT which had IRS as standard was around 1700kg

irs is lighter, 1568kg isn't it.

jpd80 · 19-06-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

irs is lighter, 1568kg isn't it.

AU with watts link, the multi-link IRS in AU was heavier.

BA was the start of light weight CB IRS.

XR Martin · 19-06-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

irs is lighter, 1568kg isn't it.

AU IRS was 75kg heavier than the pogo stick.

joolz · 19-06-2013, 08:38 PM

All i know is my FG is 1700 kg and over 300k's hwy it averaged 7.9l/100k's on 91 fuel with a full boot and back seat of speakers and lighting. Basically a disco in the car and if you dont believe me look up dj j's disco on facebook for the setup..

Rodge · 20-06-2013, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joolz

All i know is my FG is 1700 kg and over 300k's hwy it averaged 7.9l/100k's on 91 fuel with a full boot and back seat of speakers and lighting. Basically a disco in the car and if you dont believe me look up dj j's disco on facebook for the setup..

Yeap in my experience if you're just crusing along and driving at 100 k.p.h. or thereabouts its not that hard to get a Falcon into the low / mid 7's on the open road with a normal load on board.

**Dave R** · 20-06-2013, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

A 1000 km run is not a daily commute, it's an interesting thought though up and down hills, nowhere to hide with economy....
Maybe that's why Holden would never entertain comparisons of its VF against the I-6 and Ecoboost...

I just can't take an economy test that can't be applied to everyday conditions seriously. I bet if they added an XR6T to the test, it would drink less than the two standard sixes around Bathurst because it requires zero effort to climb mountains and the rest of the time it's off boost. When in reality it wouldn't drink less for most people at all. That's why I don't see the merit of the Bathurst economy test, the comparative results are unrealistic for most people in most situations, it just rewards the motor with the best torque delivery.

XR Martin · 20-06-2013, 01:01 PM

Latest Wheels had a comparison of the Calais V V8, G6ET, Audi A6 3L V6 TTD, and the SRT8.

G6ET was only 2L thirstier than the 8speed Audi diesel... (11.7 vs 9.7)
Holden was 14.7 and the SRT8 was 16.6

Rodge · 20-06-2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Latest Wheels had a comparison of the Calais V V8, G6ET, Audi A6 3L V6 TTD, and the SRT8.

G6ET was only 2L thirstier than the 8speed Audi diesel... (11.7 vs 9.7)
Holden was 14.7 and the SRT8 was 16.6

Sounds interesting and quite a big difference in fuel consumption between the G6ET and SRT8

, despite their similar performance ?.

Care to share some of the results other than fuel ? A digression from the thread topic is all good with me.
I'm especially interested in how the G6ET Calais V V8 and SRT8 compared to each other.

Bossxr8 · 20-06-2013, 05:45 PM

They didn't rate the SRT8 at all. 6.5 out of 10.

The G6ET did very well, only half a star behind the VF Calais V V8, and killed it on the drag strip.

nstg8a · 20-06-2013, 06:03 PM

G6et still runs a single pegger too doesn't it?

Bossxr8 · 20-06-2013, 07:15 PM

Sure does.

deadfish2 · 20-06-2013, 07:29 PM

personally and I think most people on here are the same....... I buy a car cause I like how it looks, its features etc etc etc, fuel economy isn't the first thing on my checklist to knock things down

1TUFFUTE · 20-06-2013, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmacc

Ive been sitting around 13.9-15.7 on my G6E for the last 5 months around town and i think its fine when you consider the weight of the FG.

Wow. My g6et gets almost always between 13. And 13.3. And I live in a very hilly area....have a (wife monitered) heavy foot. And don't hit the highway much either. Compared to some random tests I've done with mates.....it makes a near mockery of a jeep 3.8ltr and a Hyundai i30. Both driven with enthusiasm in the same area of course.
Couldn't be more proud of my FORD.

b0son · 20-06-2013, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Wow. My g6et gets almost always between 13. And 13.3.

Its the stop/start that hammers cars of the VF/FG's size. My BA got a lousy 14 driving around the local burbs thanks to the amount of intersections and lights. When I got a VW GTI, consumption immediately fell to under 10.

Bossxr8 · 21-06-2013, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

Its the stop/start that hammers cars of the VF/FG's size. My BA got a lousy 14 driving around the local burbs thanks to the amount of intersections and lights. When I got a VW GTI, consumption immediately fell to under 10.

I'd imagine the engine cutting out randomly on your VW would save a bit of fuel.

stevz · 21-06-2013, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd imagine the engine cutting out randomly on your VW would save a bit of fuel.

Gold.

burnz · 21-06-2013, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd imagine the engine cutting out randomly on your VW would save a bit of fuel.

oh that's cruel

Rodge · 22-06-2013, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd imagine the engine cutting out randomly on your VW would save a bit of fuel.

csv8 · 22-06-2013, 01:26 PM

This is what DRIVE got in driving a VF around Australia in 23 days
Trip computer

Distance travelled to date: 17,515km

Litres used: 1715.53 or $2788.40 worth

Average fuel consumption: 9.8L/100km

Rodge · 22-06-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

This is what DRIVE got in driving a VF around Australia in 23 days
Trip computer

Distance travelled to date: 17,515km

Litres used: 1715.53 or $2788.40 worth

Average fuel consumption: 9.8L/100km

I'd say that pretty much answers the thread topic as the vast majority of this trip is open road running and according to the lab test their VF Claias is supposed to do 7.0 L/100 km's on the extra urban cycle but tested at 40% more in Drive's test. hmmm, not sure about you guys but I'm pretty sure a G6E would have bettered this, let alone a G6E Ecoboost.

csv8 · 22-06-2013, 01:42 PM

Rodge..whats a G6E Ecoboost ?

Rodge · 22-06-2013, 01:46 PM

Whatever you call those 2.0 turbo Falcon cars with the best level of kit, maybe my brain isn't working properly today

Peter B - CV8 · 22-06-2013, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

This is what DRIVE got in driving a VF around Australia in 23 days
Trip computer

Distance travelled to date: 17,515km

Litres used: 1715.53 or $2788.40 worth

Average fuel consumption: 9.8L/100km

Pretty useless without an average speed figure as well. It's not a bad figure for say an av speed of 120kph - but if av speed is say 80kph , then I would have expected something better.

XtRmn8 · 22-06-2013, 05:58 PM

More real world figured in the following review:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/237178/h...zda-6-touring/

Bossxr8 · 22-06-2013, 09:00 PM

Its been the case for quite a while now that the Commodores figures are manipulated solely for good results in the lab for the economy figures, but they blow out in the real world.

Ford are the exact opposite, they tune them for real world fuel economy and don't blow out in the real world like the Commodes do.