economy figures in vs 8's

[Paiste402]

here we go again.

Check out the australian fuel consumption standard results since they have been published! no normally aspirated larger engine fitted to the same chassis layout from the same manufacturer in the one model range has every achieved better consumption than the smaller normally aspirated engine....period.

Yeh, the results were rigged by white coated 6cyl drivers......in your v8 dreams!

In my v6, the aus test figures for hwy of 6.6L/100km petrol. v8s of the same model are rated at 7.4 man and 8.5 auto for petrol. So yes consumption less than 10L/100km should also be achievable on a v8, but achieving it and then quoting some v6 with a fuel guzzling problem is evidence that v8s are more economical is not really not enough to refute all those stringent government tests.

granted thats the figures that they released but its like any statistics, they all vary.

Like in Wheels magazine, they tested the HSV 6.2 litre with the claimed 4.9-5.0 0-100 or somethin. They were hitting around 5.5 at the best and thats with V8 Supercar drivers testing them. Point is, just cause thats what they say, doesnt make it true.

Now i do believe that V6's are more likely to be more economic than V8's... but not by much or at all.

Ive had a VN V6 on LPG and i was paying $50 a week at the time on fuel. Around 600km. My VB 253 V8, on LPG which has a 3 speed, single spinner with a tired engine and bad differential ratios wasnt far behind at $70 a week, BUT the prices are around .20 higher and i was driving more. So nearly the damn same. These cars are like 20 years apart too and this VB is shagged out. Doesnt matter, ive got a VC 312 in the works now

Its the driver, i can use more fuel in a Kia Rio than in a V8. I just might stay in first gear the whole drive

 

[STEALTHY™]

if the V8 tank holds more fuel how can you do a direct comparison, "this car drove further then that car" would be expected with a bigger tank. doens't prove better consumption.

Hence why i didn't give km's for my comparisons. The onlys ones i could, is for the wagons, where both engine types have the same size tank.

 

[commsirac]

granted thats the figures that they released but its like any statistics, they all vary.

Like in Wheels magazine, they tested the HSV 6.2 litre with the claimed 4.9-5.0 0-100 or somethin. They were hitting around 5.5 at the best and thats with V8 Supercar drivers testing them. Point is, just cause thats what they say, doesnt make it true.

Its a pity you didnt read the previous posts in the thread before you posted, then there may have been no need for you to display such ignorance.

and what has wheels doing 0-100km/h time trials got to do with aus standards for fuel use? (originally I thought that you were telling me wheels was trying to replicate fuel consumption tests.......but time trials........there are aus standards for that? ).
The point is, the aus standards for testing dont vary......the same test is performed exactly the same on every vehiclel that is put forward for testing. The government is the one in charge of making sure of integrity of test procedures and results....not the manufacturers.


What has never been in dispute however, is the comparitive value of the tests. If the car A does better than car B on the aus standards test, then car A will do better than car B in the "real world" as well. v6s test better than v8s(let me rephrase that, small displacement motors do better than large displacement motors), and probably even "wheels magazine" will tell you that's how it pans out in their "real world".....I gave up reading that rubbish when I was a teenager.

 

[89 vn]

Theres really no way a V8 will get better economy than a v6 and a v6 will not beat a 4cyl unless there is a special reason eg runs on different fuel or has cyl shutdown management.

Some new cars like for example the Ford Territory which is turbo 6 get as high as 16L/100km whereas some small cars can get as low as 3.2. infact funny you mention wheels they drove a few cars in a test across australia, i think they even got 4000km from a hyundai tank

 

[shanhsv]

The only people here that should be saying anything is those who own/have recently owned both a holden V6 and V8.I also once thought V8's drank fuel like nothing else but it wasnt till i bought my V8 i found out this want the case.

 

[commsirac]

The only people here that should be saying anything is those who own/have recently owned both a holden V6 and V8..

That would be silly......clearly(from the comments in this and other similar threads) either idiots are attacted to v8s or v8s turn some normal people with rational thought processes into idiots.
(apologies to those who dont classify in either category)

No one is arguing that v8s cant be quite frugal on the open road, compared to even 6cyls of yesteryear, however, the claim by some of the deluded souls here is that v8s are more economical on the highway than v6s, period.

It is that which others and myself know are not the facts.

 

[shanhsv]

What's bugging me is that we seem to have those who think they have the right to put in their point of view of how full of crap many of the V8 drivers are because they have in their mind because its a V8 it has to use more fuel.
But will they listen to those who drive BOTH V8 an V6 often there for would have a much better idea.

 

[vnv8driver]

I cant say that any of the claims made here are incorrect, but i have never witnessed a vn-vy v6 get 7's and below on the highway, and this is coming from someone who drove v6's fulltime for 3 years and v8's for just over a year.

By the way guys, you lose, i had my mate in his vs v6 on the highway at 110km/h last night and this was his exact words when i asked him what it sits on, 'it sits just above the 2' coming from my mate which doesn't know much about cars, that tells me my 2100rpm claim @ 110km/h is correct. unless my mates tacho is out as well as all my previous v6's.

I couldn't care less if they did sit on the same rpm and smashed the v8 in economy anyway, let them have their little fuel economic v6's id rather drive something with a bit of balls that sounds nice instead of a horrible drone powered 3.8 that struggles to light them up with mates in the back seat and the aircon switched on lol.

 

[Scooter79]

....I couldn't care less if they did sit on the same rpm and smashed the v8 in economy anyway, let them have their little fuel economic v6's id rather drive something with a bit of balls that sounds nice instead of a horrible drone powered 3.8 that struggles to light them up with mates in the back seat and the aircon switched on lol.

In part two of this discussion we ask the question 'Can a V6 have balls'? :thumbsup:

This thread needs to be put to rest.

 

[STEALTHY™]

In part two of this discussion we ask the question 'Can a V6 have balls'? :thumbsup:

This thread needs to be put to rest.

LOL, hey look, its a dead horse, lets beat it a little!