hrd-hr30

bah, man up. IFS Is For Shopping... Live axles are for getting you places. so you get the ocassional shimmy on bumps mid-corner... and some times get the patrol wobbles at ~90kph. That's no problem, just don't do 90kph!

and the story changes slightly again... I'm only interesting in what it gets for a tank, not the best l/100 you see on the trip computer on the highway.still, its excellent fuel economy - as good as many 4cyl econoboxes manage.

nup. when people say they're supposed to get 16l around town but actually get 11, I don't think its my fault if I didn't believe it. turns out its actually supposed to get 11... Or when they say i get 14 around town, but 10 if there's 100km of highway... which doesn't ad up. Or the "easy 7-7.5l/100" which didn't turn out to be so easy - a passenger or two and its low 8s which is a whole litre more... 14% worse economy because of a passenger... there was alot of bullshit going around.

lol, are you sure they put the turbo engine in your XR6T??? Turns out Ford claims 11.7l/100km city cycle for the 2008 XR6T. I had NFI they had got so economical. http://www.themotorreport.com.au/3729/2008-fg-falcon-revealed But the thing that started it all was me saying I can get the same economy around town in my big old 88 diesel Patrol, and like I said, I get 12-14l/100 around town, pretty much like you do with 11.6 to 14.3...

maybe I'm a bit behind the times, but those seem absolutely amazing figures for Falcadores. I've seen QFleet's actual data from its fleet, admittedly from about 6 years ago, but it was in the 14s for the Commodores and Falcons. quotes like this from caradvice on the 2010 XR6 (not XR6T) suggest nothing much has changed... "On a freeway route, the XR6 was onboard computer showed a fuel consumption reading of 9.9 litres per 100km and for shorter suburban trips it came in around 12 litres per 100km. My calculations at refuel come in at around 14 litres per 100km based on kilometers travelled for a city based test cycle" So when I hear about people blowing that right out of the water, I'm very sceptical. At any rate, it certainly doesn't seem to be what most people achieve from them.

the reason i don't belive your claim is simple math. if the falcon takes 70l at a fill when the fuel light comes on. @ 14.3l/100km you'd have done 490km but if you did 150km of hwy running in that tank you claim that changes to 10l/100km. Well that's 700km from 70l. Which is 210 f**king km further than you normally go. Man that was a good 150km of hwy driving - not only did you get those km free, but you also scored an extra 60km somewhere as well! lets say it normally takes 50l to fill @ 14.3l/100km you'd have done 350km with the 150km of hwy running that improves your combined economy to 10l/100km, means you'd have done 500km from that 50l. That's 150km futher than normal. Congrats, you got 0l/100km on that 150km of hwy cruising! Man, these Falcons are good on the highway! real world my arse.

OK let me get this straight - Falcons get an easy 7-7.5l/100km for a tank on highway trips, unless you have a passenger or two, then it can be low 8s? a litre worse just for one or two people being in the car??? 14% worse economy for carrying a person or two cruising down the highway? and XR6T's go from 14.3l/100km to a frugal 10l/100km combined if you do just 100-150km on the highway? yep, the credibility of these claims has convinced me.

you answered your own question there - according to that your speedo is 4.5% fast. And therefore so is your odometre. When it tells you you've done 117km, you wil have actually done 112. Its just the way they make cars - speedos always seem to be around 5% faster than actual speed. nah, I'm the kind of person who knows those figures come from a rolling road test in controlled laboratory conditions with a stipulated series of simulated driving conditions. They're not real world figures. Eg the city cycle test goes for 13min and the car is stopped and idling for 4 of those minutes. Max speed resched inthe test it 50kph and the avg speed is 19kph. In my real world commute in peak hour traffic through the suburbs of Brisbane is my average speed is 75% higher than that 'urban' test, and I'd have exceeded their max test speed by about 50% before the car is even at normal operating temperature. Its a similar story in their extra urban test which lasts all of 6 minutes and the avg speed is 63kph. Again, that doesn't simulate real world conditions in extra urban driving - that would make Brisbane to Sydney about 15.5hrs drive. No-one gets the claimed figures. If you are, there's a good chance your calculator is broken

congrats! I don't know anyone else who beats the claimed l/100 figures. I don't know anyone who even equals them, but you beat them by a full litre! good work. and around town you'd be getting the 12-14l/100 I get - yes? and more towards the 14... plus my km are actual km, not the 5-6% inflated odometer kms. and my usage is actual litres over whole tank, not the bs figure the trip computer spits out while under optimal cruise conditions that people often quote as being real... on the highway mine is handicapped by weight (normally over 3500kg anytime I go for any sort of decent run on the highway), the frontal area (being the high roof model which is easily a foot higher than normal Patrols), plus roof racks on top of that (which I know cost me 1l/100 on the hwy alone), the 33" tyres (can't remember what I used to get with 31s), and the increased rolling resistance of muddies. But all that stuff has other useful purposes which I'm happy to pay a few l/100km for, so that I have them when I need them. f**k I'm surprised your car is better on the hwy!

haha, mine's anything but modern! Good old fashioned rotary pump injected, pre-combustion chambered, cast iron lump of TD42 in an 89 GQ with aftermarket DTS turbo. I've often thought about upgrading to a newer Patrol but they're the same truck under the skin, only with worse engine options... I prefer the smooth, quiet TD42 over those horrible modern clacky alloy turbo diesels anyway. The toyota 4.2 twin cam TD is nice too. That's what I'd have when I eventually upgrade - 100 Series Cruiser 4.2 TD. Unless Nissan put a decent TD in the GU body soon...

Its no contest for me because I like 4WDing, beach camping (Fraser, Double Island etc), and the odd long trip to places like Daintree, Simpson, Vic High Country... I don't tow cars anymore, but I'd never be without a 4WD. I also like annoying the global warmists who think 4WDs are the end of the world despite diesels using no more fuel than falcadores, and those who think they don't belong in the city for various stupid 'reasons'.

shouldn't be a problem for the turbo. turbo diesels sit on boost constantly on the highway even when not towing. turbos last alright there... Mine sits on a constant 4psi at 100-110kph just cruising by itself. And did 4500km over 2 weeks earlier in the year towing the camper trailer and all loaded up sitting on a constant 10psi @ 110kph for most of that. And modern turbo diesels run alot more boost than that. I wouldn't worry about the turbo. But I'll never be a fan of towing with passenger vehicles. Monocoque construction is crap to tow with compared to a ladder chassis 4WD. You can feel the trailer pulling the car around all over the place, whereas you don't feel a thing with 4WDs. Its about the mass of the vehicle and the strength of the chassis. So while falcon may pull it OK, I always think a 4WD is always going to be the better tow vehicle.

that rule has always only been for front opening bonnets. A rear opening bonnet has never needed the extra restraint. while air pressure may want to lift it, it will never be able to fly up and cover your windscreen.

yes if its in the supp regs you'll still need it, but 99% of the time things like bonnet fasteners, fire extinguishers etc are not in the supp regs because they're required under CAMS General Requirements anyway. If they are in the supp regs, I'd email the organisers to update them inline with the current Schedule B - where they got it from in the first place. CAMS changed this requirement to encourage participation and make it a bit easier for road cars to enter.

I'll try again... the CAMS rule requiring this has been changed for 2012. NEW CAMS Schedule A&B

road registered car with the standard bonnet catch do not need them for CAMS speed events (sprints/hillclimbs etc) anymore.

only if you own a 70s Escort...

but that rule's only in section "3 Open Category Regulations" - Hammerheads are free to run in Clubsprint! lol The rule's really poorly worded too. Do they mean the width of the coachworh at that point, or at it's widest point? Its funny that they got so caught up in cut-and-pasting WTAC rules they're just reiterating or contradicting other CAMS General Requirements... roll cages, exhausts, wheels, seats, harnesses etc... You laugh about the "Coil over suspension kits are permitted" rule, but its not so funny when read in conjunction with this; "All Vehicles:- must only be modified as permitted by these Clubsprint Category Regulations". So this is all you can do to your suspension for instance: 2.6 Suspension 2.6.1 Suspension mount points as provided by the original vehicle manufacturer must be utilized. 2.6.2 Coil over suspension kits are permitted. 2.6.3 Aftermarket suspension arms are permitted that's it! that's all you are permitted to do to your suspension. No sway bars! No replacement bushes! etc etc... what retard writes this stuff?

my point is he shouldn't have been surprised! Unless he thought there was only 1 fast car in the race and forgot about the other 10 cars running in the 1:30's... we know it was discussed at the drivers breifing because he said so. Presumably for this very reason - ie the huge speed differentials of the different classes in the race. And because it was a one hour enduro, lapping slower traffic (some of whom were 30sec a lap slower!!!) would have been a major issue... I don't think he should have been surprised.

the gap's the same size regardles of the speed differential. Lotus driver knows they were told in drivers' breifing to hold their line to let fast cars through, and knows they're alerted to the faster cars coming thanks to the Lambo blowing their doors off on the previous corner. And really there's very little risk of one of them making a sudden move to close that gap - absolutely no reason to do that. So I don't see any problem with it at all. Its racing - you sign up for passing and being passed. Don't expect the fast cars to park behind you on the straights until you wake up. Besides, the slower cars would be well aware they're sharing the track with some firebreathing monsters, and if they had half a clue, they'd be workign out beforehand roughly what lap to expect to be lapped, and keeping one eye firmly on the mirrors waiting for it to happen. The Lambo screaming round the outside of them should have served to bring that back into the front of their minds!!!

shouldn't be a shock either. When the leading Lambo passes you on the turn onto the front straight, it's a pretty good sign more front runners are coming.

that sounds like 2A Sports Car Closed. Race category, not a Rally category.

as I said in the other thread, hillclimbs are different. They've always been about the F.Libre open wheelers and its great seeing a bunch of them going head to head on a level playing field. how many people got 2nd outright??? "K got second outright... to give me 2nd outright for the weekend..." 2nd outright is different from 2nd in class. hth

has anyone else every made it to F1 with only 23 races under their belt? so inexperienced the FIA didn't want to grant him a Super Licence! And be so laid-back he's asleep half an hour before his debut race? Then go out and finish 6th! got to be the most naturally talented driver of the modern era.

the speed doesn't matter so much, as long as it sounds like that I'd be happy...