FG II Economy - Page 2

**Mechan1k** · 18-12-2011, 12:34 AM

FGII sedan runs the follow diff ratios:
2.73:1 for all ZF models
3.45:1 for all 6-sp manuals

Kerb weight is around 1704kg (XT petrol) ... 1757kg (XT ECOLPI) ... 1798kg (G6E ECOLPI)

noisytim · 18-12-2011, 12:35 AM

Aerodynamics would make all the difference in fuel consumption for utes compared to sedans, even if utes are lighter the air doesn't flow over them as well as a sedan. You need to have nice smooth laminar airflow like air flowing over an airfoil, utes would have turbulent airflow over the back and create lots of drag and increase fuel consumption.

**Mechan1k** · 18-12-2011, 12:38 AM

But 1.6L/100km difference ... there was never that much difference between sedan and ute in the B-series for the old EGAS.

There's something else apart from that for the big difference.

FalconXV · 18-12-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

But 1.6L/100km difference ... there was never that much difference between sedan and ute in the B-series for the old EGAS.

There's something else apart from that for the big difference.

Aero? Kerb weight? ECU calibration for 1 tonne payload?

**Mechan1k** · 18-12-2011, 01:01 AM

Kerb weight is negligible ... maybe actually lighter for the ute more than anything.

Aero would be the most likely explanation ... but i wouldn't see if making THAT much difference.

Not all models are 1T payload ... and it wouldn't be an "across the board" calibration (if there was such a calibration anyway).

F6 R-Spec · 18-12-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

Kerb weight is negligible ... maybe actually lighter for the ute more than anything.

Aero would be the most likely explanation ... but i wouldn't see if making THAT much difference.

Not all models are 1T payload ... and it wouldn't be an "across the board" calibration (if there was such a calibration anyway).

SPOT on Mech, it has me baffled .

I initialy thought it was diff ratios.
Aero i dont think will have that much diffrence if you compare
sedan PET (9.9) to sedan LPI (12.3) there is 2.4 difference in consumption.
Ute PET (10.7) to ute LPI (13.9) there is 3.2 differ in consumption.

It has a greater diffrence in consumption in the ute range than the sedan,
under load lpg will burn faster but that much is the Question between the two?

jpd80 · 18-12-2011, 11:06 AM

I think you'll find the Ute's calibration is set slightly richer at part throttle in anticipation of load carrying,
maybe a more graduated enrichment to improve economy when carrying loads but shows up in economy
test where there's lots of change in throttle position and moderate acceleration rates.

On cruise, the Ute probably gives about the same fuel economy as a sedan.

Bossxr8 · 18-12-2011, 02:15 PM

Ute also has bigger LPG tanks than sedan doesn't it, plus they are heavier and aero is worse.

Driveline friction with the live axle diff, longer tailshaft etc?

Are ute diffs a bit heavier duty than sedans?

F6 R-Spec · 18-12-2011, 04:21 PM

sedan holds 88L
ute hold 86L

SteveJH · 18-12-2011, 04:32 PM

Yeah, ute is definately heavier than the sedan from everything i've read. Plus as stated, aero would play a big part.

Could be an interesting experiment to test the utes drag coefficent both with and without the hard cover.

**Mechan1k** · 18-12-2011, 07:19 PM

I actually wrote the weights above in my earlier posts as a comparison (between ute/sedan and petrol/ECOLPI ... one of at the end of page 1 ... the other is on page 2.

The ute diff is hefty I can attest ... I have carried one "across the garage" ... as it incorporates the axle housings as well as the centre. But then again ... the IRS in the sedan is much heavier than a live axle setup ... so I think it really evens out.

SteveJH · 18-12-2011, 11:05 PM

According to the carsales site, the Tare weight of the FG 1 XR6 Sedan and Ute, both manual...

The ute is 12kg heavier in tare weight.
1677kg versus 1689kg.

Add in the bigger fuel tank of the ute along with any hard cover etc on the back and it could end up considerably heavier then the sedan.

**Mechan1k** · 18-12-2011, 11:17 PM

See ... my weights are actually going off the Ford website specs listed online.
The weight for the utes are negligable regardless of petrol/LPG really between models ... maybe a 50kg difference.

Cab chassis are lighter ... but then you have to factory in 200-300kg of factory tray weight as well.

But 1740kg for FGII in utes .... and then anywhere between 1704kg to 1798kg in the sedans (as I listed above).

But for ECOLPI ... 1747kg for the XT sedan ... and around 1740kg for the ute.

Now in say this ... if the FGI XR6 petrol is 1677kg ... and the FGII XR6 petrol is in the mid-1700's ... how come the fuel economy hasn't skyrocketed on the FGII petrol sedans????

usernametaken · 07-12-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

See ... my weights are actually going off the Ford website specs listed online.
The weight for the utes are negligable regardless of petrol/LPG really between models ... maybe a 50kg difference.

Cab chassis are lighter ... but then you have to factory in 200-300kg of factory tray weight as well.

But 1740kg for FGII in utes .... and then anywhere between 1704kg to 1798kg in the sedans (as I listed above).

But for ECOLPI ... 1747kg for the XT sedan ... and around 1740kg for the ute.

Now in say this ... if the FGI XR6 petrol is 1677kg ... and the FGII XR6 petrol is in the mid-1700's ... how come the fuel economy hasn't skyrocketed on the FGII petrol sedans????

Did anyone actually work this out?

mik · 07-12-2012, 09:28 PM

it would be interesting to see the tyres types on different vehicles too, i`m thinking a ute commercial rated tyre may add a little to fuel consumption ? i would be interested in the alloy tray weight too,
i can remember as a young buk pulling the old wooden tray of a hq one tonner, we did`nt think it would be that heavy, omg looks can be deceiving, have you ever seen 6 strong fit blokes knees shake and faces turn red doing a lift before.
it would surprise me if the alloy tray weighed 300 kg, but never judge a book by it`s cover.

XR Martin · 07-12-2012, 10:21 PM

As for aero, I remember reading that the rear wing on the SV6/SS adds as much 0.3L/100km to the highway economy of a Commodore. Also the front guards on VEs add a few tenths too.

usernametaken · 07-12-2012, 10:23 PM

Would adding a canopy reduce fuel consumption or increase it?

I'd assume better aero than tarp BUT it also adds weight?

Dr Smith · 08-12-2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

See ... my weights are actually going off the Ford website specs listed online.
The weight for the utes are negligable regardless of petrol/LPG really between models ... maybe a 50kg difference.

Cab chassis are lighter ... but then you have to factory in 200-300kg of factory tray weight as well.

But 1740kg for FGII in utes .... and then anywhere between 1704kg to 1798kg in the sedans (as I listed above).

But for ECOLPI ... 1747kg for the XT sedan ... and around 1740kg for the ute.

Now in say this ... if the FGI XR6 petrol is 1677kg ... and the FGII XR6 petrol is in the mid-1700's ... how come the fuel economy hasn't skyrocketed on the FGII petrol sedans????

Were there any software recalibration/tech changes between FG and FGII that aid economy. Plus are the comparisons for manuals or for ZF six speeds and Ford 5 speed autos as FG came with both and FGII's only come with ZF six speeds.

**Mechan1k** · 08-12-2012, 06:53 PM

The initial table is comparing ZF to ZF at least.

It was mentioned there were calibration changes ... and the mention of extra cam phasers though ... it all depends on how well it does translate to better economy.

All I can say though is .... my ex-rental FG seems to sip the fuel better than the "ADR economy" tests ... so that's a good thing in my eyes ... and if the majority of FGIIs can do the same thing ... even better.

You gotta think ... they have really managed to get these things to be fuel-misers for what they really are (and that's 1800kg, 4L cylinder vehicles that carry 5 adults in comfort and tow 2.3T).

I wanna see a long term test on an ECOboost and see what it is really like over time and differing conditions. For urban ... the EcoBoost is best ... especially stop-start .... that's where the I6 suffers most in economy figures.

mik · 09-12-2012, 12:58 AM

it would`nt be bad to take a rental Eco boost for a serious run, any one seen rental eco boost falcons ??

Gabbs · 09-12-2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

I wanna see a long term test on an ECOboost and see what it is really like over time and differing conditions. For urban ... the EcoBoost is best ... especially stop-start .... that's where the I6 suffers most in economy figures.

They did a torture test in the states how well that would compare to our conditions I don't know.

http://www.ford.com/new/f-150-torture-test/

**Mechan1k** · 09-12-2012, 06:44 PM

I've seen those torture tests on the 3.5L V6 EB .... and they are impressive to say the least.

It's one engine I DO want to see out here in our cars.

In regards to rentals ... Would be interesting to see how many they had ... the incentive for them to purchase a fleet of them would be high ... as it brings it into a different class of vehicle being a large car in a 4-cyl category.

I wonder if any of the regular interstate flyers that get hire cars ... that peruse this forum ... have seen or driven any through any of the major hire car companies .... interesting to say the least.

xtremerus · 10-12-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usernametaken

Would adding a canopy reduce fuel consumption or increase it?

I'd assume better aero than tarp BUT it also adds weight?

The canopy on my trayback ute [avatar] adds about 2.5 L/100k at highway speed, than it is when off, and with just the flat tray.
That canopy is flat at the front, no aerodynamics.

At constant speed, consumption is all about aero, and nothing to do with weight. A couple of 100Kg in the back makes no difference to constant speed consumption with the canopy on.

usernametaken · 10-12-2012, 06:16 PM

Thanks mate, appreciate the reply, was talking more about a carryboy fibreglass rather than the alu tradie style

still, 2.5 is a fair bit though hey?

Cheers!

outback_ute · 10-12-2012, 06:38 PM

I wonder if it was Ford's data or whether Caradvice compiled it themselves, to leave out the Ecoboost versions?

xtremerus · 10-12-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usernametaken

Thanks mate, appreciate the reply, was talking more about a carryboy fibreglass rather than the alu tradie style

still, 2.5 is a fair bit though hey?

Cheers!

That's the point. A canopy on a styleside ute will still slightly increase consumption. But it has nothing to do with the weight of it.

My canopy is on the bad side for aero for an example.

johntolhurst · 01-01-2022, 01:46 PM

I know this is an old thread, but isn't the lack of mudflaps and the new underbody trim panels responsible for the improved fuel economy? "Improved vehicle aerodynamics" is what the review says. The side skirts are also differently shaped. All adds up. Underbody turbulence is a big drag.

So, can the underbody trim panels be fitted to an FG MKI? Or to a BA?

jakka351 · 01-01-2022, 08:13 PM

If you have enough money you can fit anything anywhere

johntolhurst · 02-01-2022, 01:17 AM

Let me clarify the question.

Does anybody know if the under body covers made for the FG 2 can be used on the BA who is the chassis too different?

Does anybody know what the actual term is for these underbody covers?

Cheers

Bossxr8 · 02-01-2022, 11:57 AM

The whole fg front end is different. So probably not. The fuel savings are minuscule anyway. Driving style and proper tyre pressures would make more savings.