Discussion:
Fuel economy.
(too old to reply)
Crash Lander
2006-09-24 23:27:34 UTC
Permalink
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a family
size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
Ben Thomas
2006-09-24 23:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a family
size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
<Ben in troll mode>

I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore
IINM. It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a
bit under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.

Ben

P.S. i will remain in troll mode until further notice
Trevor Wilson
2006-09-25 04:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Thomas
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for
a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
<Ben in troll mode>
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a bit
under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
**A family car? Whack 500kg in the back and see if you can tow a reasonable
sized trailer/boat/caravan. Then get back to us.

Family car, indeed. Sheesh!

It's a small hatch. Nothing more.

Well, a gay hatch.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ben Thomas
2006-09-25 05:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Ben Thomas
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for
a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
<Ben in troll mode>
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a bit
under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
**A family car? Whack 500kg in the back and see if you can tow a reasonable
sized trailer/boat/caravan. Then get back to us.
If I had obese trailer trash kids like you then I would give that a go. :P

Anyway, 500kgs of WHAT?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Family car, indeed. Sheesh!
How long ago did Commodores have 147kW and 280Nm of torque? Once upon a
time they did and people happily put families in them and towed stuff
around.
Post by Trevor Wilson
It's a small hatch. Nothing more.
It's not small compared to an '82 Commodore.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Well, a gay hatch.
I'm supposed to be the one trolling here.

Ben
Marco
2006-09-25 06:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Thomas
How long ago did Commodores have 147kW and 280Nm of torque? Once upon a
time they did and people happily put families in them and towed stuff
around.
Much as I hate the "yeah, but you can't tow a boat with it" argument
when applied to small performance cars (because you'd buy a hot hatch
for towing your fishing boat to the bay, wouldn't you, and so many
people tow things these days...) - at what RPM is that torque
developed?

(I'd also be surprised if any Commodore later than the VL produced less
than 280Nm of torque, btw, but I don't have the figures on hand).

Marco
CatharticF1
2006-09-25 07:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco
Post by Ben Thomas
How long ago did Commodores have 147kW and 280Nm of torque? Once upon
a time they did and people happily put families in them and towed
stuff around.
Much as I hate the "yeah, but you can't tow a boat with it" argument
when applied to small performance cars (because you'd buy a hot hatch
for towing your fishing boat to the bay, wouldn't you, and so many
people tow things these days...) - at what RPM is that torque
developed?
(I'd also be surprised if any Commodore later than the VL produced
less than 280Nm of torque, btw, but I don't have the figures on hand).
Oh for Pete's sake.

When will you neanderthals get over the need to tow a boat or
_anything_. Why should 0.001% of the population regularly towing
dictate for the rest of us? I *need* to enjoy driving, and am currently
in a freaking barge of an Avalon because some moron desperately wanted
to be right where my car was stopped.

So far the benefits of lard-arsed motoring include better high beams but
worse everything else. Penis envy is alive and well and sitting behind
the wheel of the oversized crap filling this country's roads.

Heck have you seen the size of the current Golf and Civic? What sort of
beast is it that can't get comfortable in a car of that size? I'm 6"2'
and 95 kg - so if you think you need bigger, try not responding to the
upsize requests at the drive through. :)
--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
D Walford
2006-09-25 08:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by CatharticF1
Post by Marco
Post by Ben Thomas
How long ago did Commodores have 147kW and 280Nm of torque? Once upon
a time they did and people happily put families in them and towed
stuff around.
Much as I hate the "yeah, but you can't tow a boat with it" argument
when applied to small performance cars (because you'd buy a hot hatch
for towing your fishing boat to the bay, wouldn't you, and so many
people tow things these days...) - at what RPM is that torque
developed?
(I'd also be surprised if any Commodore later than the VL produced
less than 280Nm of torque, btw, but I don't have the figures on hand).
Oh for Pete's sake.
When will you neanderthals get over the need to tow a boat or
_anything_.
Small cars aren't as bad at towing as many make out, I used to regularly
see a 89 Honda Prelude towing a 16' aluminum half cab at the
Williamstown boat ramp, to my amazement he had no trouble launching or
retrieving the boat or towing it with his 2 mates on board.



Daryl
Noddy
2006-09-25 09:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by CatharticF1
Oh for Pete's sake.
Pete, Pete, Pete. Who the hell's Pete? Fuck Pete :)
Post by CatharticF1
When will you neanderthals get over the need to tow a boat or
_anything_. Why should 0.001% of the population regularly towing
dictate for the rest of us? I *need* to enjoy driving, and am currently
in a freaking barge of an Avalon because some moron desperately wanted
to be right where my car was stopped.
Bugger.

No one is telling you what you should drive, and as much as I might prefer
to finger my bum with barbed wire rather than drive your type of car, I'll
defend to the death your right to drive it if that's what float's your boat.

Doesn't mean I can't laugh and think it's gay though :)
Post by CatharticF1
So far the benefits of lard-arsed motoring include better high beams but
worse everything else. Penis envy is alive and well and sitting behind
the wheel of the oversized crap filling this country's roads.
Not everyone wants to drive around in a car that's *just* big enough to hold
two adults and a handbag, and some of us actually *prefer* to drive smooth
riding comfortable cruisy type sedans.

That doesn't mean you have to, or visa versa.
Post by CatharticF1
Heck have you seen the size of the current Golf and Civic? What sort of
beast is it that can't get comfortable in a car of that size? I'm 6"2'
and 95 kg - so if you think you need bigger, try not responding to the
upsize requests at the drive through. :)
You got no kids, right? :)

For most of the last 20 years, my "regular" drives have been Fairlanes or
Fairmonts, and for no reason other than I happen to have liked them for a
number of reasons. They were comfortable cruisers that had plenty of space
for when I needed it, towed reasonably well for when I needed to do that
(and I did/do quite often), and were reasonably trouble free & cheap to
maintain.

I've always had other cars at the same time, but they came and went pretty
regularly. Driving for me is a task, and I prefer to do it as easily and
comfortably as I can.

--
Regards,
Noddy.
CatharticF1
2006-09-26 01:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by CatharticF1
Oh for Pete's sake.
Pete, Pete, Pete. Who the hell's Pete? Fuck Pete :)
.. and his Falcodore! :)
Post by Noddy
Post by CatharticF1
When will you neanderthals get over the need to tow a boat or
_anything_. Why should 0.001% of the population regularly towing
dictate for the rest of us? I *need* to enjoy driving, and am
currently in a freaking barge of an Avalon because some moron
desperately wanted to be right where my car was stopped.
Bugger.
At having to drive an Avalon (a free 'upgrade' from the Rental Car
people..) or the 'incident'? :)
Post by Noddy
No one is telling you what you should drive, and as much as I might
prefer to finger my bum with barbed wire rather than drive your type
of car, I'll defend to the death your right to drive it if that's what
float's your boat.
Doesn't mean I can't laugh and think it's gay though :)
Post by CatharticF1
So far the benefits of lard-arsed motoring include better high beams
but worse everything else. Penis envy is alive and well and sitting
behind the wheel of the oversized crap filling this country's roads.
Not everyone wants to drive around in a car that's *just* big enough
to hold two adults and a handbag, and some of us actually *prefer* to
drive smooth riding comfortable cruisy type sedans.
That doesn't mean you have to, or visa versa.
Post by CatharticF1
Heck have you seen the size of the current Golf and Civic? What sort
of beast is it that can't get comfortable in a car of that size? I'm
6"2' and 95 kg - so if you think you need bigger, try not responding
to the upsize requests at the drive through. :)
You got no kids, right? :)
For most of the last 20 years, my "regular" drives have been Fairlanes
or Fairmonts, and for no reason other than I happen to have liked them
for a number of reasons. They were comfortable cruisers that had
plenty of space for when I needed it, towed reasonably well for when I
needed to do that (and I did/do quite often), and were reasonably
trouble free & cheap to maintain.
I've always had other cars at the same time, but they came and went
pretty regularly. Driving for me is a task, and I prefer to do it as
easily and comfortably as I can.
I expect a lot of it is what you're familiar with. My family never had
particularly large cars and I still find them awkward as vehicles (as
opposed to places to spend time). The same is probably true in reverse.

I guess my point is that a lot of smaller cars aren't really small any
more. From a quick comparison when looking at a car for my sister I think
the wheelbase of the new Civic is almost the same as the Accord Euro -
such is the march of cars upsizing generally. And I also read that the
current VW Polo is as big as the original Golf.
--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."
Ben Thomas
2006-09-26 02:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marco
Post by Ben Thomas
How long ago did Commodores have 147kW and 280Nm of torque? Once upon a
time they did and people happily put families in them and towed stuff
around.
Much as I hate the "yeah, but you can't tow a boat with it" argument
when applied to small performance cars (because you'd buy a hot hatch
for towing your fishing boat to the bay, wouldn't you, and so many
people tow things these days...) - at what RPM is that torque
developed?
(I'd also be surprised if any Commodore later than the VL produced less
than 280Nm of torque, btw, but I don't have the figures on hand).
Marco
Hi Marco,

The Golf GTI torque peaks at 1800 RPMs and is flat to 5000 RPMs, IINM.

The Megane peaks at closer to 3000 RPMs.

Ben
David Z
2006-09-25 08:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Thomas
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Ben Thomas
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures
for a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
<Ben in troll mode>
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore
IINM. It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a
bit under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
**A family car? Whack 500kg in the back and see if you can tow a
reasonable sized trailer/boat/caravan. Then get back to us.
If I had obese trailer trash kids like you then I would give that a go. :P
Anyway, 500kgs of WHAT?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Family car, indeed. Sheesh!
How long ago did Commodores have 147kW and 280Nm of torque? Once upon a
time they did and people happily put families in them and towed stuff
around.
Post by Trevor Wilson
It's a small hatch. Nothing more.
It's not small compared to an '82 Commodore.
Firstly, the Commodore (at least the first generation) was never a full-size
car. It was a mid-size car which actually sold alongside the larger
Kingswood for several years, but they killed the Kingswood off due to
increasing fuel prices (sound familiar???).
Secondly, even the '82 Commodore was significantly larger than a Golf,
mainly in length. (the Golf is actually wider believe it or not, but has a
shorter wheelbase). VB length = 4705mm. Golf length = 4204mm. The Golf is
puny by comparison.
Noddy
2006-09-25 09:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Z
Firstly, the Commodore (at least the first generation) was never a
full-size car. It was a mid-size car which actually sold alongside the
larger Kingswood for several years, but they killed the Kingswood off due
to increasing fuel prices (sound familiar???).
Who told you this?

The Commodore never sold "along side" the Kingswood at all, and the only
"Kingswood" type bodies available from Holden at the time the Commodore was
introduced were the WB model commercials and Statesman.
Post by David Z
Secondly, even the '82 Commodore was significantly larger than a Golf,
mainly in length. (the Golf is actually wider believe it or not, but has
a shorter wheelbase). VB length = 4705mm. Golf length = 4204mm. The
Golf is puny by comparison.
Exterior dimensions mean fuck all.

Most of that would be in the Commodore's boot and bonnet, and the Golf was
probably bigger (or as big) inside.

--
Regards,
Noddy.
Andy
2006-09-25 11:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Secondly, even the '82 Commodore was significantly larger than a Golf,
mainly in length. (the Golf is actually wider believe it or not, but has
a shorter wheelbase). VB length = 4705mm. Golf length = 4204mm. The
Golf is puny by comparison.
Exterior dimensions mean fuck all.
Most of that would be in the Commodore's boot and bonnet, and the Golf was
probably bigger (or as big) inside.
And the Golf would have nearly twice as much power, sadly enough.


Cheers,

Andy. (The other Andy.)
Athol
2006-09-26 03:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Firstly, the Commodore (at least the first generation) was never a
full-size car. It was a mid-size car which actually sold alongside the
larger Kingswood for several years, but they killed the Kingswood off due
to increasing fuel prices (sound familiar???).
Who told you this?
The Commodore never sold "along side" the Kingswood at all, and the only
"Kingswood" type bodies available from Holden at the time the Commodore was
introduced were the WB model commercials and Statesman.
Actually, the Commode was released initially only as a sedan. The HZ wagon,
commercials and statesman continued alongside the VB commode.

There was certainly no HZ Kingswood _sedan_ sold alongside the VB beyond the
run-out end-of-model.

The Commode wagon started in VC in July '80. Since there were no WB wagons,
and the WB arrived in May '80, there is a possibility that a few HZ wagons
sold alongside WB commercials and statesmans prior to the arrival of the VC.
Hence, I doubt that there were even run-out model HZ wagons left alongside
the VC wagons.
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Secondly, even the '82 Commodore was significantly larger than a Golf,
mainly in length. (the Golf is actually wider believe it or not, but has
a shorter wheelbase). VB length = 4705mm. Golf length = 4204mm. The
Golf is puny by comparison.
Exterior dimensions mean fuck all.
Most of that would be in the Commodore's boot and bonnet, and the Golf was
probably bigger (or as big) inside.
Yes, but if you work off interior dimensions instead of outside size, the
Suzuki Swift GTi would be in the same class as an '80s or '90s Corvette. :-)
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Bernd Felsche
2006-09-26 04:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Firstly, the Commodore (at least the first generation) was never
a full-size car. It was a mid-size car which actually sold
alongside the larger Kingswood for several years, but they
killed the Kingswood off due to increasing fuel prices (sound
familiar???).
Who told you this?
The Commodore never sold "along side" the Kingswood at all, and
the only "Kingswood" type bodies available from Holden at the
time the Commodore was introduced were the WB model commercials
and Statesman.
Actually, the Commode was released initially only as a sedan. The
HZ wagon, commercials and statesman continued alongside the VB
commode.
There was certainly no HZ Kingswood _sedan_ sold alongside the VB
beyond the run-out end-of-model.
The Commode wagon started in VC in July '80. Since there were no
WB wagons, and the WB arrived in May '80, there is a possibility
that a few HZ wagons sold alongside WB commercials and statesmans
prior to the arrival of the VC. Hence, I doubt that there were
even run-out model HZ wagons left alongside the VC wagons.
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Secondly, even the '82 Commodore was significantly larger than a
Golf, mainly in length. (the Golf is actually wider believe it
or not, but has a shorter wheelbase). VB length = 4705mm. Golf
length = 4204mm. The Golf is puny by comparison.
Exterior dimensions mean fuck all.
Most of that would be in the Commodore's boot and bonnet, and the
Golf was probably bigger (or as big) inside.
Yes, but if you work off interior dimensions instead of outside
size, the Suzuki Swift GTi would be in the same class as an '80s or
'90s Corvette. :-)
Why not? :-)

The Commode and Golf have ostensibly the same primary purpose: to
move people and their stuff. If their capacity and capability is
near enough the same, then the incidental exterior dimension is
irrelevant.

Apologies for employing higher brain functions. :-)
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
Noddy
2006-09-26 04:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
Yes, but if you work off interior dimensions instead of outside size, the
Suzuki Swift GTi would be in the same class as an '80s or '90s Corvette.
:-)
Lol :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.
Neil Fisher
2006-09-26 06:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Firstly, the Commodore (at least the first generation) was never a
full-size car. It was a mid-size car which actually sold alongside the
larger Kingswood for several years, but they killed the Kingswood off due
to increasing fuel prices (sound familiar???).
Who told you this?
The Commodore never sold "along side" the Kingswood at all, and the only
"Kingswood" type bodies available from Holden at the time the Commodore was
introduced were the WB model commercials and Statesman.
No the HZ was sold alongside the VB Commodore until 1980.
Post by Athol
Actually, the Commode was released initially only as a sedan. The HZ wagon,
commercials and statesman continued alongside the VB commode.
There was certainly no HZ Kingswood _sedan_ sold alongside the VB beyond the
run-out end-of-model.
The VB was released in Oct 1978.

According to "50 years of Holden", the HZ was sold from Oct 1977-
April 1980.
Post by Athol
The Commode wagon started in VC in July '80. Since there were no WB wagons,
and the WB arrived in May '80, there is a possibility that a few HZ wagons
sold alongside WB commercials and statesmans prior to the arrival of the VC.
Hence, I doubt that there were even run-out model HZ wagons left alongside
the VC wagons.
The Commodore wagon was sold originally as a VB in July 1979.
It was actually made from a platform made by Opel in Germany and
shipped out here.

Bob.
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
Athol
2006-09-26 08:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Fisher
Post by Athol
Post by Noddy
The Commodore never sold "along side" the Kingswood at all, and the only
"Kingswood" type bodies available from Holden at the time the Commodore was
introduced were the WB model commercials and Statesman.
No the HZ was sold alongside the VB Commodore until 1980.
Post by Athol
Actually, the Commode was released initially only as a sedan. The HZ wagon,
commercials and statesman continued alongside the VB commode.
There was certainly no HZ Kingswood _sedan_ sold alongside the VB beyond the
run-out end-of-model.
The VB was released in Oct 1978.
Yes. I didn't bother mentioning the release date, even though I had it here.

The point is that, to push sales of the Commode along, they killed the HZ
Holden sedans (not statesman) and, IIRC, also dropped the UC Torana (6cyl)
somewhere around 1979 to 1980, leaving only UC Sunbirds (4cyl) until the 4cyl
Commode debacle...
Post by Neil Fisher
According to "50 years of Holden", the HZ was sold from Oct 1977-
April 1980.
Yes. That lines up with the fact that the WB was released in May '80, like
Post by Neil Fisher
Post by Athol
Since there were no WB wagons, and the WB arrived in May '80,
The Commodore wagon was sold originally as a VB in July 1979.
It was actually made from a platform made by Opel in Germany and
shipped out here.
"The History of Holden since 1917" didn't list a release date for VB wagons.
The same list of release dates and prices did list the offset release dates
of other models (eg HK Monaro and Brougham being after the rest of HKs).

Hmm. Google appears to agree with you. My bad.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Noddy
2006-09-26 09:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Fisher
According to "50 years of Holden", the HZ was sold from Oct 1977-
April 1980.
I'd imagine a 1980 plated HZ would be an *extremely* rare car :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.
David Z
2006-09-26 06:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
Firstly, the Commodore (at least the first generation) was never a
full-size car. It was a mid-size car which actually sold alongside the
larger Kingswood for several years, but they killed the Kingswood off due
to increasing fuel prices (sound familiar???).
Who told you this?
The Commodore never sold "along side" the Kingswood at all, and the only
"Kingswood" type bodies available from Holden at the time the Commodore
was introduced were the WB model commercials and Statesman.
I read this somewhere. Between the time the new Commodore was introduced in
'78, till about '79 or even early '80, *both* the HZ Kingswood and new
Commodore were offered.
Noddy
2006-09-26 09:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Z
I read this somewhere. Between the time the new Commodore was introduced
in '78, till about '79 or even early '80, *both* the HZ Kingswood and new
Commodore were offered.
I'm afraid not.

Whatever you were reading was very wrong.

--
Regards,
Noddy.
eeviil inc.
2006-09-26 13:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by David Z
I read this somewhere. Between the time the new Commodore was introduced
in '78, till about '79 or even early '80, *both* the HZ Kingswood and new
Commodore were offered.
I'm afraid not.
Whatever you were reading was very wrong.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
I second that. The Commodore was built to replace the HZ, not be sold
alongside.

Adam
David Z
2006-09-26 13:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Thomas
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for
a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
<Ben in troll mode>
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a bit
under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
Ben, at least you've got some common sense and went for the petrol Golf. As
a Golf owner, can you please try and explain to me why something like 50% of
buyers go for the diesel? I did some calculations and found that the
savings on fuel (assuming average km travelled), would amount to only
$480/year. With a $2562 higher purchase price, it would take 5.4 years just
to break even, which is longer than many people would own the car for. So
it really makes no economical sense to buy diesel?
Bernd Felsche
2006-09-26 14:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Z
Post by Ben Thomas
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a bit
under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
Ben, at least you've got some common sense and went for the petrol
Golf. As a Golf owner, can you please try and explain to me why
something like 50% of buyers go for the diesel? I did some
calculations and found that the savings on fuel (assuming average
km travelled), would amount to only $480/year. With a $2562 higher
purchase price, it would take 5.4 years just to break even, which
is longer than many people would own the car for. So it really
makes no economical sense to buy diesel?
If you make your own diesel... :-)

Economic arguments are flexible when buying a car.

The driving experience between the diesel and petrol cars is quite
different. Unfortunately, the "normal" 2.0 litre Golf (non-GTI)
feels "gutless" when driven back-to-back against the 2.0 TDI.
The 2.0 FSI is quite a nice engine but it needs a pump to make it
match the torque and flexibility of the TDI.

Availability of the GTI is another issue. TDI are more common.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
David Z
2006-09-26 14:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Felsche
Post by David Z
Post by Ben Thomas
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a bit
under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
Ben, at least you've got some common sense and went for the petrol
Golf. As a Golf owner, can you please try and explain to me why
something like 50% of buyers go for the diesel? I did some
calculations and found that the savings on fuel (assuming average
km travelled), would amount to only $480/year. With a $2562 higher
purchase price, it would take 5.4 years just to break even, which
is longer than many people would own the car for. So it really
makes no economical sense to buy diesel?
If you make your own diesel... :-)
Economic arguments are flexible when buying a car.
The driving experience between the diesel and petrol cars is quite
different. Unfortunately, the "normal" 2.0 litre Golf (non-GTI)
feels "gutless" when driven back-to-back against the 2.0 TDI.
The 2.0 FSI is quite a nice engine but it needs a pump to make it
match the torque and flexibility of the TDI.
Perhaps, but thats not the reason most people are buying diesels. (How do I
know? Well, funny that the increase in diesel sales came at around the same
time as the increase in petrol prices). Even so, petrol engines are far
quieter and smoother. So I ask again, why are people buying diesel???
Bernd Felsche
2006-09-27 01:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Z
Post by Bernd Felsche
Post by David Z
Post by Ben Thomas
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81
Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually
a bit under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you
described.
Ben, at least you've got some common sense and went for the petrol
Golf. As a Golf owner, can you please try and explain to me why
something like 50% of buyers go for the diesel? I did some
calculations and found that the savings on fuel (assuming average
km travelled), would amount to only $480/year. With a $2562 higher
purchase price, it would take 5.4 years just to break even, which
is longer than many people would own the car for. So it really
makes no economical sense to buy diesel?
If you make your own diesel... :-)
Economic arguments are flexible when buying a car.
The driving experience between the diesel and petrol cars is quite
different. Unfortunately, the "normal" 2.0 litre Golf (non-GTI)
feels "gutless" when driven back-to-back against the 2.0 TDI.
The 2.0 FSI is quite a nice engine but it needs a pump to make it
match the torque and flexibility of the TDI.
Perhaps, but thats not the reason most people are buying diesels.
(How do I know? Well, funny that the increase in diesel sales came
at around the same time as the increase in petrol prices). Even
so, petrol engines are far quieter and smoother. So I ask again,
why are people buying diesel???
Actually, you asked if it makes "economical sense". :-)

If you don't "care" about performance, then a 1.9 TDI costs the
same as a 2.0 FSI. Performance is certainly "adequate".

IIRC, the price difference between the 2-litre petrol and diesel
Golfs in Germany is somewhat less than it is in Australia [but their
base prices is also more steep]. They have the bonus of diesel being
(rightfully) cheaper than even ULP.

Bang-for-buck, the 2.0 TDI comes out in front of the 2.0 FSI. In
"Sportline" trim, it's somewhat lower in price than the next-best
thing; the GTI.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
Ben Thomas
2006-09-26 20:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Felsche
Post by David Z
Post by Ben Thomas
I have IMHO a family size car. Well it's as big as an '81 Commodore IINM.
It's a VW Golf with 147kW petrol motor. Fuel economy is usually a bit
under 8 l/100 kms with similar driving to what you described.
Ben, at least you've got some common sense and went for the petrol
Golf. As a Golf owner, can you please try and explain to me why
something like 50% of buyers go for the diesel? I did some
calculations and found that the savings on fuel (assuming average
km travelled), would amount to only $480/year. With a $2562 higher
purchase price, it would take 5.4 years just to break even, which
is longer than many people would own the car for. So it really
makes no economical sense to buy diesel?
If you make your own diesel... :-)
Economic arguments are flexible when buying a car.
The driving experience between the diesel and petrol cars is quite
different. Unfortunately, the "normal" 2.0 litre Golf (non-GTI)
feels "gutless" when driven back-to-back against the 2.0 TDI.
The 2.0 FSI is quite a nice engine but it needs a pump to make it
match the torque and flexibility of the TDI.
The 2.0 TDI does have a fairly ridiculous amount of torque but the 2.0
FSI is far from gutless in its own right. It's got 110kW and 200Nm of
torque IINM. It's as quick or a fraction slower than the 2.3l Mazda SP23
at the traffic light drags. You can drive it around at 60kph in 6th
gear and it's not hurting the engine at all. I'm sure they could have
done something with the gearing to make it accelerate a bit better in
first and second but it's not slow - 0-100 in under 9 seconds. The TDI
feels faster in one gear because of all that torque, which is probably
why so many people chose them over the 2.0FSI.
--
Ben
Lryic of the week: "This the eighties and I'm down with the ladies"
Dan---
2006-09-25 00:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a
family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
9.6L is pretty good for a large family car I get around similar figures from
a V8 Calais on hwy runs. Not bad for a 5.7L V8 that sips its fuel on the
hwy's but then again when I give it some stick fuel economy does not matter.
:-)
--
Regards
Dan
atec 77
2006-09-25 04:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan---
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a
family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
9.6L is pretty good for a large family car I get around similar figures from
a V8 Calais on hwy runs. Not bad for a 5.7L V8 that sips its fuel on the
hwy's but then again when I give it some stick fuel economy does not matter.
:-)
Around town I have used on average 11/100 on a trip about <10 but in a
hurry with a loaded trailer over 20/100
D Walford
2006-09-25 05:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by atec 77
Post by Dan---
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures
for a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly
trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
9.6L is pretty good for a large family car I get around similar
figures from a V8 Calais on hwy runs. Not bad for a 5.7L V8 that sips
its fuel on the hwy's but then again when I give it some stick fuel
economy does not matter. :-)
Around town I have used on average 11/100 on a trip about <10 but in a
hurry with a loaded trailer over 20/100
2003 Hilux 4WD 3.4V6 5spd averages 12.5lts/100klm, I'm too scared to
check it when towing the boat but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate
than normal.
Our new Impreza got 11 something on its first tank, 9.6 on the second
but its only done a bit over 1000klms, with a bit of luck it will get
better as it loosens up.



Daryl
Diesel Damo
2006-09-25 06:41:11 UTC
Permalink
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
XR8 Sprint
2006-09-25 07:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
I once towed a 12x8 trailer loaded and had five big blokes in the car
from Mt Isa to Townsville into a headwind. Average was around 40l/100km
ie 2.5km/l. Thankfully petrol was cheap back then. I filled in Mt Isa,
Cloncurry, Julia ck, Richmond, Hughenden, & Homestead!!
D Walford
2006-09-25 08:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by XR8 Sprint
Post by Diesel Damo
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
I once towed a 12x8 trailer loaded and had five big blokes in the car
from Mt Isa to Townsville into a headwind. Average was around 40l/100km
ie 2.5km/l. Thankfully petrol was cheap back then. I filled in Mt Isa,
Cloncurry, Julia ck, Richmond, Hughenden, & Homestead!!
Damn that thirsty, my semi averages a tad under 30lts/100klm and it
weighs 15t empty.


Daryl
XR8 Sprint
2006-09-25 12:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Walford
Post by XR8 Sprint
Post by Diesel Damo
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
I once towed a 12x8 trailer loaded and had five big blokes in the car
from Mt Isa to Townsville into a headwind. Average was around
40l/100km ie 2.5km/l. Thankfully petrol was cheap back then. I filled
in Mt Isa, Cloncurry, Julia ck, Richmond, Hughenden, & Homestead!!
Damn that thirsty, my semi averages a tad under 30lts/100klm and it
weighs 15t empty.
Daryl
I was not able to get over about 90km/h in 4th gear into the wind. There
was a fair bit of gear in the trailer and none of the guys in the car
weighed under 100kgs. It was bloody hard work driving I can tell you
because the wind was blowing a gale then it started to rain and we had
to tarp the trailer which meant it was like a brick through the wind.
Good test for the V8 though. I told the idiot who organised the trailer
that it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to hire a small truck.
Diesel Damo
2006-09-26 00:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by XR8 Sprint
I once towed a 12x8 trailer loaded and had five big blokes in the car
from Mt Isa to Townsville into a headwind. Average was around 40l/100km
ie 2.5km/l. Thankfully petrol was cheap back then. I filled in Mt Isa,
Cloncurry, Julia ck, Richmond, Hughenden, & Homestead!!
Bloody hell. What were you driving?
D Walford
2006-09-25 08:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
Thats not too bad for towing something that heavy.
I must check mine one day but I'm not sure if its a good idea, now that
I have bought the boat from my son I intend to use it a lot more often
and if I know its costing a fortune maybe I won't:-)
If I don't know how much its using I won't worry as much, just as well
fuel is tax deductible:-)



Daryl
Diesel Damo
2006-09-26 00:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Walford
I must check mine one day but I'm not sure if its a good idea, now that
I have bought the boat from my son I intend to use it a lot more often
and if I know its costing a fortune maybe I won't:-)
If I don't know how much its using I won't worry as much,
I know the feeling. I'd had plenty of opportunities to measure the fuel
consumption while towing something heavy before, but I finally bit the
bullet and noted the numbers down. I remember watching the bowser tick
over and going, "Damn... shit... fuck... faaark!!" :-)
Post by D Walford
just as well fuel is tax deductible:-)
Noice!
the_dawggie
2006-09-26 01:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Walford
Post by Diesel Damo
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
Thats not too bad for towing something that heavy.
I must check mine one day but I'm not sure if its a good idea, now that
I have bought the boat from my son I intend to use it a lot more often
and if I know its costing a fortune maybe I won't:-)
If I don't know how much its using I won't worry as much, just as well
fuel is tax deductible:-)
That would drop with a turbo installed. I don't ever remember mine 'lux
using more than around 12 l/100 km doing anything I've ever asked of
it over the years I've owned it. If it used 12 l/100 km during Chity
driving
I'd be taking it apart and looking at it, as that would be under 10
l/100km,
and it weighs around 1,800 kg.
Athol
2006-09-26 03:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
I'm too scared to check it when towing the boat
but it drinks fuel at a much higher rate than normal.
I towed a horse in a double float from Wollongong to my place = very
hilly journey. I got 17L/100km :-(
All the way down to Goulburn and back up?

Bet you wish they'd fix the Wombeyan Caves Road!
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
feral
2006-09-26 04:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
All the way down to Goulburn and back up?
Bet you wish they'd fix the Wombeyan Caves Road!
They'd have to do a bloody good job of it.

"NOWwhere" says "all the way to Goulburn and back up" is only
35k further and 30min longer, using Robertson as one "mean"
point and Jerrong/Wombeyan as the other.

But can we trust NOWwhere?
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral ( @..@)
(\-- Ü--/)
((.>______<.))
^^^ ^^^
Diesel Damo
2006-09-26 06:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by feral
They'd have to do a bloody good job of it.
That goes against policy out here.

Apparently the way to fix a road is to tear it all up, pack all the
dirt back down so it's nice and smooth, leave it like that for at least
a month so all the cars and trucks can kick the sheet out of it, then
seal it.
feral
2006-09-26 06:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
Apparently the way to fix a road is to tear it all up, pack all the
dirt back down so it's nice and smooth, leave it like that for at least
a month so all the cars and trucks can kick the sheet out of it, then
seal it.
Why seal it, even if it's a "Highway". :-)

Got time to look at a web page?
Good/funny read too.
Post by Diesel Damo
http://englishrussia.com/?p=315
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral ( @..@)
(\-- Ü--/)
((.>______<.))
^^^ ^^^
Diesel Damo
2006-09-27 00:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by feral
Why seal it, even if it's a "Highway". :-)
Yep, I'm all for unsealed roads.
Post by feral
Got time to look at a web page?
Good/funny read too.
Post by Diesel Damo
http://englishrussia.com/?p=315
Bloody hell. And I note with interest that the recommended gear to
carry with you includes a firearm.
feral
2006-09-27 01:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
Bloody hell. And I note with interest that the recommended gear to
carry with you includes a firearm.
Don't you? :-0
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral ( @..@)
(\-- Ü--/)
((.>______<.))
^^^ ^^^
John_H
2006-09-27 01:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
Post by feral
Why seal it, even if it's a "Highway". :-)
Yep, I'm all for unsealed roads.
Post by feral
Got time to look at a web page?
Good/funny read too.
Post by Diesel Damo
http://englishrussia.com/?p=315
Bloody hell. And I note with interest that the recommended gear to
carry with you includes a firearm.
Probably be a long time between feeds if you didn't! :)
--
John H
Athol
2006-09-26 07:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by feral
Post by Athol
All the way down to Goulburn and back up?
Bet you wish they'd fix the Wombeyan Caves Road!
They'd have to do a bloody good job of it.
You did read my description of it, didn't you? :-)
http://cust.idl.com.au/athol/download/External%20Sydney%20Ring%20Road.pdf
Post by feral
"NOWwhere" says "all the way to Goulburn and back up" is only
35k further and 30min longer, using Robertson as one "mean"
point and Jerrong/Wombeyan as the other.
But can we trust NOWwhere?
LOL. I gotta try this.

ROTFLMAO. That is absolutely unbelievable. It suggests going a totally
different way to get to Mittagong. If you go that way, you have to go
right through the middle of Mittagong, which makes the trip that much
slower. Add in the fact that their travel time for the Wombeyan Caves
road is about an hour optimistic just with a car and I'd guess that the
distances they quote might be correct but the time via Wombeyan Caves Rd
with horse float "as is" would be about 5 or 6 hours longer than via
Goulburn.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
feral
2006-09-26 09:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
LOL. I gotta try this.
ROTFLMAO. That is absolutely unbelievable. It suggests going a totally
different way to get to Mittagong.
That's why I put in "via Bowral".

If you go that way, you have to go
Post by Athol
right through the middle of Mittagong, which makes the trip that much
slower. Add in the fact that their travel time for the Wombeyan Caves
road is about an hour optimistic just with a car and I'd guess that the
distances they quote might be correct but the time via Wombeyan Caves Rd
with horse float "as is" would be about 5 or 6 hours longer than via
Goulburn.
Correct distance, yes, because it winds like a snake.
Correct time, joke eh.
Does that time even include the carsick stops. :-)
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral ( @..@)
(\-- Ü--/)
((.>______<.))
^^^ ^^^
feral
2006-09-26 09:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by feral
That's why I put in "via Bowral".
BTW "Moss Vale" saves another 1.5k.
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral ( @..@)
(\-- Ü--/)
((.>______<.))
^^^ ^^^
Athol
2006-09-26 22:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by feral
Post by Athol
LOL. I gotta try this.
ROTFLMAO. That is absolutely unbelievable. It suggests going a totally
different way to get to Mittagong.
That's why I put in "via Bowral".
Would have made more sense to force it via Moss Vale and then go through
Sutton Forest to get to the Hume, head north to the southern end of the
Mittagong bypass, turn left then right to get onto the WC road.

But I don't think that nowhere route has the Sutton Forest road...
Post by feral
If you go that way, you have to go
Post by Athol
right through the middle of Mittagong, which makes the trip that much
slower. Add in the fact that their travel time for the Wombeyan Caves
road is about an hour optimistic just with a car and I'd guess that the
distances they quote might be correct but the time via Wombeyan Caves Rd
with horse float "as is" would be about 5 or 6 hours longer than via
Goulburn.
Correct distance, yes, because it winds like a snake.
Correct time, joke eh.
Does that time even include the carsick stops. :-)
For the people in the 4WD, the horse or both?
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Diesel Damo
2006-09-26 06:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
All the way down to Goulburn and back up?
Yep, down to Goulburn then up to the Illawarra Highway. Then back
again. The guy I borrowed the float off told me it was 800kg empty too,
so the trip *to* Wollongong wasn't exactly fun either.
Post by Athol
Bet you wish they'd fix the Wombeyan Caves Road!
By the time they get around to that, my kids will be pensioners :-P
John_H
2006-09-26 06:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
The guy I borrowed the float off told me it was 800kg empty too,
so the trip *to* Wollongong wasn't exactly fun either.
Some float.

Where I am a float is a low loader for carrying heaving machinery
(bulldozers and the likes). Most have more wheels than a centipede
has legs and start at around 8 tonne empty.

Think it's also a name for what the pooftas ride on in the Mardi Gras,
as well as a device used by Mexicans to cart around their donkeys.

Are you gay by any chance? :)
--
John H
Diesel Damo
2006-09-27 00:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John_H
Are you gay by any chance? :)
Pleathe theath and dethitht from putting my thexuality into quethtion,
good thir!
atec77
2006-09-27 00:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel Damo
Post by John_H
Are you gay by any chance? :)
Pleathe theath and dethitht from putting my thexuality into quethtion,
good thir!
shuduppat
the_dawggie
2006-09-27 01:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by atec77
Post by Diesel Damo
Post by John_H
Are you gay by any chance? :)
Pleathe theath and dethitht from putting my thexuality into quethtion,
good thir!
shuduppat
Not me. I don't own a Celica, nor have ever worked as a hairdresser,
and don't do coffee at poncy cafes. The gay accent I would be about
as good at as singing - Ie: useless at it. I'm far too bogan for
cultured
shite anyway :-)
atec77
2006-09-27 01:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by the_dawggie
Post by atec77
Post by Diesel Damo
Post by John_H
Are you gay by any chance? :)
Pleathe theath and dethitht from putting my thexuality into quethtion,
good thir!
shuduppat
Not me. I don't own a Celica, nor have ever worked as a hairdresser,
and don't do coffee at poncy cafes. The gay accent I would be about
as good at as singing - Ie: useless at it. I'm far too bogan for
cultured
shite anyway :-)
whoosh...
feral
2006-09-27 02:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by atec77
Post by the_dawggie
Post by atec77
Post by Diesel Damo
Pleathe theath and dethitht from putting my thexuality into quethtion,
good thir!
shuduppat
Not me. I don't own a Celica, nor have ever worked as a hairdresser,
and don't do coffee at poncy cafes. The gay accent I would be about
as good at as singing - Ie: useless at it. I'm far too bogan for
cultured
shite anyway :-)
whoosh...
Did ya get that Pat, err Damo, err 77, err fuggitt.
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral ( @..@)
(\-- Ü--/)
((.>______<.))
^^^ ^^^
Athol
2006-09-27 01:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John_H
Where I am a float is a low loader for carrying heaving machinery
(bulldozers and the likes). Most have more wheels than a centipede
has legs and start at around 8 tonne empty.
Around here, if it's got more than 4 axles they refer to it as a
"module" instead of a float. I don't know where that term comes from.

I've also had trouble with people misunderstanding the meaning of the
term "dog trailer". They thought that I was talking about an enclosed
box (pig) trailer for carrying mutts. :-)

The term "horse float" is reasonably well understood, even if the size
can range from a dinky little POS for carrying one foal to a semi...
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
John_H
2006-09-27 03:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athol
Post by John_H
Where I am a float is a low loader for carrying heaving machinery
(bulldozers and the likes). Most have more wheels than a centipede
has legs and start at around 8 tonne empty.
Around here, if it's got more than 4 axles they refer to it as a
"module" instead of a float. I don't know where that term comes from.
Only ever heard the term in relation to cotton transport... cotton is
packed in "modules" for the trip to the gin.
Post by Athol
I've also had trouble with people misunderstanding the meaning of the
term "dog trailer". They thought that I was talking about an enclosed
box (pig) trailer for carrying mutts. :-)
Common term for a two axle truck trailer with its own turntable in Q.
Post by Athol
The term "horse float" is reasonably well understood, even if the size
can range from a dinky little POS for carrying one foal to a semi...
Yep, it's always called a "horse float" though, never just a "float".
If it carts cattle it becomes a "crate", with the size measured in
"decks". A deck equals a K wagon (as used by the railways for stock
transport)... also once used for transporting any excess indigenous
population out of town (in my part of the world at least). The local
cop was one who placed the order with the railway.

A deck carries around 26 head (cattle) -- don't remember how many of
the other though. :)
--
John H
Athol
2006-09-27 06:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John_H
Post by Athol
Around here, if it's got more than 4 axles they refer to it as a
"module" instead of a float. I don't know where that term comes from.
Only ever heard the term in relation to cotton transport... cotton is
packed in "modules" for the trip to the gin.
Seems to be a term used specifically for low loader trailers having one
axle group of five or more axles. Some of the axles usually steer as
part of the design.
Post by John_H
Post by Athol
I've also had trouble with people misunderstanding the meaning of the
term "dog trailer". They thought that I was talking about an enclosed
box (pig) trailer for carrying mutts. :-)
Common term for a two axle truck trailer with its own turntable in Q.
Any trailer that is a permanent assembly of a convertor dolly and a
semi trailer.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Crash Lander
2006-09-25 00:47:14 UTC
Permalink
My old man has an AUII Fairmont, and it's on gas. He gets 14.8/100 on gas,
and 16/100 on petrol! Slightly better on long runs. I'd have thought those
figures should be reversed, as I always thought lpg gave worse mileage than
petrol.
Sounds to me like he has a problem with the car. Maybe the O2 sensor needs
replacing?
Crash Lander
--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a
family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
Crash Lander
2006-09-25 01:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
My old man has an AUII Fairmont, and it's on gas. He gets 14.8/100 on gas,
and 16/100 on petrol! Slightly better on long runs. I'd have thought those
figures should be reversed, as I always thought lpg gave worse mileage
than petrol.
Sounds to me like he has a problem with the car. Maybe the O2 sensor needs
replacing?
Crash Lander
Turns out he DID have the figures switched around, but still not good.
Crash Lander
Just JT
2006-09-25 02:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a
family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although the official figure is 9.8ltrs/100, I do 10ltrs/100 around town and
6.3ltrs/100 on the freeway in my Lexus 2.5l V6. I use 98 RON petrol.

--
Direct.injection.does.wonders.for.economy
Ron
2006-09-25 04:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just JT
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures
for a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly
trip. Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although the official figure is 9.8ltrs/100, I do 10ltrs/100 around
town and 6.3ltrs/100 on the freeway in my Lexus 2.5l V6. I use 98 RON
petrol.
Philipini in a Lexus!
Be carefull, people will think you stole it..:-)
Ron
2006-09-25 02:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a
month now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures
for a family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong.
About half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly
trip. Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
2002 SR AUIII, around town, terrible!

On the highway, ave 8L/100km airconditioner on.
On highway, airconditioner 'OFF', 115kph Cruise on, relatively flat road,
300km round journey, 6.6L/100km! (three times, same road same conditions
same mileage).

Ron
VYBerlinaV8
2006-09-25 03:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Astra (4cyl 1.8) - 7.5 to 8.0 l/100km in town, 6.0 to 6.5 l/100km on a
trip
Berlina (V8 5.7) - 11.0 to 13.5 /100km around town (depends on how I'm
feeling), 8.0 to 10.0 l/100km on a trip (again, if I play or not...)
--
VYBerlinaV8
g***@sensation.net.au
2006-09-25 07:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a family
size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
I have a 2002 AUIII Fairmont, typical figures are about
12.5-13.5L/100km. I live on the fringes of suburbia so most "local"
destinations are just a little too far to walk, which probably pulls up
the average a bit. A/C also usually stays on as climate control keeps
it going even in cold weather to help prevent fogging.

A good run on the freeway will get it below 10L/100km, until the next
few short trips anyway. :)

What brand of petrol are you using?
Crash Lander
2006-09-25 11:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@sensation.net.au
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a family
size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
I have a 2002 AUIII Fairmont, typical figures are about
12.5-13.5L/100km. I live on the fringes of suburbia so most "local"
destinations are just a little too far to walk, which probably pulls up
the average a bit. A/C also usually stays on as climate control keeps
it going even in cold weather to help prevent fogging.
A good run on the freeway will get it below 10L/100km, until the next
few short trips anyway. :)
What brand of petrol are you using?
Mine is a 99 Series 1 AU Forte.
I just use the no-name branded crap that the servo on the corner has. I
think it's actually Caltex. My work has an account there, so that's where I
have to get my petrol.
Crash Lander
Andy
2006-09-25 11:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a family
size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
About 13L/100k for an old VN V8 Wagon (auto).

Cheers,

Andy.
ryan scott
2006-09-26 16:51:05 UTC
Permalink
91 eb xr8..............i get about 19L/100 around town....
Post by Crash Lander
What sort of economy is everyone getting? I've had my AU for about a month
now, and am getting what I find to be surprisingly good figures for a
family size car.
I'm consistently getting 9.6L/100km. I was expecting around 11 or 12!
I travel about 35km to work every day from Portarlington to Geelong. About
half of the way is 100kph admittedly, but it is quite a hilly trip.
Is everyone getting similar numbers in their family size cars?
Crash Lander
--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...