Litres per 100km - Page 3 - Mazda MX6 Forums: MX6 Forum
Mazda MX6 Forums: MX6 Forum User Control Panel
 


» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Mazda MX6 Forums: MX6 Forum > Regional Forums > Australia & New Zealand
Register Home Forum Active Topics Garage Garage Photo Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowAuto Loans

Mx6.com is the premier Mazda MX6 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-15-07, 0:26   #31 (permalink)
  Total: 10 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Coast, Australia
iTrader: (0)
I just thought a 2.5 litre would do much better consumption than a 3.8 commodore but there doesn't seem much in it from what everyone has said.
wastingtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-15-07, 1:31   #32 (permalink)

  Total: 557 Power: 5
 
chief tool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 41
iTrader: (3)
its probably only 100-150kG lighter than a commodore, so comparing auto commodore to auto mx6 and manual commodore to manual mx6 it'd give you about 0.15L/better having an Mx6....plus its a nicer car!

Autos always use more fuel...by about 15% so a manual commodore could be pretty close to an auto mx6.

If your talking highway mileage, then the weight does not come into it, its more about aerdynamics and lean cruise mode in the engine.

you should get 9L/100 highway...on the freeway I get about 9.5L/100 sitting on about 120 in my 1G. if you sit closer to 100 its more like 8.5L/100

On the highway its nearly all about how fast you drive and how many hills there are. the 2G has pretty good Cd figure (cant rember what it is tho)

most cars give you their best economy on the highway between about 80-100km/h.

The mx6 is 15 years old, technology has come along way since then....the Renault clio is a classic example....plus it tips the scales under 1000kG, I was thinking about buying one for that reason.

Older cars like the Fiat would be barely heavier than the Clio...same rules less weight-better economy, but being carburettor, and bad aerodynamics the highway economy wont be all that much different to the city.

The point I was trying to make before was that engine size doesnt make much difference to fuel economy.

I cranked up the boost from 7-15psi in my 1G....fuel economy hasnt changed much, but I only have the same number of opportunities to floor it as I did before.....the traffic hasnt changed.
chief tool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 1:54   #33 (permalink)
  Total: 459 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 26
iTrader: (5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wastingtime View Post
I just thought a 2.5 litre would do much better consumption than a 3.8 commodore but there doesn't seem much in it from what everyone has said.
Fuel consumption on a commodore is nuts man, you crazy? Mx6 2.5L is way better, even modified. Commodore has a 70 litre tank or so, which is gone in 400kms. mx6 does that with almost half the tank.

200kw KLZE-T
Turk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 2:32   #34 (permalink)
  Total: 10 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Coast, Australia
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief tool View Post

The mx6 is 15 years old, technology has come along way since then....the Renault clio is a classic example....plus it tips the scales under 1000kG, I was thinking about buying one for that reason.

Older cars like the Fiat would be barely heavier than the Clio...same rules less weight-better economy, but being carburettor, and bad aerodynamics the highway economy wont be all that much different to the city.

The point I was trying to make before was that engine size doesnt make much difference to fuel economy.

I cranked up the boost from 7-15psi in my 1G....fuel economy hasnt changed much, but I only have the same number of opportunities to floor it as I did before.....the traffic hasnt changed.
I was just making a point to that guy that said you cant have a fast car with a small motor. But very true about the fiat, Ive got about 8L/100km on the highway at 120kph and then I get roughly 10L/100km when I do pizza delivering and I floor it fairly often.

I just thought roughly the worst you could get in a manual mx-6 would be 13L/100km but It must just be the weight that makes them not that great on fuel, Ive just noticed everyone is getting different mpg, one guy said the worst he got was 390km out of 55 litres and then others said the best they got was 350km out of 55 litres.

Also my friend who has a commodore manual worked out he gets 11L/100km, mind you we live in a semi-populated area so its not like sydney traffic, then my other friend used half a tank to get to hornsby and back, so he used about 30litres to get 150km haha and that was highway, and an auto.

Last edited by wastingtime; 12-15-07 at 2:38.. Reason: wanted to add something else
wastingtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 5:26   #35 (permalink)
  Total: 119 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney / canberra, Australia
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sik_turk View Post
Fuel consumption on a commodore is nuts man, you crazy? Mx6 2.5L is way better, even modified. Commodore has a 70 litre tank or so, which is gone in 400kms. mx6 does that with almost half the tank.
yep, and put any sort of modification on it and the consumptions seemingly doubls, i was with my mate when he spent $100 filling his tank, all he has is a 'zorst, and he reakons thatll last him a week or 2

Worst thread ever.

'97 MX6 4WS
'02 RX7 RS 300whp
mhale71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 9:48   #36 (permalink)
  Total: 90 Power: 5
 
daevilone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 26
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wastingtime View Post
I just thought roughly the worst you could get in a manual mx-6 would be 13L/100km but It must just be the weight that makes them not that great on fuel, Ive just noticed everyone is getting different mpg, one guy said the worst he got was 390km out of 55 litres and then others said the best they got was 350km out of 55 litres.
again, most of the really bad economies people have said here have when theyve been out thrashing it, track, street, whatever. ANY car when thrashed can use more than 13L/100km (... well near enough to any car)
Worst fuel economy isnt really a good question. I mean my parents have a jeep commader (3L turbo diesel). most of the time they get abour 13L/100km out of it, but the WORST they have had is up around the 40-50L/100km type area - towing a 2tonne caravan, into a headwind, up hills, not going too slowly.

average fuel economy is a much better question, in which case everyone here I think is quoting around 12L/100km.

as for the differences, old cars, different levels of modification, different levels of actually working properly, different environments, different driving styles.........

one last thing is that the reason the mx-6 doesnt get as good economy down the highways is the gearing!. 3000rpm at 100km/h. or 3500 at 120. In a falcodore your sitting at 1500-2000rpm at those speeds.

Daily - '92 2G -- White, KLZE, Selex coilovers, full black leather interior, CAI, pacesetters, exhaust 16x8 BBS RS (replicas)
daevilone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 16:33   #37 (permalink)
  Total: 10 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Coast, Australia
iTrader: (0)
oh ok cool, I learnt alot from this thread.
wastingtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 16:41   #38 (permalink)
  Total: 397 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: LAKEMBA Sydney Australia, Australia
iTrader: (3)
you know - alot of you really don't know real economy

Sorry but OWN The cars first or at least drive them in NEW Condition.

I mean that.

Example -
Astina BA V6 -2.0l auto - used most fuel - power about 104KW - 1250KG
Replaced by - Gs300 - 2JZ -3.0L VVTI - 1900KG car auto- uses less fuel

Work it out

4 speed auto - PUFFTER V6 no balls you thrash
5 speed - heaps of torque - does not need any more then 2500rpm from 0-120km/h M5.

Now add in a
2.2L auto Wagon -
V
VR Holden Auto 3.8L -
highway -
2.2L 6.5-7L/100km's - proven on trip to canberra- I didn't drive - with load as well
Vr Holden - best was about 8.5- 9L highway - sydney to newcastle and back. highway easy driving.

These two are all about gearing. - Low revs limted ability

The whole reason some cars use more fuel is because they dont' have it where it counts.

Go drive f2T - 1st gen. drive it off boost in traffic or just be normal and it will return on average above what a N/A F2 will use. It's mainly fault is factory overfuel tuning
but kept on closed loop it's very easy on it.

Comparing a falcon or holden that can use 1st gear up 100km/h in case of the AU onward on 4 speed- you would expect it. Now drop the diff so 1st finishs at a more reasonable 60km/h and see higher fuel bill. sure better performance but not that great either.

On top of that most cars are nto in top condition - cars get old bits fail. The more sensitve a car is to it's tuning like the K-series is it's ECU is very very very good from factory - unlike a F2 n/A that has 2 main devices to control fuel airflow/temp and closed loop narrow band 02
K seires uses Air flow air temp - TPS - load and 2 or 3 02 sensors. All to control fuel and ignition. One is out and it's over

3.8L holdens are more sensitive to blocked fuel filters etc.

one has to compare apples to apples

like
alfa's twinspark 2.0l and 2.2L
Both usless in econ -
compared with japanese counter parts

Ford Falcon 4.0L straight six
Jeep Wrangler straight six -

mazda's 2.5 v6
Mitsubishi's glant V6

Economey really comes down to one thing - THE RIGHT FOOT OF THE DRIVER

200km a tank in sydney and LOVE the smell of unbunrt fuel out the real or F2T richness

Last edited by rodhog; 12-15-07 at 16:48..

RIP WAGON 626 GV 1023 7 seat auto 10-5-05.
RIP BA-ASTINA 323 V6 -KF P-plate victim 2-9-07
FORD TELSTAR TX-5 TURBO, 80's ICON RIP 01-07-07
REBORN WAGON -MAN 28-07-07 - A NEW START
I am STILL addicted to Porn. "MXSIX" out
rodhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 18:51   #39 (permalink)

  Total: 557 Power: 5
 
chief tool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 41
iTrader: (3)
I dont think the comparo between the Gs300 and BA astina is enirely fair...

For a start the Gs300 has VVTi, the Astina does not
The Gs300 has a 5 sped Auto. the Astina only 4 speed.

I think if you did more of a stop start run the Gs300, wouldnt be so good, but the technology in the Gs300 is more modern....the mnaufacturers have gone to alot of effort in the last few years to try to keep the same fuel economy as the previous model despite the weight of cars going up substantially.

I rember when a commodore was 1250kG! but the fuel economy was worse than the current model which is closer to 1700kG....

Cars of the same era need to be compared against each other.
chief tool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-07, 20:21   #40 (permalink)
  Total: 459 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 26
iTrader: (5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief tool View Post

Cars of the same era need to be compared against each other.
I rection.
I thought that chief tools comment about the clio being far newer technology and condition than the mx6 meant I didnt need to expand on my "faster cars drink more fuel comment".

When my car was in perfect nick (I have 2 bad 02 sensors) I got 400kms to a tank. And that is not full taking it easy as well. When I get my standalone tuned I expect to get back up to or close to that mark again, but with a bucket load more power at 8psi as well. My car is alot faster than your Dads clio by the way.

I think Rod summed it up nicely, depends on the foot of the driver. if the car can drive you around comfortably at 2500rpm without giving it much accelerator (which a 2nd gen does reasonably) then it wont use as much fuel.

200kw KLZE-T
Turk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-07, 0:33   #41 (permalink)
  Total: 10 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Coast, Australia
iTrader: (0)
haha It might beat it but I was talking about them both being standard, the clio is an extremely light car with more hp than an mx6 so pretty obvious its gonna be faster and its about 10 years newer.
wastingtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-07, 1:25   #42 (permalink)
  Total: 459 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 26
iTrader: (5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wastingtime View Post
haha It might beat it but I was talking about them both being standard, the clio is an extremely light car with more hp than an mx6 so pretty obvious its gonna be faster and its about 10 years newer.
Yer I know im just playing dude . But my car is not standard

200kw KLZE-T
Turk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-07, 2:24   #43 (permalink)
  Total: 10 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Coast, Australia
iTrader: (0)
haha god I want an mx-6 I just love the look of them, I still haven't had the pleasure to even be a passenger of one, I wanted to take one for a test drive but it was a piece of [shizzle], had 290 000km and water damage, but that didn't change my mind haha.
wastingtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-07, 2:35   #44 (permalink)
  Total: 459 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 26
iTrader: (5)
Well worth the buy. One of the best cars in the price range. Scratch that, THE single best car you can buy in the price range . Take one for a spin, they arent a big kw monster at first, but it doesnt take much to get them there if that is your fancy and they a great drive

200kw KLZE-T
Turk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-07, 2:46   #45 (permalink)
  Total: 397 Power: 5
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: LAKEMBA Sydney Australia, Australia
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief tool View Post
I dont think the comparo between the Gs300 and BA astina is enirely fair...

For a start the Gs300 has VVTi, the Astina does not
The Gs300 has a 5 sped Auto. the Astina only 4 speed.

I think if you did more of a stop start run the Gs300, wouldnt be so good, but the technology in the Gs300 is more modern....the mnaufacturers have gone to alot of effort in the last few years to try to keep the same fuel economy as the previous model despite the weight of cars going up substantially.

I rember when a commodore was 1250kG! but the fuel economy was worse than the current model which is closer to 1700kG....

Cars of the same era need to be compared against each other.

that is a true fact.

but my main point is and it's a Point about how every car has different engine- well actually They use to have different engines. Different engine setups, I should use the older model type like a E-320 - that uses less fuel then the Astina

I get back to why the Astina for example and even the 626 was not a great suscess - why it was not used in the GV wagon untill the last last model run
and only continued in the GW wagon

Car makers depending on what the consumer - WAS - EG - US - ASIA - EUROPE - the 3 majors - note Australia was not at that time for majority or cars.

Here in australia we before we were mroe fuel conserned or even Saftey consered - were not big so car makers only used 1 or two sized engines.

the GD is a perfect example. We had fuel to run a FE DOHC engine, We also had the fuel to run a 12 valve carby 2.0L. But instead we got the US F2 - because research by both mazda and Ford Aus - said it would see better to the public it's what they wanted and the huge selling sucess - especially fo FORD was excellent.
the F2 provided - what most australias wanted an overall Lazy engine - with plenty of torque to cruze around town in. Plus coupled to the more comon Automatic transmission.
We did not get any of the Japanese engines from F6 to FE - note only F2's in japan were from FORD PROBES.

Come to the 2nd gen - we get only the KL- because the market says no to just 4 cylidner and I know what you think but celica sold. But it had it's market share it was seller already. I don't sell people Mx-6's - I sell them celicas because it does not have dizzy problem, or overheating due to poor care as problem. the KL is wholey reliable - when kept right it can't go wrong.

But 2nd hand market means little to car makers. Mx-6 and 626 and along with alot of cars at that time - Mitsubishi galant - Eunos 500 etc .most people asking for more USEABLE power.
This comes with Economey

Long stroke - Square motors make more low -mid range power then short strokes.
Always have - This means less revs - less power.
Because

Torque = MAX cylinder filling. - it's why car makers go for flat torque curves - More consistant cylidner filling - = more over all power.

Short stroke V6's don't do this.
but what about the old Buick v6 - pushrod 3.8L it had every thing down low and nothing up top and it was short stroke but it had it's max cylinder filling in mid range - due to it's large bore size. It woudl rev too but due to original restraints it didn't have the camshaft or the internal bits to allow it to rev up to a range where it could turn that cylidner filling into large amounts of power. it's why VN only needs mild cam and few bits to make a carp lod more power, in comparisson to it's latter counter part. - Per percentage.
the new Alloytec - same modifications nowhere near as far.

Now yes having lots of top end power is great when you are carrying Bugger all weight. but to get the saveings at the bowser you have to be driving it at such low revs a less overall pwoer full car making more efficent torque at them same revs will use the same amount of fuel.

Brings me back to the Astina v6 Ba. and let me put it back to the station wagon.
GV1023 1993 - 7 seater - 1305Kg only waht 110HP - 84Kw F2 torque 179NM Max Redline 6K - cut out 6200rpm - 180km/h speed limtier can sit on it.
CD .32
BA astina KF 1994-V6 1255KG 104KW 183NM Redline 6700rpm cutout 7000rpm
CD. 30 or around that got figure somewhere
Both used simialr automatic transmission with astina later model with lower final drive.
Fuel numbers-
Wagon city -11 highway 7.6
Astina city 8.5 highway 11.5

Now I owned both cars top condition - neither modified and it didn't take long to notice difference in petrol.

Note - Same driver - Was used by my mother to and from work - averag 22.4 km each day 5 days a week
Both automatics.

Wagon was using on average 91RON - about $25 to fill each at say $1.10

Astina left took less then $30 a week.

Now you may say driver - NOTE dirver is a Woman - and has driven the same route over almost 10 years.
She noted in the first week- We have Hill in sydney it's very vertical - it's quite steep - not many cars can climb up with out a big push or revs. trucks slow down to 30- 40km/h if they can' speed up to it.
My mother "Note YOu need to give the astina alot of gas to get it up the hill at tempe"
Never said that about wagon. A heavier car less power even max torque.

All because the torque is there.

Go look at even honda's Square motor's - more and more motors All square large capacity 4 cylinders replacing v6's in places that were comon.
If they aint' square there are close to it or slgihlty long stroke or longstroke.
Using Variable valve timing - lift and other bits of cam majic to achive - complete cylidner fillling across the range.

Turbo chargers help but where a K series used VIRS to help create a flatter torque curve it could not hide it's need to rev to perrform. Great on a race track useless in econmical family car.

NEw Aurion makes 200kw's but only needs around 2000rpm to drive it around town and not much more on the highway.

My Astina replacement - Mazda2

Want econ - try $15 a week same trip NO BS at $1.30 or last week $1.38

1.5L - slighlty by .2mm longstroke - VVT engine - only needs at most 2500rpm to travel to work and back. With auto, It carrys more people now too.
But when you rev it - it goes but it won't get neat a GE mx-6.

As noted by Sik-turk and Ive said it you want power you have to pay for it.
more max cylidner filling = more power = more fuel.

It's also why if you thrash some new cars they really really really really really SUCK THE GAS.

RIP WAGON 626 GV 1023 7 seat auto 10-5-05.
RIP BA-ASTINA 323 V6 -KF P-plate victim 2-9-07
FORD TELSTAR TX-5 TURBO, 80's ICON RIP 01-07-07
REBORN WAGON -MAN 28-07-07 - A NEW START
I am STILL addicted to Porn. "MXSIX" out
rodhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:22.



Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.
Copyright 2000-2010, MX6.com
MX6.com is in no way affiliated to Mazda Motor Corp.
All views expressed in this site are the personal opinion of the author and not necessarily the owners of MX6.com.