4a-gze's Suck!

[ancullen]

Don't you think that last comment contradicts your previous one??? First it's:

 

LPG uses around the same amount of fuel as what a petrol car does

 

then it becomes:

 

If you take a LPG car and tune it to the best it can It will use around 33% more gas than a petrol ran car will

 

33% isn't 'around the same amount'. It's not even friggin' close. Within 5% is around the same amount. Within 10% is a stretch, but 33% is just ridiculous.

 

Having done a little bit of research, I've discovered that the reason so many of you guys are all for LPG is reasonable - you pay a fair bit less for LPG than we do, making it much more feasible. Also, LPG isn't as available up here as it is in the Southern states, meaning that most LPG conversions are done to run on dual fuel, rather than purely for petrol (this is what my father-in-law has done). So the fuel economy benefits of LPG are greatly reduced as the engine maintains it's petrol tune, but also has to run on LPG. So when being run on LPG, my father-in-law's Ford Courier uses almost twice as much fuel per km as it does on petrol, therefore greatly reducing the economical benefits. However, his range has greatly increased, which he's happy about. Personally I'll stick to petrol over LPG for now.

[Trev]

I was talking dollars to liter, It ads up to the same price, Take the new VE commodore:

 

VE LPG powered sedans produce peak power of 175 kW @ 6000 rpm (petrol 180 kW @ 6000 rpm) and peak torque is 325 Nm @ 2600 rpm (petrol 330 Nm @ 2600 rpm). I guess losing 5kW and 5Nm isn't too bad! I have to give credit where its due and these figures are not bad. Holden Executive Director, Engineering, Tony Hyde, said the dual-fuel engine option gave customers an economical choice to petrol, without large sacrifices in performance

 

LPG fuel economy on dual-fuel Omega and Berlina models is 16.0 litres per 100km and petrol is 11.7 litres per 100km. The increased petrol outcome in dual-fuel engine models (VE petrol only Omega and Berlina models return 10.9 litres per 100km) is due to the weight of the gas cylinder (just under100kg).

 

Taken from: VE Dual Fuel

 

Have a read and work it out for yourself, And stop making everything i post into an arguement, I am just trying to post "REAL FACTS"

[Rolla__Boy]

I agree with Trev, Back in the day when I got my license and had a Gas powered 351 XY Falcon, gas was 17 cents per litre which made it worthwhile, with the price of gas now it's hardly worth it. You get about twice as many litres of gas as petrol for the same money, and it only goes about the same distance as that much money worth of petrol would. For the price of a conversion $3000-$4000 it's not worthwhile anymore, if you buy a cheap car already on gas it's worth it

[ancullen]

It's a bit hard to acknowledge a lot of what you say as being 'real facts' when you contradict yourself.

 

That being said, the article on the dual fuel Commodore actually makes LPG sound quite good. A 7% increase in unleaded fuel consumption due to the extra weight, plus another 36% when using LPG isn't too bad, especially when LPG in Sydney costs 45 cents/litre versus 119.9 cents/litre for unleaded.

 

In fact, doing some basic maths, we can see that a standard VE Commodore at 10.9L/100km can do about 690km off a 73L tank of ULP. A dual fuel VE can do a total of 1080km off both 73L ULP tank and 73L LPG tanks combined. Using 119.9cents/L for ULP and 45cents/L for LPG, we find that the standard VE costs 13cents/L on ULP, whereas the dual fuel version costs 14cents/km on ULP and 7.2cents/km on LPG, for an average of 11.1cents/km combined.

 

Just for reference, the Golf TSI has a 55L ULP tank. It gets 7.4L/100km, resulting in a fuel range of 743km/tank at 8.8cents/litre. Yes, this is worse than the VE dual fuel on LPG, but better than it's combined averages, and way better than the VE's petrol figures.

Edited December 11, 2006 by ancullen

[MRMOPARMAN]

ancullen, your not really comparing apples with apples with that last statement. those 2 vehicles being in designed for different purposes.

 

so how much can a golf TSI tow? granted neither vehicle are for everyone. you just have to weigh up the considerations and see which one suits best. fuel consumption is a very small consideration to alot of people.

 

as for the LPG vs petrol argument.. gas is indeed not really economical for everyone. but for someone like myself, it certainly is.

i have an AU3 V8 5 speed one tonner. bought it 3 months ago, and have clocked 11,000km in that time (which is about 4-5000km less than this time last year average)

a gas conversion on my car would be approx $2500. take the government grant = $500

the industry rule of thumb for gas is 20-25% more than petrol. so id get bout 650km on petrol, and an easy 500km on gas.

 

it costs me $90 to get 650km on petrol

$35 to get 500km on gas

therefore i save $46.75 every time i fill up.

therefore it would take me 6417km to pay the conversion off, (2 months) and from then on its money in my pocket!

 

now i coulda bought a proton jumbuck for arguments sake, that would cost a fairbit less to run on petrol than the falcon, but sweet FA on a duel fuel falcon.

hell the proton could handle 90% of the shit id be likely to do with it.

but in MY case, id pay the extra $2 a day to own the falcon, because i regularly tow 1500kg-2000kg loads, come hay season i can fit an extra 15 bales on the back at a time. being a falcon parts are stacked 10 high at a wrecker and cheap as chips. how many protons are at the wreckers? and the extra space behind the back seat is a godsend.

oh not to mention the effortless overtaking on the highway!

 

like i said, car choices and fuel choices, neither are for everyone.. but having one over the other doesnt make the other one shit! (for the record jumbucks are freakin good cars)

[ancullen]

Agreed that a Golf isn't going to suit everyone's purpose. However the TSI engine is also available in the Jetta sedan and the Touran people mover, it's just they have less power (103kW & 203Nm), but improved fuel economy of 7.1L/100km in the Jetta. So let's compare the Jetta and the Commodore, as they're the most similar cars in purpose.

 

The Jetta has 31L more boot space than the Commodore. It has fuel economy of 7.1L/100km vs. a best figure of 10.9L/100km for the Commodore. The Jetta therefore costs 8.5cents/km for fuel versus the previously stated average for a dual-fuel VE of 11.1cents/km. The Jetta also has more hip room in the front seats than the VE. Of course, the VE has more headroom (front & rear), more hip room in the rear, and can tow 700kg more on a braked trailer. Of course many people will buy the VE simply because it is a bigger, more comfortable family car, which makes sense. It's all the people that buy one when they're the only person using it that doesn't make sense. Many fleet buyers should look into the TSI option as it makes more sense.

 

Yes I understand that different people want different vehicles for different reasons. I'm just trying to let everyone know that there are now more options available, and TSI seems to be a very good compromise between good fuel economy and power.

[towe001]

For my 5 cents, i want a turbo diesel.

 

Sick and tired of petrol/lpg engine crap

[towe001]

And the bitching thats going with it at the moment.

[ancullen]

Diesel's have never really done it for me, although, I've really only driven Toyota diesels, and I hear many of the European manufacturers are making some really nice diesels now.

[MRMOPARMAN]

the volkswagen diesels are pearlers

[Mr Hardware]

ancullen, as much as I agree with what you say, you can't claim the average of the VE dual fuel is 11.1c/km, as no-one with a dual fueller uses petrol as much as they do LPG. I have a Ford Falcon dual Fueller, exactly the same setup as the VE LPG, and I can't remember the last time I used petrol. I have a 4.0L motor and I regularly return 7.5c/km. So compare 'em straight. Other than that I agree with nearly everything else you say.

 

Also, MRMOPARMAN, you've got the right idea. Ford LPG for lyfe yo.

 

AND AS IF A PROTON/VW TSI WOULD BE AROUND AFTER MORE THAN 200,000KLMS. MY FORD HAS 600,000 AND STILL GOING STRONG. BEAT THAT VOLKSWAGEN, DAMN TRY HARD KRAUTS.

[ancullen]

I do realise that most people use LPG far more than they use petrol, but I assumed that anyone who has a dual fuel setup rather than a straight LPG setup is going to use both fuels as they want maximum range. But yes, you are correct, running the VE (or your Falcon) on LPG does definitely provide less cost per km.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, this is a sincere question: Why do you bother having a dual fuel setup if you're only going to use LPG? Surely you could get better power and economy from the LPG if you ran straight LPG and had the vehicle tuned accordingly? Unless of course you keep the petrol tank for extended range, but I wouldn't have thought that would have been an issue down there. If you ditch the petrol setup you lose a few kilos from the car, and straight away improve fuel consumption slightly. With tuning this could improve again.

 

As for the durability of the VW engines (we all know Proton/Mitsubishi suck), one would have to wonder. It would seem that any engine that can take up to 36psi of boost from the factory (tuners run higher boost) is a strong motor (hell, the 4A-GZE can only take 28psi on standard internals), but how long will the motor last with that being run through it constantly? I don't know if it'd last 200,000km, let alone 600,000km, but buy me one and I'd be happy to run up the kilometers to test it for you all. :P

Edited December 12, 2006 by ancullen

[Mr Hardware]

Why do I bother having a dual fuel setup if i'm only going to use LPG?

Cos it came with the car like that.

 

Could I get better power and economy from the LPG if i ran LPG straight?

It's actually a Tickford Factory Gas dual fuel setup, so the motor's been tuned for LPG already.

 

The only time i've ever used petrol is when my gas converter played up, but i got that fixed the next day.

 

Extended range? Nah. I can get 500klms out of a tank of LPG on the highway, so Petrol isnt really needed.

 

Why don't I take the petrol tank out? Illegal. I would require an engineers cert for that i believe. Too much cost and effort for little benefit.

 

At the end of the day, this is the shopping list for a good car:

 

Space

Pace

Grace

Economy

and Built for Australian Conditions

 

I see the Jetta has the pace, and maybe the economy, not quite the space normally accustomed to Aussie cars though. Grace? I don't think it looks like its worth almost 50 FRIGGIN GRAND. And no way is it going to last for ages let alone australian conditions.

 

These set of 5 rules are why Falcons and Commodores rule the road.

[tas_ae71]

These set of 5 rules are why Falcons and Commodores rule the road.

 

what they fark are you smacking on about?

 

falcons and commodores rule the road? not where i drive.. depends on what you want out of a car, if you want luxuary, climate control, electric seats, soft gay suspesion, dead feeling on the road, blending into a cround with ease then yes a falcon or commodor is for you. but if you want hard suspension, exellent grip, high cornering speed capabilities, shit hot brakes, n/a scram, rasor sharp chassis than an australian built car is not for you.

 

for example a early celsior say 1990 model (i know of a bloke who has one) it has 10way or is it 20 way ajustable electronic seats, rear seats with massagers, airbag suspension as well as the climate control and FULL leather interior. the new statesmans are only just come out with that same sorts of electronic ajustment on the seats, 15 or so years earlyer!! that for me just gose to show how much far ahead japanise technology is. also take the most expensive factory leather interior made in australia and compare it with the qualitiy of a celsior.

 

i don't really care for interior so this dosent really wory me, my current seat is actuall welded up to it only has fawards and back ajustment until i put my bucket in there. next, take the quality of the machanics, it is 16 years old and it drives fairly much like it would new, on the other hand the commodor at this point is a VN, and i belive the statesman has just recived IRS? idi i mention the celsoir has airbags? on the ohter hand the celsoir was a very expensive car new, but it had the quality and refinement of a much much more expensive merc or bwm....

[ancullen]

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise it was only the BA/BF Falcon's that had the pure LPG option. Definitely wouldn't argue with your choice of the Falcon over the Jetta. However, it would be interesting to see the TSI technology developed for a bigger motor, and also to see it used in conjunction with LPG. Actually, I'd be interested in testing any of the newer, improved fuel economy motors tested on LPG, as one would imagine that the $/km would decrease even further. How about a 4.0L LPG TSI for the win?