View Full Version : Terri Fuel Consumption
Hi all
Just ordered a Territory Ghia RWD (7) Black and have been reading the reviews which are generally positive. The main complaint seems to be fuel consumption. I would appreciate any comments on this from current owners. For example, Ford claims 13.1 L/100km for RWD -- is this being achieved in the real world? Also, any experience using premium fuel instead of regiular unleaded?
Many thanks, John P
I get an average of 12.4 L/100 km with my TS RWD Territory, Oct 2004 model, with 11,500 km on the clock.
I now travel 130kms a day to and from work, mostly on a highway doing about 110kms an hour, but only for the last 5 weeks, but prior to that I was driving to and from work for about an hour in heavy Sydney traffic. I use premium fuel only.
I have done a few long trips, Syd to Phillip Is in Vic , Syd to Canberra a few times, Syd to Newcastle a few times, and a few trips up to Blue Mts. It goes so well and dont believe all the hype about bad fuel consumption.
Mark
Driven in peak hour traffic most of the time and the odd hwy trip, Ms RATT's Terri is averaging 14.1l/100km.
I'm getting a consistent 13.5 - 14 out of my AWD for reasonably easy traffic conditions running around Hobart. 12.3 for highway running. You'll do a fair bit better with a RWD.
I use premium (95) and it definitely improves performance and economy. Ran a tankful of 98 once and the improvement was better again - an amazing 11.1 for Highway running. Despite the price I would use 98 all the time if it was readily available in Hobart.
Long term avg. for my AWD Terri is around 13.7l/100kms.
Most times a mix of 80-100kmh open road and a mix of medium density urban running (stop signs/lights, round abouts and school zones and the like) not too much stop/start city stuff.
Went down to mid 12's on an inter city trip.
Just everyday unleaded - no premium stuff.
fordless
01-04-05, 08:32 AM
I doubt all of these figures.
15-16 is more realistic.
Tx AWD on Standard Unleaded. Nov 2004. 8500kms
Averaging 15-16 on the outskirts of Sydney. Wifey driving mostly short 10 minute trips. But she does have a heavy foot.
February did a trip down to snowy mountains. Best fuel consumption was on way back from Gundagai to Sydney. Averaged 11.2 so pretty good on open road.
Sydney peak hour is 18-19.
fordless
01-04-05, 09:22 AM
Tx AWD on Standard Unleaded. Nov 2004. 8500kms
Averaging 15-16 on the outskirts of Sydney. Wifey driving mostly short 10 minute trips. But she does have a heavy foot.
February did a trip down to snowy mountains. Best fuel consumption was on way back from Gundagai to Sydney. Averaged 11.2 so pretty good on open road.
Sydney peak hour is 18-19.
At last some real figures !!
I doubt all of these figures.
15-16 is more realistic
Why would you doubt them? They are realistic figures from owners, are you accusing them of lying?
Ghia AWD,
This is with only 2,000 k's on it so it should improve.
In Sydney Peak Hr traffic avg 17.9. To compare this the VT Commodore (V6 Auto) I changed from in the same conditions averaged 15.5.
So I'm very happy with this result.
During a freeway run, Sydney Newcastle return, light traffic, it avaraged 13.8 for the trip. The commodore on the same trip averaged 9.8
I also have tried premium for 3 tanks, and the average dropped to 17.2 so in my opinion it's not worth the extra cost. However the car had slightly better performance with the premium fuel, so it may have been my heavy foot using that extra performance thus negating any fuel savings :hihi:
GHIA RWD, 1Feb 2005, 2000km
City: MELBOURNE
Fuel: OPTIMAX
My drive: 8.5-9.5L on open road at 100km/h and 11-12L city drive (40km/h average)
My wife city drive takes more: 12-13.5 L/100km
The Taipan
01-04-05, 11:42 AM
ave 15l/100km using optimax
mostly city driving...
fordless
01-04-05, 11:51 AM
GHIA RWD, 1Feb 2005, 2000km
City: MELBOURNE
Fuel: OPTIMAX
My drive: 8.5-9.5L on open road at 100km/h and 11-12L city drive (40km/h average)
My wife city drive takes more: 12-13.5 L/100km
BS !!!
fordless
01-04-05, 11:58 AM
Come and see!
Get a grasp of mathematics first and I will.
Why is it so hard to believe? It's also about the right foot, driving conditions, traffic, gradient of roads used, not just maths.
To Mr. Fordless:
After finishing Uni in USSR and spent 25years specializing in physics you better calm down or come and see the numbers. I can lend you a pencil.
Yes, this car can be economical if drive it accordingly.
Ms RATT is right.
Travel every Sunday using Monash freeway in Victoria.: Berwick to Melbourne City - 44km and back, 100km/h speed limit. Average speed 93km/h due to the traffic lights when join/abandon the freeway. It takes 30 min to the destination: consumption 8.2 l/100km. The way back about 9.1/100km
The figures are constant with the deviation less than 0.2L on one or other side depending on the wind factor.
I am getting about 1L difference when going back because of Berwick sits a bit higher in mountains comparing to Melbourne city (sea level).
My wife getting worse figures because she is more energetic on acceleration and brakes. It seems to me that not exciding 2000rpm is the best for the engine economy.
At last some real figures !!
Re: Country Klms.
It was quite hot (36c) and the A/C working at 50%. PLus I had all the gear associated with a 1 year old. So the vehicle was loaded to the roof.
Will be going back down in winter, so will have an engine thats run in. Plus I wont be running a/c. And hopefully the cold intake temp will make a difference. ( and will only have the mrs. plus 2 bags & 2 pairs of skis).
paulvdb
01-04-05, 01:21 PM
BS !!!
go find another Forum to haunt Fordless - maybe the moderators can ditch you.
It's not BS at all. I've seen that figure with with RWD TS as well if I don't get traffic lights. Constant 60kph gives my 8-8.5l/100. 110kph gives me around 11l/100.
I just did a drive with the whole family, plus a luggage pod and around 300kg of gear in total and came in at 11.5l/100 for a trip Sydney-Foster-Sydney including Easter traffic problems.
So save the BS for another Forum. These are REAL figures.
Date odo l km l/100
09/12/2004 394 57.13 394 14.5 ULP
23/12/2004 767 64.63 373 17.3 ULP
10/01/2005 1306 78.39 539 14.5 includes cash fill
22/01/2005 1587 43.69 281 15.5 Optimax
30/01/2005 2091 65.71 504 13.0 Optimax
13/02/2005 2504 63.61 413 15.4 Optimax
19/02/2005 2865 48.34 361 13.4 Optimax
27/02/2005 3308 63.3 443 14.3 Caltex fill
10/03/2005 3769 70.36 461 15.3 Optimax
20/03/2005 4192 62.26 423 14.7 Optimax
24/03/2005 4505 39.67 313 12.7 Optimax
28/03/2005 5043 61.9 538 11.5 Optimax
The 12 was substantially highway, the 11 was nearly entirely highway, the 13 was a lot of highway. The rest have been driving in Sydney traffic - missing some of the worst peaks when possible.
fordless
01-04-05, 02:16 PM
go find another Forum to haunt Fordless - maybe the moderators can ditch you.
It's not BS at all. I've seen that figure with with RWD TS as well if I don't get traffic lights. Constant 60kph gives my 8-8.5l/100. 110kph gives me around 11l/100.
I just did a drive with the whole family, plus a luggage pod and around 300kg of gear in total and came in at 11.5l/100 for a trip Sydney-Foster-Sydney including Easter traffic problems.
So save the BS for another Forum. These are REAL figures.
Date odo l km l/100
09/12/2004 394 57.13 394 14.5 ULP
23/12/2004 767 64.63 373 17.3 ULP
10/01/2005 1306 78.39 539 14.5 includes cash fill
22/01/2005 1587 43.69 281 15.5 Optimax
30/01/2005 2091 65.71 504 13.0 Optimax
13/02/2005 2504 63.61 413 15.4 Optimax
19/02/2005 2865 48.34 361 13.4 Optimax
27/02/2005 3308 63.3 443 14.3 Caltex fill
10/03/2005 3769 70.36 461 15.3 Optimax
20/03/2005 4192 62.26 423 14.7 Optimax
24/03/2005 4505 39.67 313 12.7 Optimax
28/03/2005 5043 61.9 538 11.5 Optimax
The 12 was substantially highway, the 11 was nearly entirely highway, the 13 was a lot of highway. The rest have been driving in Sydney traffic - missing some of the worst peaks when possible.
Right okay ??
So it gets better fuel consumption than its lighter sibling the Falcon ?
I hardly think so .
What are you trying to prove?? Once again for those who fail to understand, these are figures from owners/ drivers of Territories (such as myself and Ms RATT) who are showing actual figures that are displayed on the trip computer. So what is your point??
fordless
01-04-05, 02:34 PM
What are you trying to prove?? Once again for those who fail to understand, these are figures from owners/ drivers of Territories (such as myself and Ms RATT) who are showing actual figures that are displayed on the trip computer. So what is your point??
My point is I have not come accross a trip meter which is accurate yet .... Maybe to the nearest 15-20% but that would be it.
There are things called baffles etc in the fuel tanks which make accuracy near impossible.
Best way to measure is to measure amount of fuel put in at bowser to number of kilometres done .
FORGET THE METER !!
Ok then how does 480km per tank sound?
My point is I have not come accross a trip meter which is accurate yet .... Maybe to the nearest 15-20% but that would be it.
......
FORGET THE METER !!
But what if the meter is near-as-dammit identical to what the Lease company is telling you from the refueling receipts over the life of the vehicle! :boxing_sm
paulvdb
01-04-05, 02:59 PM
Best way to measure is to measure amount of fuel put in at bowser to number of kilometres done .
FORGET THE METER !!
Exactly what I'm doing - read the spreadsheet - exact odo figures versus litres I buy. If I had a falcon then you'd knock about 3l/100 off that in city driving and 1-2l/100 in country driving. I'm not relying on the meter but have found it spot on anyway
paulvdb
01-04-05, 03:02 PM
Ok then how does 480km per tank sound?
and I did 538K in that last tank with spare fuel in the tank. My largest tank fill was 70 litres so I could have gotten over 600ks on that tank if I had a Shell servo at the right spot (and I wanted to risk running out of fuel).
I have just returned from Launceston - 200 kms. Fuel consumption (if you believe the computer and I do - same reason as Raptor) 12.4 l/100 km. 7 seat AWD Ghia running 95 premium/cruise control at 120, climate control on and a strong cross breeze. With the air con off and a drop in speed to 100 I bet it would have got down well into the 11.0's.
fordless
01-04-05, 05:22 PM
Exactly what I'm doing - read the spreadsheet - exact odo figures versus litres I buy. If I had a falcon then you'd knock about 3l/100 off that in city driving and 1-2l/100 in country driving. I'm not relying on the meter but have found it spot on anyway
Interesting.
The heavier , bigger real 4wd Prado V6 is better on fuel than the Terri. My brother in law has one and I can't believe it. He gets solid 13l/100 week in week out around town and has never had it into service for a warranty complaint.
it's a right P*** OFF !!
Mechan1k
01-04-05, 07:07 PM
I regularly see flat-14s for economy ... a get better economy on Premium as well ... haven't taken it on a long trip yet ... but it mainly gets used around town and the odd trip out here and there ... worst I have seen is an 18.5 ... and that was with a fairly heavy foot travelling to work in traffic from Western Sydney to Chatswood.
Car as nearly 9000km on ... hasn't skipped a beat ... I wanna take it for a nice long drive soon though.
I'll be moving up past Richmond (NSW) soon ... so travelling will be increased as well.
My Fiancee drives the car more than I do (she takes it to and from work) ... I got the XG Falcon ute to go to and from work in now.
Territory gets better fuel economy than the 5-speed manual XG "S" ute.
Mechan1k
01-04-05, 07:10 PM
and I did 538K in that last tank with spare fuel in the tank. My largest tank fill was 70 litres so I could have gotten over 600ks on that tank if I had a Shell servo at the right spot (and I wanted to risk running out of fuel).
The best I have managed is 590km out of a tank .... but she was pretty damn low ... I regularly see 550km out of a tank of fuel.
Can't remember the most I have put in the tank either ... depends on the angle of the car as well (best if the nose is dipped down on an angle ... more goes in).
fordless
01-04-05, 07:19 PM
The best I have managed is 590km out of a tank .... but she was pretty damn low ... I regularly see 550km out of a tank of fuel.
Can't remember the most I have put in the tank either ... depends on the angle of the car as well (best if the nose is dipped down on an angle ... more goes in).
Are you serious ?
How many servos are built on a hill ?
:eclipsee_
paulvdb
01-04-05, 07:43 PM
Interesting.
The heavier , bigger real 4wd Prado V6 is better on fuel than the Terri. My brother in law has one and I can't believe it. He gets solid 13l/100 week in week out around town and has never had it into service for a warranty complaint.
it's a right P*** OFF !!
Buy a bloody Prado then. stop being a s^&t-stirrer.
I just calculated my fuel consumption figures as I needed to declare it for work and it turned out to be 12.28 litres/100km. Mostly driven by my other half driving into Geelong for work. This is calculated over 12,000 km using the kilometres travelled vs fuel added in a spreadsheet. My Terry is a TS RWD and my best tankfull was 10.8 l/100km and the worst was 14.6 l/100km.
jzab
The Taipan
01-04-05, 08:16 PM
My previous XR6 had started out around 15l/100km as well, but quickly settled down as things wore in - I got it down to around 12 before I sold it... (mostly urban/city driving). I expected the Territory to do the same at 5K but unfortunately it hasn't, but I'm not upset at all with what I am getting when I compare to owners of Exploders, Pajeros, Patrols, Prado's etc...
grahill
01-04-05, 11:19 PM
TS RWD country driving. Best 8.7 and worst, 14.5(towing). I average about 11.4. I have also traveled over 590km's on one tank in the Terry (despite the now banned fordless, making comments against others).
Driving with ease on the throttle, clean paintwork, correclty inflated tyres, at the speed limit and in sensible climatic conditions will get consistently good figures. But this is a dream situation and not all of these can be achieved at the same time, but most can.
new2ford
02-04-05, 06:50 AM
Wow, this thread's moved along! I've had similar low figures to other owners - and having worked consumption out manually for years I spent a long time doing manual calcs to verify the readings from the car's computer and found they work out the same. So the proof's in the pudding fordless. Wheels magazine also said the same thing about Territory's consumption vs 4WDs like Pajero etc. It is simply better. Perhaps when Ford gives you back your broken car you can prove it to yourself. Or go buy a Toyota and join the losers in SUV sales.
Well - this is interesting - we (Wife and myself) own two Territories - both AWD TX models.
Best we can get around town is 430 km on the open road its better 550 km
But - thats not great.
Having said that its a 2 ton car running constant AWD - yeah its going to chew through the juice.
I want to put gas on - a doughnut tank in where the spare is - also put on a Hayman an Reece tow bar to put the spare on.
But Ford says it will muck with the sensors !
I too thought about the Prado and its extended tanks - but I do like the Territory.
As for you guys hacking on Fordless - well - I dont see how you are getting such great fuel consumption around the city ?
Ive tried everything from using the cruise control through to never going over 60 and even trying not to use the auto all the time.
None of it makes a difference - these cars chew juice badly - and thats all there is to it.
I have accepted that - so dont tell me to go and get a Prado - I built a bridge - but at least its an honest one.
udbevoid
02-05-05, 03:31 PM
Well - this is interesting - we (Wife and myself) own two Territories - both AWD TX models.
Best we can get around town is 430 km on the open road its better 550 km
But - thats not great.
Having said that its a 2 ton car running constant AWD - yeah its going to chew through the juice.
I want to put gas on - a doughnut tank in where the spare is - also put on a Hayman an Reece tow bar to put the spare on.
But Ford says it will muck with the sensors !
I too thought about the Prado and its extended tanks - but I do like the Territory.
As for you guys hacking on Fordless - well - I dont see how you are getting such great fuel consumption around the city ?
Ive tried everything from using the cruise control through to never going over 60 and even trying not to use the auto all the time.
None of it makes a difference - these cars chew juice badly - and thats all there is to it.
I have accepted that - so dont tell me to go and get a Prado - I built a bridge - but at least its an honest one.
And honest you have been .
There is only so much a low tech Ford motor can do .
Sorry - I'm not ualified to say if its a low tech motor or not!
Why is it a "Low Tech" Motor ?
Or better yet what makes it a "Low Tech" Motor ?
.... and still I do not know why I cannot put gas on ?
udbevoid
02-05-05, 03:49 PM
Sorry - I'm not ualified to say if its a low tech motor or not!
Why is it a "Low Tech" Motor ?
Or better yet what makes it a "Low Tech" Motor ?
.... and still I do not know why I cannot put gas on ?
No variable valve timing in the Ford = LOW TECH !!!
As far as the gas I guess it would come down to the stem seals not being heavy duty enough but it seems strange as that motor is 100% taxi pack !
VeloXR6
02-05-05, 03:59 PM
My wife gets 12.1 - 12.9 (worked on actual Fuel vs Odo) on a regular basis driving around town etc.....
I cant get my damn XR6 under 15 anywhere !!!
Go figure .....
My wife gets 12.1 - 12.9 (worked on actual Fuel vs Odo) on a regular basis driving around town etc.....
I cant get my damn XR6 under 15 anywhere !!!
Go figure .....
he he he .... this problem with XR6 is true of a friend of mine as well.
He likes it but hates the fuel bill.
I love the Territory - I dont like its fuel economy - I like its safety and handling - and have used it to go where I would not take a normal car.
All my figures are from odo vs actual fuel - also compared with using the same two fuel stations.
No variable valve timing in the Ford = LOW TECH !!!
WTF are you on about!
The Barra 182 as fitted to the Territory has dual VVT
(ie. the inlet and exhaust cams can be varied independantly)
It's your limited posts that appear to be LOW TECH!!!
MR_SIDO
02-05-05, 04:25 PM
Dont worry about him Raptor, he has N.F.I.
VeloXR6
02-05-05, 04:27 PM
After driving both cars regularly (XR6 & Terri) - the Terri gearbox doesn't beg for you to shovel the coal in as much .....
But I no complain .... 6000k's on the XR6 and no where near getting bored with it.....
paulvdb
02-05-05, 04:43 PM
Dont worry about him Raptor, he has N.F.I.
He's found a new IP address and a new UserID - just the lack of a brain's the same :hihi: Just mr Brainless/Fordless again.
I'm not even convinced he has a Toyota or a one of the many Ford's he's had. Most likely just a schoolie with nothing better to do.
BLR-3M - just ignore ubdevoid - he's talking s&*t. The taxis use the eGas motor which is a modified Barra. Maybe you should see if you get hold of one of those, perhaps from a damaged taxi. I think the issue was where to put the gas tank though. In a sedan you can fit it in the boot, but not sure in the Terri.
Re low tech vs high tech. The Barra is about as high tech as it's price could allow, certainly higher tech than many motors. Some lighter weight components would improve it's smoothness perhaps and a nicer sounding exhaust would help. The 4 speed auto is a bit of an issue re fuel economy and things should improve when the 6 speed comes out. That said I AM getting 13-15l/100 average in city driving and around 11l/100 in country driving in a 2 tonne vehicle (RWD version) and from everything I've heard that holds true for pretty much any 2 tonne 4WD so I'm not really compaining. The AWD does use a bit more. 550KM is a little low-ish though.
Re Prado vs Terri - they serve different markets. If you want a family car with HEAPS of functionality then you buy the Terri. If you want a solid 4WD with good 4WD cred then you'd go the Prado, as long you are happy to sacrifice tar road cred. The comment was aimed at Fordless/Brainless/ubdevoid who is rather a Toyota fan
Dont worry about him Raptor, he has N.F.I.
You can sa that again.
At least he ups the post count on FF.com.AU and in particular to the Territory area so I guess you could say he is serving a useful purpose (I'm being kind here)
:nana: :nana: :nana: :nana: :nana:
Okay - So its not a low tech motor ?
Seriously - I am not a mechanic so I do rely on certain info - ya know ?
In any case I have a lead on the gas question - and it looks good.
This is more info on the fuel consumption.
RWD GHIA, premium petrol, city/suburban drive, mostly woman drive, wife's short trips mostly to friends, shops and kids activities - average 11.6l/100km combined from ~1000km. Average speed 45km/h.
Today had a 3000km check. There is nothing wrong with the car.
johnydep
04-05-05, 11:01 AM
This is more info on the fuel consumption.
RWD GHIA, premium petrol, city/suburban drive, mostly woman drive, wife's short trips mostly to friends, shops and kids activities - average 11.6l/100km combined from ~1000km. Average speed 45km/h.
Today had a 3000km check. There is nothing wrong with the car.
That's a good average speed your getting.
My wife does most of the driving and the best our AWD gets is 39km/h & 15.1L/100km. That is a mix of 80% suburbs/city 17% highway 3% dirt & sand, the trip computer has never been reset since we got the Ghia and it has now travelled 12500km.
On a cruise at 100km/h we average about 9.8L/100km on a flat road, it's city driving that kills our fuel economy.
That's a good average speed your getting.
My wife does most of the driving and the best our AWD gets is 39km/h & 15.1L/100km. That is a mix of 80% suburbs/city 17% highway 3% dirt & sand, the trip computer has never been reset since we got the Ghia and it has now travelled 12500km.
On a cruise at 100km/h we average about 9.8L/100km on a flat road, it's city driving that kills our fuel economy.
Man I really got to adjust my driving style :eclipsee_ I still get 18.7 in the city and best of 15.3 ont he freeway (sydney to canberrs). Car has done 5700 k's and all was well at 3000 so it can only be my driving I guess. :(
I haven't reset the Computer for about 40 hours and the average on my AWD fluctuates between 13.5 and 13.7. Mostly easy conditions in suburban Hobart and a few highway runs to the north of Tassie. However, if I do a lot of around the city driving and plant the foot the usage soars so I could well understand why people are doing a lot worse in big capital cities with lots of peak hour driving.
Take heart though GZI, I did see a noticeable improvement after about 6000 kms. Before then I was lucky to break 15.
johnydep
04-05-05, 01:00 PM
Man I really got to adjust my driving style :eclipsee_ I still get 18.7 in the city and best of 15.3 ont he freeway (sydney to canberrs). Car has done 5700 k's and all was well at 3000 so it can only be my driving I guess. :(
My mileage is from us driving like grandma's, if I drive the way I like to drive the mileage is equivelant to yours. :merry:
My mileage is from us driving like grandma's,
Guilty too! Just call me Gran
paulvdb
04-05-05, 01:40 PM
Man I really got to adjust my driving style :eclipsee_ I still get 18.7 in the city and best of 15.3 ont he freeway (sydney to canberrs). Car has done 5700 k's and all was well at 3000 so it can only be my driving I guess. :(
Or it's running rich. The 15.3 on the freeway is way out. At 110 you should be seeing something around 11l/100 when on a flat bit of road (RWD) so maybe add another 1-2 l/100 for AWD.
As I noted to our old mate Fordless (the believer)... On a trip back from the North Coast with the car totally packed plus the luggage box filled I still got 11.5 including lots of idling in Easter traffic. At that time my car was only 5000km old.
If you are really seeing 15 as your normal instantaneous usage on a freeway, I'd be concerned enough to ask some serious questions of the service guys (if you can find one who doesn't say "they all do that")
paulvdb
04-05-05, 01:42 PM
Guilty too! Just call me Gran
I do too but note that my wife's really short trips (average <30kph) only add an extra 1-2l/100 to the overall usage.
If you are really seeing 15 as your normal instantaneous usage on a freeway, I'd be concerned enough to ask some serious questions of the service guys (if you can find one who doesn't say "they all do that")
Instantaneous on a flat road at 100KM on the cruise controll it has dropped as low as 8.something l/100k. But that changes depending on wind, if the road is really flat etc. And just because I have seen it drop that low, there's no way I would consider caling that an avarage for freeway use. I meant avarage for the trip (~600 k's of freeway, 300 each way). Besides I usually cruise at 120, which I found is the highest you can cruse at with a reasonable chance of not getting booked. And the city avarage is peak hr in Sydney. 45 minutes to travel the 12.5 Km to work and another 45 on the way back. But that does not excuse my driving, If I slowed down especially on the moving off from a standstill, I'm sure i would get better mileage. I really don't believe you can get a meaningful avarage reading in under 100 k's minimum.
johnydep
04-05-05, 10:05 PM
Instantaneous on a flat road at 100KM on the cruise controll it has dropped as low as 8.something l/100k. But that changes depending on wind, if the road is really flat etc. And just because I have seen it drop that low, there's no way I would consider caling that an avarage for freeway use. I meant avarage for the trip (~600 k's of freeway, 300 each way). Besides I usually cruise at 120, which I found is the highest you can cruse at with a reasonable chance of not getting booked. And the city avarage is peak hr in Sydney. 45 minutes to travel the 12.5 Km to work and another 45 on the way back. But that does not excuse my driving, If I slowed down especially on the moving off from a standstill, I'm sure i would get better mileage. I really don't believe you can get a meaningful avarage reading in under 100 k's minimum.
Same goes here.
On a nice flat road on a cool night with no head wind at a steady 100km/h, I have had some fantastic Instantaneous L/100km readings. But can't get my average usage below 15L/100km, it used to be at about 13.8 when I first got it, but that involved a lot of long distance driving, got as high as 16.4 for a while when most driving was in the city, but has since dropped with my grandma tacticts & an oil change, it still seems to be slowly dropping.
I never reset the trip computer, that way I know what my average fuel usage is from day one to the present.
.... And the city avarage is peak hr in Sydney. 45 minutes to travel the 12.5 Km to work and another 45 on the way back. But that does not excuse my driving...
Your Sydney speed to work in peak hours is 16.666km/h! This explains your fuel consumption.
patghia
08-05-05, 08:55 AM
Hi folks
I have just got a GHIA AWD. Replaced my troopie.
Average @ 1000k = 14.4 all city
troopie Average 18.9 all city
Troopie on gas Average 24.0 City
For a 2 tonne AWD I am very happy so far :nosh:
Boy is this thing posh or what?
johnydep
08-05-05, 09:35 AM
Hi folks
I have just got a GHIA AWD. Replaced my troopie.
Average @ 1000k = 14.4 all city
troopie Average 18.9 all city
Troopie on gas Average 24.0 City
For a 2 tonne AWD I am very happy so far :nosh:
Boy is this thing posh or what?
Welcome patghia
After the troopie the Ghia must feel like a Rolls-Royce
OK mielage was one of the main concerns people had b4 I purchased this car....TS AWD.
In the real world so far in and around town, with limited motorway driving tracking at around 16Lt/100K
Just did a 2,500K trip to the Sunshine coast from Sydney and I was quite pleased the consumption was tracking 12.6Lt/100K. 2 adults, 2 kids and about 60Kg of luggage
And yes it's taken off the trip meter!!!!! - which I believe is pretty accurate.
I own a TS RWD and have just driven from Canberra to Toowoomba and back, approx 1100KM's each way. The Terry had four adults, one child and a full boot and I averaged 12.2 on the way up with an average speed of 96 km/h and 12.2 on the way back with an average speed of 95 km/h. The best I get around town is around 15. These figures were taken from the trip meter.
johnydep
12-05-05, 04:13 PM
I own a TS RWD and have just driven from Canberra to Toowoomba and back, approx 1100KM's each way. The Terry had four adults, one child and a full boot and I averaged 12.2 on the way up with an average speed of 96 km/h and 12.2 on the way back with an average speed of 95 km/h. The best I get around town is around 15. These figures were taken from the trip meter.
Sounds good.
What type of fuel did you use (standard/Premium) and how many kilometers have you clocked up?
Sounds good.
What type of fuel did you use (standard/Premium) and how many kilometers have you clocked up?
I think I am happy with 12.2? I have had the Territory since October last year and only use standard fuel.
johnydep
12-05-05, 05:30 PM
I think I am happy with 12.2? I have had the Territory since October last year and only use standard fuel.
With the load you had in it, that sounds quite good.
The economy will get slightly better as the kilometers clock up, I noticed an improvement at 3000km & then at 5000km, I've been told that it will get better until the engine has done about 20,000km, I am now at 13,000km.
I have noticed a slight improvement by changing to a synthetic engine oil & using Premium unleaded, but the cost of the premium unleaded is higher than mileage improvement, I just like the extra power.
I have noticed a slight improvement by changing to a synthetic engine oil & using Premium unleaded, but the cost of the premium unleaded is higher than mileage improvement, I just like the extra power.
I don't think I could be bothered with synthetic oil, I put it in for a service and whatever Ford use is good enough for me. My other car only takes premium fuel so it was a bit of a novelty using standard. I might try a couple of fills on premium and see if I notice any increase in power or economy. If I do I will let you know, don't hold your breath though it takes me about a week and a half to use a tank of fuel so it will be about three weeks before I could comment.
patghia
16-05-05, 10:40 AM
Just come back from a quick trip to Grenfell, with a kart trailer.
tootled along across the back roads 120~140.
Averaged 16.6l/100
Brilliant.
The troopie would have returned 24~30l/100.
Drove brilliantly, used D Performance most of the time.
What a car.
needs the load levelling kit though.
Trailer is quite light (approx 850Kg loaded) but pushes the back of terri down,
still drove and handled well.. :dance:
Mechan1k
16-05-05, 03:23 PM
Damn ... how much does it push it down ... I have the heavy duty tow kit on mine ... and I towed the horse float with 2 horses on ... approx weight was 2200kg behind it.
Fair enough ... you have to drive slow with horses on (especially cornering ... and around intersections and stuff) ... they gotta stay standing ... need to be really smooth on the accelerator and brakes ... and I always manually downgear as well.
I filled up that morning and we travelled about 120km on the weekend going to a horse show ... average for the day was 19.5L/100km ... maximum speed was 80km/h (as it is the maximum speed by law in Australia towing anything).
Hill were a killer ... but didn't have to drop it below 2nd gear ... towing was smooth ... and it actually handled better with weight behind it.
Temp on the car stayed normal ... and no brake fade (and I still haven't fitted the electric brake yet for the float .... oops .... it'll brake even better then).
Was pretty damn happy with the consumption though for the amount that I was towing.
davester
16-05-05, 11:27 PM
We get 19L/100km (std unleaded). We're obviously having more fun than you guys...or maybe its because its all short run suburban with little freeway use...and having fun! (AWD Ghia 7str with roof bars/surf ski holder thingo)
btw roof bars are silent, great design with built in noise reduction, but kayak holders provide instant competition to the premium sound!
Mechan1k
17-05-05, 07:29 AM
I can get bad economy as well if I put the boot into it ... and have fun ... but I don't see the need though (occasionally I'll open her up) ... it goes pretty damn well without having to boot it ... but has plenty of power there when I (or Bec) need it.
It's a nice cruising vehicle ... and that's what we use it for ... it will be getting more mileage soon though as we are both moving further away from work (just out past North Richmond)
The only times I get to drive it are on the weekend now.
Hi All,
My Tx Rwd With 2,500 Kms Is Averaging 12.5l/100kms.
Driven Only To And From Work In Outer Suburban Adelaide. Don't need to rev it above 2000rpms really to get moving with the traffic and I never feel like I need to kick it in the guts as i feel too relaxed when I'm driving it.
Really the consumption is not much worse than in my previous vehicle, Au3 Futura Wagon.
The AWD can't match the RWD for economy because of the extra diff and weight and the AWD is slightly lower geared to compensate for the extra diff and weight.
Fast forward
24-05-05, 06:25 AM
TX 2wd here and get constantly 15-16l / 100 with some highway work.
Very dissapointed in how heavy they are.
grahill
24-05-05, 08:52 PM
On the weekend towed a 7 x 5 trailer for three hours. On the way to the venue it was empty and averaged 16.9l/h. Interestingly on the way back loaded (with a dining setting) averaged 11.3l/h.
I'm not sure as to the weird averages, but assume wind turbulace in the empty trailer created drag.
Conditions were good, no wind, no large hills, and traveled at the 110km speed limit (both ways).
RWD, TS Territory
.
new2ford
24-05-05, 10:18 PM
Would be interesting to compare thoughts on how people's fuel economy is changing with mileage. We're now up to 12,000 km (RWD TX) and economy has improved from 15 when new to now in the 13s around town (including peak hour driving) and about 11.5 in the country. Never got worse than 14.5 for ages. I'm intrigued that some people are getting in the 15s and 16s. I use standard unleaded fuel. What's it related to - driving style, RWD vs AWD, mileage? Probably a combination of factors. Any thoughts? Needless to say I'm very pleased.
johnydep
24-05-05, 10:25 PM
According to my trip meter, the average fuel consumption has gone from about 18L/100km when I first got it, then stuck at about 15.3 for a fair while, and over the last several weeks has been consistantly dropping .1L/100km and is now at 14.7L/100km and I thik it is still getting better. Power is definetly up.
I don't know if this is due to the cooler weather or the engine freeing up. Just gone over the 13,000km mark in my AWD 7 seater Ghia with roof bars.
johnydep
24-05-05, 10:39 PM
One thing I want to mention, that I think may be important, is that I have never reset the trip meter on my Territory, so the average L/100km is an average from 13,000km driving.
If people have been reseting their trip meters every couple of tanks, they will have an average mileage for only 4 or 5 hundred km.
Would any of this matter?
new2ford
24-05-05, 11:05 PM
One thing I want to mention, that I think may be important, is that I have never reset the trip meter on my Territory, so the average L/100km is an average from 13,000km driving.
If people have been reseting their trip meters every couple of tanks, they will have an average mileage for only 4 or 5 hundred km.
Would any of this matter?
I'm usually resetting it every couple of tanks, or between city and country runs - otherwise how do you get a comparison of trends over time and between city and country? Forgot to mention - also 7 seats (and thus extra weight), rarely use roof racks and sometimes have a boat on the back.
One for the lady forum users - our consumption does rise noticeably when the better half drives. I've often observed that a lady's foot moves up and down on the pedal in rhythm with their conversation and this wouldn't help the fuel consumption. Not that I'm complaining - I guess male brains are less connected with their feet and maybe that's why they have more accidents! (I'm sticking my head out with tongue in cheek here!)
From my experience, resetting the avg. fuel consumption does make a difference. FOr a long while I was sitting at around 16l/110km. I finally reset it and the average dropped to around 14.5l/100km after about 600km (total kms is about 5600km). I would have thought it would work on the last couple of hundred miles to work out its average but based on this I'm not so sure anymore.
Fast forward
25-05-05, 05:56 AM
From my experience, resetting the avg. fuel consumption does make a difference. FOr a long while I was sitting at around 16l/110km. I finally reset it and the average dropped to around 14.5l/100km after about 600km (total kms is about 5600km). I would have thought it would work on the last couple of hundred miles to work out its average but based on this I'm not so sure anymore.
it works on the total average of the last time the reset button was pushed.
johnydep
26-05-05, 12:02 PM
I'm usually resetting it every couple of tanks, or between city and country runs - otherwise how do you get a comparison of trends over time and between city and country?...............
I understand what you mean.
But if you tend to reset more at the begining of a highway trip the average L/km will be better than not reseting at all, because of city use, idling, cold morning starts, etc.
In my case, were I have never reset the trip meter, the L/km is the average for all driving conditions, which is mainly (about 80%) city/urban driving.
When I do a trip I watch the instantaneous L/km.
johnydep
27-05-05, 02:11 PM
Clearing out my email, I found an email from Ford Customer Relations answering my question on economy, dated Fri 9/07/2004 9:31 AM;
Dear John,
Thank you for your e-mail to Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited.
In response to your enquiry, the expected Fuel Consumption for the New Ford Territory is as follows:
13.1 Litres/100km - Rear Wheel Drive
13.5 Litres/100km - All Wheel Drive
These figures were obtained from controlled laboratory tests conducted in accordance with Australian Standard AS2877 - 1986. The actual fuel consumption you achieve will depend, however, on many factors, including your driving habits, the prevailing conditions and your vehicle's equipment, condition and use.
Customers currently driving the vehicles have reported fuel consumption in city driving conditions similar to the ones previously mentioned others are getting 14 to 15 litres per 100kms.
We trust that this information is of assistance and thank you for taking the time to write to Ford Australia.
Kind Regards,
Ca........ E......
Customer Service Representative
Ford Customer Relationship Centre
Address: Private Mail Bag 5 Campbellfield VIC 3061
Phone: 13 36 73 (13 FORD) (Local Call)
Email: customers@fordcrc.com.au
Bluefreak
11-06-05, 07:44 PM
maximum speed was 80km/h (as it is the maximum speed by law in Australia towing anything).
First of all I'd better say hi, new here... reasearching for my bro-in-law, he's looking at leasing a Territory. Reading through all the usual banter one expects to see on open forums but I was stopped in my tracks by the above quote... Since when was 80km/h the legal speed for towing, or have I missed an underhanded jab at another user???
Blue
Martyvan
11-06-05, 10:54 PM
In some states (I think at least NSW) there is an 80kph speed limit in place when you are towing over a certain weight.
In Qld, Its posted speed limits away...........!
Mechan1k
12-06-05, 04:54 PM
I just read on the NRMA site that this has recently changed ... which is a surprise ... the towing maximum speed limit has been 80km/h for MANY years ... iot has now changed to:
1) The speed limit for all vehicles towing trailers is the signposted maximum speed limit except in Western Australia where there is a 100 km/h maximum.
2) Some vehicle manufacturers (eg: Holden and Ford) place speed restrictions on their vehicles when towing trailers in excess of 1600 kg. Manufacturer's recommendations are legally binding.
Well I'll be.
I tow horses floats all the time ... and I can tell you .. anything over 80km/h can be dangerous as there can be stability issues (as horses move on floats) ... it is also advised to travel slower to make it more comfortable and easier for them to hold themselves up on the move.
Bluefreak
14-06-05, 10:19 PM
I just read on the NRMA site that this has recently changed ... which is a surprise ... the towing maximum speed limit has been 80km/h for MANY years ... iot has now changed to:
1) The speed limit for all vehicles towing trailers is the signposted maximum speed limit except in Western Australia where there is a 100 km/h maximum.
2) Some vehicle manufacturers (eg: Holden and Ford) place speed restrictions on their vehicles when towing trailers in excess of 1600 kg. Manufacturer's recommendations are legally binding.
Well I'll be.
I tow horses floats all the time ... and I can tell you .. anything over 80km/h can be dangerous as there can be stability issues (as horses move on floats) ... it is also advised to travel slower to make it more comfortable and easier for them to hold themselves up on the move.
I know where you're coming from with horse floats, not my favourite passengers... You'd reckon that the various roads departments could get together and publish a country wide Do's&Don'ts book which could be handed out when you register a trailer...
Peter B
15-06-05, 12:06 AM
I just read on the NRMA site that this has recently changed ... ... and I can tell you .. anything over 80km/h can be dangerous as there can be stability issues (as horses move on floats) ... it is also advised to travel slower to make it more comfortable and easier for them to hold themselves up on the move.
Had a look at the NRMA site and found that an interesting exercise, trying to find towing speed advice. Found some dated 2004. They recommend a max of 80kmh for all towing anywhere, and from my experience this is good advice.You get mum and dad swapping the driving, tiredness and inexperience along with huge road trains, buses and the usual maddies and above 80 the chances of something going wrong, and quickly, escalate very fast. I heard from a truckie once that a favourite Nullabor game was to intimidate a car/caravan with mum driving by tailgating to make them go faster and faster to get it to overturn. Always good for a laugh over a beer.
Mechan1k
15-06-05, 09:45 PM
I've heard a few truckies stories as well ... the they get up to ... they also write down a tally of how many roo's they hit on the way across ... they also swerve to the wrong side of the road to hit them as well.
But back on towing ... I really don't feel safe going anything over 80km/h ... I towed a load of rubbish in the caged in car trailer in the AU (1600kg max.) and found I was actually towing close to 1800kg at the weighstation .... (oops). What I found noticeable was trying to pull up for lights and stuff ... Towing heavy loads in traffic is interesting to say the least.
Peter B
16-06-05, 12:18 AM
But back on towing ... I really don't feel safe going anything over 80km/h ... I towed a load of rubbish in the caged in car trailer in the AU (1600kg max.) and found I was actually towing close to 1800kg at the weighstation .... (oops). What I found noticeable was trying to pull up for lights and stuff ... Towing heavy loads in traffic is interesting to say the least.
Even with trailer brakes, stopping distances are much greater, and the idiots all cut in front and slam on the brakes.They say the tow vehicle should always weigh more than the trailer otherwise the tail wags the dog. We tried caravanning for several years but had to admit in the end that overall it wasn't worth all the hassles and we never really enjoyed it.
Just picked up a silver territory TX yesterday. Can't say how much i am impressed with this car. My other car is an accord euro and the terri is just as enjoyable to drive. My biggest concern before purchasing was the fuel consumption - but so far (300 clicks) it is averaging 12.7 form the trip in mainly city driving. If it stays there I will be very happy :yelrotflm
Sam_Boss260
17-06-05, 11:10 AM
Congrats alexb,
I can't wait until I order and get m y TX.
Did you get any options on it?
There was some time there that gas was not available for this car - Now there is - as the driver of Canberras first gas powered Territory - I am a muchly happier guy - especially as fuel prices are so stupidly high !!!
Anyone in the ACT wants gas on their Territory ....... See Steve Kelo at 7 Wignal place Belconnen.
or give him a call on 02 62534848
80 ltr tank - about 68 useable litres - and its got Petrol and gas - thats about 140 litres of fuel with about half at 44c a ltr !
WAY COOL !
Now the car I wanted runs with gas too !
Mechan1k
20-10-05, 05:44 PM
Good to hear ... I am certainly interested in gettign it installed in mine as well.
What was the brand of the kit ... and how much was the install as well???
Any probs with waiting for the tank to be made .... or were u able to get the kit straight away???
Ok here some quick pics on the Gas for the Territory.
The kit was installed by Steve Kelo at Steve Kelo Automotive.
Sorry dont know the name of it.
Its 80ltr - with about 65 - 68 useable ltrs.
After the install I have a 240 mm clearance at the bac end - straight under the tank itself.
Its about level with the rest of the underneath.
I am looking at clearing out the underneath of the tray to see if I can get the spare in there.
If not maybe an external swing bar from the tow bar area.
Will let you know when I do - for now - theres not that much room taken up.
Cheers
Sorry I already put pics up at .....
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?p=371483&posted=1
Forum wont let me put them up here too.
Anyone got details on removal of the underneath plastics etc ?
grahill
24-10-05, 07:22 PM
After many an hour reading posts on the Territory Fuel Consumption, I was wondering why my TS RWD Territory does really well at between 10 - 11 litres (normal driving). It may be that I have been running my tyre pressures higher than that mentioned by Ford. This has now been substantiated in Fridays Herald Sun Cars Guide, mentioning that higher tyre pressures can improve efficiency from up to 10-15%.
In a seperate article the paper also mentions Bob Jane believes that inflating tyres with helium (I think that was the gas), can improve efficiency even more.
.
FirstFord
24-10-05, 08:12 PM
grahill, what conditions do you drive in? eg:freeway peak or open road? I'm averaging low 14's, but good majority of that is in peak period, lucky to get over 70kmh on the freeway. I've been running mytyres higher, and have noticed a slight improvement in fuel, but given the above conditions, I'm not getting the same impact as you.
I haven't taken the T for a really long (ie>400km) trip as yet. I know that open road driving really makes a difference. In our magna, we used to get on average 600k out of a tank. We drove Melb-Canberra once and almost got 850k.
Looking forward to Chritmas and the run to the Gold Coast and back. Be interesting to see the consumption then.
The Taipan
24-10-05, 08:17 PM
Nitrogen is the gas recommended by SOME. The advantage of Nitrogen as opposed to air is that nitrogen has larger molecules and therefore doesn't leak and doesn't change as much with heat. You get more consistant tyre pressures, and better heat performance. Oxygen leaks far more easily. However... if you had been paying attention in high school, you would have learnt that 70% of AIR, is made up of Nitrogen, and only 21% is oxygen. (Figures vary according to altitude and pollutants of course). So at normal operating temperatures, there SHOULDN'T be any difference. At the end of the day, you are paying sometimes quite exorbitant prices for 20-30% more of what you get from air, which is free...
based on that, I won't use it, UNLESS, I find it very cheaply priced, and I am getting tyres done at the same time...
grahill
24-10-05, 09:47 PM
grahill, what conditions do you drive in? eg:freeway peak or open road? ...
Mostly open roads, with a mixture of dirt and bitumen. We would drive about 20% of the time in towns (shopping etc). But mostly to and from work.
.
I heard from a friend that Ford fills the tyres with nitrogen from the factory and puts little red/pink stickers near the valve stem to indicate nitrogen.
This could be complete rubbish but maybe someone from Ford/dealer can verify or not ?
FirstFord
25-10-05, 10:51 AM
Mostly open roads, with a mixture of dirt and bitumen. We would drive about 20% of the time in towns (shopping etc). But mostly to and from work.
.
Ford website quotes 13.1 l/100km as consumption for a RWD (doesn't say city or highway, so I'm assuming overall), so knocking of 10-15% would give 11.14-11.79l/100km. Given the vagaries of conditions, etc, your consumption seems to prove the 10-15% gain via increased tyre pressure.
I heard from a friend that Ford fills the tyres with nitrogen from the factory and puts little red/pink stickers near the valve stem to indicate nitrogen.
This could be complete rubbish but maybe someone from Ford/dealer can verify or not ?
This makes me smile. :voldar02:
Air composition http://www.physlink.com/Reference/AirComposition.cfm :
Nitrogen N2 78.084 %
Oxygen O2 20.9476 %
Argon Ar 0.934 %
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314 %
Neon Ne 0.001818 %
Methane CH4 0.0002 %
Helium He 0.000524 %
Krypton Kr 0.000114 %
Hydrogen H2 0.00005 %
Xenon Xe 0.0000087 %
So, air already consist ~78% of N2. The rest is predominantly O2 ~21%. The weight of N2 - 28.2amu is basically the same as O2 -32amu. Physical properties of N2 and O2 are similar (but not exactly the same). The chemical properties of N2 and O2 would be very different, but they both of do not react with the material the tyre made from
People, tell me what sort of driving difference you want to see comparing N2 filled tyres with Air filled?
Iouri
FirstFord
25-10-05, 12:54 PM
FirstFord having trouble breathing...shaking all over...heart rate increasing...bad year 11 flashback...ah, ok, heart rate decreasing, shaking stopped, I am in the forums, it was only a dream... :conf:
On a serious note, what would the advantages be of pure nitrogen in your tyres? Is there a weight difference? and if so, would it really make much difference?
On a serious note, what would the advantages be of pure nitrogen in your tyres? Is there a weight difference? and if so, would it really make much difference?
Nitrogen has less elasticity than air so it heats up less than air and so there is less expansion and less tyre pressure change between hot and cold. That's why they use it in racing cars and aircraft.
Tried it when it first started. Being completely honest I thought for the money it was a complete waste of time and effort. The only thing I did notice was I seemed to have a more constant tyre pressure reading over a longer period of time but then comes the catch at top up time you have 2 choices top up with normal air or go to a tyre outlet to top up with nitrogen...the better tyre wear thing they tell you about well just keep a regular check of your tyre pressures filled with air and you will get the same result. Maybe great for race cars but for average Joe Bloggs just another gimmick and way to throw away money. Ziggy2
Tried it when it first started. Being completely honest I thought for the money it was a complete waste of time and effort. The only thing I did notice was I seemed to have a more constant tyre pressure reading over a longer period of time but then comes the catch at top up time you have 2 choices top up with normal air or go to a tyre outlet to top up with nitrogen...the better tyre wear thing they tell you about well just keep a regular check of your tyre pressures filled with air and you will get the same result. Maybe great for race cars but for average Joe Bloggs just another gimmick and way to throw away money. Ziggy2
Spot on. All it is meant to do is keep a more constant tyre pressure over changing temperatures/conditions. If you do that by manually checking your tyre pressures save your money.
Guys I have read this fuel economy thread over several times and for me I come to the same conclusion each time. We all like to save on fuel costs and I feel there are a couple of points that have a huge bearing on these.
1) The way someone drives..the secret here is be smooth,think ahead,do I really need to pass or get into that gap a couple of car lengths ahead. By sticking to the old safety thing of 2 seconds gap between you and the car ahead makes a big difference in fuel than being on and off the brakes and accelerator. Just slowing down 5km an hour can make a big difference.
2) Keep your vehicle well maintained and check tyre pressures, use a good quality oil. Dont carry around excess weight like work tools when not required.Thing like that.
3)This natural gas thing To me unless you are doing big km's the figures just dont add up. Great for cabs and couriers You have the initial outlay for the conversion, you can buy quite a bit of petrol for that money and then you get less k's per litre than you do for petrol.No matter what anybody tells you ...you get less performance on gas, see for yourself by sticking it on a dyno.Then there is the hassle of the spare wheel, to me the most convenient spot is under the car not hanging off the back or taking up space inside and the vehicle stays standard.
4) 4 cyl v's 6 cyl..we run 2 cars the Terri and a Focus Zetec. Overall after a full years running there is not that much difference in running costs.. it's a myth.
In conclusion I will stick with the Territory the way it is. I get nearly identical fuel consumption I got with my AU3 and EL and I get it with a 2000kg vehicle with great comfort and room and versatility just by good general maintenance and driving smoothly. I am more than HAPPY with my Territory fuel figures.
Want to save fuel...sell your car....forget the modifications and gimmicks. Ziggy2
Black Terra
25-10-05, 03:06 PM
I also do not have spare with me around town, it must weigh close to 30 kilos so why carry all that weight?
I have not had a flat Tyre in 12 or so years before you ask what if you get a flat & is always NRMA or Ford Roadside assistance or at worst a Taxi ride home to get the spare lol....
Yeh Black Terra I've never had a flat in all the time since I got my first car...a 1948 Hillman in 1963 Just lucky I guess Ziggy2
Black Terra
25-10-05, 04:24 PM
Yeh Black Terra I've never had a flat in all the time since I got my first car...a 1948 Hillman in 1963 Just lucky I guess Ziggy2
You know what is going to happen now Ziggy?
We will both get flats :raisedeye
Doesn't matter Black Terra because I can blame you and you can blame me:hihi: Ziggy2
Black Terra
25-10-05, 05:59 PM
Doesn't matter Black Terra because I can blame you and you can blame me:hihi: Ziggy2:newangel: Me blame anyone else :newangel:
Hee Hee Hee, I would not blame you Ziggy as I would just Blame Ford for not fitting no puncture Tyres lol... Kidding.
Really though the spare Terra wheel is the heaviest car type wheel I have ever come across, wonder if the rim is made of thicker steel or the tyre is full of steel belts lol....
I weighed it it comes close to 28 kilos.
Mine has an alloy spare and its still pretty heavy. I think it feels that way until you get it upright and out of the tray.Still prefer its position under the vehicle instead of being hung off the back or inside. By the way when we were up in Qld a few months ago spoke to a fella towing a caravan with a Territory who had a towbar fitted by an aftermarket crowd. All was fine until he had a flat and he found he couldnt wind the spare down...they had looped the wiring loom thru the spare wheel cradle. :nothappy: Ziggy2
Nitrogen has less elasticity than air so it heats up less than air and so there is less expansion and less tyre pressure change between hot and cold. That's why they use it in racing cars and aircraft.
Why?
1. Air is 78% nitrogen, N2, and 21% oxygen, O2. So even if you put air in the tire, it's already 78% nitrogen.
2. At relatively low pressures (ie tire pressures) N2, O2 and water vapor will all behave as ideal gases, and follow PV=nRT. Pressure will increase or decrease to the same extent as the temperature increases or decreases regardless of which gas is in the tire. (Even at 300 psi, which is about 20 atm, there is little deviation from ideality.) The comments about N2 changing noticably less the pressure in comparison to air consisting 78%N2 and 21%O2 the temperature is a bit wishfull.
3. The rate of effusion (or diffusion) of a gas through a porous membrane depends on the molar mass and to some degree on the molecular diameter. N2 and O2 are almost the same size and N2 is lighter than O2 (28 g/mol vs 32 g/mol) so if either gas were to effuse out of the tire, nitrogen would do it more quickly. Luckily, tires are designed not to be porous membranes.
4. N2 and O2 both have essentially the same specific heat capacity, about 1.0 J/gK, and thermal conductivity, about 0.00026 W/cmK. Water vapor has a specific heat capacity of about 2 J/gK. But remember, water vapor will constitute less than 1% of the air in the tire. So the idea that N2 has different heat handling properties is also without merit.
As a tire heats up, the very small amount of H2O present will be in the vapor state which may contribute to the overall pressure very slightly.
Aircraft industry use dry N2 in a high pressure tanks which are more portable and requires no electricity. That would make sense in Formula 1 as well.
I find no reason to believe that N2 is going to produce a "better ride" or "better handling".
Ffor general passenger car there is nothing to be gained by using nitrogen rather than air. The biggest gain will be $$$ by the companies that sell nitrogen handling equipment and the tire companies that appeal to some customers.
grahill
31-10-05, 07:19 PM
A long trip test, with the RWD TS.
I tested the Territory on the weekend using different speeds, as we were low on fuel, so thought it was as good a time as any. Car had three adults and one child. Weather conditions drizzly and partly cloudy. Tyres were slightly over-inflated and car was clean.
Open Road, relatively flat, 1hr test using cruise at each speed, some towns:
110kph - 11.9l
100kph - 10.2l
95kph - 8.9l (airconditioner off, due to warnings of low fuel)
Interesting the 95kph average. Tried the same speed on the way home with the aircon on and got 9.3l. Still very good averages. Just goes to show, have a lead foot and you will pay for it.
Oh by the way, got to the fuel stop with only 2 litres to spare, costing $95.00 to fill.
.
Black Terra
31-10-05, 08:27 PM
A long trip test, with the RWD TS.
I tested the Territory on the weekend using different speeds, as we were low on fuel, so thought it was as good a time as any. Car had three adults and one child. Weather conditions drizzly and partly cloudy. Tyres were slightly over-inflated and car was clean.
Open Road, relatively flat, 1hr test using cruise at each speed, some towns:
110kph - 11.9l
100kph - 10.2l
95kph - 8.9l (airconditioner off, due to warnings of low fuel)
Interesting the 95kph average. Tried the same speed on the way home with the aircon on and got 9.3l. Still very good averages. Just goes to show, have a lead foot and you will pay for it.
Oh by the way, got to the fuel stop with only 2 litres to spare, costing $95.00 to fill.
.
Yes I have found the same sort of thing though not taken as much notice as you have.
I am starting to be an old slow driver though as if I can save that much on fuel by driving 5 or 10 kays slower then that is what I will do & I will become one of those drivers I used to complain about lol....
It is also safer :)
If they are in such a hurry they can pass when it is safe to do so.
I also have started turning mirror to night mode if getting tailgated as who needs the stress lol....
Twinpiston
01-11-05, 08:49 AM
Why?
1. Air is 78% nitrogen, N2, and 21% oxygen, O2. So even if you put air in the tire, it's already 78% nitrogen.
2. At relatively low pressures (ie tire pressures) N2, O2 and water vapor will all behave as ideal gases, and follow PV=nRT. Pressure will increase or decrease to the same extent as the temperature increases or decreases regardless of which gas is in the tire. (Even at 300 psi, which is about 20 atm, there is little deviation from ideality.) The comments about N2 changing noticably less the pressure in comparison to air consisting 78%N2 and 21%O2 the temperature is a bit wishfull.
3. The rate of effusion (or diffusion) of a gas through a porous membrane depends on the molar mass and to some degree on the molecular diameter. N2 and O2 are almost the same size and N2 is lighter than O2 (28 g/mol vs 32 g/mol) so if either gas were to effuse out of the tire, nitrogen would do it more quickly. Luckily, tires are designed not to be porous membranes.
4. N2 and O2 both have essentially the same specific heat capacity, about 1.0 J/gK, and thermal conductivity, about 0.00026 W/cmK. Water vapor has a specific heat capacity of about 2 J/gK. But remember, water vapor will constitute less than 1% of the air in the tire. So the idea that N2 has different heat handling properties is also without merit.
As a tire heats up, the very small amount of H2O present will be in the vapor state which may contribute to the overall pressure very slightly.
Aircraft industry use dry N2 in a high pressure tanks which are more portable and requires no electricity. That would make sense in Formula 1 as well.
I find no reason to believe that N2 is going to produce a "better ride" or "better handling".
Ffor general passenger car there is nothing to be gained by using nitrogen rather than air. The biggest gain will be $$$ by the companies that sell nitrogen handling equipment and the tire companies that appeal to some customers.
Well I had Nitrogen in my Dunlop 9000's for 32,000 k's and never had to touch them once for tyre pressure, they were constantly the same, when I get my new AWD SY Ghia, that will be one of the first things I do!!!!
Cheer
Corey
I am starting to be an old slow driver though as if I can save that much on fuel by driving 5 or 10 kays slower then that is what I will do & I will become one of those drivers I used to complain about lol....
I am one of those lead-footed drivers, who always enjoy using full power of their cars. :) (Do not get me wrong - I have not got a single speeding fine in 12 years, nor any other traffic offences) :newangel:
After reading all the topics about fuel economy and not being able to believe that 12.5 l/100km is an achievable benchmark for city cycle, I decided to try it myself. I increased pressure from 34/36 up to 39/40 psi, changed the oil (Shell Eco 10) and tried very hard not to exceed 2000 rpms during acceleration. So far I have done about 60 km in sunday traffic and less than 50 km in peak-hour. The result is amazing. The average consumption has dropped from my typical 15 down to 12.7
My only concern is - do I enjoy this driving style? Am I really that old now? Are the few extra dollars in my pocket really more important for me than the amazing feeling of the car power? I hope the answer is no.
After completing my experiment at the end of this week (or sooner :) ) I will return to my usual driving style and then will be able to say what part of that drop was due to increased pressure and (if) oil.
I am one of those lead-footed drivers, who always enjoy using full power of their cars. :) (Do not get me wrong - I have not got a single speeding fine in 12 years, nor any other traffic offences) :newangel:
My only concern is - do I enjoy this driving style? Am I really that old now? Are the few extra dollars in my pocket really more important for me than the amazing feeling of the car power? I hope the answer is no.
Totally with you on those points primus.
cheers
johnydep
01-11-05, 03:59 PM
.....................
After completing my experiment at the end of this week (or sooner :) ) I will return to my usual driving style and then will be able to say what part of that drop was due to increased pressure and (if) oil.
Sounds like it will be interesting reading, can't wait.
By the way, welcome to the forums primus.
Black Terra
01-11-05, 04:08 PM
I am one of those lead-footed drivers, who always enjoy using full power of their cars. :) (Do not get me wrong - I have not got a single speeding fine in 12 years, nor any other traffic offences) :newangel:
After reading all the topics about fuel economy and not being able to believe that 12.5 l/100km is an achievable benchmark for city cycle, I decided to try it myself. I increased pressure from 34/36 up to 39/40 psi, changed the oil (Shell Eco 10) and tried very hard not to exceed 2000 rpms during acceleration. So far I have done about 60 km in sunday traffic and less than 50 km in peak-hour. The result is amazing. The average consumption has dropped from my typical 15 down to 12.7
My only concern is - do I enjoy this driving style? Am I really that old now? Are the few extra dollars in my pocket really more important for me than the amazing feeling of the car power? I hope the answer is no.
After completing my experiment at the end of this week (or sooner :) ) I will return to my usual driving style and then will be able to say what part of that drop was due to increased pressure and (if) oil.Sure enjoy your driving by all means & if for you that means giving it a go most of the time then again that is ok as well as you are you & I am me & we all have the right to drive how we think is enjoyable (to a degree).
I mean I do not have to pay your fuel bill or you mine & that works for fines as well.
And I actually do not drive below 2000 revs around town as I would find that painfull & even at times give the vehicle its head & have seen revs towards redline however not often.
What I meant was on the HWY instead of travelling at 105 K's in a hundred area which I used to all the time & when much younger more like 140 k's I would choose to drive at 95 or even 90 k's as I have actually measured the time it often takes on a long journey from extreme speeds to normal speeds & in most cases you do not end up that far in front due to other factors such as red lights or slower cars in front of you so why have all the bother of passing everyone & using more fuel not to mention safety when comparing say 120 to 90.
I have seen speeds both in town & on HWY that not many people have & am lucky I am here now I guess.
Lastly apart from a few highly tuned V8's I have owned I have never seen a vehicle that is more sensative to fuel consumption based on how fast you drive as with the Terra the differance between cruising at 140 compared to 80 is amazing.
Or even the differance from say 105 to 90 :)
On that score it reminds me of a 5.8L Fairmont I used to own :(
geckoGT
01-11-05, 04:21 PM
What I meant was on the HWY instead of travelling at 105 K's in a hundred area which I used to all the time & when much younger more like 140 k's I would choose to drive at 95 or even 90 k's as I have actually measured the time it often takes on a long journey from extreme speeds to normal speeds & in most cases you do not end up that far in front due to other factors such as red lights or slower cars in front of you so why have all the bother of passing everyone & using more fuel not to mention safety when comparing say 120 to 90.
:(
I really hope you sit in the left lane when at this type of speed, as I am sure you probably do. I do not mind road users sitting on any speed they like, everyone has their reasons but I hate it when people sit on 90 in a hundred zone and travel in the right lane (or pass an even slower car at 90 instead of speeding up to the limit for the pass).
Black Terra
01-11-05, 04:32 PM
I really hope you sit in the left lane when at this type of speed, as I am sure you probably do. I do not mind road users sitting on any speed they like, everyone has their reasons but I hate it when people sit on 90 in a hundred zone and travel in the right lane (or pass an even slower car at 90 instead of speeding up to the limit for the pass).I hate the same things as you do so yes of course I would be in the left lane unless I had to pass someone who liked to sit on 80 lol........
I also hate people who tailgate you when you are doing the speed limit so if they do that I then slow down a little more :)
Or even worse when in a left lane people who go to pass you however take so long to do it & then you find that you have a car beside you in the right lane & your lane is ending.
Anyway happy driving :)
PSSST!
Just had a look at your Car on that website, 1 mean looking falcon :)
Wonder what sort of speeds you have seen in that?
I am sure you would be 1 person who has maybe seen the sort of speeds I did when was younger :naughty:
Also wonder how old you are as think you must be in 20's or early 30's ?
Cheers
geckoGT
01-11-05, 04:49 PM
I hate the same things as you do so yes of course I would be in the left lane unless I had to pass someone who liked to sit on 80 lol........
I also hate people who tailgate you when you are doing the speed limit so if they do that I then slow down a little more :)
Or even worse when in a left lane people who go to pass you however take so long to do it & then you find that you have a car beside you in the right lane & your lane is ending.
Anyway happy driving :)
Believe me. I am with you on your little hated points, I will slow down for tail gaters as well. It is all really about having courtesy and giving people room to drive their own car in a away they see fit (within reason) I hate the guy that travels slow until he sees you passing him and then thinks it is a race.
Back on subject, in all the cars I have had I have not noticed a great increase in fuel economy by reducing speed by 10km/h. Not what I would consider worthwhile anyway. I think it is more a question of the style of accelleration to get to that speed, get to your desired speed quick and you will use a lot of juice. Smooth driving style with minimal braking and accelleration will win every time.
Black Terra
02-11-05, 03:41 PM
:sulkoff: Ok today I fitted a cold air intake & now am using more fuel:sulkoff:
Is this normal?
Does the engine managment computer need some time to adjust?
OMG help Meeeeee :conf:
johnydep
02-11-05, 11:09 PM
:sulkoff: Ok today I fitted a cold air intake & now am using more fuel:sulkoff:
Is this normal?
Does the engine managment computer need some time to adjust?
OMG help Meeeeee :conf:
I wouldn't think so, but I did read another members comments who fitted a CAI and he said that ti took a while for the PCM (Power Control Module) to re-learn.
Give it time - 2 or 3 days, make sure your driving habits have not changed (taking advantage of the extra power :voldar02: ) and if consumption is still up; seek help, talk to us. :smashpc:
.
Black Terra
03-11-05, 06:26 AM
I wouldn't think so, but I did read another members comments who fitted a CAI and he said that ti took a while for the PCM (Power Control Module) to re-learn.
Give it time - 2 or 3 days, make sure your driving habits have not changed (taking advantage of the extra power :voldar02: ) and if consumption is still up; seek help, talk to us. :smashpc:
.
Thanks JD :)
I went for another drive after posting this & it seems maybe things are getting better as once up to 70/80 the instant consumption now seems lower than before however at lower speeds might still be a little higher?
It does seem to be more sensative to things like going up hills or starting from stopped, by sensative I mean in the situations where it would use more before it now seems to use even more than before if that makes sense.
I will give it a bit of time however as 2 short drives are not much to go by & yes I did read the same thing as you did by another member who said it took a few weeks or tanks.
More air (or colder denser air) = more fuel!
That's how they assist power production. Has your driving style changed Black Terra?
geckoGT
03-11-05, 09:17 AM
More air= more power= less weight on the throttle. The down side is you may be enjoying the extra urge a bit, you know, give it a test! I would give it a bit longer to sort itself out and let you get over the novelty and then see how things go. Really it should only make a minor difference each way, CAI is not the miracle mod it is cracked up to be.
Black Terra
03-11-05, 09:55 AM
Thanks for your answer guys :)
Yes in my mind I thought if an engine takes in more Air then surely to keep mixture ratio correct would it not have to use more fuel or it would run lean however I also thought about what most people have said which is increased performance & economy.
And yes if the Air is colder it is more dense & that means more efficient combustion.
I was just surprised to see how it had jumped on the first drive & while I did give it a bit of a go in a 100 k zone through the gears (hit the cutout for the first time) mostly I was driving the same as always & on the same roads.
The second drive it had settled down for some reason & I think computer will adjust itself as some have spoken about 1000 k's for it to adjust properly to which I said at the time surely it would not take that long & be almost instant.
Well maybe they were correct & I was wrong (hope so)
It does take less throttle to maintain speed once up to say 60 or more & seems more responsive to throttle input in general & does breath better specially in the last few thousand revs before redline (have to watch out for that one lol).
Time will tell & will also fit better Air filter soon as well.
Thanks again guys :)
After reading all the topics about fuel economy and not being able to believe that 12.5 l/100km is an achievable benchmark for city cycle, I decided to try it myself. I increased pressure from 34/36 up to 39/40 psi, changed the oil (Shell Eco 10) and tried very hard not to exceed 2000 rpms during acceleration. So far I have done about 60 km in sunday traffic and less than 50 km in peak-hour. The result is amazing. The average consumption has dropped from my typical 15 down to 12.7
After completing my experiment at the end of this week (or sooner :) ) I will return to my usual driving style and then will be able to say what part of that drop was due to increased pressure and (if) oil.
OK! Here are my results
After one week of slow driving mainly in peak hours the average consuption crept up to 13.3 l/100km
It was a great relieve when last Friday I returned to my usual style. The folloving 7 days showed the average consumption of 15.3. This is about the same if not higher than I had before I increased tyre pressure and changed the oil.
Therefore my conclusion is that keeping revs under 2000 in city peak-hour cycle will save you money. Increasing tyre pressure will probably not.
But is that $2.30 per every 100kms really worth it? :frazzled: :eclipsee_
Calc. based on a 2l/100km improvement (15.3-13.3 l/100kms) at say $1.15/l
brett40
11-11-05, 02:59 PM
I have TS RWD with 27,000 k on the clock and average 12.5 since new (March 05). On a decent trip 10.5-11.00 is very achievable. Best figures were 8.8 l/100km on a trip from Canberra to Sydney with a full tank and 3 kids and the wife.
The SS Inductions cold air intake and high flow filter may attribute to these figures.
Don't believe all the crap about fuel consumption. Sensible driving and regular use of the cruise control definately helps.
But is that $2.30 per every 100kms really worth it? :frazzled: :eclipsee_
If it was for me I would be driving Daihatsu Mira :lol:
brett40
11-11-05, 03:02 PM
Hi all
Just ordered a Territory Ghia RWD (7) Black and have been reading the reviews which are generally positive. The main complaint seems to be fuel consumption. I would appreciate any comments on this from current owners. For example, Ford claims 13.1 L/100km for RWD -- is this being achieved in the real world? Also, any experience using premium fuel instead of regiular unleaded?
Many thanks, John P
I have TS RWD with 27,000 k on the clock and average 12.5 since new (March 05). On a decent trip 10.5-11.00 is very achievable. Best figures were 8.8 l/100km on a trip from Canberra to Sydney with a full tank and 3 kids and the wife.
The SS Inductions cold air intake and high flow filter may attribute to these figures.
Don't believe all the crap about fuel consumption. Sensible driving and regular use of the cruise control definately helps.
Black Terra
11-11-05, 03:06 PM
But is that $2.30 per every 100kms really worth it? :frazzled: :eclipsee_
Calc. based on a 2l/100km improvement (15.3-13.3 l/100kms) at say $1.15/lI guess it depends on how much you pay for fuel in your area & also how many k's you travel.
How about a saving of $1393.60 a year?
Based on the 2 litre saving using 95 octane at $1.34 a litre & travelling 1000 kilometres a week or if we cut that in half for a more realistic travelling distance would be $696.80.
Now if we took that to $2.00 a litre would be $2080.00 or $1040.00.
I guess we may have many slower drivers when fuel gets more expensive :)
aes_usa
30-01-06, 06:27 PM
I have owned a TS Territory now for 3 weeks - it has 4500klms on it.
Just did a trip from Vic - Qld & QLD - VIC.. IS it me or does the the Terrirtory only do 400k to a full tank of Unleaded fuel.. This is highway driving.. I alwayd thought they should do at least 500+klm before having to refill.. Your feedback is appreciated if anyone is getting more tham 400k to a tank... :doh:
im getting more but mostly on hwy trips
FirstFord
30-01-06, 07:38 PM
Below is fuel consumption for our recent trip (Melb-Gold Coast-Sydney-Melb)
My average consumption prior to this trip (90% City 10% highway driving) was 13.95l/100km over 17,000km. Best individual tank was 12.95l/100km
Aircon always on, tyres @36kpi
Variables for the trip: Aircon always on (like on MAX), tyres 38 front 40 rear, 2 Adults 2 Kids plus luggage.
L Travelled l/100km Av Speed
52.81 496 10.65 89
29.47 229 12.87 82
62.00 496 12.50 77
55.72 456 12.22 87
70.32 489 14.38 59
52.30 486 10.76 76
68.15 539 12.64 57
64.71 570 11.35 73
69.12 558 12.39 64
524.60 4,319 12.15
The higher av. speeds represent almost completely freeway/highway driving. The two sub 60's represent 6 days on the GC and 3 Days in Sydney.
So based on this, I would have got between 544km and 658km on a tank.
Pretty satisfied with this level of consumption. I took a conservative approach and generally filled up between 450 and 500km, but could easily have driven further on each tank.
johnydep
30-01-06, 07:46 PM
I have owned a TS Territory now for 3 weeks - it has 4500klms on it.
Just did a trip from Vic - Qld & QLD - VIC.. IS it me or does the the Terrirtory only do 400k to a full tank of Unleaded fuel.. This is highway driving.. I alwayd thought they should do at least 500+klm before having to refill.. Your feedback is appreciated if anyone is getting more tham 400k to a tank... :doh:
Hello & welcome to the forums aes_usa.
On my last holiday trip my Territory was doing better than 500 km per tank, can't remember the exact figures now, but that was the best it's ever done. I was quite impressed actually.
As all the mechanical components settle in you'll notice improvements in economy & power; first at about 5000km & then about 15,000km.
Also it's a good idea to change the engine oil at 5000km.
Oil analysis (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=6663)
Synthetic or Mineral oil for the Territory? (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=25507)
Sluggish engine - do I just need to run it in? (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=7439) All this info & more is available at Territory Resources Centre. (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=25080)
I have owned a TS Territory now for 3 weeks - it has 4500klms on it.
Just did a trip from Vic - Qld & QLD - VIC.. IS it me or does the the Terrirtory only do 400k to a full tank of Unleaded fuel.. This is highway driving.. I alwayd thought they should do at least 500+klm before having to refill.. Your feedback is appreciated if anyone is getting more tham 400k to a tank... :doh:
Are you AWD or RWD?
My best was Adelaide to Echuca - 747 kms
I am getting between 11 and 12 litres per 100km for running around town which is great. I have had my Terri for just over a year and done 22000km.
factorthirty
08-02-06, 10:11 AM
I am getting between 14 and 15 litres per 100km for running around town which is NOT so great. I have had my Terri for just over a year and done 17000km.
Mechan1k
08-02-06, 02:39 PM
I am getting between 14 and 15 litres per 100km for running around town which is NOT so great. I have had my Terri for just over a year and done 17000km.
Depends ... if it's AWD ... and only gets a lot of stop/starting ... then low-to-mid 14s is around average ... also depends on right foot action as well.
Even takign it easy my Fiancee and I see 13.4L/100km in the AWD ... and we travel a little further now in the Territory cos of where we moved to ... and that's less stop-starting ... we are just over 30,000km in 13 months.
I try to cruise along gently all of the time ... just for fuel conservation.
Long trips are different though ... it drops dramatically.
I think for you factorythirty is to get a few more thousand kilometres on the vehicle ... maybe a few more longer trips in it ... and see how your economy goes after that.
factorthirty
09-02-06, 09:11 AM
I think your right Mechan1k, its a RWD BTW, and as you mention when I'm on a longer run (which is not often) is drops dramatically. From memory when we went up to the ski fields it was around the low 11's. My trouble is I work close to home and it doesn't even get a chance to warm up.
Perhaps I'll start taking the bike to work . . . . . :doh:
I've been on a few long trips in my AWD lately (need those k's for FBT year end) and it seems to me that fuel economy has improved a bit. I've done 33,000 k's and with the climate control on am getting around 11.7 l/100km on those trips. Definitely quite a bit better than what I got previously. Had the throttle control assembly replaced at the 30,000 service and the ECU reflashed so maybe thats got something to do with it.
Also noticed that it doesnt ping any more when under load using ULP.
All very interesting (and welcome)
ToryTerra
21-02-06, 10:10 PM
Hey Ouzo
Other than a reflash of your ECU, was anything else done which may have fixed your pinging problem? Mine has been reflashed 3 times now, and it still pings.
Cheers
TT
My ETC light started coming on under acceleration for a couple of weeks before the service which was why they replaced the unit (not quite sure what actually was replaced). Maybe there was some relationship to the pinging?????????
vBulletin v3.0.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.