So I have a 4 x 4 Car.
When I researched the car and even now,the dealers say that I should be getting 8.1l per 100km
it is a diesel vehicle.
I drive 104km a day.
I am extremely carefull and have do not drive fast at all.
I adhere to the speed limits etc
My car is giving me 8.9l per 100
Most of the driving like 70% is on highway.
Should I just get some timber and build a bridge and get over it or be a little conscious of this?
What ful consumption are you guys getting having a 4 x 4 diesel ?
Worried OP
Fuel Consumption Query-Not Getting The Numbers as Expected
grabngo on 20/10/2015 - 10:36
Comments
Is it a V.W? Is it manual or Auto?
Ford Territory
Some hills
I coast downhill
No roof racks
No tailgating
No fast accelarting at all
Hills = increased fuel consumption. You save far less coasting (hopefully just off the throttle, not out of gear!) down than you use just to maintain speed going up let alone accelerating whilst going up.
Especially in a heavy tank like a Territory!it's the hills plus how rough the roads are.
the quoted fuel is in ideal conditions of course - perfectly pressurised tyres, smooth as glass roads etc.
And minimal fuel in the tank to reduce weight.
Just get over it OP. What the manufacturer's and dealer's say, is hardly pin point accurate in real life scenarios. Don't rely on that.
This. in laboratory testing, I heard they take out everything inside the car to lighten the load, including the spare tyre to get the lowest possible reading.
True. They are NOT the figures that you should base your expectations on, not by a long shot.
The best source for reliable consumption info would be an owners forum.
No big deal, I was expecting you to be about 5L/100km off the combined figure. You're less than 1L/100 off it. Not something to concern yourself with.
I wish I could get within 3L/100km of the rated figure!
Within 1L/100km is outstanding!
I think when manufacturers test cars, they test them down a hill and drive 500mm behind another car to slipstream.
Road Test Review 9L / 100km
Source : http://www.caradvice.com.au/ford/territory/price-specificati…
It is an ALL wheel drive. (ie permanent 4wd)
Neighbor had a Captiva All wheel drive diesel, don't know what consumption was
got rid of it after 4 months due to abysmal fuel consumption.kind regards.
AWD's in cars like this are not normally "full time", they only kick in when the sensors deem it necessary.
If it's a manual you should follow this tip from RACQ:
Use the gearbox sensibly, and change up through the gears as soon as practical
There's heaps of other reliable fuel saving tips here:
http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-main…
If it's an auto, obviously make sure you're driving in D gear and ensure you do not select "OD off". We once accidentally drove our rental car for 100km in gear 3 instead of gear D. That wasted fuel and revved the engine too much.
I coast downhill
What do you mean by coasting down hill? You should put the car in gear to go down hill. If the engine is idling this uses fuel. If the engine is in gear then the energy from rolling down the hill will be turning over the engine rather than the fuel, and this way the engine can use no fuel. Pretty sure about this anyway, but maybe someone can confirm this.
Edit: Yep, it's the first fuel myth debunked if you watch the RACQ vid in my link above, or watch it on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/jKJQ9NLjqSM
Correct, at least for modern engines.
Also saves the brakes!But I'm inclined to believe the RACQ guy:
In the last 20 years or so most cars actually have a feature called fuel cut on overrun, so that when the car is descending a hill or coasting there's no fuel going into the engine anyway.
The first link on Google tends to agree with the RACQ guy and even provides a link to a Bosch technical specification…
Modern electronic (as opposed to mechanical) fuel-injection systems (that also includes TBI (throttle body) single-point injection) are equipped with throttle position sensor. In the event of overrun (higher RPM, closed throttle) fuel input is cut off, thus making it more efficient than coasting in neutral and using brakes alone…
Cutoff of the fuel supply during overrun operation permits the fuel consumption to be reduced considerably not only when driving downhill but also in town traffic.
Source: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/3600/is-engine-…
Edit: Well I did some more research and the Wikipedia article categorically states that "fuel injected engines don't use any fuel while engine braking." However it doesn't provide a citation.
Wish I could get within 1L of what I apparently should be getting … I'd be chuffed with these numbers and I have a Lancer.
CVT?
Yeah regrets++
Tips as above…
Nothing's going to help your consumption if you solely drive in peak hour though.
I work earlier than peak and get the stated figures.
hold on… you have a 2 ton SUV and you're getting 8.9 vs 8.1 and you're complaining about it?
is it a new vehicle?
you know you're upset about a bucks worth of diesel right?
A DOLLAR!
The problem is that driving a car in the real world on a variety of weather and road conditions and variable load and different driver usage patterns ends up with different results.
Also the number you see on your dash is calculated with an algorithm that is based on a variety of sensors that may or may not be 100% accurate, and that algorithm is merely a rough indicator.
My car has an instant and average fuel usage… it can be anywhere from 5lt/100 up to 45lt/100. It synthesizes a number that I doubt matches the stated avg.
If the use was getting 12 litres, I be wary but 0.8 difference? yeesh
0.8 = could be aircon vs. no aircon vs. windows down
Hopefully the OP was smarter than relying on his dash and checked his fuel consuption at the bowser with his odometer reading.
My 4x4 Dmax also should return 8.1L/100km on average. I've never once hit that. It usually averages around 10L/100km, or (20% less) but then I do carry around 500kg's of tools/accessories. Still happy with that return.
Someone I know filters the traffic like crazy and that's how they get excellent fuel consumption. It's not about driving fast or slow but keeping a constant speed, but you don't want to drive like that, your passengers are likely to pee their pants.
I have the 2 wheel drive version of your car, 2 years old, 30000k's and returns an average of 8.3 L/100k, so your 4 wheel drive version seems about right.
Remember the fuel consumption figures advertised are more for comparison purposes than real life achievable figures.
That's the key. The fuel consumption figures as advertised are there primarily to allow you to compare fuel consumption between vehicles, not as an accurate indication of what figures you'll get in real world use.
How is the 2 wheel drive version? I reckon 2 wheel drive is good enough if you don't go off roading, but my mate who seems to be biased towards 4WD/AWD says that for heavy vehicles/SUV you need 4WD for safety. What are your thoughts?
2WD version is fine, I cannot see why you would need a 4WD if you are not offroading, even people that buy big 4WD's for hauling big caravans still only use them in 2WD when towing.
I know a lot of people are dirty on territory's for some reason, I guess it's just the Aussie pastime of knocking everything homegrown. But for me it is a great car, designed and built in Australia for Australian conditions and probably the best car I have ever owned. A perfect touring car for handling the crappy roads that predominate in rural Victoria where I live.I am looking at the 2WD CR-V. I have seen some video reviews that show the Dynamic 4WD on CRV doesn't work well. The only thing that worries me is the 2WD is only 2.0L while the 4WD has 2.4L. Anyone drive a 2WD 2.0L CRV? Enough power for regular drive with family of 4?
All good comments, one thing to add is if you are doing 110klm on the highway, the claimed "highway" consumption test is usually performed slower then that, it can be as low as 90klm's
I have read that the optimum driving speed for fuel efficiency is 55mph (~90kph). Driving at higher speeds decreases fuel efficiency regardless of the type of car you drive. Driving at 70mph (~110kph) can decrease fuel efficiency by up to 17%. Assuming OP is driving at 110kph on the highway his/her fuel consumption could actually be about right because manufacturer's figures are done in ideal conditions. From personal experience I have tried driving at 95-100kph for large portions of a trip from Sydney to Canberra and back (including suburban driving while in Canberra) and achieved 5.4l/100km vs manufacturer's 5.2l/100km.
Sources: www.mpgforspeed.com & www.eartheasy.com/move_fuel_efficient_driving.html
You within 10% of what they said, I mean I dont think you can expect anything much better than that
Joke thread surely? 8.9L I'm sure many sedans are over this.
Yes, and majority of them would be petrol powered not diesel.
My RG Colorado quite easily sits around 8 on a long highway trip. That's in a 5sp manual not the newer 6sp versions. Guessing they would be slightly less?
Fuel consumption should improve when its run in a bit. My wifes I30 diesel used 5.1l on a run from Syd to Port Mac when new but now with 70,000km on the clock its always around 4.8 or 4.9l.
Do newer engines use more petrol?
new engines have tighter tolerances and therefore more friction and drag. Its not unusual to see performance and economy improve once the engines have some milage on them. My old Landrover TDI diesel did not loosen up till it had around 70,000km on the motor for example.
Wait, wait, you bought a 'new' Ford Territory? You do realise that they sell other cars in Australia, right?
"Worried OP."
It is a 2 tonne SUV diesel vehicle. Consuming anything under 10L/100km at high speed is not bad. (assuming your 70% highway speed >100kmh)
real example: my diesel 4x4 ute gets 9.5L/100km around town <60kph, but highway speeds @110kph consumption goes up to 11L/100km
real example: my diesel 4x4 ute gets 9.5L/100km around town <60kph, but highway speeds @110kph consumption goes up to 11L/100km
Jees, either
1) How old is the car, or
2) How much extra weight is that carrying?2003
8.9L that sounds damn good for a car that size.
I have a 1 month old 2.0litre turbo diesel 4x4 getting around 7.2 L per 100 around town, the spec say 5.5 didn't expect to get near that,7.2 for a 2 tonne vehicle is pretty good.
A simple check of the Ford Territory brochure shows that RWD (rear wheel drive) variants use 8.2 L/100km on the official test cycle, but if yours is an AWD (4x4), the quoted figures are 8.8 L/100km for the TX (base model) and 9.0 L/100km for the TS and Titanium (mid and high spec).
Tell your Ford dealer to look at P.30 of the brochure before giving customers incorrect info!
Bear in mind that these quoted figures are based on a laboratory test cycle, with cars on a dyno, as that is the only way to ensure the test is consistently repeatable. Real world consumption can vary greatly based on the type of driving you do, wind conditions, hills, road surface, driving style, fuel quality, temperature, etc etc.
You are actually getting almost exactly what the quoted figure is, so you should be VERY happy, as most people will get 10-30% more than the quoted figure.
Why did you buy a large 4x4 if you're so concerned about fuel consumption…?
Our Golf uses 5.5 litres on a long-term average, even though we don't try too hard to save fuel.cos… SUV
Try a PHEV next time! After 9000km my SUV has done 4L/100km and that includes 2 interstate holidays (about 5000km) where we couldn't do too much recharging. Fuel bill for 2 ICE cars was $8/day, now petrol+electricity for same usage of 2 EV is $2/day.
Diesels are good for trucking and boating, not really for household short run usage.
Never, ever, in the history of the world, has anyone ever achieved the mileage claimed by manufacturers. Get over it, move on, and don't ever buy another territory. They have a 40 to 50 year old design cast iron engine - it will NEVER give good gas mileage.
Remember - conditions apply, your mileage may vary, objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.
@Gershom: Good to see you publicly flaunting your utter ignorance when it comes to cars. The OP has a DIESEL Territory, which is actually an engine that was used in Range Rovers. It is in no way related to the "40 to 50 year old design cast iron engine" which you referred to. Buy the way, have you even driven the latest version of that "cast iron engine" that is used in Falcon and Territory? I don't think so because if you had, you would be amazed by it's refinement, low down torque, driveability and fuel economy that is actually pretty good considering the power available and the size/weight of the vehicle.
I missed that it was a diesel - my bad, such a crime.
Good to see the Ford fan boys defending the old petrol cast iron boat anchor, no matter what, and over reacting so comically at any hint that Ford is less than perfect. Not many Holden/Ford Bathursts left for you guys to get tanked up at now, eh? Such sophistication.
Well Charlie, I'm flattered that you've got nothing better to do than to follow my musings and reprint them out of context. I suppose it's some kind of a life for you …………
Spend $600 or so, get it professionally ECU tuned. I have an optimised fuel mapping/ignition profile for 98 octane (for towing, high loads etc) and one for 98 octane trimmed as tight as possible to save fuel. I save around 20% on the lean profile. I'm sure you could get a similar ECU mapping for your diesel.
My average at the moment is 19.9L/100… :/
(not a Ford Territory Diesel)Old VT ;) I've been only 1-2km a day recently. Would normally get about 14L/100KM though.. :p
Redbook says:
Fuel Consumption Extra Urban (L/100km) 10
Fuel Consumption Urban (L/100km) 17.4Old 5.7L VT
Fixed for you :P
They'll be quoting the factory tested numbers. You'll never get that sort of fuel economy, because they do whatever they possibly can to make the test as beneficial to the factory as possible. The test is also conducted on a dynomometer, so it's not a real world test, I'm not sure, but I don't think it accounts for air resistance, and if it does, you can be certain that they'll calculate it in such a manner that will be most beneficial to the factory.
Basically the factory wants the lowest fuel consumption figures they possible can get, so they game the test to get those figures.
Hills?
Roof Racks?
Tyres properly inflated?
Do you tailgate and subsequently need to continuously brake/accelerate, or do you leave a safety buffer and coast/accelerate (both city and highway driving)?
Do you accelerate from lights/in traffic like you're on Pole Position in the Grand Prix?
Driving Fast doesn't necessarily mean increased fuel consumption. It's acceleration that uses fuel.