From: Marts on
OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote...

> So let us know what you use to show that the V8 consumption is less
> over a range of driving conditions.
> Official testing labs seem NOT to agree with you.

I've never gotten within cooee of those supposed "highway/city cycle" figures
that they used to use or whatever they call it these days.

Having said that, my SS (235kw model) from a few years ago could do 10l/100km on
a trip, or around 15l around town.

In comparison, my 3l V6 DOHC alloy engined Tribute is lucky to do 15l on a trip.
In fact when my wife owned it the SS was better than her Kia Sportage 2l 4cyl.

Dunno what they're like these days, but I assume that they're still in that
ballpark.

From: D Walford on
On 27/04/2010 2:04 PM, hippo wrote:
> D Walford wrote:
>>
>> On 26/04/2010 10:30 AM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ahhh yeah.....Isolated driving conditions.
>>> Fact still remains that overall the V8 will use more.
>>>
>>> Forget trips, towing etc etc...look at the whole driving experience.
>>
>> Overall driving experience is where they excel, they might not be the
>> most economical but for a powerful engine their economy is hard to beat,
>> IMO their good point is you have have both power and good economy in the
>> one engine controlled simply by how much right foot you use.
>> Mate used to have a V8 VZ Calais for a company car, he averaged
>> 11.00lts/100klm over the 3yrs he had it including towing his Clubman on
>> trailer to various events which is not bad economy overall.
>>
>>
>> Daryl
>>
>>
>>
>
> Just for the point of comparison: our 1981 non turbo Saab sedan with a 3
> spd BW37 auto returned about 11.2L/100Kms come hell or high water over
> about 200,000Kms. Towing 5-600Kgs made it a bit worse, but it was hardly
> ever better. A similar 5 spd will return about 7-8 (until the gearbox
> fails....)
>
> Most current production sixes and eights return overall performance /
> consumption figures that were pipedreams 30 years ago. Considering that
> the current vehicles are also bigger, heavier and driving a lot more
> accessories, I don't think we do too badly.
>
Very true, the fuel consumption of any modern vehicle is sensational
compared to most vehicles from the past.
One car that I owned in the early 70's (1965 Austin Healey Sprite) used
to sip petrol but it was a tiny car with a 1100cc engine so 47mpg(approx
6.0lts/100klm) wasn't unexpected and its still probably not that good
compared to a modern car with a similar size engine.


Daryl
From: Noddy on

"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:1272449941.492096(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au...

> 1980 Volvo with original PRV 2.7L V6 converted to straight LPG, original
> Asin
> Warner 55 auto & open 3.54:1 Dana 30 diff. Changed to all cast iron 350
> chev,
> T350 auto, 2.47:1 9" detroit locker, still on straight LPG, but without
> the cowl
> induction cold air intake or extractors that the engine had in the HG
> ute...
>
> Economy of the 350 was immediately better than the economy of the PRV V6
> had
> ever been, and it no longer struggled up hills...

There you go.

I was out at the block this morning checking on the building progress and
the concreters were there setting up their form work for the slab, and I
noticed one of them was driving an RA Rodeo on gas and got talking to him
about it. His was a single cab 4 cylinder manual with an ally tray, and
although it was an old vapour ring system he said he gets around 350km's out
of a 64 litre fill. He also mentioned that it was "totally shithouse" on
petrol but didn't say exactly how bad. Mine's a 3.5 V6 crew cab auto with a
bloody heavy steel tray on the back, and while it's *also* totally shithouse
on petrol I get 380km's out of 64 litres of lpg.

I know which one I'd rather be driving.

--
Regards,
Noddy.



From: atec7 7 ""atec77" on
D Walford wrote:
> On 27/04/2010 2:04 PM, hippo wrote:
>> D Walford wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/04/2010 10:30 AM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahhh yeah.....Isolated driving conditions.
>>>> Fact still remains that overall the V8 will use more.
>>>>
>>>> Forget trips, towing etc etc...look at the whole driving experience.
>>>
>>> Overall driving experience is where they excel, they might not be the
>>> most economical but for a powerful engine their economy is hard to beat,
>>> IMO their good point is you have have both power and good economy in the
>>> one engine controlled simply by how much right foot you use.
>>> Mate used to have a V8 VZ Calais for a company car, he averaged
>>> 11.00lts/100klm over the 3yrs he had it including towing his Clubman on
>>> trailer to various events which is not bad economy overall.
>>>
>>>
>>> Daryl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just for the point of comparison: our 1981 non turbo Saab sedan with a 3
>> spd BW37 auto returned about 11.2L/100Kms come hell or high water over
>> about 200,000Kms. Towing 5-600Kgs made it a bit worse, but it was hardly
>> ever better. A similar 5 spd will return about 7-8 (until the gearbox
>> fails....)
>>
>> Most current production sixes and eights return overall performance /
>> consumption figures that were pipedreams 30 years ago. Considering that
>> the current vehicles are also bigger, heavier and driving a lot more
>> accessories, I don't think we do too badly.
>>
> Very true, the fuel consumption of any modern vehicle is sensational
> compared to most vehicles from the past.
> One car that I owned in the early 70's (1965 Austin Healey Sprite) used
> to sip petrol but it was a tiny car with a 1100cc engine so 47mpg(approx
> 6.0lts/100klm) wasn't unexpected and its still probably not that good
> compared to a modern car with a similar size engine.
>
>
> Daryl
Yong bloke near here runs a valiant with a 440 fitted along with all the
problems it brings , driving almost never due to the 9 mpg it returns ,
his yard is filled with several old mk1 prius one of which he drives to
work > returning some incredible figure but then I doubt it gets over 70
k/h ( and it's fsk ugly)
From: Deevo on
"Marts" <marts(a)ymail.com> wrote in message
news:qt8ft5l215pd7bmgff8g573vbv72n1r9tt(a)astraweb.com...
> OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote...
>
>> So let us know what you use to show that the V8 consumption is less
>> over a range of driving conditions.
>> Official testing labs seem NOT to agree with you.
>
> I've never gotten within cooee of those supposed "highway/city cycle"
> figures
> that they used to use or whatever they call it these days.

Strange, I suppose it depends a lot on personal driving style. Up till last
year I was averaging 11.7 in my 07 3.5 Kluger 4x4 which is pretty much what
Toyota advertise. Unfortunately she developed a minor engine noise (or
possibly exhaust noise) around 40,000km and abruptly the average went up to
12.9. The local Toyota dealer has yet to find anything wrong but I keep on
their case.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Falcon remote problem....
Next: 92 Starwagon