Just curious, why is there so much hate on big car fuel economy?

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Sorry but I missed the part where I said "Im a sick **** for owning a large car, small car owners are losers"
I do prefer a bigger car, that is just my preference, I never hate on people who own small cars. Many people in my family own small cars including the missus. I drive her car occasionally and I do not enjoy it at all.
If you own a small car and it's right for you, then I'm happy for you.

This sounds like hating on people who own small cars:

Originally Posted by Ben73

People buy small fuel efficient cars which are too small for their needs so they can save $10 a week on fuel. They then use that $10 to buy two $5 cups of coffee from a coffee shop, while they could make a coffee themselves for probably 20 cents.

Talk about tarring a large group of people with the same brush.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

This sounds like hating on people who own small cars:

Talk about tarring a large group of people with the same brush.

More like tonge in cheek comment about some people who go to stupid levels to save fuel, but waste money on other things.

[Cobramad]

Its all relative. My Territory Ghia Turbo dual fuel gets around 15l/100km around town on petrol and 16.5's on gas but on open roads eg. not stop/start commuting it gets 11's on petrol and 12.5's on the gas.
I need the flexibility of 7 seats and love the power as well. Guess we're all trying to have our cake and eat it too..

[csv8]

Driving from Brisbane to Rockhampton my BF Mk 2 Ghia did it on a full tank..the low fuel light came on as I was entering Rocky. The Fez was even better..it cost $70 to drive it up from Briz..Fuel at Gin Gin then Rocky a few days later. Rocky to Briz is 636kms. No complaints at fuel economy from either car.

[Mr Hardware]

Are you guys serious?

My corolla does 7.5L/100klms around town, and driven the same routes at the same rate of knots, my AU chews 12.5L/100klms of petrol.

Quite simply, when prices are over $1.50 a litre, and family transport requires 300km-odd a week to be done, that's a saving of over $45 a fortnight.

No-one has unlimited income. You choose to spend your money in a way that's pleasing and comfortable to you. For the majority of people, they can think of far better ways to spend their $45 a fortnight, given that in city traffic, you can barely enjoy a large-engined car's potential anyway.

And comparisons of highway driving? Come on. Most cars will chew the same on the highway simply because of the dynamics at play needing to push a massive brick on wheels through the air. And I bet the majority of people on here would spend less than 10% of a cars operating time on the highway.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

I bet the majority of people on here would spend less than 10% of a cars operating time on the highway.

The F6 hits the highway almost everyday, albiet for a short period of time but combined figures are 14.3L/100km via the trip meter.

58L gets me about 420km so if my maths is correct that's ~14.5L per 100km.
That's with the Mrs driving 70%, me driving 30%. When she's driving 100% of the time it's around 450km per tank, me driving 100% is about 370-380km.

It's about $15-$20 more per week than an econobox but considering it's putting out about 200rwhp more it's kind of expected. You play you pay.

[2011G6E]

Before the G6E, we had a 100 series Landcruiser. Before that we had a VX Series II Lumina, before that, a VS series 2 Berlina...both V6's.

When we had the VS Berlina (Ecotec and four speed auto), I had got a promotion at work and was making a lot better money. We decided it was time for a new car, and for once, it would possibly be a "new" car. We started looking around the dealerships...this was in about 2005...and looked at Imprezas, Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans, all four cylinder sedans and hatches. We were limited to an auto, as the wife only has an auto licence.

On driving them, I was pretty much underwhelmed...we'd had a string of large cars, and I wasn't impressed with the space inside these cars. I then started researching the actual fuel economy we could expect, and again, it was either equal to, or in a couple of cases actually less than, what we were getting out of the VS Berlina.
So in the end we bought a 2001 VX Lumina, V6 auto, with space and all mod cons, for way less than the brand new four cylinders we looked at, and which used even less fuel than the VS did on a trip.

Then we went to the Landcruiser (4.2 six cylinder turbo diesel) and it got similar economy to some of the four cylinder auto sedans we looked at.
After we decided to buy a brand new car when I got my new job, we again looked around all the four cylinder autos (and a few manuals), including the amazing Suzuki Kysashi Sport AWD...the only problem with it was a dire lack of power...really needs a turbo.
Again, we were struck by how heavy these small cars were, and less than amazed with the fuel economy...to get stunning fuel economy, you have to go really small to the small hatchbacks it looks like.

So we ended up looking at both the VE Commodore and the FG Falcon...both of which in six cylinder auto form were approaching or, in a few cases, surpassing the economy of a lot of four cylinder automatic vehicles on the market.

After a coin toss and because of a stunning trade in deal from Ford, we got the G6E...why cramp yourself into a small car when, if you do your sums about how you will really drive it, you will probably pick up a half a liter per hundred kilometers if you had bought a medium/large four cylinder auto...?

Next year we are considering getting a Toyota FJ Cruiser. They are all powered by the excellent 4 ltr V6 with a five speed auto. The fuel economy on the highway (not constant four wheel drive, so just driving the rears like a car) is down about 9ltr/100km. People I have spoken to who own one also say it is down there or a little better if you drive economically and smoothly on the highway.

Anything is better now than the way it used to be. "30 miles per gallon" (9.4ltr/100km) used to be the benchmark for car makers to try and achieve or, if possible, beat with a four cylinder car. My 1982 Celica, powered by a 2ltr and five speed manual, honestly uses way more fuel on the highway than our G6E does, even driving economically.

Hell, I've got a motorcycle in the shed (a 1974 Kawasaki H2-750B two-stroke three cylinder Mach IV) which, ridden carefully, can get maybe 25 to 30mpg ridden sedately (11.3 to 9.4ltr/100k), but ridden in a "spirited manner" that will drop to about 18mpg (15.7ltr/100k), or, if you really cane the hell out of it, it's possible to drop it down to 10mpg (28.2lt/100k)...so many years ago "fuel economy" was the last thing on makers minds...

[Mr Brooksy]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

The F6 hits the highway almost everyday, albiet for a short period of time but combined figures are 14.3L/100km via the trip meter.

58L gets me about 420km so if my maths is correct that's ~14.5L per 100km.
That's with the Mrs driving 70%, me driving 30%. When she's driving 100% of the time it's around 450km per tank, me driving 100% is about 370-380km.

It's about $15-$20 more per week than an econobox but considering it's putting out about 200rwhp more it's kind of expected. You play you pay.

Wow, your F6 uses allot more than mine around town (albeit more powerful and a younger model, not accounting for mods).

The BFII F6, around town will easily do sub 12L/100kms according to the computer which is always a little high, I would need to get up it very regularly to hit 14s.... Which was the case this past week hehehe. On the freeway it uses 7.8L/100 kms.

But back to the question... Isn't that what car companies are telling us anyway. Bigger is bad, smaller is cool, young and fresh (kinda like botox injections). Just compare each manufacturers ads for their cars.

[noosacuda]

My '66 Chrysler 300 gets 23.6L/100K's, now THAT is a Guzzler!
so there, HATE that Enviro-Nazis!!!!

[Olbucko]

I can't work out why people are getting so worked up over the price of petrol.
Petrol at $1.40l is only slightly more expensive than it was 45 years ago. Back then if you bought 60 litres @ 8c per litre it would have cost you aprox $4.84, the basic wage for a working man was aprox $1 per hour, so it took him aprox 4.5 to 5 hours work to fill the tank .

Today at $1.40 a litre the same tank would cost about $84 to fill, the equivilent wage today is about $16 per hour, time needed to earn $84 is still about 5 hours.

Considering that todays large cars are more economical, more powerfull and better in just about every other way than the cars of 45 years ago why are we trying to cram ourselves into little buzz boxes.

People are squashing themselves into small high tech cars that might save them 3 or 4 litres of petrol a week without realising how much more they are going to cost to service and insure.

It was demonstrated by Top Gear a few years ago that a large powerfull car was more economical driven gently than the small car driven flat out trying to keep up.

[Franco Cozzo]

Old mans 1.8L 2003 323 averages around 7L/100km all highway work regardless of 91/95/98.

My 2010 TDCI Focus, around 5.5L/100km 90% highway with an average speed of 54km/h over the tank.

My 97 EL Fairmont Ghia, well it was showing 25L/100km when I bought it off the previous owner, it was showing 8L/100km when I drove it home, since then I've used about 80L of fuel idling it in the driveway over the last year LOL.

When you think about it, fuel doesn't really cost that much, bottled water costs like $5/L and it tastes like crap, I don't get as much enjoyment out of water and I do petrol or diesel .

[irish2]

G6ET 11.8l/100k's average speed 41km/h. Did a run down to Yamba which showed 7.4l/100k's.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

I always go my the "Mrs" test...

If I point to a car and if she says "It's so cute" it's all over red rover.

If I point to a car and she says "I like that" it's a keeper.

If I point to a car and she says "It's ugly"... she's can shut up because I like my car and it's beautiful on the INSIDE

[My poor XF]

My BA is averaging 10L per hundred km's. but my average speed is 61kmh. 95% highway

Downside is i do 200km a day and fill up twice a week.

[2011G6E]

All hail those who don't have a missus who ever says "How about we get a nice little hatchback, there's just the two of us after all".

Mine said, getting the Commodore, "the boys (our daughter had moved out) aren't getting any smaller". When we bought the Landcruiser (even though there were, by that time, just the two of us) she said "I'd love to own a four wheel drive, and what about when the kids come to visit? We'll need the room". When we bought the G6E, she was the one who spotted it in the lot and asked the guy about it. Now she's perusing brochures and asking me to look up info on things like the FJ Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol for next year...she wants to go back to a four wheel drive.
When I suggested maybe something smaller like a Suzuki Grand Vitara, she just laughed...

We're going down to Bundy for the weekend, and we're going to take the Celica just to give it a good long run. I know for a fact it will use more fuel than the G6E, even on a highway trip, but not dramatically more fuel, and it's a bit of fun.
We knew our 253 V8 WB ute will burn more fuel than, say, a nice old Hilux or Rodeo, but the missus is the one who seems really excited about getting it on the road. I would even hazard a guess that when fully loaded, the lazy little V8 will use about the same fuel...possibly a little less...than a fully loaded four cylinder ute with the same amount of gear on it...

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Next year we are considering getting a Toyota FJ Cruiser. They are all powered by the excellent 4 ltr V6 with a five speed auto. The fuel economy on the highway (not constant four wheel drive, so just driving the rears like a car) is down about 9ltr/100km. People I have spoken to who own one also say it is down there or a little better if you drive economically and smoothly on the highway.

Are you sure?? These things use the same platform and V6 as the Prado and by all accounts the petrol Prado 120 series is a goddamn fuel hog. My boss reckons his is at like 20L/100 all the time.

Originally Posted by Big Damo

When you think about it, fuel doesn't really cost that much, bottled water costs like $5/L

I've never understood how filtered water can cost 10 times the price as a product that has to go through so many processes and scientific analysis just to make it usable (petrol)

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Are you sure?? These things use the same platform and V6 as the Prado and by all accounts the petrol Prado 120 series is a goddamn fuel hog. My boss reckons his is at like 20L/100 all the time.

Yes indeed...the petrol Prado sucks fuel like there's a hole in the tank. The FJ however has selective four wheel drive...when you're just tooling along the highway or smooth dirt, you are only driving the rear wheels, just like a normal sedan. Lots less mechanical losses and energy that way, reducing fuel use markedly.
Our 100 series Landcruiser was a constant all wheel drive model...you couldn't select to drive just the rear wheels or all four as needed. There were kits on the market that allowed you to modify the system so that you could only drive the rear wheels and disengage the front drive system, and it made a massive difference to fuel use.

The Impreza (all Subarus actually that are AWD) use a lot more fuel than a similar sized and engined front or rear wheel drive car because of the extra mechanical stuff having to be driven.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes indeed...the petrol Prado sucks fuel like there's a hole in the tank. The FJ however has selective four wheel drive...when you're just tooling along the highway or smooth dirt, you are only driving the rear wheels, just like a normal sedan. Lots less mechanical losses and energy that way, reducing fuel use markedly.

It also has a 2T kerb weight and the aerodynamics of a housebrick.

Then again my boss's car is probably used 100% for suburban driving so economy was always going to be in the shitter.

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes indeed...the petrol Prado sucks fuel like there's a hole in the tank. The FJ however has selective four wheel drive...when you're just tooling along the highway or smooth dirt, you are only driving the rear wheels, just like a normal sedan. Lots less mechanical losses and energy that way, reducing fuel use markedly.
Our 100 series Landcruiser was a constant all wheel drive model...you couldn't select to drive just the rear wheels or all four as needed. There were kits on the market that allowed you to modify the system so that you could only drive the rear wheels and disengage the front drive system, and it made a massive difference to fuel use.

The Impreza (all Subarus actually that are AWD) use a lot more fuel than a similar sized and engined front or rear wheel drive car because of the extra mechanical stuff having to be driven.

I know someone who owns an FJ and economy is in 14s - being select RWD helps economy but not as much as halves it. It is probably 10% to15 % better than Prado.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

All hail those who don't have a missus who ever says "How about we get a nice little hatchback, there's just the two of us after all".

My Mrs wants an XR6, tried to con her into the turbo but she gets scared of the boost

When she first said it I nearly got down and proposed right then and there!... except for the fact we're already engaged

[Phil B]

I'd much rather feed the Clevo in my Coupe than buy a $5 decafe-soy-light-skim-half strength trendy coffee in a biodegradeable cup each day

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Safety rating, repairs, manbag tax?

In all honesty I'd take a Mazda 3, they're not a bad car (sedan) and if my needs didn't include seating a family comfortably + baby seat in the future + pram etc I'd get one... as a second car.

[strobe]

There's nothing cool about efficiency. 19.9l/100km. Avg Speed 25kmh. Wish I spent more on fuel.

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The Impreza (all Subarus actually that are AWD) use a lot more fuel than a similar sized and engined front or rear wheel drive car because of the extra mechanical stuff having to be driven.

Quite right, and not just the extra drivetrain losses, but also the extra weight of the added drivetrain components.

[EATHSV]

Mostly it comes down to HOW you drive. Go easy in a big car and she'll be apples. Rev the nuts off a 4cyl and you suck up the tiny tank in no time.

I never think about fuel economy when choosing a car (having always owned older falcons it can only get better from here)

[grandpa_spec_F6]

The lazy V8's are great on the highway. My old VY SV8 (LS1 with M6 gearbox) would do around 1200rpm on the highway and after a quick airbox mod I was returning 8.4L per 100km on the open road.

Around town that shot up to 16L+ on average though... but that being said I wasn't gentle with it.

All in all, there are three sorts of people when it comes to choosing a car.

1. Those who think with their heart (me)
2. Those who think with the mind
3. Those who think with their wallet

I stress the difference here between mind and wallet, it's fine to skimp out on a large car due to fuel costs, but you DO lose functionality, comfort (for me at least as I'm tall) etc.

At the end of the day those who buy large cars because they love them aren't looking at the bowser price and going "I really wish I'd bought a 4 cylinder", they just write it off as the price you pay for enjoyment... and I get that every, single, day... not a lot of hobbys you can say that about.

[flooded one]

the arguement on big versus small could also be put as do you think your any safer after buy a smaller car?? yesterday that was a good point. seen a crash yesterday where the front end of a current model mazda 2 was just completly leveled after an collision with an FG Falcon. both modern cars. after what i seen yesterday. i'd would rather of been in the FG!! the FG had damage at the front as well but no where near the amount of damage the mazda 2 had. cheaper "fuel effecent" cars dont always mean the better like some people think. the bigger cars seem too last longer with the bigger engines then the little ones

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

All in all, there are three sorts of people when it comes to choosing a car.

1. Those who think with their heart (me)
2. Those who think with the mind
3. Those who think with their wallet

I stress the difference here between mind and wallet, it's fine to skimp out on a large car due to fuel costs, but you DO lose functionality, comfort (for me at least as I'm tall) etc.

Out of interest, do you think it's not possible for one person to consider all those things when they make a purchase? I cross referenced those exact 3 outcomes when i bought my car:

1. Those who think with their heart (me)
It has to be fun to drive and a good looker (inside and out)
2. Those who think with the mind
It has to suit my lifestyle
3. Those who think with their wallet
It has to be inexpensive to purchase and own

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

At the end of the day those who buy large cars because they love them aren't looking at the bowser price and going "I really wish I'd bought a 4 cylinder", they just write it off as the price you pay for enjoyment... and I get that every, single, day... not a lot of hobbys you can say that about.

The other side of the coin is that there are also those who buy small cars because they love them, and those people aren't looking at the bowser and going "I'm really glad I didn't buy 6/8 cylinder", they're indifferent to the price they pay for enjoyment... and they get that every, single, day...

[Franco Cozzo]

I find that Falcon/Commodore ride much smoother and their AC is actually cold compared to the small hatches on the market.

My EL Fairmont Ghia is a much nicer cruiser compared to my 2009 WS Fiesta and 2010 TDCI Focus.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I find that Falcon/Commodore ride much smoother and their AC is actually cold compared to the small hatches on the market.

My EL Fairmont Ghia is a much nicer cruiser compared to my 2009 WS Fiesta and 2010 TDCI Focus.

Good point. Before I got my AU Fairmont I briefly had a CE Lancer MR which used around 9 lt/100km on a country run. I thought that was good until I drove the AU on the same trip, which used about the same amount of fuel. This was on a 38 deg day, we honestly didnt realise it was so hot until we got out, we were nice and cool inside while driving along. And the engine performance was such I didnt notice the compressor working at all.

Thinking back, effective climate control a/c was a big factor in why I got hooked on the Fairmonts and XR50, but with quite reasonable fuel economy. The AU was to blame for that.