 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / 4x4 Cars (Australian group) / December 2006Mazda Tribute Fuel Economy
Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. I worked it out to be around 16 mpg. Not sure how to do the stupid l/100km figure. Whatever, how does that sound? Good, bad, average or to be expected? On a long trip it's seen around 25 mpg so far. I have a mate who has the Escape. 2 years older though (04). He says that when towing his boat, it makes a Mack truck look like a Toyota Prius... I think that works out at just over 5 .7kms for every litre! ie in every 100kms you need 17.5 lts??? Umm my old Hilux does average of 12ts/100kms around town and up to 10lts/100kms on a long run on the highway as long as Madam Leadfoot is behaving. In the bush it drops to around 14lts/100km if endless miles of heavy sand, low range etc. Kathy > Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down > the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Escape. 2 years older though (04). He says that when towing his boat, it > makes a Mack truck look like a Toyota Prius... 16L/100km is about average for around town (380km per tank) I recently did a 350km trip up north on the tarseal, using cruise control at 100-105kmph and the result was 9.8L per 100km. This included approx 40-50kms of around town driving so that's pretty good economy from a V6. Towing or hill driving on the open highway will increase fuel usage to the 15L-16L/100km. There are some drivers who just can't get the lead out of their boots no matter what they drive and the results are Always going to be bad. You have a grunty motor - it can also be economic if you drive it properly - enjoy.  SignatureBrianM >> Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down >> the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > going to be bad. You have a grunty motor - it can also be economic > if you drive it properly - enjoy. Sad, my 2004 4.7 v8 cruiser 13.5 ltrs per 100 on a run (loaded) and 16 ltrs per 10 in town, with lead foot. Bludge >> Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down >> the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >going to be bad. You have a grunty motor - it can also be economic >if you drive it properly - enjoy. Oooohhhhh am I not glad that I got a Turbo diesel 2.5l Around 9.25 ~ 10 litres per 100 klm City or country empty or with a bit of a load, flat or hilly. Usually around 600 ~650klms for tank fill of just under 60 litres On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:40:37 +1000, tony wrote: >>> Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down >>> the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Usually around 600 ~650klms for tank fill of just under 60 litres lucky bastard - don't have to rub it in !. -- BrianM >>Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down >>the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This included approx 40-50kms of around town driving so that's > pretty good economy from a V6. Are you serious??? That's large petrol 4WD(cruiser/Patrol) economy that's sh.t for such a small vehicle I'd be getting is looked at 12-13k/100 is about what you should get around town and less that 10L/100 for hwy driving Kev >>>Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down >>>the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Kev Kev, compared to some Triby owners I've spoken to recently, anywhere around 10L/100k is damn good economy. Its a hungry V6 151kw petrol engine with 4 speed auto. The 2006 engine and electronic control have been modified to give a better fuel economy - I haven't heard any reports yet what the difference is. Just about any kind of diesel would beat the arse off it in the fuel stakes. I wouldn't describe it as a small vehicle, it fits into the medium size, i.e. 1700kg class. SignatureBrianM >> Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down >> the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 16L/100km is about average for around town (380km per tank) For a new Mazda thats CRAP!!! Hell, I carry around 700kgs of tools and stuff in the back of me Rodeo and I get at least 13.6L/100kms. And thats a V6 as well. To top that off I carry ladders on the roof as well. > Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down > the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. > > I worked it out to be around 16 mpg. Not sure how to do the stupid > l/100km figure. Its very easy, 52 divided by 2.97= 17.5/lts/100klms which IMO means its bloody thirsty for a soft roader. > Whatever, how does that sound? Good, bad, average or to be expected? Very bad, my 2003 3.4lt V6 4WD Hilux averages 12.5lts/100klms. Hopefully yours will improve when its done a few klms. Daryl > Its very easy, 52 divided by 2.97= 17.5/lts/100klms which IMO means its > bloody thirsty for a soft roader. Thank god someone agrees with me! I was never much good with Maths :) >> Its very easy, 52 divided by 2.97= 17.5/lts/100klms which IMO means its >> bloody thirsty for a soft roader. > > Thank god someone agrees with me! I was never much good with Maths :) Seems like you aren't that bad at maths after all:-) Working out lts/100klms is not really that difficult. Daryl D said.... > Seems like you aren't that bad at maths after all:-) > Working out lts/100klms is not really that difficult. Maybe not. But it's a bullshit way of measuring something. Why didn't they go with km/l, being a natural progression from mpg? > D said.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe not. But it's a bullshit way of measuring something. Why didn't > they go with km/l, being a natural progression from mpg? I used to think that way but once you get used to it its no more difficult than working out mpg or km/l. Daryl D said.... > I used to think that way but once you get used to it its no more > difficult than working out mpg or km/l. Oh, I'm used to the method, but still think that it's a wanky way of measuring fuel consumption. Why introduce a constant such as 100 km, when no journey is a fixed distance? The only constant is the unit quantity that fuel is measured - litres. I'd be interested to know what Europeans and other metric countries use to measure their vehicles' fuel economy. >D said.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Maybe not. But it's a bullshit way of measuring something. Why didn't > they go with km/l, being a natural progression from mpg? Something to do with the fact that km/l is a measure of distance travelled per set amount of fuel rather than fuel consumed. So if you are quoting fuel consumption, technically km/l is not a measure of fuel consumed. Officialdom likes to be pedantic and get it right. Litres per.... is a measure of the fuel consumed Fuel consumtion doesn't have to involve distance . Eg you can have litres per hour, litres per min etc. Also with km/l the as the number gets higher the fuel consumed is actually less. eg 10 km/l is less fuel consumed than 5 km/l whereas 10 l /100km is more fuel consumed than 5 l/100km Minor point, I know but it keeps the pedantic happy. Bristan >D said.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Maybe not. But it's a bullshit way of measuring something. Why didn't >they go with km/l, being a natural progression from mpg? If you'd been brought up on gallons per 100 miles you wouldn't have this problem. :-) (Actually, the only logic I can see is that it makes it marginally easier to work out how much fuel you'll need for a given trip of, say, 2365 km -- multiplication allegedly being easier than division. :) Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID Phred said.... > (Actually, the only logic I can see is that it makes it marginally > easier to work out how much fuel you'll need for a given trip of, say, > 2365 km -- multiplication allegedly being easier than division. :) Ok, without using a calculator, how much fuel will I need for a 1,334km trip? Presume an average consumption of 6.4l/100km. Or, in 1,873km I used 1,03l of fuel. What was the fuel economy for that journey? Show sums used. Marks deducted for inproper use of SI units... :-) >Phred said.... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Ok, without using a calculator, how much fuel will I need for a 1,334km >trip? Presume an average consumption of 6.4l/100km. In round figures I'd reckon a bit less than 90 L (but I'd take a bit more :). How much would I need to go 1298 miles at 18.7 mpg? (Gallons will do. :) >Or, in 1,873km I used 1,03l of fuel. What was the fuel economy for that >journey? Not very economical I'm afraid. How big's the truck? And it proves my point -- division is harder than multiplication. (But you only need to do it once to get a ball park figure when you do things this way.) >Show sums used. > >Marks deducted for inproper use of SI units... You mean like applying CK55 at 50 kg/acre? :-) Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID Phred said.... >>Marks deducted for inproper use of SI units... > > You mean like applying CK55 at 50 kg/acre? :-) Sort of. That's similar to tyre sizes which use mm (millimetres) for width and inches for diameter... I was actually refering to the practice of people using terms such as "kph", "klms" and so on, rather than "km/h", ""km", etc. >Phred said.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I was actually refering to the practice of people using terms such as >"kph", "klms" and so on, rather than "km/h", ""km", etc. I know what you mean. :-) But the silliest thing in the SI standard is official: the use of "kilogram" as a base unit. By all logic, that should mean what we call a gram is really a millikilogram. [I should also mention that I actually prefer the "...mme" versions of these units. 8-)] Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID D said.... > Its very easy, 52 divided by 2.97= 17.5/lts/100klms which IMO means its Thanks for the calc. >> Whatever, how does that sound? Good, bad, average or to be expected? > > Very bad, my 2003 3.4lt V6 4WD Hilux averages 12.5lts/100klms. > Hopefully yours will improve when its done a few klms. It's got 17,000km on the odo now. So, it should be run in... I'll get it checked at the next service. See what the Mazda dealer has to say, etc. > D said.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's got 17,000km on the odo now. So, it should be run in... That makes it even worse. > I'll get it checked at the next service. See what the Mazda dealer has > to say, etc. Does it do a lot of short trips where it doesn't have enough time to get up to full operating temp? If thats the case there probably isn't a lot wrong with it, we owned an EF Falcon a few years ago and with the short trips of less than 5 klms that my wife did a lot of it sucked fuel as if we owned an oil company. It did better than 10lts/100klm on a long drive but around town it was terrible. Daryl >> D said.... >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Daryl May I add that this seems to be the case with my Tribute?. short trips are dynamite on the consumption, whereas a long even speed trip on the highway seems to settle it down and give what I consider good economy. I bought the Trib for its power and comfort - economy wasn't a major factor - because I would have bought a V8 model if they produced one ! cheers BrianM BrianM said.... > May I add that this seems to be the case with my Tribute?. short trips > are dynamite on the consumption, whereas a long even speed trip on the > highway seems to settle it down and give what I consider good economy. > I bought the Trib for its power and comfort - economy wasn't a major > factor - because I would have bought a V8 model if they produced one ! Pretty much my sentiments. My wife is suffering increasingly painful knees joints (arthritis). Getting in and out of the Commodore was painful for her, as was the way you sit in such cars. The Sportage was a more comfortable vehicle for her. So, when the lease ended on the Commode we looked at something like the Kia, but with more grunt. Toyotas and the like are expensive and unnecessarily larger, and Kias aren't that flash as far as quality and power goes (the Sorrento may be OK). So, it came down to the Mazda/Escape range. We got a good deal on the Tribute, paying $26k on a superceded 2006 model with a bit over 10,000km on it. > BrianM said.... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the Tribute, paying $26k on a superceded 2006 model with a bit over > 10,000km on it. that was a good price, the 2003 models are still selling for that or more. BrianM BrianM said.... >> OK). So, it came down to the Mazda/Escape range. We got a good deal on >> the Tribute, paying $26k on a superceded 2006 model with a bit over >> 10,000km on it. > > that was a good price, the 2003 models are still selling for that or > more. That's what made me snap it up. Penfold Mazda in Burwood, an inner eastern suburb of MEL had a few of them. Some were cheaper, but older and more kays, some a bit newer. We could have gotten a new one, still superceded, for $31k but it didn't have leather interior. So, for $5k less I think that we got a reasonable deal. Especially compared to purchasing a current model which would've cost us $10k more. > BrianM said.... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > less I think that we got a reasonable deal. Especially compared to > purchasing a current model which would've cost us $10k more. does it have the floor-mounted auto shift ? BrianM BrianM said.... >> and more kays, some a bit newer. We could have gotten a new one, still >> superceded, for $31k but it didn't have leather interior. So, for $5k >> less I think that we got a reasonable deal. Especially compared to >> purchasing a current model which would've cost us $10k more. > > does it have the floor-mounted auto shift ? No. As mentioned earlier, it's the superceded model. The new ones cost $10k more. Mine's an 05/06 build. D said.... > Does it do a lot of short trips where it doesn't have enough time to get > up to full operating temp? that's basically what this last tank of juice was used doing - trips to work and back (20 km of mostly 100 km/h road) and short trips shopping, etc. I've seen it get closer to 10l/100km on longer journeys, where the car's doing 110-120 km/h on cruise control. Certainly it seems to be a bit thirstier than the car that it replaced, a VXII Commodore SS. (6sp man.). thats not real good, my 4.8 petrol patrol gives me around 18L/100 km around town and around 15L/100km Highway > Just filled the Mazda up. It's its first fill of just work/going down > the street commuting. At 297km it took around 52 litres. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Escape. 2 years older though (04). He says that when towing his boat, it > makes a Mack truck look like a Toyota Prius... > thats not real good, my 4.8 petrol patrol gives me around 18L/100 km around > town and around 15L/100km Highway and even worse it's a Nissan :) Kev Dunno Kev owned a toyota turbo diesel last 4wd, slow and gutless, dont mind paying for the fuel for the 4.8 atleast when I put my foot down something happens right away not the next day, you keep buying them over priced toyotas TW, and leave the value for money nissans for the rest of us poorer truck wits. Yobbo >> thats not real good, my 4.8 petrol patrol gives me around 18L/100 km >> around town and around 15L/100km Highway [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kev "Bludge" <bludge@nospam.com> wrote in message news:... >> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:12:55 +1000, Emjaye wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Sad, my 2004 4.7 v8 cruiser 13.5 ltrs per 100 on a run (loaded) and 16 > ltrs per 10 in town, with lead foot. That is per 100 > Bludge |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.