SUV 4WD Petrol Fuel Consumption - slow improvement
mcscottwgtn,
Mar 22, 3:10am
Honda CRV 2006 onwards - 10L/100km Kia Sportage 2010 onwards - 9.2L/100km Hyundai IX35 2009 onwards - 9L/100km Nissan X Trail 2008 onwards - 9.1L/100km Subaru Forester 2008 onwards - 9.3L/100km Subaru Outback 2009 onwards - 8.9L/100km Suzuki Grand Vitara 2005 onwards - 9.9L/100km Toyota Rav4 2005 onwards - 9.6L/100km The fuel consumption seems to be improving at a snails pace. You would think that over five years you would see a bigger improvement than 10% odd. Maybe the next generations of the Honda, Suzuki and Toyota will show a meaningful improvement. I am impressed by the new Skoda Octavia Combi at 6.6L/100km, but it is not 4WD.
utwo,
Mar 22, 3:39am
The problem is cars are getting heavier, primarily due to increased body weight due to safety improvements, but also buyers demanding more creature comforts and gadgets. Cars seem to get bigger with each new model release as well. For example, a new Toyota Corolla is as big as a 1990s Toyota Corona and a new Honda Civic as big as a 1990s Honda Accord. I reckon if you stuck the latest model's engine and transmission in one of the older cars you'd see some impressive fuel consumption figures.
vtecintegra,
Mar 22, 3:45am
Yes the small capacity turbos and DSGs are definitely the way to go for economy.
Bear in mind the CRV and Rav 4 have been using the same basic engines for going on 10 years now, you're unlikely to see significant improvements until they're replaced with new designs.
morrisman1,
Mar 22, 3:48am
good comments there utwo, Also I think the OP should consider older petrol SUV because not a hell of a lot has happened since 2006, 5 years is not a lot of time for groundbreaking changes to take place. Perhaps look at petrol SUVs back from 1990 to now. There will be huge improvements in economy in those figures.
No matter how much development goes into the engine we will be stuck with no better than 50% thermal efficiency and the resistance of wind. Without switching to a more efficient type of powerplant and making the vehicles super slippery then the figures likely aren't going to get much better
mcscottwgtn,
Mar 22, 3:50am
The Honda CRV is about 1500kg per wikipedia.The Kia Sportage is 1492kg for the ex spec. Agreed about the size of cars getting bigger and bigger - american supersized.
vtecintegra,
Mar 22, 4:04am
You can see what technology can do by comparing a VW Polo to a Honda Jazz Jazz - 1.5, conventional 5 speed auto = 6.7l/100km Jazz - 1.3, 5 speed manual = 5.8l/100km Polo - turbo 1.2, 7 speed DSG = 5.3l/100km Polo - 1.4, 7 speed DSG = 5.8l/100km
You can see the turbo Polo does better than the cheaper one even though its significantly better performing
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 22, 4:08am
The problem is the Japanese are over 10 years behind on their diesel technology because emissions laws meant no diesels were sold in Japan for well over a decade. Coincidentally at the same time Fiat invented the common rail diesel which revolutionised the diesel engine. The Japanese are catching up slowly but are generally a way off the rest yet.
So, if you want an efficient SUV don't by a Japanese one.
I guess I can't see why buy a new (or upto six year old) suv which consumes 9>10L/100km when Skoda seems to be able to pull 6.6L/100km out of the hat. I guess the skoda has a better drag coefficient (.30) being a wagon opposed to the blob shape of the others, and it doesn't have 4wd. It appears 4wd doesn't add that much to fuel economy eg the miti asx does it for 0.2L/100km more. The Kia Sportage drag coefficent is .37 , the Subaru Outback (wagon shape) is .35
mcscottwgtn,
Mar 22, 4:13am
This is about petrol not diesel.Not sure if I want a diesel at this stage.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 22, 4:14am
Your on to it! BTW if you are going for an auto VW's DSG adds a whole lot more efficiency as it dosn't have the usual drawbacks of a regular auto in that it dosn't "waste" energy through using an inefficient torque converter.
On the subject of VW, they pretty much lead the pack with economy both from their clever gearbox's and their fantastic engine designs. You can get VW engine/gearbox's in Audi/Skoda/VW badged vehicles as these are all made by VW.
They are also excellent value both new and secondhand.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 22, 4:15am
Why would you not want a diesel! Its the more efficient choice if buying an SUV.
What are you concerned about!
mcscottwgtn,
Mar 22, 4:24am
Hi Jazz. With diesel's is it just two bands for the RUC with 2,000kg being the split! I enjoy driving modern diesel's eg Skoda Yeti, Volvo XC60, Audi Allroad - they feel powerful and drive well. Just not convinced they are cheaper to run - being the whole point I guess. I do like the high torque of the diesel's, another strong point in their favour. Then you have the government and it's power over the RUC.
mcscottwgtn,
Mar 22, 4:30am
I want the motor to be able to handle the local ski field access road (Rainbow) which is rubbish with fords to conquer. Was in Wgtn last week. The local dealer was going to get an Audi A4 quattro Avant 2L diesel for a spin. But it didn't turn up. They say they are few and far apart. That 3L one looks like it could be cheap.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 22, 4:35am
They are generally much more economical once you start looking at SUV's.
I made a webpage www.dieselvspetrol.webs.com which will help you compare.To give you an idea in rough terms including RUC the Diesel Yeti will cost something like $13.50 per 100km vs about $17.50 for the same car in petrol. I think this is the link to the brochure that explains everything about RUC's. There is no massive RUC difference for any of the vehicles you are looking at.
In short, don't be put off by the wives tales that diesel cars are not cheaper. When it comes to the sort of gear you are looking at the modern Euro Diesel wins out on economy. Also as fuel goes up with GST being on the lesser amount per litre with Diesel and the RUC being a fixed amount it only gets cheaper.
Be ware also of wives tales about the Diesel being dearer to service, its not really an issue with modern Diesels as they have such a long service interval and filters etc are quite reasonable.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 22, 4:45am
I have to go for a bit, I have a few more ideas and can help you a bit more with some info on the VW/Audi models etc if thats of help. Just hit me up with what you want to know if that's of any help. Have a great night.
mcscottwgtn,
Mar 22, 4:55am
The scout and yeti are diesel only at this stage.
r15,
Mar 22, 5:45am
i know a guy with a diesel rav4 with a mix of city / open road driving gets an average of 6l/100km, and shit it can go!
thejazzpianoma,
Aug 13, 3:48pm
The smaller diesel in the likes of the A4 Quattro etc should be fine for what you are doing. With the likes of the A4 and the age of vehicle I wouldn't really be expecting any notable premium in terms of upkeep over an Asian equivalent. Even if you get something out of warranty genuine Audi/VW parts are excellently priced if you get them from the likes of Qualitat or another genuine3rd party importer.
Volvo parts are a bit different though, as there are not really any specialist 3rd party importers for Volvo as of yet. Although Euroline are better than Volvo NZ.
Best of luck with it all, I do reckon you are on the right track with the A4 etc its a great size for a run around and if you go with Diesel especially its going to be particularly forgiving with the general run around stuff.
That said, in the smaller A4 sort of size the Petrols do start to catch up on economy, those FSI/TSI enignes from the VW group are phenomenal, believe it or not we actually got 60mpg out of a 2.0 fsi Golf between Katikati and Hamilton. I couldn't even get that from the 1200cc Fiat Punto I had at the time.
Anyhow, have a play with the webpage I posted if you are curious. If the petrol/diesel price is too far away from current give me a yell and I will update it for you.
Best of luck with it all!
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.