Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2008, 08:26 AM   #1
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default Fuel Usage Comparison

Has there been a thread on instantaneous fuel consumption amongst the members' different cars with trip computer?

I would be interested to know what the figures are for say:

constant 60kph on a flat stretch
and 100kph.

I'm happy to post my 6.0 litre figures over the weekend as a baseline.

Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 08:45 AM   #2
aquahead2001
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
aquahead2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,301
Default

This is a meaningless comparison, only average economy over a set distance and with set parameters really can be compared. Instant fuel usage is just like those ridiculous vacuum economy gauges from the 80's, put your foot down to accelerate and loose vacuum and thus use more fuel. No worries, for a small period of the drive, you had to accelerate, big deal. But then you had to decelerate or coast, or maintain speed. It’s not just one part of the drive that impacts on fuel usage, it’s all the drive.

How much fuel did you use over the journey is what you really want to know.
aquahead2001 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 08:52 AM   #3
Hunter
Ex EL Falcon
 
Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bris-bane
Posts: 683
Default

LOL my old Gemini had one of those 'economy' gauges. I would have rather had a tacho.

Instant fuel usage is pointless btw.
__________________
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now!
Hunter is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 11:08 AM   #4
EDManual
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
EDManual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,710
Default

I think its a very good comparison of aerodynamics and low engine rev efficiancy. Sure do it for at least20 km or so though of the same conditions. Preferable a full tank of same conditions and fill up on the exact same angle at the servo.

I have an ED Falcon manual, not using the instant but full tanks on flat country roads. All crusing.

90 km/h 7.5l/100
100km/h 8l/100
120 9l
140 12
160 14

With a car trailer that weighs 1100kg at 110-120 10L/100 Made it from Geelong to Victor harbour on 1 tank!!
With a car trailer and a 1100kg car on top on the way back at 110 to 120 12.5l/100!! Fantastic I thought!!
With a single axle cage trailer and a motorbike at 110 to 120ish 14l/100! Bah. Thats wind resistance for you.

I really struggle to go under 110 on any main road so found doing 100 or 90 just painful! Speedo is very accurate, so the GPS says. Run taller tyres and it makes up for the built in error of 95 actual 100 indicated.

Last edited by EDManual; 01-08-2008 at 11:13 AM.
EDManual is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 12:28 PM   #5
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquahead2001
This is a meaningless comparison, only average economy over a set distance and with set parameters really can be compared. Instant fuel usage is just like those ridiculous vacuum economy gauges from the 80's, put your foot down to accelerate and loose vacuum and thus use more fuel. No worries, for a small period of the drive, you had to accelerate, big deal. But then you had to decelerate or coast, or maintain speed. It’s not just one part of the drive that impacts on fuel usage, it’s all the drive.

How much fuel did you use over the journey is what you really want to know.
Well you may be right, but then agan you may be wrong. As I understand it, those figures that are bandied about for new cars are based on almost laboratory tests with the urban cycle taking only 195 seconds and the highway cycle 400 seconds.

So how would a real life instantaneous figure based on constant speed over the flat be any less relevant? Those "ridiculous" vacuum gauges did hold steady at consant speed and obviously the car makers don't think the instantaneous readout is all that ridiculous either.

Perhaps my wording was confusing. I meant to say :

constant 60kph on a flat stretch
and 100kph.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 01:55 PM   #6
Dauphin
Irregular member
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,941
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Endless work keeping the AU.com.au web site happening 
Default

Using a long average:

AUII VCT Fairlane
16.0L/100km at 60 km/h - around town

7.5L/100km at 100 km/h - freeway

I can't seem to get it below 16L around town. Been trying for weeks. Going on the odometer, I get about 430 kms per 68L tank around town only.

This is with a 3100 hi-stall torque converter.
__________________
2000 AU II FAIRLANE 75th ANNIVERSARY - big and shiny

My hovercraft is full of eels!


Movie Car Chase of the Week: Gene Hackman driving a 1971 Pontiac LeMans to chase an elevated train in The French Connection (1971).
Dauphin is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 03:01 PM   #7
MoreHPformyXR6
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
MoreHPformyXR6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: FoMoCo
Posts: 3,441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally
Has there been a thread on instantaneous fuel consumption amongst the members' different cars with trip computer?

I would be interested to know what the figures are for say:

constant 60kph on a flat stretch
and 100kph.

I'm happy to post my 6.0 litre figures over the weekend as a baseline.

Got back Sunday after putting a bit over 3700km under her belt for the return trip. (Car has done a touch over 24000 km's now). With three adults and very full boot of luggage. I was happy with the results sitting on 115km/ph in 110km zones and 105km/ph in the 100km zones (which is probally 1km/ph above the posted limits as my BA is really doing 96km when speedo says 100km. I averaged 9.8l/100km overall .
The low for the trip was 9.4l/100km and (the high was 10.1/100km - which included some highway kay's and about 250 km's of running around and short trips when we where there). I thought when I fitted my pacemaker headers (4495's) and 3' metal cat & XR6T exhaust maybe that stuffed my 02 sensor as I get 15l/100km or a bit more more in the city - short trips and heaps of stop start stuff. But after that trip im certain my 02 sensor is all good otherwise I cant imagine I would have got that kind of economy.

The above gives you a bit of a guide. But I think you need to be a bit more specific in your post so as you can do a decent comparison. Its all good to say at 100km/ph on the flat but is that a 5km trip 25km trip or 200 plus km/trip etc?
__________________
FGX XR6 Lightning Strike Sedan

BA XR6 Mk II Shockwave Sedan - Now Sold - gone but not forgotten

mods: 20% under drive, Pacemaker Comps 4495' (ceramic coated) , 3' Metal Cat, XR6T exhaust - twin 3' tips, F6 CAI, K&N panel filter, PWR trans cooler, customed tuned by Heinrich Performance Tuning HPT 183.7rwkw.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ATMO SIX
You have become the new SLOANY mate, no real quality to your current post(s).
MoreHPformyXR6 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 04:01 PM   #8
madmelon
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,334
Default

I rekon those instantaneous fuel readouts are great. When I'm bored I just challenge myself to see how low I can keep it. I managed to keep the jag flicking between 6 and 7 on dead flat at 60km/h for about half a kay (Tom Ugly's bridge in Syd) when I still had it. I remember doing it at 100 and 110, but can't remember the numbers. Average for town was 14-16 depending on the week but that's what you get with a car that heavy.
madmelon is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 07:17 PM   #9
GORDZ
OMGORDZ
 
GORDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE, Melbourne
Posts: 2,352
Default

accelerating i use 99L/100k's, cruising at 60kph I use 4.8, 80k's = 7L/100, 100k's = 8.9L/100ks 180k's (ute limiter)= 23L/100k's
__________________
Gordz Bluesprint Build Thread


BA XR6 Ute, twin throttlebodied blueprint.
GORDZ is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 07:18 PM   #10
GORDZ
OMGORDZ
 
GORDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE, Melbourne
Posts: 2,352
Default

but thats on a race track of course! ;)
__________________
Gordz Bluesprint Build Thread


BA XR6 Ute, twin throttlebodied blueprint.
GORDZ is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 01-08-2008, 10:12 PM   #11
Bossxr8
Peter Car
 
Bossxr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
Default

Instant fuel economy readings are always inaccurate, so don't take them as gospel cause doing it the old way of dividing how many litres it took to fill by the amount of kms travelled always brings a different result, and some cars can be way off.
Bossxr8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-08-2008, 03:22 AM   #12
prydey
Rob
 
prydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,704
Default

comprehension skill are rather lacking i feel.

the OP isn't wanting to know what your car's ave economy is or how many km's you get from a tank or whatever.

on a flat stretch in my ba @ 60 its on about 7 and @ 100 its also on about 7.

i use cruise as well so that there is constant throttle % otherwise it could drop down even lower if you are coasting with close to zero throttle %.

In case you are wondering i didn't go out and do these tests after reading the thread. i just happened to be doing it one day on my way to work trying to see if there was much difference between leaving it in drive or flicking it over into sss mode and forcing it to lock up in 4th.

instantaneous does read marginally better if i force it to lock up in 4th but hardly enough to worry about.
prydey is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-08-2008, 01:20 PM   #13
EDManual
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
EDManual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,710
Default

I find it funny that the Smart for2 does 8 to 9 litres per 100 at 110km/h!! Thats worse than new falcons! Even turbos!
EDManual is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 03-08-2008, 03:56 PM   #14
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

My Calais with 6.0 engine is 7.8 @100 kph measured today over 1km.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL