Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16-08-2006, 07:54 PM   #61
calaway
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gammaboy
So your telling us that cruising at 133km/h (minimum!) you got 8l/100km?
No mate. The 600kms was melb - wagga - wangarrata. Melb - Wagga is around 400ish kms. With a break it is 4 and a half hours.
calaway is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2006, 07:57 PM   #62
calaway
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe
The best i have seen out of my BA is 10.9 per 100 thats town and highway with very light foot driving, these BF figures are incredible.
I agree. Thats why I posted it. The more positives about the Ford product the better. Good to see that someone else got the same. I was starting to question myself :
calaway is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2006, 09:40 PM   #63
Iphido
Guy that posts stuff
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 553
Default

Fords are the most economical big six on the market hooked up to a regular box.

BMW's 3.0 are the only other engine that really makes simular power, but better fuel economy (something to do with the 5er being 1500kg?)

Drove a Fairlane Ghia around a while back, was impressed with both city and highway economy.

Seems like faster warm up of the box plays a big part.. lookat at BF 4 speed to BFII.. .2l/100, seemingly just from improve auto efficency mostly from quick warmups.
Iphido is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2006, 10:38 PM   #64
PepeLePew
Workshop & Performance
 
PepeLePew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hewett SA
Posts: 4,141
Default

Wonder how much of its calibration given the improvements that can be reaped with an edit on BA's?
__________________
When close is good enough and the 6 MPS in the driveway has FoMoCo written all over the place. Xr5 for sale shortly...just not a hatch guy
PepeLePew is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2006, 11:11 PM   #65
chevypower
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxy xr8
I only ever take my own calculation's, and I allway's fill up to full and not just the 1st click, I really fill it up, and then I take the klm's travelled and work it out, every time I fill up I set my trip computer so I can do the same next time, I never go by the DTE, although mine seem's fairly accurate with my calculation's, I do it manually, and like I said mine is a V8 and worked and with the millage I get I believe a six would do similar, remember I am only talking hwy klm's here's, but I believe it. if anybody doubt's my claim's on my XR8 I more than welcome them to come with me on a trip and I'll do the calculation's infront off them so they can see for themselves, I'm that confindent, but they can pay for the fuel ussage, lol.
you actually waste fuel by filling past the first click, according to one of my owners manuals, as the fuel evaporates and spills - it's hard to measure exact fuel useage - i tested the trip computer in my old Berlina, it was pretty spot on from what i could tell, the amount of litres it said it had consumed since it was filled, was replaced by the same amount on the next fill, and the distance travelled - well you can't even measure that one exactly yourself, as according to ADRs the vehicles odometer and speedometer is allowed to be +or-10% inaccurate. But according to the speed test on the Geelong Rd, my speedo was pretty accurate. Now the trip computer uses very simple mathematics calculating averages from the distance travelled and fuel consumed. But nobody could say they do it accurately as you could not get your measurements of fuel used accurate enough, and distance travelled as your odometer is not guaranteed to be accurate. And at the end of the day, what difference did your calculating make? to compare your fuel consumption with other cars, you have to go back and do the exact same driving in the exact same conditions to see which is better - thats why Window stickers are ok for me, telling me which car uses less and more in the same testing conditions.
chevypower is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2006, 11:17 PM   #66
Iphido
Guy that posts stuff
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 553
Default

I think most of the standard BF improvement came from (in my own personal order):
-Dual knock sensors
-Compression increase
-Dual VCT

With BFII
-Trans cooler/heater like ZF6 setup (or so I've gathered)

Aero talk is just that sexy press release talk. If its improving economy, its not showing on the 6 speed at all.

The cars with six speeds obviously are enhanced with extra ratios..

For a BA. I would say BFII auto box (or its transcooler/heater) would be a good bet. Reduce fuel consumption 0.2L per 100. Dual VCT should allow some more improvement 0.1-0.2L per 100..

Then I would imagine compression increases and adding 2nd knock sensors are more expensive and provide the most gain.

I don't think theres much that can be done to improve highway on BF/BFII with 6 speed other than Direct injection and further compression (and lose weight). Lightweight/low friction engine parts and a slightly higher compression ratio might also get you some very marginal gains.

Advanced Aero might get you another ~0.2L per 100km @ 100kmph.

City cycle has gains. Lose weight, restrict power, leaner ecu. BA ECU would seem to be not that economically tuned. You could improve whole litres.

Look at Audi, Merc, Lexus, Nissan. None have vechicals with much better economy in that class (other than diesels).
Iphido is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL