You don't have to believe it, but thats what it does, the vvt in the later models has improved economy by a couple of L/100, oh and its 5.6L engine thank you very much[emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeros
Printable View
You don't have to believe it, but thats what it does, the vvt in the later models has improved economy by a couple of L/100, oh and its 5.6L engine thank you very much[emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeros
I don't find it strange. While fuel economy has stayed the same, the amount of torque produced is much higher all through the rev range so the efficiency gains were put back into performance rather than frugality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeros
5.6L !!! Jeepers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern
My 4.6 high comp V8 Rover in a very heavy D2 fully laden gets 13.5 liters per 100k on a long highway run (lift, big chunky tyres, roof rack) so a 5.6 with a hell of a lot of tech in a similar weight or slightly heavier should get 12 or so on the highway. Can easily see that. Small diesels when heavily laden are not a thing of beauty.
Cheers
Modern petrol motors almost match the diesels, in a small car I wouldn't bother with an oil burner. Once you get over 2 ton the diesels come into their own but capacity still needs to match the mass it propels.
Putting this in perspective though, that economy is achieved by shutting down 4 of the 8 cylinders when not required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern
Yep anyone who buys a diesel Golf over a petrol Mazda 3 for eg and thinks they are ahead in real world economy needs to sit down and think some more.Quote:
Originally Posted by loanrangie
Cheers
Wrong. The vk56vd does not ever shut off any cylinders. What vvel (variable valve event lift) does is change the cam hight on the intake and exhaust side depending on throttle input. This is what allows the 5.6 to make 500nm at 1600rpm and when combined with direct injection instant power anywhere in the rev range. There is no need to ever ring it's neckQuote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
The Petrol / Deisel argument is moot for me . The Deisel is dead as far as I’m concerned. And its not what your thinking,
The Deisel has so much crap on it , like the petrol of the 80’s. . The EGR , DPF & SCR. Have done it for me. . They have taken the reliability and long term dependability away from the Deisel. I’ll chose Petrol over Deisel every time now . But bring on Electrics.
Not a 4WD comparison but.....Quote:
Originally Posted by goingbush
I run a TDV6 in a Territory, it's my second diesel Terri.
Petrol 13.6 ltr/100 for work, wife gets it for the school run and 18 ltr/100 ! Sold at 220,000km
Diesel 8.4 ltr/100 for work, wife now gets around 10ltr/100 on the school run. Currently at 210,000km
No DPF but 2 EGR's which haven't caused any issues yet.
The general comments about economy not changing much have to factor in all the extra safety equipment & luxuries a modern car has to drag around with it. Maybe a weight comparison along with the fuel figures would give a better idea.
Just over 10 years ago I drove my Series I to Cooma & back and got about 13 ltr/100, at the time my petrol Territory was doing about 13.6 ltr/100 (Would have done better on a run to Cooma). More efficient but a huge weight difference.
This year I towed the Series I to Cooma and the diesel Territory averaged about 9.8 litres/100.
Diesel for me until a viable alternative for 6/7 people and a reasonable tow capacity. It'll come but not for a few years yet.
Colin