Diesel Sales Up 57% in 5 Years...

[Olbucko]

[QUOTE=mike_nofx;5982559]65L to do (up to) 700km is 9.3L/100km, nothing too amazing. I'd be willing to bet the petrol Mazda equivalent, The CX-5 could match or better that, and without the cheap interior plastics too.



For some more comparisons, I do a 200km round trip to work, here is the real world fuel consumption results for a few vehicles:

My old BF Wagon egas - 14L/100km
Wifes Mazda CX-3 - 6.0L/100km
My old 2.8TD Jeep Wrangler - 12L/100km
My old 4.0TD Landcruiser - 13L/100km
Fathers Camry - 8.5L/100km
Fathers 5.0 Mustang - cracks into the 9-10L/100km
My Current 6.0 SS Wagon - 10.5L/100km[/QUOTE

My FGX XR6 has averaged 9.3 L/100 km over the last 10,000 Km, 30% city, 70% country driving, and servicing for a falcon is about as cheap as it gets.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by EDManual

I have a DMax 3.0 Diesel Manual, and its great I reckon. No joke, I sit on 120-125 all the time and get 7.5 l/100! I am sure if I had a petrol version of a 2 tonne ute, i would be getting at least 15 to drive in the same fashion.

I assume the D Max's run DPF's ye?

Was telling my dad about all the dpf problems that have been going around and he knew a bit about them.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Ben73

7.5 on the freeway? I know it's rated at 7.5L for a combined cycle, but we all know those figures are extremely conservative and no real life drivers can achieve them.

Ranger diesel 10.1L/100km
Grand Cherokee Petrol 12L/100kms
Same driver, same roads, GC 100kgs heavier.

Good thing is when you accelerate in a petrol it moves forward at a decent rate instantly, no 2 second turbo lag at all. Which I prefer in my driving style. I hate the 2 seconds of nothing, then the sudden burst of acceleration. Plus when you properly get up it, petrol powers up to 6000rpm. None of that wheezing at 3000rpm as it runs out of puff and has to decide to up shift.
Apparently some of the Euro sedan diesel are pretty decent, but I have only driven diesel in 4x4's (9 of them to be precise) so that's what I am basing it off.

I noticed very little turbo lag on the Jeep, are you talking more about transmission lag.
this is more common on the Territory I drive and the Ranger - same trans.

The Jeep has the 8 speed, much more responsive and the diesel never runs out of puff cos it just upshifts as it leaves the petrol V6 behind.

V6 Petrol 0-100 9.1 sec
V6 diesel 0-100 8.2 sec

[Tickford.]

Diesel per litre price is expected to rise considerably in the next 5 years - apparently. Some are saying could be up to 50-60% more than petrol. So if we are looking at $1.50 per litre for petrol, and about $2.25+ per litre for diesel not too long from now, that would put a serious dent to the slight km per litre advantage diesel has.

If this is true, then I can't see any advantage, or any reason to own a diesel powered passenger vehicle. And that really has been the reason people have forked out for diesel passenger cars. The km per litre factor is what most people jumped on the wagon for.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Ben73

7.5 on the freeway? I know it's rated at 7.5L for a combined cycle, but we all know those figures are extremely conservative and no real life drivers can achieve them.

Ranger diesel 10.1L/100km
Grand Cherokee Petrol 12L/100kms
Same driver, same roads, GC 100kgs heavier.

Good thing is when you accelerate in a petrol it moves forward at a decent rate instantly, no 2 second turbo lag at all. Which I prefer in my driving style. I hate the 2 seconds of nothing, then the sudden burst of acceleration. Plus when you properly get up it, petrol powers up to 6000rpm. None of that wheezing at 3000rpm as it runs out of puff and has to decide to up shift.
Apparently some of the Euro sedan diesel are pretty decent, but I have only driven diesel in 4x4's (9 of them to be precise) so that's what I am basing it off.

Must be driving mostly highway driving to get 8L out of the the 5 cylinder.
Xr6 Turbo is hardly the standard petrol engine. I don't think it is high on the list for people looking for economy cars.

Modern diesel are great compared to older ones, still I don't see their benefits in smaller passenger vehicles driving around town.

I have a MY15 diesel GC and it stays under 9l/100 99% of the time and that includes peak hour driving 3 days per week two and from work. Typically, it sits around 8.3-8.5l/100

Acceleration wise, it was doughy off the mark until the S49 update which has sharpened it up/reduced turbo lag significantly and man does it lift it's skirt if you want it too and sounds good doing it too, certainly no wheezing don't even think I've ever reached its rev limit neither.

Sound wise, it has a soft diesel growl which I actually like but in no way is it intrusive and at cruise, you can't here the engine, it really is a sweet little donk.

I'm comparison, I back to back drove it with a new Ranger 3.2 about 6 weeks ago, that engine is from the dark ages by comparison, just didn't get up and go and was thrashy, I was disappointed as I was considering a Ranger. Same applied to a 3 year old Prado I was in about 12 months ago for that matter.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by xxxg

Diesel per litre price is expected to rise considerably in the next 5 years - apparently. Some are saying could be up to 50-60% more than petrol. So if we are looking at $1.50 per litre for petrol, and about $2.25+ per litre for diesel not too long from now, that would put a serious dent to the slight km per litre advantage diesel has.

If this is true, then I can't see any advantage, or any reason to own a diesel powered passenger vehicle. And that really has been the reason people have forked out for diesel passenger cars. The km per litre factor is what most people jumped on the wagon for.

If that happens, the cost of virtually everything will go up so I can't see that happening.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by xxxg

Diesel per litre price is expected to rise considerably in the next 5 years - apparently. Some are saying could be up to 50-60% more than petrol. So if we are looking at $1.50 per litre for petrol, and about $2.25+ per litre for diesel not too long from now, that would put a serious dent to the slight km per litre advantage diesel has.

If this is true, then I can't see any advantage, or any reason to own a diesel powered passenger vehicle. And that really has been the reason people have forked out for diesel passenger cars. The km per litre factor is what most people jumped on the wagon for.

diesel is a by product of petrol, petrol is a by product diesel..

RE: if one goes up so does the other.... this country is run by diesel.

[EDManual]

Originally Posted by CoolBFWagon

I assume the D Max's run DPF's ye?

Was telling my dad about all the dpf problems that have been going around and he knew a bit about them.

I dont think the commercials do run dpfs actually. Tell him I always get over 1000km a tank ;-) I run it to the light, and that comes on about 870 to 900, then you can do an easy 150 more with the light on. Usually put in 75 litres, but have put in 80 before. I have hired auto versions before and you will use at 1 to 2 litres per hundred more.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by EDManual

I dont think the commercials do run dpfs actually.

many commercials run adblue (or similar) instead of running a DPF.

Heavy vehicles have been ahead of passenger vehicles for emissions standards for years, so these urea products are readily available these days.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by xxxg

Diesel per litre price is expected to rise considerably in the next 5 years - apparently. Some are saying could be up to 50-60% more than petrol. So if we are looking at $1.50 per litre for petrol, and about $2.25+ per litre for diesel not too long from now, that would put a serious dent to the slight km per litre advantage diesel has.

If this is true, then I can't see any advantage, or any reason to own a diesel powered passenger vehicle. And that really has been the reason people have forked out for diesel passenger cars. The km per litre factor is what most people jumped on the wagon for.

eventually, regardless of price, the decision won't be up to the consumer. Manufacturers will (and have already) simply stop making diesel passenger vehicles.

small capacity turbo's are the new favourite, with many already capable of diesel like characteristics.

[Pis-ton broke]

my diesel landcrusier is cheaper to run than my xr6. an i love that crusier, its an great wagon. if ford made a diesel falcon, i would probably buy it.

[Sprintey]

The ICE engine tech I'm really interested in seeing will be this one:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/573721/m...us-tech-plans/

somewhere between diesel & petrol and probably able to run 91

Mike_nofx that's some good consumption on the petrol Camry and the little CX3 too...

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

I noticed very little turbo lag on the Jeep, are you talking more about transmission lag.
this is more common on the Territory I drive and the Ranger - same trans.

The Jeep has the 8 speed, much more responsive and the diesel never runs out of puff cos it just upshifts as it leaves the petrol V6 behind.

V6 Petrol 0-100 9.1 sec
V6 diesel 0-100 8.2 sec

Possibly, someone said the early models had a throttle lag type thing which was bad on the diesels. Felt very similar to turbo lag.
I noticed it in the Grand Cherokee taking off from a stand. Would it be transmission lag in that situation?
The Ranger sometimes was a little slow on the kickdown under normal driving conditions. Turbo lag taking off is definitely noticeable, especially at busy roundabouts where you want to get up and go as soon as you press the throttle down.

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Turbo lag taking off is definitely noticeable, especially at busy roundabouts where you want to get up and go as soon as you press the throttle down.

I think this is more a case of fly by wire throttle delay than it is turbo lag. I don't have one fitted in mine cause I've never found it to be that annoying but have driven a few different cars with an i-drive or similar and it makes a huge difference to the throttle response.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Ah Australia, always willing to take the cheapest (immediate) option and ignore the consequences of those actions. This is but the latest example.

No, that is the reason behind the rise and fall of diesels elsewhere, especially Europe.
For a while if they wanted to improve fuel-economy diesel was the best option, so that's what manufacturers did.
More recently, petrol engines have improved and hybrids have emerged, whilst diesels struggle to meet emissions requirements, and so manufacturers have swung away.
At some point, they will figure out how to make diesels cleaner, and the pendulum will swing again.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

The ICE engine tech I'm really interested in seeing will be this one:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/573721/m...us-tech-plans/

somewhere between diesel & petrol and probably able to run 91

Mike_nofx that's some good consumption on the petrol Camry and the little CX3 too...

Yes this new tech is great but i still say, for now anyways, The EcoLPI Falcon is the cleanest burning, cheapest to run large, 4 seater car that can tow up to 2,500kg in Oz.