[sudszy]

I agree, an ill thought out and pointless test.

Did they even bother to find out what the mondeo consumption for the same conditions were when it wasnt loaded up to the supposed Falcon weight? Then we’d perhaps get an idea whether the mondeo’s comparatively poor performance on the highway was more to do with the aerodynamics than the extra weight or that indeed the mondeo they tested didnt have a drinking problem.

In the city, the loaded Mondeo used 14.5L/100km – nowhere near as frugal as the official economy claim:

, no they just went off the standard consumption figures which we all know could be a long way from what their test would throw up.

that was it, and by the tone, putting down the four cylinder version, they didnt make the same disparaging remark about the falcon not achieving the official economy claims either.


They really show their lack of knowledge when they throw this one up:


History shows cars like the four-cylinder Commodore from the 1980s used as much fuel as the six-cylinder versions. That’s because the smaller engine had to work harder to get the big sedan moving.

By definition if both engines end up doing the same thing, they have done the same amount of work.

What they perhaps could clarify is that the four cylinder engines were often operating at beyond the power at which there were most efficient. An engine is generally the most fuel efficient when it is operating at about 60%(very ball park) of max output, the four cylinder comm engines pushing 120km/h or more on the highway would certainly be beyond 60% of max output and its in this region that engines start using disproportionately more fuel.

However, with the current power output from smaller engines, they will stay comfortably under that 60% max output for almost 100% of the time and since they are operating at closer to the 60% level than a larger engine will use less fuel to do the same amount of work.