hi, i have tried to use google but im getting really conflicting answers. i currently have a 2003 forester 2.0 na , which is not great on gas. i would really like to get a vl commodore or ef falcon (6) , but i dont want to regret it as i do a lot of kms . how do they compare against each and how bad are they really on petrol? cheers
monaro17,
Dec 1, 6:53am
Good lord I assumed you were going to be talking newer than that!
Both would use more gas than your forester.
EF Falcon would be/is nicer to drive. If you want a car of that type I would say spend more and get an AU+ Falcon or VT+ Commodore.
calvin_85,
Dec 1, 7:10am
i dont know why but im kind of hooked on the ef shape ;) and i cant stand the look of anything older than the vt (ha, typo in my first post!) . how much worse are we talking, twice as much or will i just need to have a $2 pie instead of a KFC for lunch on a friday lol.
a.woodrow,
Dec 1, 7:15am
I have owned both. VT open road 7L per 100km, around town about 11L per 100km. EF was about 9L per 100km open road, and again 11L per 100km around town. The VT was chipped which may have helped with the economical open road running, the EF was stock.
monaro17,
Dec 1, 7:18am
At a guess I would say 20% worse fuel. When the EF came out Ford changed ignition systems which turned out to be such a flop they changed back in the EL model.
If you have your heart set on a mid/late 90s Falcon go for an EL Fairmont or Fairmont Ghia.
whqqsh,
Dec 1, 7:21am
If you're doing more open road I'd go with the 'coon, around town probably the Dunnydoor would be better. (Ive owned several of both types of that era)
tamarillo,
Dec 1, 7:37am
I had ef for a while, averaged around 12-13 with lots of short trips into town, so was actually pleased considering the size of the thing.
franc123,
Dec 1, 7:43am
EF economy is 8-10 highway and 12-14 urban L/100km on the two I've had, if you are a heavy footed driver you will be punished at the pump if much of your driving is urban and/or cold. I would doubt that what you have now is much worse?
franc123,
Dec 1, 7:58am
There is zero difference in either power or economy between EF and L. The EF's EDIS ignition system was actually revised slightly and reused in all three models of AU as part of the general engine management upgrade that happened so I'm not sure what justifies the Flop comment, it also adapted to the V8's for the first time for AU. There is actually less to go wrong with EDIS, it eliminated most of the common fail points of the TFI ignition used in the EEC4 XF-ED and EEC5 EL models and by design was clearly capable of supplying a more reliable firing voltage.
pico42,
Dec 1, 8:16am
And with the mention of an AU, our 2002 AU III runs about 11l/100km on open road. XR8 Ute.
monaro17,
Dec 1, 9:13am
yes sorry I was ummimg and arring what word to use and in hindsight flop was wrong :). All I know on that subject was they changed to new system in ef and then back to older type for el and then back to it again for au. Thanks for clearing it up
richardmayes,
Dec 1, 7:03pm
Never driven a VT but have driven several VZs and been VERY unimpressed by the harsh back axle in those cars which thumps over every bump in the road surface. AU / BA coons much more refined.
Any big car will get through a lot of gas around town. On the open road both Commodores and Falcons are surprisingly economical and use little more fuel than anything else in our experience, especially if you take it easy and drive like a grown-up.
richardmayes,
Dec 1, 7:07pm
Franc123 when's your book coming out? I'd buy one!
inkapuka,
Aug 13, 11:01am
I had a vx commodore it averaged 10l per 100kph mostly open road driving
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.