Fuel Consumption (merged topic)

[senna_T]

this is a bit of a normal occurance, you will probably notice your engine is happier to rev now and even more so in the next few thousand kays. I can't give you a certain explanation for it though...

[utemad]

Gees either ford has gotten a lot better since my 03 BA NA 6 or some guys haven't found the go pedal yet... My 6 was giving 17.5 L /100 and my AU 5 litre gave 21 L / 100

This is round town driving with 350kg ave load

Anyone got any figures for there turbo carrying some weight

cheers utemad

[smicky]

Was wondering what the average is also...

I have been hitting around the 17-20 make in my phoon... When I got it it was less then this... weird as the manual states that is might run higher when first being run in... Weird that's its now using more...

Recently I have been hitting the reset button on each Empty to Fill - fill up once a week, and its still around the 18-20 mark... Maybe cos its loosened up a bit... I dunno..

Thought it might have been a little less then this, considering I dont dive all that hard.. stuck in traffic...

mmmhhhheerrr anyways - just more to claim back from the tax man I guess...

[BioXR6T]

Hello,

Dont usually mean to complain as this is my 3rd xr6t and I think the cars are great, 1st was the 5 spd manual 2004 (280 RWKW), then as a company car I had the new 6spd XR6T (Stock) and know I decided to by another with the 6spd (stock) manual BF.

I just cannot understand the difference in fuel usage from the 6spd auto (ave 12.5) to the 6spd manual I have know, which is struglling to stay under 13.7 in the ACT; babying it and trying to change gears under 3000rpm. (Both cars where stock)

Some differences I noticed is that on the highway at 115km/h the 6spd auto use to rev under or close to 2000rpm, the manual is around 2300rpm. Even the BA 5spd turbo I had use to rev under 2000rpm what have Ford done with the ratios on the 6spd manuals?

On the highway between the ACT and Sydney the 6spd could get down to 9L / 100; the manual struglles to get below 10L/100. (avg speed of 115-120km/h) Even the 5spd I had could average under 10 at those speeds)

All in all it is a nice car but I would never by a manual again. (Does anyone want to buy one?)

Tom

[Iconic Bionic]

After owning 3 you should know these cars like the juice. All I know is that I always get the same consumption regardless of how its driven.

Try the VE SS, many others have.

I.B.

Edited 09/06/08 08:34 AM by Iconic Bionic

[wiresquire]

Hello,

Dont usually mean to complain as this is my 3rd xr6t and I think the cars are great, 1st was the 5 spd manual 2004 (280 RWKW), then as a company car I had the new 6spd XR6T (Stock) and know I decided to by another with the 6spd (stock) manual BF.

I just cannot understand the difference in fuel usage from the 6spd auto (ave 12.5) to the 6spd manual I have know, which is struglling to stay under 13.7 in the ACT; babying it and trying to change gears under 3000rpm. (Both cars where stock)

Some differences I noticed is that on the highway at 115km/h the 6spd auto use to rev under or close to 2000rpm, the manual is around 2300rpm. Even the BA 5spd turbo I had use to rev under 2000rpm what have Ford done with the ratios on the 6spd manuals?

On the highway between the ACT and Sydney the 6spd could get down to 9L / 100; the manual struglles to get below 10L/100. (avg speed of 115-120km/h) Even the 5spd I had could average under 10 at those speeds)

All in all it is a nice car but I would never by a manual again. (Does anyone want to buy one?)

Tom

Here's my sad attempt at the ultimate fuel economy response. A lot of this is the bleeding obvious. And a lot is basically a rehash of things I have learnt or seen on this forum and from tracking my own fuel usage over time.

1. Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/280309

There can be no argument, if you want to save 10c/l on petrol, just buy on Tuesday. This is the easiest thing for you to control. Based on $1.70/l for petrol, this is equivalent to an economy improvement of ~6%. In a best case scenario of buying on Tuesday vs Thursday, 13.7l/100km becomes the cash equivalent of 12.9l/100km. 0.8l/100km? Hello???

With apologies to our country mates; dunno if that applies there too.

2. Reliability of measurement. Trip Computer. If you trust the trip computer, err, don't. When I do the manual calculations (actual kms and litres to fill), the trip computer is always higher. And it varies all over the place, eg sometimes, 0.2 but I have seen it up to 1.3l/100km out on a tank by tank basis.

3. Boost and RPM. If you change gears or are running above 2K rpm, you are are effectively on boost and are asking for power over economy.

You already have described this as part of the problem. So, lug away wherever possible! Especially on the freeway!

4. Ratios, ratios, ratios.

Again, you have already (effectively) described this. The fact that you're talking about 6th gear means you are probably spending a lot of time at 110+. How about a 3.73 diff? See 3 above.

5. Auto vs manual. This is basically a function of 3 and 4. IMHO, the economy of auto vs manual economy depends highly on your driving 'profile', ie what a normal drive for a tank of petrol is for you, heavy foot, light foot etc. It's most closely correlated to your average speed. Lower the average speed, the better suited to manual you are for economy. I guess it's driveline loss as much as anything?

In fact you can probably graph economy based on the average speed. Let me have a crack here. Based on your info above on 12.5l/100km with a 6 spd auto, your average speed is between 42 and 49 km/h? Sorry, never had a 6 spd manual, but my 5 spd manual equivalent based on the average km/h would be about 12.6 to 14.3, and tending to the higher side. And so this would correlate to your 13.7.

I had a BA T5 manual and now a BF II auto, and my 'profile' is lot of short trips, plenty of long waits at stop lights, hilly area. Typically, 17-19l/100km and the BA manual was more fuel efficient than the auto. I keep the readout on instantaneous and I can tell you that I see figures significantly higher in the BF II auto than the BA manual taking off from standstill. And so for me, the economy in the auto is worse for this profile. No doubt, at higher/freeway speeds, the BF II auto kicks the BA manual's butt.

6. Fuel quality.

a) Octane. If you're not using 98, try it for a couple of tanks. Try some different brands. You will potentially make up in economy what you spend extra $$$ at the pump.

b) Brand/distance. Where I am, I can pay a lot more (+10c/l) for BP Ultimate that's a lot closer, but with the extra oomph and economy and the distance to get to the other brands/servo's, I end up saving real $$$ anyways. If you get 13.7l/100kms that is 7.3kms/l. It means for each km you travel to get petrol, it costs you 23c per km. If you fill at 1/4 tank (51l), as recommended, you if you travel 5 kms more each way then if you don't save 4.5c/l forget it.

Cue the cute kid in the ad.

c) Stale. I have found that there is a correlation between fuel economy and the length of time between fills. I put that down somewhat to the fact that the fuel goes off/stale, and also because if you chew up juice more quickly, it means you've been travelling further/faster than your normal 'profile'. But you can have poorer economy and still save at the pump, eg if you didn't drive the car for a coupla weeks, the fuel could go off, but it might save you having to fill up a couple of times. And that ain't cheap, right?

7. Kms travelled.

This is really asking how much extra do you *really* spend if the petrol price goes up?

I had an argument with a mate one day about this. The increase in price of petrol is not about how much the petrol or a tank costs, it's about how much extra you actually spend on petrol. I don't do a lotta k's, so I'm not that sensitive about the price. I still think the oil companies are a corrupt bunch of ar$eholes, but it affects me a lot less than, say, my sister with running around her kids.

You have already said that you are happy to spend (based on 12.5l/100km) a certain amount of money.

If you do 20K kms per year, at 13.7l/100 you will spend $4657.80 per year (at $1.70/l for petrol). That's a lotta money, isn't it? The difference between 13.7L/100 and 12.5L/100 is $406.30 (at $1.70/l) for the full year. Or $7.81 per week. Think about it.....if the price went down, or up, when would you be happy - or really stop being happy?

6. Edit/tunes. There's a lot of people that have had improved economy with edit/tunes. Maybe you too, with 280rwkw. Now that musta been on the edge for a T5 If it's a big concern, you might even be get the tuner to do a real 'economy tune'. Most tunes are done for power, so I reckon with the expertise of the sponsors they could do one for economy. I don't' get why, but it's theoretically possible...

But ultimately, I'm with Iconic. I'm *interested* in the economy - also as an indicator that something's not working right- but I gave up worrying about it. Neither the BA, BFII or any of them is 'economical. My car (to me) is a keeper

hth & good luck

ws

Edited 09/06/08 02:26 PM by wiresquire

[wados]

Mine has - only a tiny bit.

Based on all the data I have, I've gone up about 0.75 L/100KM.

that's probably because its far more fun to drive

mine has gone up not by much but if you take into account I went from using 91 ron to 98 ron when I got the tune it means the thing is using more.

[Steve_89]

I use 7.5L/100km on the highway.

I'm getting 630km to a tank. All highway driving.

I get approx 520km a tank with a bit of city cruising thrown in.

[Superdan]

noticed a huge difference after putting a K&N panel in and new fuel filter, guzzling at best!

[SubJimbo]

Im getting about 420-450K's a Tank,, Sound normal for a N/A? Its probally just the way Im driving it...