Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jpd80
The crazy part was that this test wan't doen under valid conditions like the European Urban test cycle:
Urban cycle:
Mondeo EB 11.0 l/100 km
Falcon ZF 13.8 l/100 km
The fact that Mondeo scored 14.1 l/100 km and the Falcon used 15.4 l/100 km says that there was a lot more
fuel used by both cars than in the Urban test. I'm not sure what they hoped too achieve by running that type
of test but as most people already know, an I-4 subjected to lots of acceleration and power bursts at lower
speeds will use almost as much fuel as an I-6. Heavy fuel usage like that indicates a lot of acceleration from
rest and transient throttle which becomes more in proportion with the weight shifted than the engine doing the work..
More open running in 60-80 kph zones would have given more meaningful data...
|
this is a more valid test then the european cycle you mention, its a real world australian driving test. the falcon 15.4 L in the city they got is a true representation of the car, and why less and less people are buying it. interesting the ecoboost was only 6% better... if that ends up being the case in the falcon, then the ecoboost is a waste of money for ford. a 500nm 3L v6 turbo diesel would produce way better economy figures.