6.5L/100km Hwy for Diesel Territory

Chilliman · 05-03-2011, 12:09 AM

Ford Territory Diesel to sip a miserly 6.5L/100km
By Paul Maric | March 4th, 2011
Email 7 Comments
DOWNLOAD BROCHURE
LOCATE DEALER
BOOK TEST DRIVE

Although Ford is yet to officially reveal any details about the new engine to feature in the upcoming diesel Ford Territory (sans the engine size and capacity – 2.7-litre V6), a marketing billboard has let fuel consumption details slip and backs up the estimated calculations in our previous story.

The billboard reads, “1000km, one tank? Get out of town.” The fine print states “Based on High Series RWD 6.5L/100km ADR81/02 (extra urban cycle).

Our previous story suggested that if the Territory weighs in at around 500kg less than a Land Rover Discovery4 with the same engine, it’s likely to consume around 20% less. This results in highway fuel consumption of 6.5L/100km and city fuel consumption of 9.82L/100km, resulting in an estimated combined fuel consumption of 8.16L/100km.

8.16L/100km is in stark contrast to the numbers obtained during our recent Territory Turbo test, which saw the car averaging almost double that figure.

To see more information about the new Ford Territory, check out our recent Territory post, which reveals all the official details.

From: Car Advice

jpd80 · 05-03-2011, 12:24 AM

Territory V6 Diesel gets combined fuel consumption of 8.16L/100km?
That's fantastic news and Ford Australia are to be congratulated

Future news:
Falcon's 2.0 Ecoboost gets combined fuel consumption of 8.16L/100km?
Let's hope so because that gives Ford the kind of FE buyers are wanting..

burnz · 05-03-2011, 12:30 AM

hopefully this may switch on a light in both company's brains..diesel falcodore

TC200six · 05-03-2011, 12:44 AM

That's great economy figures for the new Territory, just hope the public are listening. I remember reading on another forum almost 3 years ago where a user was shopping around for a new SUV and liked the Territory, but said it was a little too thirsty for him. Hopefully those kind of car hunters who turn down buying a Territory because of economy figures alone are gone.

mik · 05-03-2011, 12:37 AM

that dam good economy for a large vehicle if its correct.

Kryton · 05-03-2011, 12:38 AM

Dont get too far ahead of yourself.
Its only ESTIMATED.
And even then, youll never get the fuel consumption that the manufacturer reckons anyway.

Chilliman · 05-03-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

Dont get too far ahead of yourself.
Its only ESTIMATED.
And even then, youll never get the fuel consumption that the manufacturer reckons anyway.

The Ford billboard ad quotes 6.5L/100km Hwy as an official ADR81/02 number - but we'll know for sure on the 9th of March when Ford releases official engine details.

MAGPIE · 05-03-2011, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

And even then, youll never get the fuel consumption that the manufacturer reckons anyway.

Why not

My car is averaging 9.49 L/100km over 40,000km and the manufacturers rating is 10.5 L/100km.

arm79 · 05-03-2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

Dont get too far ahead of yourself.
Its only ESTIMATED.
And even then, youll never get the fuel consumption that the manufacturer reckons anyway.

Agreed... Let us not forget a VE SIDI Omega can do a Melbourne to Sydney run on one tank.

Shame for Holden it was very far from true.

JBomb3000 · 05-03-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arm79

Agreed... Let us not forget a VE SIDI Omega can do a Melbourne to Sydney run on one tank.

Shame for Holden it was very far from true.

The 1,000km per tank claim is bassed on an actual figure, the other figures mentioned in the article are estimates.

arm79 · 05-03-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBomb3000

The 1,000km per tank claim is bassed on an actual figure, the other figures mentioned in the article are estimates.

Huh? The billboard ad says its based on the ADR extra urban cycle, the same as the attempt with the SIDI Omega.

Have to wait for a decent real world test.

To me the fact they only advertise 1000km from a 75l tank is that a real world figure is probably closer to the 7.5 to 8l/100km. They've allowed some room so they don't get smacked down.

I suppose thats also assuming the tank is still 75l.

Still a decent highway figure for a weighty SUV regardless.

JBomb3000 · 05-03-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arm79

Huh? The billboard ad says its based on the ADR extra urban cycle

Yeah exactly, It's the actual ADR figure. The rest of the figures that are being thrown about are estimates only.

joeyct · 07-03-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arm79

Agreed... Let us not forget a VE SIDI Omega can do a Melbourne to Sydney run on one tank.

Shame for Holden it was very far from true.

Yes but Holden also deceivedly increased the size of the tank to 70lts.

Put in a big enough tank to back your claims, that's how holden do it.
they are working on a roof mounted tank that is aero looking and makes people think you are packed up and going on hols.

Nah mate just going down to get some milk. But hey it's a holden and that's all i care about.

arm79 · 07-03-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyct

Yes but Holden also deceivedly increased the size of the tank to 70lts.

I think your lost there.

Commo sedans have had bigger tanks than Falcons since VT days. VT to VZ had 75l, VE's are 73l.

Holdens mistake was simply dividing the tank capacity by an unobtainable in real world driving consumption figure to pull out a long range.

The must have forgotten cars dont drive in vacuum bubbles on perfectly flat roads, and there are winds and hills to contend with.

prydey · 07-03-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arm79

I think your lost there.

Commo sedans have had bigger tanks than Falcons since VT days. VT to VZ had 75l, VE's are 73l.

Holdens mistake was simply dividing the tank capacity by an unobtainable in real world driving consumption figure to pull out a long range.

The must have forgotten cars dont drive in vacuum bubbles on perfectly flat roads, and there are winds and hills to contend with.

pretty sure one of the motoring sites did the journey from sydney to melbourne to back up the claim.

why is it so unheard of to get 900+ to a tank? i used to get that from my ef wagon (72L tank).

many people love to hate on commodore and holden just for the sake of it. no where in their advertising do they say its better than falcon so i don't see what the issue is.

**Bluehoon** · 05-03-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

Dont get too far ahead of yourself.
Its only ESTIMATED.
And even then, youll never get the fuel consumption that the manufacturer reckons anyway.

Um! No!

Remember a certain bathurst test with a Berlina and a G6E?????????

prydey · 05-03-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

And even then, you'll never get the fuel consumption that the manufacturer reckons anyway.

wrong, I do!

my FG averages 10L/100km round town. my ba did mid 7's on the highway, my bf2 egas was spot on fords claimed figures for town and highway. my ef xr6 wagon was probably better than the claims. over 900km/tank on the highway, every time.

anyway, i guess thats just nit picking.

hopefully territory can back up the claims.

Sprint XR8 · 05-03-2011, 12:51 AM

JTFG · 05-03-2011, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoupeXB

Not a bad advert for once

LeadFoot81 · 05-03-2011, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j0nni

Not a bad advert for once

Agreed; simple, punchy, & classy.

Dreama · 09-03-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j0nni

Not a bad advert for once

yeah i saw this add the other day and thought it was pretty clever.

SumoDog68 · 10-03-2011, 12:36 AM

Petrol six must be very heavy if diesel weighs only 1 kg more ...

phillyc · 10-03-2011, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Petrol six must be very heavy if diesel weighs only 1 kg more ...

The 4.0 petrol six weighs 195kg. Or at least that has been the general consensus in a few threads discussing Coyote v8 and other engines.

The 2.7 TDV6 has a compacted graphite iron block which means it's very strong and quiet and yet much lighter in weight than a conventional iron block for a diesel.

I read on a site that the 2.7 TDV6 was in the 195kg ballpark a few weeks back, but i figured that was without ancillaries / turbo etc. Clearly, that doesn't seem to be the case.

phillyc · 05-03-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoupeXB

Very good advert. Straight to the point. Nice use of fact and Aussie phrasing.

6.5L/100km is an excellent economy figure. In fact, with the 75L tank, they could claim 1150km. GMHolden definitely would. In fact they have. ie VE2 3.0 has 73L tank and claimed highway economy of 7.3L/100km.

But, Ford generally not so prone to shouting from the rooftops.

Ford needs the Territory to be a winner. Looks like it should be with advertising to back up the economy/performance it will now have.

chevypower · 05-03-2011, 07:27 AM

Apparently you can get 6.5L/100km on the highway in a Range Rover Vogue 4.4L V8 diesel, though that's with the 8 speed. So I would hope a Territory with a 2.7 can get as good as that.