Thread: Out there idea - engine conv.

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

The Ford (not the dealership) service rep. told me my vehicles fuel consumption is typical and within the acceptable range. Being a ute makes not the slightest difference as the powertrain is exactly the same. The other Falcon owners I have spoken to have sedans or wagons and are getting similar fuel consumption figures. I will not have another one as, besides the gas guzzling, the electrical unreliability, the brake rotor wear, the inbuilt cylinder head and head gasket fault, and the hair-raising spare parts prices have soured me on Ford product for ever.

This is getting like the Tdi vs TD5 thread ! SOme of like Falcons, some like commodores. Let's ALL get over it shall we.

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

For a AUIII, there must be something wrong with it!
A tray back should do far better than a ute with no cover!

Perhaps not.. As I understand it, an empty ute will form a 'bubble of air' behind the cab (circulating in the tray if you like) so that oncoming air hits the screen - goes over the roff and flows across the top of the vehicle - cleanly (ish). A tray back on the other hand will have air flowing across the roof then directly down behind the cab which increases drag, apparently. Certainly tests of a ute with tailgate closed and tailgate open have demonstrated that the tailgate open had higher fuel consumption. Where did I see this ? MYTHBUSTERS.

Ha ! Beat me to it Jon - just while I was typing so were you - your message was shorter so you hit the go button earlier !!!!

Originally Posted by BigJon

Plus a tray top will have extra width hanging in the breeze, rope rails, etc all adding to drag.

This being the reason my 200Tdi Defender can't match it down the quarter mile against my old Falcon. Perhaps I shopuld put a tub on it after all !

Originally Posted by BigJon

If you are refering to how they calculate fuel useage to put on the sticker on the windscreen, there is an Australian Standard test which is performed on a rolling road (dyno). The figure on the windscreen will often have little to do with what is realistically achievable in the real world (particularly towing or heavily laden).

It was hand written on the sticker in black texta and there was another sticker on there with something like 14l/100kms which was printed which I thought must be a standard cab chassis.

If it's tested on a rolling road then aero wouldnt come into it at all so the figures will be significantly lower which would explain it pretty well I would think.

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

For a AUIII, there must be something wrong with it!
A tray back should do far better than a ute with no cover!

Maybe you should take it to a LPG guru for a tune up?

We had the EBII on LPG and the consupmtion was far better than that. However, on petrol it could do 28mpg on a trip, 25mpg on LPG.

However, overall it was not as good as the AUIII.
Those with the BA and BF do not get as good an economy as the old AU

As I said, It had TOOL BOXES as in a work body with tool boxes roof hight from the head board to the back on either side of the tray with the middle open and I had them generally full of tools and parts most of the time which on the weigh bridge was around 750kg mark.

Most of the usage was around Melbourne as well so that would make it a bit worse.

The problem I had was with the stealer who wouldnt even consider that there was anything wrong with it or even consider doing anything more than plugging it into their computer and looking at a read out.

Regardless of what my fuel card read out said, they still argued that there was nothing wrong with it and that it wasnt using that much fuel.

By the way, it is 2008, Mpg is used in the US and UK not Australia, makes it hard to work out what people are talking about when 1 blokes talking ltrs/100kms and another goes to great lengths to convert kms to miles and ltrs to gallons.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

This being the reason my 200Tdi Defender can't match it down the quarter mile against my old Falcon.

Yep, that would be the only reason...

Originally Posted by mcrover

By the way, it is 2008, Mpg is used in the US and UK not Australia, makes it hard to work out what people are talking about when 1 blokes talking ltrs/100kms and another goes to great lengths to convert kms to miles and ltrs to gallons.

Only if you are young!
For some of us who learnt imperial at school, filled our cars with gallons, find it easier to equate with distance versus volume. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

It won't be long and us old School will be dead and you will have your way!
So, in 2008, I will do it my way and you can do it yours.
If it's too hard, don't bother..

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

Only if you are young!
For some of us who learnt imperial at school, filled our cars with gallons, find it easier to equate with distance versus volume. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

It won't be long and us old School will be dead and you will have your way!
So, in 2008, I will do it my way and you can do it yours.
If it's too hard, don't bother..

I think his point is that converting litres to gallons, then miles to kms seems overly complex just to arrive at a figure you can;t compare readily to any understood by someone under about 45 years of age !

As you say though, each to his won !

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

. Lires per 100 km means absolutely nothing to me.

..

I think only the Italians use that measurement...

Originally Posted by BigJon

I think only the Italians use that measurement...