AGE/SMH comparison of Ecoboost, traditional petrol. LPG and Hybrid

[Statler]

The link is to a weekend article comparing the following cars in real world situations:

Ecoboost Falcon
Petrol I6 Falcon
ECOLpi Falcon

SVI LPG Commodore

Hybrid Camry

It makes interesting reading

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...511-1yg69.html


cheers
Statler

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Statler

It makes interesting reading

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...511-1yg69.html


cheers
Statler

Any article which starts off with lpg isn't as efficient as petrol loses me within seconds. Our journalist here has confused efficiency with volumetric energy density of the fuel.

[_Ben]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Any article which starts off with lpg isn't as efficient as petrol loses me within seconds. Our journalist here has confused efficiency with volumetric energy density of the fuel.

Fuel efficiency wise, LPG is not as good as petrol. I don't see what the problem is? You use more LPG than petrol for the same work done.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by _Ben

Fuel efficiency wise, LPG is not as good as petrol. I don't see what the problem is? You use more LPG than petrol for the same work done.

Ben, just as the journalist has, you are confusing volumetric consumption with efficiency.

Basically when we are looking at the efficiency of a fuel we are looking at how much of the energy in that fuel can be converted to useful work in the engine. The figures are better for dedicated lpg engines running higher compression.

Also appreciate that per kg lpg contains more energy than petrol, so a car will travel further on a kg of lpg than petrol.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ben, just as the journalist has, you are confusing volumetric consumption with efficiency.

Basically when we are looking at the efficiency of a fuel we are looking at how much of the energy in that fuel can be converted to useful work in the engine. The figures are better for dedicated lpg engines running higher compression.

Also appreciate that per kg lpg contains more energy than petrol, so a car will travel further on a kg of lpg than petrol.

What a load of crap.

Per Kg? Well that makes Hydrogen the most efficient fuel, shame you need a truck to carry the tank.

Why not use Uranium, a Kg of Uranium will provide HUGE amounts of power and run your car for centuries although the size and weight of the car might be a bit of a problem but it would be efficient.

Liquid fuels are measured in litres not kilos.

The operating co-efficient of a motor vehicle is measured in DOLLARS nothing else, never has been and never will be.......

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

What a load of crap.

Per Kg? Well that makes Hydrogen the most efficient fuel, shame you need a truck to carry the tank.

Why not use Uranium, a Kg of Uranium will provide HUGE amounts of power and run your car for centuries although the size and weight of the car might be a bit of a problem but it would be efficient.

Liquid fuels are measured in litres not kilos.

The operating co-efficient of a motor vehicle is measured in DOLLARS nothing else, never has been and never will be.......

wow a bagging from this person....how unexpected.

Liquid fuels are all measured in kilos? really? and you have an aviation background?

And your strawman attack:
Nope, the point wasnt about that we should choose lpg based on its better energy/kg ratio so we could have a lighter car, the difference is more than offset by the weight of an lpg tank. The point was that more often than not lpg is labelled as inefficient simply because it per litre it has less energy.


No Im not advocating changing buying fuel to the kg.

But can you see the problem, if we were buying fuel by the kg, our journalist would be claiming lpg was more efficient

The simple point I made is that lpg is a more efficient fuel than petrol when we look at the % of energy available in the fuel that is converted to useful work done by the motor when the motor is optimisied for lpg. People understand diesel engines are more efficient for exactly the same reason?


Simply I cant take any supposed expert on motoring seriously if they dont know the difference between fuel consumption and fuel efficiency and would limit anything to be learned from the article to which cars had the best cup holders.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ben, just as the journalist has, you are confusing volumetric consumption with efficiency.

Basically when we are looking at the efficiency of a fuel we are looking at how much of the energy in that fuel can be converted to useful work in the engine. The figures are better for dedicated lpg engines running higher compression.

Also appreciate that per kg lpg contains more energy than petrol, so a car will travel further on a kg of lpg than petrol.

If you factor in what a car is/needs, there is a limited space to store a fuel. So considering that Petrol has more energy per volume, rather than weight, it could be argued that it is more efficient as a packaged catalyst than LPG.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

it could be argued that it is more efficient as a packaged catalyst than LPG.

Certainly, as flappist pointed out, uranium would also beat either by more than just a couple of orders of magnitude for joules/kg or joules/litre, but you have lost me with the 'packaged catalyst"?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by _Ben

Fuel efficiency wise, LPG is not as good as petrol. I don't see what the problem is? You use more LPG than petrol for the same work done.

This is true, the gap is narrowing but LPGs ace is price....it generally sits at half of pulp. As soon as it gets within 20% it makes less sense.

Its a good article. Personally hybrids might be frugal but if their bought for environmental reasons then its all a bit of fluff really.

[GK]

Perhaps they could have said something like

"whilst as a fuel, LPG isn't as efficient per litre as petrol, i.e, you use more LPG than petrol to go the same distance, the cost of LPG, being far cheaper, more than compensates for this."

GK

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by GK

Perhaps they could have said something like

"whilst as a fuel, LPG isn't as efficient per litre as petrol, i.e, you use more LPG than petrol to go the same distance, the cost of LPG, being far cheaper, more than compensates for this."

GK

the problem is the use of the word efficient, it implies effective use of a material, when in fact lpg is being used more effectively than the petrol.

Simply they just need to say that per litre(volumetrically) the CONSUMPTION for lpg is higher.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by GK

Perhaps they could have said something like

"whilst as a fuel, LPG isn't as efficient per litre as petrol, i.e, you use more LPG than petrol to go the same distance, the cost of LPG, being far cheaper, more than compensates for this."

GK

The article sorta does:

All solutions have their advantages. LPG is not as efficient as petrol, but is (currently) about half the price and emits less carbon dioxide.

[GK]

Originally Posted by Polyal

This is true, the gap is narrowing but LPGs ace is price....it generally sits at half of pulp. As soon as it gets within 20% it makes less sense.

I can't see the oil companies allowing the LPG price to get within that range, otherwise, they'll lose customers. If cars on petrol and LPG cost the same to run, or were only 10% dearer to run, why would you go LPG?

Originally Posted by Polyal

Its a good article. Personally hybrids might be frugal but if their bought for environmental reasons then its all a bit of fluff really.

Agreed, hybrids and the aura around them generate more fluff and fuzz than Sesame Street!

GK

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Any article which starts off with lpg isn't as efficient as petrol loses me within seconds. Our journalist here has confused efficiency with volumetric energy density of the fuel.

Who the hell, goes and buys a car on the basis of "volumetric energy density"?

No one...


They look at the efficiancy...

[No.6]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Who the hell, goes and buys a car on the basis of "volumetric energy density"?

No one...

This i agree with. Regardless of what definitions are being used, the end result is that the average consumer that hasnt researched into LPG will base their views on how far they get on a tank of LPG vs how far they get on a tank of petrol vs cost.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Who the hell, goes and buys a car on the basis of "volumetric energy density"?

No one...


They look at the efficiancy...

Thats right... The 'science' behind your arguments may be technically correct, but 99.9% of people will have NFI what you have just said "volumetric energy density etc". sounds fancy, but means squat.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Who the hell, goes and buys a car on the basis of "volumetric energy density"?

No one...


They look at the efficiancy...

Er, no. Nobody considering an LPG option looks only at km/l, you look at the cost. LPG and PULP are two different products so comparing litres & litres is irrelevant.

I love how they proved that a full-sized 198kw/409nm Falcon was cheaper to run than the hybrid, but still gave the Camry “number one ranking.”

Proves what I have been saying all along. If you want to save money on running costs go for the eColi. EB is a gimmick.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Proves what I have been saying all along. If you want to save money on running costs go for the eColi. EB is a gimmick.

ecoboost is eligible for any fleets with a 4cyl only policy. horses for courses.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by prydey

ecoboost is eligible for any fleets with a 4cyl only policy. horses for courses.

As I said, a gimmick.
Specifying a car based on the number of cylinders borders on insanity (or civil service.)
The government supposedly gave Ford money to spend on making the Falcon more economical. Please tell or it wasn’t squandered on the EB.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Who the hell, goes and buys a car on the basis of "volumetric energy density"?

No one...


They look at the efficiancy...

Strawmen is the flavour of the day it seems. No I didnt advocate listing that for consumers.

As Flappist has said, one should look at the dollars needed to run the car. some people think that means "efficiancy",.
Well perhaps looking at the fuel CONSUMPTION and the price of the fuel to get a good idea, fuel efficieny is never listed by the manufacturers or on the aus gov website: http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au

it would appear its a term only misued by motoring journalists.

[russellw]

Interesting read. It underlines two things in my mind - just how good the EcoLPI technology in the Falcon is and the usability of the EcoBoost.

Cheers
Russ

[ken1939]

Oh I agree that is still an article. You hate to base everything on anecdoal evidence, but buyers talk about what they like. Unfortunatly we have folks in the world that dont know where eggs come from, so they have magazines, well comic books, for them. Well like Car and Driver.

Those articles at times are designed as soft journalism, we are all winners, that sort of stuff.

[AWD Chaser]

I see that it's not noted that you can't fit a tow pack to the Camery hybrid...

[jpd80]

Another option is a diesel Mondeo, something that the article completely ignored...



I note that in Europe, the 2.2 TDCI Mondeo is rated at 2200 kg towing and that in North America,
you can get an AWD version of the Fusion. So if you could combine both vehicles, you could have
an AWD 2.2 diesel that can tow 2200 Kg up a boat ramp, just like a Territory..

[Struggo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Another option is a diesel Mondeo, something that the article completely ignored...



I note that in Europe, the 2.2 TDCI Mondeo is rated at 2200 kg towing and that in North America,
you can get an AWD version of the Fusion. So if you could combine both vehicles, you could have
an AWD 2.2 diesel that can tow 2200 Kg up a boat ramp, just like a Territory..

JPD the article is based on Australain produced content

Falling sales have forced a rethink of the locally-made large car.

[zebby]

Fantastic write up/test drive of the Falcon Ecoboost in this months Wheels magazine. Should be on the shelves on Wednesday.

8.5/10 and they just loved it. The only minus compared with the six and they were nit picking, was a little less torque in the low rev range but hardley noticeble.

Absolutely rubbished the so called economy 3.0 litre commodore, a tractor compared to ecoboost.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by AWD Chaser

I see that it's not noted that you can't fit a tow pack to the Camery hybrid...

Actually the new model can have a towbar.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Actually the new model can have a towbar.

It can tow 300kg

You could probably hook up a trailer to it but not put anything in it.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

It can tow 300kg

You could probably hook up a trailer to it but not put anything in it.

You could fill it with smug!

[Brazen]

The Camry looks like a good buy especially considering the expensive hybrid tech, as well as keyless start and reversing camera. But what were they thinking about the tow rating. Toyota stated that the biggest complaint in Australia was lack of tow rating, they said up to 80% of large cars have tow bars and they even flew Japanese engineers out to drive around Australian cities to show how many cars are towing or have tow bars. So after all that they lump it with a 300kg rating? Surely the drivetrain can handle 1000kg?