LS3 gets a spray for poor MPG

GTP290 · 13-05-2008, 09:39 PM

drive.com has given the new LS3 a bit of a spray on its 15.3 and 15.7(maloo) litres per 100km on there website.

They compare the engine with european engines with same or fewer cubic inches and the Alloy dinasour gets the worst consumption of the lot and its also the slowest, even the BOSS V8 gets 1.3 litres per 100 better and the Ford turbo which is also faster saves 3.6 litres per 100km more than the Chev!

I think Ford have done the right thing keeping the BOSS to 5.4 litres as it looks for other ways to find extra power, where as HSV really look like enviromental thugs by making there engines bigger and thirstier, something which may come back to bite them in the rear as fuel resources and prices are stretched to the limit.

smoo · 13-05-2008, 11:36 PM

Looks like enviromental thugs? Who to? Ill informed Greenies... so be it, they never let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially to suit their agenda.

These guys must be thrashing them. I could better that figure in my dirty old 2 tonne Mercedes V8 with an engine from the 1970s. What about all the LSx V8s averaging 10 or so l/100km. Maybe these journos could do a write up on how economical a V8 would be if driven right... Then again, that doesn't suit their guilt tripping enviro scam that most have fallen into.

azaxr8 · 13-05-2008, 11:42 PM

who buys a v8 on fuel consumption. PERIOD! i know i didnt.

Steffo · 13-05-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoo

Looks like enviromental thugs? Who to? Ill informed Greenies... so be it, they never let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially to suit their agenda.

These guys must be thrashing them. I could better that figure in my dirty old 2 tonne Mercedes V8 with an engine from the 1970s. What about all the LSx V8s averaging 10 or so l/100km. Maybe these journos could do a write up on how economical a V8 would be if driven right... Then again, that doesn't suit their guilt tripping enviro scam that most have fallen into.

I'd pay money to see an LSx motor get 10L/100km anywhere but on the highway in 6th!

Jayden · 14-05-2008, 12:40 AM

Well they do need to lower the mpg on v8s. people will stop buying them when running costs are more than a rabid drug habit... and since it can be done.

vztrt · 14-05-2008, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'd pay money to see an LSx motor get 10L/100km anywhere but on the highway in 6th!

Mate of mine can do it, but he was also nicknamed mr 2 grand as he wouldn't go over it.

greenfoam · 14-05-2008, 03:42 AM

They all run under 10 on the highway with a tune, not sure without it. There's probably none left in the world untuned anyway at this stage, still pretty bad around town, but it's a huge motor in the end, there's only so much you can do. I thought the HSV would have been better on fuel than the Holdens. I see HSV factory rate them to get to 100 in 4.9 seconds, So they can't have piked out tooo much, not like Holden do anyway

Steffo · 14-05-2008, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Mate of mine can do it, but he was also nicknamed mr 2 grand as he wouldn't go over it.

That sounds about right, drive like grandma, keep under 2000rpm, barely exceed 90km/h in any situation, even 100 zone freeways.

No normally driven LSx I've ever seen has done that. Including an LS1 Caprice owned by a hire car driver. Not exactly a speed demon that one...

Steffo · 14-05-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Mate of mine can do it, but he was also nicknamed mr 2 grand as he wouldn't go over it.

That sounds about right, drive like grandma, keep under 2000rpm, barely exceed 90km/h in any situation, even 100 zone freeways.

No normally driven LSx I've ever seen has done that. Including an LS1 Caprice owned by a hire car driver. Not exactly a speed demon that one...

Steffo · 14-05-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Mate of mine can do it, but he was also nicknamed mr 2 grand as he wouldn't go over it.

That sounds about right, drive like grandma, keep under 2000rpm, barely exceed 90km/h in any situation, even 100 zone freeways.

No normally driven LSx I've ever seen has done that. Including an LS1 Caprice owned by a hire car driver. Not exactly a speed demon that one...

burnz · 14-05-2008, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'd pay money to see an LSx motor get 10L/100km anywhere but on the highway in 6th!

how much money have you got??
you owe me and thousand's other money.

owl · 14-05-2008, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'd pay money to see an LSx motor get 10L/100km anywhere but on the highway in 6th!

sorry to tell you buddy ,i owned a boss 290 .the ls2 kills it everywhere including fuel consumption figures ,and oh, its not an oil burner

Rodp · 14-05-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azaxr8

who buys a v8 on fuel consumption. PERIOD! i know i didnt.

I didn't before fuel started to hit $1.50 a litre.

Steffo · 14-05-2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by owl

sorry to tell you buddy ,i owned a boss 290 .the ls2 kills it everywhere including fuel consumption figures ,and oh, its not an oil burner

Okay? What does that have to do with anything? I said I'd pay money to see a super-thirsty LSx get 10L/100km anywhere but the highway.

The even thirstier, worse, 5.4 boat anchor was never brought into it.

Bad Bird · 14-05-2008, 08:36 AM

I've heard the LSx series called many things, but never thirsty.

4Vman · 14-05-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

I've heard the LSx series called many things, but never thirsty.

Ive never heard them described as "fuel efficient" either... 15-18l/100km is about average for real world city use, you can make your own mind up if that's thirsty or not...

Bad Bird · 14-05-2008, 08:53 AM

If it were a 2.0l making 100kW I'd consider it thirsty. But it is a 6.2 litre which can do ~30mpg. I consider it pretty damned good.

Do WRX and EVOs get paid out for their "atrocious" fuel economy? (This isn't having a go, I really want to know).

bwhinnen · 14-05-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'd pay money to see an LSx motor get 10L/100km anywhere but on the highway in 6th!

That'd be nice, I'd like to see any V8 over 5L do that and be driven normally... Just isn't going to happen...

AC · 14-05-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Ive never heard them described as "fuel efficient" either... 15-18l/100km is about average for real world city use, you can make your own mind up if that's thirsty or not...

For sure. And when you compare it to the V8's of 20+ years ago its pretty reasonable.
People get shocked when i tell them my XC guzzles down 26-28L/100kms, sometimes more...

Which is almost the same to when it was running petrol.

Although, Old school V8's were never designed with economy in mind...

4Vman · 14-05-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

If it were a 2.0l making 100kW I'd consider it thirsty. But it is a 6.2 litre which can do ~30mpg. I consider it pretty damned good.

Do WRX and EVOs get paid out for their "atrocious" fuel economy? (This isn't having a go, I really want to know).

The reality is if you drive an LSx powered vehicle "spiritedly" they''ll chew it up, (no different to an i6T or boss).
Ive got too many friends with LS powered cars that regularly refuel every 250-300 k's, and average somewhere between 15-18l/100 k's, they enjoy their driving.
If you toddle around like an old lady and do allot of hwy k's you'll get relatively good economy, but you'll get that out of the Boss powered cars and I6T too.
Anyone claiming the LS motors are "better" on fuel economy than the competition is kidding themselves.

bwhinnen · 14-05-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

If it were a 2.0l making 100kW I'd consider it thirsty. But it is a 6.2 litre which can do ~30mpg. I consider it pretty damned good.

Do WRX and EVOs get paid out for their "atrocious" fuel economy? (This isn't having a go, I really want to know).

By the owners yes, by the car reviewers, I don't think so.

Real world comparison, a friend of mine (a car tart

) who used to own a BA XR6T ute, EVO 8 and now a VE SS sedan has done comparos. The XR6T was the best fuel wise, the 6.0L L98 SS next followed (not closely) by the EVO, all the same driving styles.

My wife has been driving the WRX lately, 15.5L/100km, effective city cycle where it gets driven around on 50, 60, 70 and 80kmph streets. And this car has been tuned (edit: away) from factory for better economy and power... This was comparable with the XR8 (similar power levels from both cars).

Steffo · 14-05-2008, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

If it were a 2.0l making 100kW I'd consider it thirsty. But it is a 6.2 litre which can do ~30mpg. I consider it pretty damned good.

Do WRX and EVOs get paid out for their "atrocious" fuel economy? (This isn't having a go, I really want to know).

Yes they do. They're extremley inefficient when it comes to fuel use, especially compared to their European counterpart turbo 4-cyls (RenaultSport Megane 225, Opel Astra OPC, Audi S3, VW Golf GTI etc etc).

How the Euro's can make a 2.0 Turbo 4 that when thrashed uses ~10.5-11/100 whilst the Jap's can't make one that uses less then an American V8 will never cease to amase me.

loltastic · 14-05-2008, 10:28 AM

My EVO registers 12L/100 on a combined cycle with mostly stop start and 60km/h speed limits. On the highway it gets down to high 8's. It's got exhaust and a safe (read: rich) tune too, so don't talk crap.

MAGPIE · 14-05-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhinnen

My wife has been driving the WRX lately, 15.5L/100km, effective city cycle where it gets driven around on 50, 60, 70 and 80kmph streets. And this car has been tuned (edit: away) from factory for better economy and power... This was comparable with the XR8 (similar power levels from both cars).

Must be something wrong with it surely

My V9 WRX averaged 9.75L 100/km and when I wasn't commuting in heavy peak hour traffic it was getting a damn good work out, not thrashed but driven hard.

MAGPIE · 14-05-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Yes they do. They're extremley inefficient when it comes to fuel use, especially compared to their European counterpart turbo 4-cyls (RenaultSport Megane 225, Opel Astra OPC, Audi S3, VW Golf GTI etc etc).

How the Euro's can make a 2.0 Turbo 4 that when thrashed uses ~10.5-11/100 whilst the Jap's can't make one that uses less then an American V8 will never cease to amase me.

Your so full of crap it's not funny

:

loltastic · 14-05-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Your so full of crap it's not funny

:

Thank god someone else sees it too.

:

I mean you also have to remember that a Golf GTi is making 147kW and 280Nm torque. Compare that to the new EVO engine, which is the same displacement at 2.0L inline turbo 4 banger producing 217kW (US & AU Spec) and 422Nm torque without the aid of direct injection.

I don't wanna turn this into Golf GTi vs EVO, because Steffo will assure us all that the GTi will run 0-100km/h in 3 seconds and return 5L/100km while towing Sydney Harbor bridge to a new location up a hill.

Don't talk crap about fuel economy figures when you don't know them. All V8's are thirsty as soon as you take them OFF the highway, it's a fact of life. 15.3L/100 is about what you'd expect for a big 6.2L V8 with no technology thrown at it.

bwhinnen · 14-05-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Must be something wrong with it surely

My V9 WRX averaged 9.75L 100/km and when I wasn't commuting in heavy peak hour traffic it was getting a damn good work out, not thrashed but driven hard.

Nope. As soon as it goes into a mixed cycle the average comes down to the high 9's. Short trips where the car doesn't warm up past cold start enrichment don't help fuel economy. The XR8 returned similar figures in similar driving conditions (within 1 - 2L / 100km which is close enough in my books given the displacement differences).

I've had this car for 9 years, driven it stock and modified, charted fuel usage and the lot, I know how uneconomical they can be as well as how economical they can be... (edit: Just like the three V8's I've owned...)

MAGPIE · 14-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwhinnen

I've had this car for 9 years, driven it stock and modified, charted fuel usage and the lot, I know how uneconomical they can be as well as how economical they can be... (edit: Just like the three V8's I've owned...)

Newer models have obviously improved somewhat.

Wally · 14-05-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loltastic

............... 15.3L/100 is about what you'd expect for a big 6.2L V8 with no technology thrown at it.

The last time I was getting that kind of usage was with the aussie 5.0. I hover in the 12s with the 6.0 auto.

Carby · 14-05-2008, 11:19 AM

Well I have a new 317KW GTS and the motor is still very tight, but even now the consumption is running at 14.6L/100 km on an average speed of about 48kph - I find this very acceptable given that he sucker easily pulls away from any gear.