Fuel Consumption - Very Impressed

calaway · 13-08-2006, 07:21 PM

Just thought I would let you guys know what fuel consumption I just experienced in my new BF Faimont Ghia. I just changed from a BA turbo which, lets just say, fuel consumption was not its best point.

I just drove Melb to Wagga return for work. In the turbo I am sure I would of filled up a couple of times. The way I drive it was next to impossible to get under 10ltr 100k's. The ghia had 600k's on it and I averaged 7.9ltrs for 100k's. As far as I am concerned, amazing. Why Ford doesn't concentrate its marketing on this point I don't know. The six speed auto is an absolute treat. Can't say enough good things about the car. I have driven plenty of different brands and this thing is world class.

BPXR6T · 13-08-2006, 07:44 PM

Yep, its a good thing. When towing an EF Falcon back from Victoria recently using my BA XR8 I was shocked by how good the mileage was. I won't post what I got because I hardly beleive it myself.

Full Spectrum · 13-08-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaway

Just thought I would let you guys know what fuel consumption I just experienced in my new BF Faimont Ghia. I just changed from a BA turbo which, lets just say, fuel consumption was not its best point.

I just drove Melb to Wagga return for work. In the turbo I am sure I would of filled up a couple of times. The way I drive it was next to impossible to get under 10ltr 100k's. The ghia had 600k's on it and I averaged 7.9ltrs for 100k's. As far as I am concerned, amazing. Why Ford doesn't concentrate its marketing on this point I don't know. The six speed auto is an absolute treat. Can't say enough good things about the car. I have driven plenty of different brands and this thing is world class.

They can't cause a 15 year old VP will do the same on highway trips being low tech.
But my brother got well over 700km to a full tank to Queensland from Melbourne last year in his BA Fairmont.

Melz · 13-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourBarrel

Yep, its a good thing. When towing an EF Falcon back from Victoria recently using my BA XR8 I was shocked by how good the mileage was. I won't post what I got because I hardly beleive it myself.

Are you being sarcastic? Because i've seen XR8s fuel consumption and lets just say that it has put me off wanting a BA at all!!

**PepeLePew** · 13-08-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

They can't cause a 15 year old VP will do the same on highway trips being low tech.
But my brother got well over 700km to a full tank to Queensland from Melbourne last year in his BA Fairmont.

Mate nothing personal but the VP was carrying around a helluva lot less weight and producing significantly less power....

**Bluehoon** · 13-08-2006, 08:18 PM

Very good.

However, stock 06 B XR6T Ute, Sydney to Canberra and back, 2/3 of a tank.

:

In my BA i would have to fill up at Marulan.

110km's p/hr and still not on teh boost...

:

: .

calaway · 13-08-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melz

Are you being sarcastic? Because i've seen XR8s fuel consumption and lets just say that it has put me off wanting a BA at all!!

If I had to pay for the fuel in my old XR6T then I'd be put off as well. Power was great though

:

However, I am thoroughly impressed with the fuel consumption so far, considering the car had 600k's it, consumption can only get better. I guess I was only trying to express my like for the way the six speed operates.

mik · 13-08-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaway

Just thought I would let you guys know what fuel consumption I just experienced in my new BF Faimont Ghia. I just changed from a BA turbo which, lets just say, fuel consumption was not its best point.

I just drove Melb to Wagga return for work. In the turbo I am sure I would of filled up a couple of times. The way I drive it was next to impossible to get under 10ltr 100k's. The ghia had 600k's on it and I averaged 7.9ltrs for 100k's. As far as I am concerned, amazing. Why Ford doesn't concentrate its marketing on this point I don't know. The six speed auto is an absolute treat. Can't say enough good things about the car. I have driven plenty of different brands and this thing is world class.

if you drove the turbo granny style was it still thirsty or did you find it impossible to not give the turbo a squirt ?, you did say your style of driving.

Falcon Freak · 13-08-2006, 08:20 PM

My 2003 BA XT V8 gets approximately 16l/100km around town in stop start driving. But on the open highway I have seen it average as low as 10.2l/100km. For a car which weighs over 1,800kg and puts out 220kW I'm not complaining.

FF

Ghiadude · 13-08-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Mate nothing personal but the VP was carrying around a helluva lot less weight and producing significantly less power....

not to mention the fact that chassis rigidity in a VP was non-existant

calaway · 13-08-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehoon

Very good.

However, stock 06 B XR6T Ute, Sydney to Canberra and back, 2/3 of a tank.

:

In my BA i would have to fill up at Marulan.

110km's p/hr and still not on teh boost...

:

: .

Agree. BA to BF from where I stand seems to be a big difference in consumption. I personally think that with the new VE coming out this is a point that Ford should be raming home to the general public. I would be also very interested to see real world figures on the camry. I would be very suprised to see the same fuel figures on the open road. ????

private9 · 13-08-2006, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

My 2003 BA XT V8 gets approximately 16l/100km around town in stop start driving. But on the open highway I have seen it average as low as 10.2l/100km. For a car which weighs over 1,800kg and puts out 220kW I'm not complaining.

FF

That's pretty impressive! My brother's got a BA XR8 and his average around town (driven reasonably sedately) is 20 litres per 100 or worse, and even on hwy trips only gets down to around 13ish...

**Bluehoon** · 13-08-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaway

Agree. BA to BF from where I stand seems to be a big difference in consumption. I personally think that with the new VE coming out this is a point that Ford should be raming home to the general public. I would be also very interested to see real world figures on the camry. I would be very suprised to see the same fuel figures on the open road. ????

The early BA's drank it.

Holden is where Ford were in november 02.

I wouldn't mind betting the warranty work done by dealers on teh BF will be pretty big too, and gearboxes..... Hmmm......

never mind, judging from the pics, quick trip to a plastics recycling yard will have all the components they need.... meow... :sm_headba

calaway · 13-08-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

if you drove the turbo granny style was it still thirsty or did you find it impossible to not give the turbo a squirt ?, you did say your style of driving.

I went to the snow recently. Filled up outside of Melb and had to fill up just off the highway near Wangaratta. Must admit that I didn't pay full attention to fuel use but I wouldn't of travelled 400kms. Thats what was the problem with the XR. Doing approx 2,300rpm at 110kms just uses more fuel than 1600rpm at 110. I would be the first one to admit I'd love to compare the BA 4 speed to the BF XR6T 6 speed.

Gotta say thou didn't give it much of a squirt on the trip.

**Bluehoon** · 13-08-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaway

I went to the snow recently. Filled up outside of Melb and had to fill up just off the highway near Wangaratta. Must admit that I didn't pay full attention to fuel use but I wouldn't of travelled 400kms. Thats what was the problem with the XR. Doing approx 2,300rpm at 110kms just uses more fuel than 1600rpm at 110. I would be the first one to admit I'd love to compare the BA 4 speed to the BF XR6T 6 speed.

Gotta say thou didn't give it much of a squirt on the trip.

Mate, I have both, BA 4 speed Xr6T, and BF XR6T with ZF.

In the economy stakes, chalk and cheese.

BF is damn good on highway (by maths I should make Sydney to Melbourne on a tank), it's that good.

BA is lucky to make Albury....

Dazza XLT · 13-08-2006, 08:49 PM

I averaged 9lt/100k's heading to Townsville a while ago. And thats with the Bullbar on the front.

**Silver Ghia** · 13-08-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaway

Agree. BA to BF from where I stand seems to be a big difference in consumption. I personally think that with the new VE coming out this is a point that Ford should be raming home to the general public. I would be also very interested to see real world figures on the camry. I would be very suprised to see the same fuel figures on the open road. ????

Sounds great. I was reading in the Herald Sun this morning on how the large cars like the Falcon depreciate so quickly, because of the cost of fuel.
I'm sure this would beat a lot of smaller engined cars, even 4 cylinder cars, which reputedly arent depreciating as much, because they are 4 cylinder!!

Even though mines a BA, I get 10.1 l/100km consistently to work and back in peak hour, and it uses regular ULP. This was a consideration, when I was looking at a Mazda 6, which uses PULP, which I believe overall would've been more expensive to run. I'm happy with my fuel consumption, and wouldnt even consider trading it on a smaller car at this stage.

CAMS290 · 13-08-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

They can't cause a 15 year old VP will do the same on highway trips being low tech.

:

Full Spectrum · 14-08-2006, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Mate nothing personal but the VP was carrying around a helluva lot less weight and producing significantly less power....

Also with 15 years and at lot less technology on it's side minus a couple of cogs to:(.
The fact it's so good is the torque converter locks in above 80ish like a 5th gear and it revs under 2000rpm over 100.

But the point i was trying to get across is they really can't praise fuel economy when a low tech 15 year old 6 is matching it.
Like Holden couldn't boast about power with the cars after the VN-VP, A VZ 175 is slower then a VN-VP V6.

Ghiadude · 14-08-2006, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

Also with 15 years and at lot less technology on it's side minus a couple of cogs to:(.
The fact it's so good is the torque converter locks in above 80ish like a 5th gear and it revs under 2000rpm over 100.

But the point i was trying to get across is they really can't praise fuel economy when a low tech 15 year old 6 is matching it.
Like Holden couldn't boast about power with the cars after the VN-VP, A VZ 175 is slower then a VN-VP V6.

thats all true but far from the point. People buying A BRAND NEW CAR are not going to consider a VP or an EB are they ..??

People want 4000 airbags, hextuple zone climate control, 7mega watt surround sound stereo(with seat shaker and 8 sumboofers(LOL), 19 star euro NCAP rating and heated horn button .... and they like their fuel economy as well.

So you see as good as the VP's fuel economy was it falls over because it doesnt have the above and so is deemed irrelevent.

jimmy_c · 14-08-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

Also with 15 years and at lot less technology on it's side minus a couple of cogs to:(.
The fact it's so good is the torque converter locks in above 80ish like a 5th gear and it revs under 2000rpm over 100.

But the point i was trying to get across is they really can't praise fuel economy when a low tech 15 year old 6 is matching it.
Like Holden couldn't boast about power with the cars after the VN-VP, A VZ 175 is slower then a VN-VP V6.

ahahah but we are not talkin about V cars are we now. Will you rack off with that rubbish this is a BA thread not comparing a 1250kg VP with 140ish kw to BA/BFs with 180kw to 260 or more kw in a heavy body.

How can you compare ???

Iphido · 14-08-2006, 12:10 PM

Gee some people remember the VP very fondly, with excellent economy and huge power!

Holden Commodore VP
1337Kg
Highway 8.0L Per 100 km
City 12.5L per 100 km

I think the BF falcon beats both of these, under newer and tougher measuring systems while also meeting extremely tough emissions.

Meanwhile the BF makes a explosive 190Kw and 383Nm compared to 127kw /293 Nm of a VP..

Uses *LESS* fuel, makes 49.6% *MORE* power, is unmeasureably safer and more refined.

With the BF, the Falcon is getting 4 cylinder camry economy, while making better than HSV power. In 1991 terms.

In 2006 terms its making class leading power while still getting 4 cylinder camry economy.

Economy wise, if you want a sedan, Falcon is still in the running. While some 4 cylinder and smaller six's do have better economy, its only very slight. On the highway its nothing, infact the BFII might beat a few a 4 cylinder sedans on highway cycle.

If your concerned about fuel economy and you do alot of city driving your not going to buy a sedan anyway, your going to look at very small city cars. Yaris or smaller.

Full Spectrum · 14-08-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tx3dude

thats all true but far from the point. People buying A BRAND NEW CAR are not going to consider a VP or an EB are they ..??

People want 4000 airbags, hextuple zone climate control, 7mega watt surround sound stereo(with seat shaker and 8 sumboofers(LOL), 19 star euro NCAP rating and heated horn button .... and they like their fuel economy as well.

So you see as good as the VP's fuel economy was it falls over because it doesnt have the above and so is deemed irrelevent.

But some do come with climate control auto lights Air bags surround sound with 7meg amps and 10000 subs but no heated horn

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy_c

ahahah but we are not talkin about V cars are we now. Will you rack off with that rubbish this is a BA thread not comparing a 1250kg VP with 140ish kw to BA/BFs with 180kw to 260 or more kw in a heavy body.

How can you compare ???

I was not comparing them in a direct comparison so settle down.
I was saying how can you advertise great fuel economy when a 15 year old car done the same.

Bucket · 14-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

I was not comparing them in a direct comparison so settle down.
I was saying how can you advertise great fuel economy when a 15 year old car done the same.

You can advertise it. Quite simply:

I think you can when it combines safety (increased body rigidity etc)
And keep in mind, your using a 3.8L Engine in a 1500Kg Car etc etc.
Having said that, you are comparing Apples to Oranges.
You may as well have just said You can't advertise a falcon having great fuel economy when a Lexus V6 can do X/Km per litre. Or any other 6 cylinder motor which is remotely close to a 4.0L for that fact. Technology has come sooo very far that comparing your VP to a BF Falcon is like comparing the Apollo 11 to a Space Shuttle.
Its good to hear that you can get great economy but this is one comparison the VP can't be bought in to.

Bossxr8 · 14-08-2006, 05:38 PM

You have forgotten something, no one would want to be seen dead in a VP. Although they have something the BF lacks, a built in vibrator doubling as an engine.

:

YOOT · 14-08-2006, 05:54 PM

I can squeeze juston 800kms from my BA ute which weighs 1900kgs. Of course it has a 80L tank and thats driving it to almost dry (not the best idea). My work car a XT sedan is averaging 700kms a tank at the moment while I am traveling 150km a day on highways. Its averaging 9l/100km (2004 4-speed sedan replaced 62L) and the ute is averaging 9.75l/100km (2005 5-speed ute replaced 78L).

That is good enough for me, but I miss my ED Fairmont, it used to average 7-8L on the highway. Not bad for a much older design (lighter though and the E-series was very aerodynaic suprisingly).

ltd · 14-08-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

You have forgotten something, no one would want to be seen dead in a VP. Although they have something the BF lacks, a built in vibrator doubling as an engine.

:

Mawwwwhahahahahahahahaha.

Really, comparing a VP to a BF is like comparing an eb to a mini moke. They really aren't in the same class. Additionally slick, I think what the guys here are saying is that the real comparison is between current selling Euro3 compliant cars. In this instance falcon is a winner by being so frugal with its fuel consumption.

ltd · 14-08-2006, 06:07 PM

Yoot, I had an NC that had real similar consumption to your ED, and they were suprisingly aerodynamic. Made it from Sutherland to Ballina on one tank with still 80 odd k's to go. Not bad for a 1991 car.

galaxy xr8 · 14-08-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melz

Are you being sarcastic? Because i've seen XR8s fuel consumption and lets just say that it has put me off wanting a BA at all!!

Don't be put off by the XR8 Melz, just because off that, all the XR8 need's is a good exhaust, CIA and tune and it will easily get low 10's and possibly lower on the hwy, in stock form it's different, as we know how rich they are from the factory, but I average 8-9 litres per 100klm on the hwy, last Thursday I went from (full tank)Bendigo to Lorne and when I hit the great ocean rd I had some fun (as I allway's do) and being a V8 it suck's it down, we stayed 5klm's sth, out off Lorne and travelled into town twice that night, once again playing on the twisty bit's and then we left the next day once again playing with a young idiot in a corolla that thought he could keep up with me, huh, and then I filled up in Gelong,it was only above half a tank, total ussage was 10.1 ltrs per 100klm, not bad considering I was sitting on 110 from Bendigo to Geelong and then running around on the great ocean rd which is 50klm from geelong to lorne and back again, my XR8 has seen the best off 8ltrs flat on the hwy, and that was once agian from Bendigo to Torquay, I filled up full at BP in Golden Square set the trip computer and filled up again at BP in Torquay, did a total off 210klm and it took exactly 16ltrs, and you don't think I'm happy about the economy of my XR8, it's one of the main reason's I'm not trading it in right now.

FGX-351 · 14-08-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

You have forgotten something, no one would want to be seen dead in a VP. Although they have something the BF lacks, a built in vibrator doubling as an engine.

:

LMAO! I needed that laugh.