Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

my commo this week daily driving is 8.7l/100 :)

using my mates Navara 4.0L 08 model to wakefield 2 weeks time - will see how that goes.

Oh Fats, talking about hills, the ultimate hill is near Tamworth on the new england hwy...my instant fuel screen was showing around 80l per 100 just to get up that hill, I could see the fuel gauge moving down! and that was with the fag car on the back. then when you think the hill is over....there is another 2km of hill after that!

worst.

hill.

ever.

Ask duncan and Matt about Neils falcon going down that hill with no trailer brakes and GTR on back!

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

The new 270 kW I6 Turbo engine, coupled with the ZF six-speed automatic transmission, produces an ADR 81/01 fuel figure of 11.7 L/100km

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...

Edited by hrd-hr30

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...

Yeah, but my 14.3 comes at the fun leaving pretty much everything for dead at the lights... Lol...

The XR6T are economical, quite surprisingly! But I don't think it will be as good as te TD when towing, but the gains I make $$$ wise daily driving will far out weigh the TD benefit when towing.

As to that hill Chubbs, it was mrs interesting going up it and having to google what a certain flashing light meant... Turns out we had to stop and let the trans cool down... Least the ford told us it was hot... The same vintage commodore would have just had the gearbox implode...

OK I can't stay quiet anymore :D

God I'd have some good laughs from this thread.

I've just filled the tank and am heading to and from Melbourne tomorrow to collect a car for the missus and was going to do what Matt did but he's beaten me too the punch!

The question remains, have the people who were looking for tow cars actually done anything about it or have we all wasted considerable amounts of time? :D

Is that humble pie you are eating now Harry?

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.

Edited by hrd-hr30

lol and it starts again...

I think you have misread or misunderstood what I was saying. That and the fact that upon re-reading it, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

"That is what I'm saying though, highway driving climate control on, 2 passenger, weekend luggage etc, it easily gets those figures on the highway. Add a person or two and it gets up to high 7s low 8s"

And by that I mean add a person or two and their luggage for a weekend trip and trundle off down the hume with climate on and it'll then do high 7's to low 8's at worst.

So if the very best it ever sees is a between 7.0 and 7.5 (average of about 7.25 for the whole trip) then averaging closer to 8L per hundred after adding a couple of people and luggage is still quite good. We're talking close to 2T at that point. I'm not sure how much the luggage would weigh but with 4 of us in the car we fill the 510 litre boot easily enough.

I'd have thought the comments about the hire cars and regularly seeing numbers on par with those would have convinced you.

Let the laughs continue!

Edited by ActionDan

and the story changes slightly again...

the very best it ever sees is a between 7.0 and 7.5 (average of about 7.25 for the whole trip)

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.

Edited by hrd-hr30

You make me laugh Harry :D I reckon you'd be good to have a few beers with.

I'll let you know when I next drive up to QLD getting 16L per hundred, you can shout me the first round because I'll obviously be broke.

Have a good weekend guys :)

Edited by ActionDan

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.

Sorry I sent my reply before you edited your post so I missed the second bit.

That is an average figure for the whole tank of highway driving. Calculated the old fashioned way, not based on the average fuel consumption figure on the computer. Though as was said before if you reset it right before a trip it's only .2-.3L out at most. As I mentioned earlier my average per tank of mixed driving is 8.4-8.8L

In comparison to 4 bangers we've done long trips in the Falcon does use more fuel. Our other car (2010 Mazda3) does mid 6's on the highway with the two of us and luggage but it's doing plenty more revs at those speeds and is only a 4spd Auto, the seats are also far less comfy.

Turbo Diesel Focus at work is mid 5's in the same conditions and has a crap load more torque to work with (6spd Man). we also have a Prius here which is not much better than the focus, and worse to drive.

I get the impression that you won't be convinced unless you see it first hand and I can respect that as I'm exactly the same.

Edited by ActionDan

lol and it starts again...

I think you have misread or misunderstood what I was saying. That and the fact that upon re-reading it, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

"That is what I'm saying though, highway driving climate control on, 2 passenger, weekend luggage etc, it easily gets those figures on the highway. Add a person or two and it gets up to high 7s low 8s"

And by that I mean add a person or two and their luggage for a weekend trip and trundle off down the hume with climate on and it'll then do high 7's to low 8's at worst.

So if the very best it ever sees is a between 7.0 and 7.5 (average of about 7.25 for the whole trip) then averaging closer to 8L per hundred after adding a couple of people and luggage is still quite good. We're talking close to 2T at that point. I'm not sure how much the luggage would weigh but with 4 of us in the car we fill the 510 litre boot easily enough.

I'd have thought the comments about the hire cars and regularly seeing numbers on par with those would have convinced you.

Let the laughs continue!

Close to 2Tonne? Are you packing chiauhuas as people?

Supposedly they're 1750 odd empty, throw 68 litter of fuel in plus the Ther extra weight that ends up in them, and only 2 people with out luggage an you breach 2T... 4 people and luggage is easy 2.2T I reckon. Maybe I should put mine over the weigh station...

where are the soccer mum pics wtf!!

Dan, ive had a few beers with Harry, it was XXXX, beer was ok, but Harry is good to have a beer with.

only issue there was Druncan wouldnt buy us shouts cause he was saving for rebuild # 43

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
    • Probably not. A workshop grade scantool is my go to for proper Consult interrogation. Any workshop grade tool should do it. Just go to a workshop.
×
×
  • Create New...