Aurion average fuel consumption approximation

[tekkyy]

yeah we don't go on the freeway much

though I am hopeful it'll continue to drop and end up about 11L/100km

[PaulMT]

I think the one thing that is being over looked here is the fuel you fill up with. Without any doubt the higher the octane rating the better your fuel consumption will be.

In New Zealand the highest we have is 95 octane unleaded. Shell have introduced "Vortex" which is 95 and has an injector cleaning additive they claim adds to performance although they don't make any consumption saving claims (for the obvious reasons)

I have a dual Shell\Caltex fuel card and so only ever use these two brands and I only use "Super" at Caltex or Vortex at Shell.

My average weekly mileage is 730km. I fill up at least twice a week. MY driving conditions are, (average) 50km per day on the motorway the balance around town, in traffic jams, sitting at lights or stop start at under 60km p/hr speeds.

I go away on long out of town trips 6 times a year.

Reading the consumption shown on the fuel cards invoice/statement, I am rarely above 10.1l p/100kmfor the month, and often below. 95% of the time I use the sequential shift in a manual type mode, I use this to engine brake and to ensure the car always has the revs required to manoeuvre without labouring and to get maximum performance. I drive smoothly but I am quick, I have a busy business day so I can't just cruise, but I look ahead, I don't plant my foot then slam the brakes on, I keep it smooth as I said.

So, my figures are accurate as they are done at the point of sale and totalled monthly; the in car consumption read-out is matching the data so it appears that is giving a fairly accurate read-out.

My suggestions are (and I'm not claiming any superiority or trying to teach any of you how to suck eggs) based on my results with this car (SX6)

- Use ONLY the highest octane you can buy. (It's a false economy to think cheaper at the pump is cheaper in the long run - it isn't!)

- Keep wheel balance, and alignments exact (have the car fixed if the alignment goes out, don't just leave it or compensate your driving)

- Keep your tyre pressures exact to the manufacturers requirement (or a bit harder if you like, but not softer)

- Drive smoothly, fast up to the limits, yes no problem, but look ahead, see what's going on so your not making sharp changes

- Use the sequential to slow the car and achieve the revs required for the engine to work smoothly without multiple gear changing

I hope this helps, I am off on holiday for the next two weeks with a lot of driving towing a Jayco caravan, so I am sure that will push consumption up; but it will be worth it :-)

Edited January 6, 2009 by PaulMT

[Sera30]

I think the one thing that is being over looked here is the fuel you fill up with. Without any doubt the higher the octane rating the better your fuel consumption will be.

In New Zealand the highest we have is 95 octane unleaded. Shell have introduced "Vortex" which is 95 and has an injector cleaning additive they claim adds to performance although they don't make any consumption saving claims (for the obvious reasons)

I have a dual Shell\Caltex fuel card and so only ever use these two brands and I only use "Super" at Caltex or Vortex at Shell.

My average weekly mileage is 730km. I fill up at least twice a week. MY driving conditions are, (average) 50km per day on the motorway the balance around town, in traffic jams, sitting at lights or stop start at under 60km p/hr speeds.

I go away on long out of town trips 6 times a year.

Reading the consumption shown on the fuel cards invoice/statement, I am rarely above 10.1l p/100kmfor the month, and often below. 95% of the time I use the sequential shift in a manual type mode, I use this to engine brake and to ensure the car always has the revs required to manoeuvre without labouring and to get maximum performance. I drive smoothly but I am quick, I have a busy business day so I can't just cruise, but I look ahead, I don't plant my foot then slam the brakes on, I keep it smooth as I said.

So, my figures are accurate as they are done at the point of sale and totalled monthly; the in car consumption read-out is matching the data so it appears that is giving a fairly accurate read-out.

My suggestions are (and I'm not claiming any superiority or trying to teach any of you how to suck eggs) based on my results with this car (SX6)

- Use ONLY the highest octane you can buy. (It's a false economy to think cheaper at the pump is cheaper in the long run - it isn't!)

- Keep wheel balance, and alignments exact (have the car fixed if the alignment goes out, don't just leave it or compensate your driving)

- Keep your tyre pressures exact to the manufacturers requirement (or a bit harder if you like, but not softer)

- Drive smoothly, fast up to the limits, yes no problem, but look ahead, see what's going on so your not making sharp changes

- Use the sequential to slow the car and achieve the revs required for the engine to work smoothly without multiple gear changing

I hope this helps, I am off on holiday for the next two weeks with a lot of driving towing a Jayco caravan, so I am sure that will push consumption up; but it will be worth it :-)

very interesting, thanks for the tips PaulMT

enjoy your hols

[NOEL GORDON]

im sorry, but i have GREAT trouble believing that those 'vortex' things work...

if you think it works, then good for you, but i just cant see how it could decrease your consumption...

i must say though that 12-13l/100km is a LOT for a non trd for city driving...

Hi All

I had one of those 'vortex' things on my Avalon for one week, before taking it back for a refund.

Seems to me that it actually gave more power (or did the right foot go down more?).at low speed. I believe it moved response to down low, but it seemed to drop off over say 80kmh.

And it seemed to me that the motor actually used a hollow-tooth-full of oil, which it hadn't done previously, or since. Could it have generated higher vacuum/suction - or something?

My Series 2 Avalon does around 12l/100km around town and drops to 9-10 on the open road, at legal speeds. It recorded 9.1 on a return trip, Newcastle-Canberra on freeways/motorways and around Canberra.

Zero-ise the computer readout on the run, on the F3 and it comes in at 8.1l/100k's, so long as you get a smooth run, the latter not easy these days! But then, it is lighter than the Aurion.

CHEERS

NOEL GORDON

[NOEL GORDON]

im sorry, but i have GREAT trouble believing that those 'vortex' things work...

if you think it works, then good for you, but i just cant see how it could decrease your consumption...

i must say though that 12-13l/100km is a LOT for a non trd for city driving...

Hi All

I had one of those 'vortex' things on my Avalon for one week, before taking it back for a refund.

Seems to me that it actually gave more power (or did the right foot go down more?).at low speed. I believe it moved response to down low, but it seemed to drop off over say 80kmh.

And it seemed to me that the motor actually used a hollow-tooth-full of oil, which it hadn't done previously, or since. Could it have generated higher vacuum/suction - or something?

My Series 2 Avalon does around 12l/100km around town and drops to 9-10 on the open road, at legal speeds. It recorded 9.1 on a return trip, Newcastle-Canberra on freeways/motorways and around Canberra.

Zero-ise the computer readout on the run, on the F3 and it comes in at 8.1l/100k's, so long as you get a smooth run, the latter not easy these days! But then, it is lighter than the Aurion.

CHEERS

NOEL GORDON

[Supercharged TRD]

Wow, some of you must be REALLY lead-footed.

You're telling me. LOL. I just can't help it. Anyways, I would hate to think what my fuel consumption would be like if I had the TRD. Speaking of TRD, I see you are sporting some new decals underneath your side mirrors. Saw you parked near the cinemas last night.

Hi D

Sorry for the late reply....yes I bought those decals off http://www.bladerunnergraphics.com/stickers/index.html they've got a massive selection there.

[AUR30N]

O.k,

So far done 2 tank fulls of 70 litres

1 tank was freeway driving to the south coast barely no traffic 620km since the fuel light came on.

1 tank was traffic driving suburbs 512km since the fuel light came on.

I have to keep in mind too aircon on all the time

not good fuel economy

[David the Viking]

If you filled up not long after the fuel light came on you should have only needed around 55 litres. The tanks capacity is 70 litres. So taking this into consideration you have actually had quite reasonable fuel economy.

[AUR30N]

If you filled up not long after the fuel light came on you should have only needed around 55 litres. The tanks capacity is 70 litres. So taking this into consideration you have actually had quite reasonable fuel economy.

o.k so there is 15 litre safety net from when the light comes on?

[PaulMT]

O.k,

So far done 2 tank fulls of 70 litres

1 tank was freeway driving to the south coast barely no traffic 620km since the fuel light came on.

1 tank was traffic driving suburbs 512km since the fuel light came on.

I have to keep in mind too aircon on all the time

not good fuel economy

So, you have 140litres over two fills

You travelled 1132Km

Add approx, 30Km for travel available after light displays = 1162Km

divided by the litres = 8.3l\100km

That is amazingly VERY GOOD fuel economy for a 3.5litre V6 204KW car in anyones language.

I actually get more like 20-30k from the safety so the above is conservative.

There are many Aurion drivers here that will be envious of your fuel consumption, why do you not think that is good?

[boxerboy]

given 620 + 512 total ks = 1132ks...before the light comes on.

therefore 2 tanks to the light on (presuming 10 litres left) = 60litres x 2 =120litres

total use 1132/120=9.4ks per litre. 100ks/9.4 = 10.6litres/100ks.

town use 512/60=8.53ks/litre. 100ks/8.53=11.72l/100ks

hwy use 620/60=10.3ks/litre. 100ks/10.3=9.7l/100ks.

Am I confusing the calcs here?

PaulMT..I think your calcs are ks/litre, not litre/100k.

o.k so there is 15 litre safety net from when the light comes on?

I thought it was 10litres left? My calcs above rely on this number.

If it is 15, then my numbers above will be even better.

eg total ks 1132/110litres = 10.2. 100/10.2= 9.7litres/100ks

Edited January 29, 2009 by boxerboy

[2008camrydriver]

Im jealous , I'm driving a 1996 4cyl Carmy and with 90% city driving I get about 11.5 l / 100 klms.

I usually return 10 l/100km in my 96 v6 Camry.

[Freddo]

I get only 400kms until the light comes on. 80% city driving. what's the deal? can I get it retuned?

should I reset the ecu?

[Blinkybill]

I get only 400kms until the light comes on. 80% city driving. what's the deal? can I get it retuned?

should I reset the ecu?

Harsh reality unfortunately. We are doing 100% city driving. Sydney suburban driving max 60km/hr. Getting 15L/100km. Aurion's not meant to be a pure city car. We have to live with it.

[BanHien]

I have posted my first 5,000 kms elsewhere using Shell (no choice), most of the time using 98RON. Now my car ODO is over 42,500kms and last month I travelled long distance a lot - my best reading: 6.6l/100kms I took a photo on my phone but no cable to transfer to a PC, normally around 7.1 to 7.7l/100kms with air-cond. I will post my last month usage later.

<i>BH</i>

[DJKOR]

Just to keep this thread alive and to do one more update before the drive to Melbourne, here are my current figures:

Aurion Fuel Consumption (Excel Spreadsheet)

- At 4010km, my total fuel used was 417.14L and my average fuel consumption was 10.4L/100km

- At 8385km, my total fuel used was 907.83L and my average fuel consumption was 10.8L/100km

- At 12781km, my total fuel used was 1420.46L and my average fuel consumption was 11.1L/100km

- At 15716km, my total fuel used was 1772.86L and my average fuel consumption was 11.28L/100km

- At 18333km, my total fuel used was 2089.2L and my average fuel consumption was 11.4L/100km

- At 21099km, my total fuel used was 2432.43L and my average fuel consumption was 11.53L/100km

- At 22735km, my total fuel used was 2635.44L and my average fuel consumption was 11.59L/100km

- At 24285km, my total fuel used was 2833.42L and my average fuel consumption was 11.67L/100km

- At 30048km, my total fuel used was 3503.85L and my average fuel consumption was 11.66L/100km

- At 34235km, my total fuel used was 3951.27L and my average fuel consumption was 11.54L/100km

- At 38597km, my total fuel used was 4457.73L and my average fuel consumption was 11.55L/100km

[SecaBoy]

are the NA engines the same as the S/C engines, where they are pretty fuel economical if driven sedately, but then they just chomp through the fuel if thrashed?

just curious what people are experiencing...

[DJKOR]

are the NA engines the same as the S/C engines, where they are pretty fuel economical if driven sedately, but then they just chomp through the fuel if thrashed?

just curious what people are experiencing...

You would think that would be the case (ie. no boost until required), but even when driven sedately, the TRD will still use up more fuel (even by a small amount), getting closer to the efficiency of the N/A Aurion when going on the highway.

I believe the TRD is always running some boost and only bypasses this when it is cruising on the highway. This is so when you drive it around start/stop, you get that little bit of extra torque down real low.

But in a way, as long as you drive it sedately, it will remain pretty fuel efficient.

[SecaBoy]

the reason i ask is because, if i drive it like a grandpa, i'll get around 10.5lt/100km..

but then if i thrash it for most of the tank, i'll be getting around 18-19lt/100km...

to me, thats a HUGE difference...

so i was just wondering if the NA engines are the same... ie, 8lt/100km when driven like a grandpa, and then 16lt/100km when thrashed...

[DJKOR]

the reason i ask is because, if i drive it like a grandpa, i'll get around 10.5lt/100km..

but then if i thrash it for most of the tank, i'll be getting around 18-19lt/100km...

to me, thats a HUGE difference...

so i was just wondering if the NA engines are the same... ie, 8lt/100km when driven like a grandpa, and then 16lt/100km when thrashed...

Gotta love English, so many ways to interpret things.

For the N/A Aurion, it takes some pretty serious thrashing to get it up to really high levels. To get it up to the 16L/100km mark for example, you'd need to be doing a hard paced Nebo run, and that's mainly just an average for that time. I'm managed to use one tank of fuel on two Nebo run, a Coot-tha run, and my everyday hoon driving in general, and my tank average was 13.5L/100km. I'm guessing the TRD uses up WAY more fuel because of the fact that there is no intercooling and it loves to run rich, because with that much fuel usage, you'd expect a little more power.

I've managed to get one tank average down to 9L/100km though so it can be pretty fuel efficient if you try. It was a tough week and I had to make my fuel last. Under normal conditions, that's not happening again.

This 1700km trip to Melbourne will be monitored and I'll be posting back with the results.

[whitestivo]

i was driving a certain blue aurion the weekend and was astounded the readout said 9.1 average.

18-19, youch.

whitestivo

[SecaBoy]

yeah, the trd can be a thirsty fu(ker... :(

i was just astonished as to how it could differ so greatly, from grandpa to thrashing...

the worst i've ever had by the end of a tank was 21lt/100km... and that was a lot of thrashing and start stop driving...

any other trd owners wanna comment on their ranges of consumption??

[Speedz]

damn i so wanna get a TRD!

[SecaBoy]

hahaha, was that a hint of sarcasm that i detect?

[Speedz]

flap u Secaboy :P

nah i really want a TRD, probably will trade in my Prodigy next year for a 3000S...