Well apparently the VS is cheapest to run no real surprise though.. lightest car with the ecotec. Leadfoot + M90 thinks i might not be too close to those figures lol.
I went from a VH to my VN and that was a huge difference. The VH was the biggest fuel guzzler!! I swear it drank just as much as a V8 from the same era.
lol, looks like the series one vt was a bit of a f*ck up (which just further solidfies my views on it). the vs looks like it fairs well....although i get better fuel economy than that graph shows.
yer those stats for the city running look right for my vn calais. when i look at the fuel consumption it usually goes up and down from 10 to 12 so thats bout right good find
It was only a 3.0L engine, so its bound to use less than a 3.8L... 0.8L is a big difference, especially when each cylinder in the VL was only accountable for 0.5L.
I dont think there is any real relation to fuel economy and having a straight 6 or a V6....Fords straight six chews alot of petrol because its a 4.0L and its made by FORD lol... I dont know many other major car companies that still use a straight 6 other than some Lexus models and also all BMW 6 cylinder cars are straight 6 engines, and BMW isnt too shabby with their fuel economy. Dont get me wrong though, the RB30 is a great engine and incredibly reliable.
The early days of emmission controls? Not only were the Holdens post 1976 fuel guzzlers, they were down on power too. The VB Commodore base model inline 6 (the old 173) put out a whopping 61 KWfrom memory. The 202 as "good" for 66 KW. Thankfully, power, efficiency and drivability have all improved in leaps and bounds since those days.
Those figures are for manual transmissions also. The automatic VN's were 12.5L per 100km, compared to 11.5L per 100km
One thing we found with our recently-bought VX-II Lumina with the ecotec was that, when we bought it, the fuel consumption was abysmal...we used to get great economy out of the VS-II, and I assumed that with all the mods and claims of "greater power and economy" from the VX V6, we would do better. Wrong. We were suddenly spending about $65-plus a week on juice, occasionally $70...with the VS, it had been $45 to $50, and boy was I pissed off! We were driving exactly the same, about the usual number of kilometers each week, but the damn thing was drinking like a fish! One day when poking around under the bonnet, just checking out the differences between our old VS and the VX-II, just out of curiousity I decided to have a look at the air cleaner element and see how new it was. Hmm, I thought...only one of the clips was holding the air box lid shut, and it was leaning up and open most of the way around! I clipped it back down properly, and Lo and behold, a week later, the car was using out usual $45 to $50 a week, and it is unusual in a normal week to go over $50 or so...before this it was a shock to spend anything under $60!. It also has a pleasant induction growl now when you give it some. I am no expert on the black art of fuel injection, but I would assume that the incorrectly sealed airbox was fooling the air flow meter somehow, telling the computer that there was whacking great masses of air flowing in, and therefore telling it to dump heaps of petrol into the motor? Anyone more knowledgeable have any further ideas? All I know is that with absolutely no change in our driving habits or average number of kilometers travelled each week, we saved anywhere from 15 to 20 bucks (maybe more) a week by clipping down the lid of the airbox properly. Nothing else was touched under the bonnet. As I said, anyone more knowledgable about EFI have an theories?
I get 270km average to 70 litres. Can someone tell me how i fit 71 litres into a 63 litre tank with a V6 VP. And it doesn't look like the V8 one. And on the side it has a mark that reads LE. And my tank has a big dint.
Get around 13L/100k... with the help of the M90 lol. My old VS (at a guess, no trip computer) was around 11-12L/100K.
