Fuel Consumption XB v BA

[DaFax]

Dissappointed.

Had an 1974 XB 2-door for the last 5-years, it was a 260 6-cyclinder, original motor (changed the oil every 6-months & changed all the filters every 12-months) it just kept going with not much maintenance.

Just purchased a 2003 BA 6-cyclinder, good car goes well, etc but dissappointed with the amount of fuel it uses. I do not use air-con very often and do not drive hard. (I got use to driving slow from the XB with a 30-year old motor in it) so very rarely put my foot down.

The XB uses slightly less petrol then the BA. Go figure!

You would think that after 30-years they would be able to make a ford use less petrol! But not the case. Very dissappointing (but not if you are an oil company or the goverment raking in the tax).

DaFax

[Unco]

the BA is a lot heavier. remember that. i think the main difference in fuel consumption will be noticed on the highway, the BA should use a lot less.

[jaydee]

Yep the 250 ( I presume you meant 250) was a pretty efficient motor, the 250 2v was a rocket,( faster than some small V8's) is it standard carby or Holley?
The BA will be running power steering, air con etc, but with fuel injection and the advancement in mechainics in 30 years you would think it would be more efficient.

Welcome by the way.

[Polyal]

Yeah it doesnt matter, what does are some pics of that XB

[prydey]

give us some figures to work with. the ba may have an issue. how many km's on the ba. what sort of driving do you do - stop/start etc?

my ba sits on about 12.5L/100km which seems a bit thirsty compared to some but it only does short trips to school and back twice a day which doesn't help.
if i drive it to work and back for a week or so (much longer trips - 20km each way) the fuel consumption will drop into the low 10L/100km.

the old xb's look big but they are actually very light. prolly a good 3-500kg lighter than a ba. 30years technology will be seen more in the safety side of things in comparison.

[sleekism]

For every increment made in fuel efficiency gains is more than often taken up by new emissions and safety legislation and the constant march of adding more features to cars.

The biggest disappointment with the coming of the BA was the loss of the live axle base model sedan.

You don't really need bloody IRS.

Shed that 200 kilo lump of weight for non-luxury and sport models and you have a fuel saver right there!

[GT0132]

I imagine that BA would be better on fuel than the XB but not a huge difference. The BA 1 was reknown for poor fuel consumption and in part this was remedied by the BA Mk 2. My BA 1 is noticebaly worse than my old E series

The difference would be in the kw at the fly which i suspect the BA would be twice that of the XB.

So in terms of fuel consumption per kw the BA would be a clear winner

[Thornie]

Originally Posted by ozmale42

I imagine that BA would be better on fuel than the XB but not a huge difference. The BA 1 was reknown for poor fuel consumption and in part this was remedied by the BA Mk 2. My BA 1 is noticebaly worse than my old E series

The difference would be in the kw at the fly which i suspect the BA would be twice that of the XB.

So in terms of fuel consumption per kw the BA would be a clear winner

totally agree there, when my ba xr6's fuel consumption was almost the same as my parents VY SS when we drove from the goldcoast to gladstone a couple of months back.

[MarkAW]

You really needed to go to the BF to get any significant fuel savings. BF was the introduction for variable cam timing and the 6 speed german auto.

My BF gets around 11L/100km but I mainly use the M4 for to and from work but then again this can be a parking lot during the afternoon peak. I can get it down to almost 10.0L/100km on a good flat open road if you click in cruise.

This car certainly made my old EF look like a fuel guzzler.

Sleekism
You might not like the independant rear suspension but I do. The improvements made to the handling of the XR6 between the live rear and the IRS are enormous. Mine has the IRS, my manager's is an early BA with solid r/axles - his is a HOS.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

You really needed to go to the BF to get any significant fuel savings. BF was the introduction for variable cam timing and the 6 speed german auto.

You mean together as the higher spec Au's had VCT. BA got DVCT, but the BF had a better controlled DVCT.

[XR6_190]

No I agree with the BF argument. My BF is almost as good for economy as my AUII was (I think the AU were the most efficient Falcons ever) I used to get about 680 Km out of a tank in the AU and in my BF I get about 640Km. One thing you really have to remember about comparing a XB and a BA is weight. Every new model comes with both added weight and better technology fuel economy wise.

[MarkAW]

In the end you can only get so much economy out of an engine for the size that engine is. The stoichiometric (sp) ratio for fuel to air is 14:1 and that can't change. Run lean and you get damage.

Carburettor engines were inefficient due to the pump valve and the way that loss of vacuum effects the venturi. Fuel injection fixed that but you still need to add extra fuel when you need to increase speed or overcome increased loads (uphill).

Smart technology like cutting out cylinders when idling changes the overall profile of an engine effectively making it half the size while idling. But in the end HP out is a factor of fuel in and overcoming frictional forces. To make the next quantum leap in improving economy may be to use different fuels or get rid of piston combustion completely.

[tolzero]

640 Km's on a tank, I fill my BA xr6T ute with 98 ron and the ol trip computer says estimate 398 Km mayb 400Km, and about 19Km per 100km average, 56000 Kays on the clock and the engine idles without a murmur

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

Sleekism
You might not like the independant rear suspension but I do. The improvements made to the handling of the XR6 between the live rear and the IRS are enormous. Mine has the IRS, my manager's is an early BA with solid r/axles - his is a HOS.

I assume you ment you're managers car is an AU. All BA's have IRS, it was the AU where it was only on certain models or an option. The XR8, XR6 VCT and Fairmont Ghia had IRS standard, lower spec models had live axle.

I agree with the weight argument, BA's are heavier than the LTD's of the 70's. I bet the XB was a more interesting drive. The BA is a great car, very comfortable, handles well, nice power, but it's not the most thrilling drive. But that is to be expected with a heavy 4 door family sedan. Next car I buy is gonna be something light and nimble me thinks. I already have what I want in mind :eclipsee_

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

In the end you can only get so much economy out of an engine for the size that engine is. The stoichiometric (sp) ratio for fuel to air is 14:1 and that can't change. Run lean and you get damage.

Carburettor engines were inefficient due to the pump valve and the way that loss of vacuum effects the venturi. Fuel injection fixed that but you still need to add extra fuel when you need to increase speed or overcome increased loads (uphill).

Smart technology like cutting out cylinders when idling changes the overall profile of an engine effectively making it half the size while idling. But in the end HP out is a factor of fuel in and overcoming frictional forces. To make the next quantum leap in improving economy may be to use different fuels or get rid of piston combustion completely.

There is no reason why an engine can't be run lean for fuel economy. Remember the lean burn Chryslers? They were carbed as well.

My HT when it was a 6 cylinder used to get pretty similar fuel economy to the BA 6 that I had, but the BF 6 gets far better fuel economy. Over 15,000km I am averaging 9.8 L/100km.

[sleekism]

Sleekism
You might not like the independant rear suspension but I do. The improvements made to the handling of the XR6 between the live rear and the IRS are enormous. Mine has the IRS, my manager's is an early BA with solid r/axles - his is a HOS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

No believe me I appreciate IRS I have it in my Fairmont and brings a whole new dimension of handling when your pushing the car hard.

But for taxis and base models is IRS really necessary???

IRS is only really needed for pushing it hard on the open road. Even the V8 supercars use Watts-Linkage suspension.

I really don't think the difference between IRS and Watts LInkage is as great as the brochures try and tell you. The difference between IRS abd Leaf Sprung is great but for a solid axle suspension the Watts Linkage was a bloody good piece of work especially next to Holdens supposed IRS in their Commodores.

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

There is no reason why an engine can't be run lean for fuel economy. Remember the lean burn Chryslers? They were carbed as well.

The main reason you wouldn't run lean is the drop in HP. Peak HP occurs at the same point that fuel is being burnt in the correct ratio.

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by sleekism

But for taxis and base models is IRS really necessary???

No its probably not necessary but the ultimate goal of any suspension/steering system is to decrease unsprung weight. This is why you use alloy wheels - not for the good looks - but for the lower weight for everything after the springs and in contact with the ground.

[DaFax]

Thanks for all the suggestions, I guess the BA is a lot heavier. I will do some measurements of both cars to get a accurate idea of actual fuel usage (I was only guessing based on my normal weeks driving, mostly in city traffic)

1974 XB 2-door, standard and orignal 250 cubic inch 6-cylinder, T-Bar Auto

2003 BA 4-door, I don't think the engine has been modified (puchased 2nd hand, looks straight, its only done 60,000 KMs) 6-cylinder T-Bar auto

[poolkeeper]

Edit will be the go,
Ford makes there cars too rich still, to baby the engine..

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by jaydee

Yep the 250 ( I presume you meant 250) was a pretty efficient motor, the 250 2v was a rocket,( faster than some small V8's) is it standard carby or Holley?

Rocket?
The 2v I had was the biggest slug ivbe ever driven,then I might be spoiled.

+1 on highway economy,I used to get almost 800km out of a tank in an AUIII,Ba would have to be better??

[steamin63]

Originally Posted by nugget378

Rocket?
The 2v I had was the biggest slug ivbe ever driven,then I might be spoiled.

+1 on highway economy,I used to get almost 800km out of a tank in an AUIII,Ba would have to be better??

i have to disagree dude. my first car was an xa fairmont, 250 2v,4 speed, holley 350, HM headers and it went like a startled cat. a mate of mine owned a vh commy, 308 auto, stock as a rock and i use to flog him up to 160 k's[the xa ran out of legs]. she was no clevo but as 'sick' cylinders go she was pretty sweet. cheers.

[charles_wif_xf]

Having never owned an XB of any sort, I can't speak for the economy of it. My BA on the other hand I am well qualified to offer some information. On a 60L fill, I get between 450-500km p!ss farting around town in traffic. On the highway, I have hit 750km on the same 60L fill.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by nugget378

Rocket?
The 2v I had was the biggest slug ivbe ever driven,then I might be spoiled.

+1 on highway economy,I used to get almost 800km out of a tank in an AUIII,Ba would have to be better??

You wouldn't believe it but the most economical falcon i have had was a V8!

The old 68 Fairmont 302 Windsor was much more economical than the XE 250 Crossflow and the AU is hardly better than the XE with 450 kays a tank.

Must have something to do with the V8 needing less foot to have fun.

[bingoTE50]

The computters in the BA are week . Get it checked .i have got 9l/100 out of a BA on a trip to Wagga from Gold Coast. I averaged 11 in mixed driving .

[prydey]

falcons have always loved the open road. i bought my ba in qld and drove it back to adelaide. averaged in the high 7's with close to 900km/tank.

my last wagon, ef xr6, on trips to qld could get about 950km to a tank complete with luggage and wife and daughter.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by DaFax

Thanks for all the suggestions, I guess the BA is a lot heavier. I will do some measurements of both cars to get a accurate idea of actual fuel usage (I was only guessing based on my normal weeks driving, mostly in city traffic)

1974 XB 2-door, standard and orignal 250 cubic inch 6-cylinder, T-Bar Auto

2003 BA 4-door, I don't think the engine has been modified (puchased 2nd hand, looks straight, its only done 60,000 KMs) 6-cylinder T-Bar auto

Mate that pic in the country with the sun going down looks awesome, no offence but those white wheels have gotta go.

[DaFax]

The photo was at Silverton Lookout (back of Broken Hill) at sunset, that is where they shot a lot of Mad Max II.

yeah, I am not sure about the colour of the white rims (10' on back 7' on front) but what colour? Not the car colour (Ford burnt orange - with the ford dealers chocalate brown strip) Maybe a metalic colour?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by DaFax

yeah, I am not sure about the colour of the white rims (10' on back 7' on front) but what colour?

go chrome! boyd coddington (sp?) style.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

The main reason you wouldn't run lean is the drop in HP. Peak HP occurs at the same point that fuel is being burnt in the correct ratio.

1. Peak power generally occurs at a point richer than stoich.
2. When tying to make good fuel economy you aren't trying to make peak power. Just a fraction of peak power is required to keep a car running along at legal speed limits.