Blinkybill

Seems a bit excessive to me , I only use my aircon on hot days or when my windscreen fogs up in winter. Blame it on the wife not liking car fumes.

A big thanks to Shane_85 on his suggestion of Tridon wipers. Got them from Supercheapauto with a 20% off voucher, came to about $10.50 for set of rubber refills. The curved metal inserts fitted into the rubber exactly and only had to cut one of them off shorter. Wiping fine and much cheaper than any other option.

No, you are getting spot on what we get in Sydney, all urban driving with air con on pretty much 100% of the time.

Where does this come from? Can I take this to my Toyota Dealer and say that is how much you should charge me.

Just for a laugh, I decided to phone up Toyota to parts department the price for a set of Aurion wipers blades. Answer from Toyota: $44 Me: You mean that's for a set right, two blades. Toyota: No that's each. $88 for a set. At this point I bit my tongue. I was going to add in the next sentence. Me: You've got to be joking, that's a friggin rip off. Will check out the Tridon wiper blades recommended earlier in post.

That's true they can squeak when new. But if you persevere for a bit, they then settle in and then they actually last a really long time. I've had a set of graphite ones in my car which 6 months down the track are already streaking. On another car, a set of silicone ones were still better 2 years down the track.

My wipers are now close to 3 years old and definitely need replacing. I usually go with some of the silicone wiper blades (but only the clear ones) which I have found wipe well and last for a long time. HOWEVER, Toyota have been very shafty with the Aurion, they fashion the metal clasp/claw on each end of the wiper to such that these generic wiper blade refills can't lock in. First time I've seen it. Now I'm stuck with getting Toyota original blades. Does anyone know the cost. Bosch ones would be ok but at $65 off ebay the cost is a bit extreme.

Does anyone know how to get the wipers off the arms on the Aurion. I want to replace the blades with a set I've bought and can't seem to figure it out. They are different to the last 2 cars which were just standard. Would appreciate any advice from someone who's done it before.

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.

I rang my Toyota Dealer and explained the car has done 4000km since 6 months ago and he basically said that the service letter sent was an automated one, and that the Aurion only requires a yearly service and should be fine to wait another 6 months.

When I said 2 year mark, I mean my car is 18 months old. It was serviced at 12 months of age. I was planning to do it again at 2 years of age, but now at 18 months, they have sent us a reminder to do a service. Should I leave it as I planned for another 6 months if the car is running fine?

Resurrecting an old thread. I tend to service the Aurion as specified every 12 months or 15,000km. We did the first at 12 months (not counting the 1000km one). Our dealership has sent us a reminder 6 months later. I was not planning on servicing until 1 year later. I thought this was for severe cases. The car however is a city car, mostly stop start suburban driving. Is it fine to wait for the 2 year mark? I have an older car which is meant to have 6 month 10000km service intervals so I tend to do it more frequently in that car. I've always been told that oil etc should be changed more frequently than every 12 months but I have just been going by the toyota manual.

My bad, I was looking a your post and disregarded the fact that you were quoting TRD AURION OWNER. I too am getting similar 14-15L/100km but on the Aurion but our car gets next to no freeway.

I'm not sure if you guys with a trip computer have an average speed reading but I think even if you are calculating manually this would give a good idea of the kind of driving that you are doing. Sera709 it's clear that if you are doing 300-400 km every 4 days, then I'd think that some of that would have to be freeway driving, (unless you're spending 2 hours each way driving to and from work) I think people who are averaging 14-15 L/km will probably be doing true city only driving and that might be demonstrated by an average speed of 25-30km/hr over a tank. Whilst people who consistently claim to be getting 9-11L/km are probably getting closer to 40-50km/hr average speed over a tank.

You want to define Sydney City driving. I'll do it for you. Chatswood to Rockdale. 30 km taking 1 1/2 hours. Would love to see what fuel economy your Aurion would get doing MY city driving.

I'll stand corrected on that point. You do wonder though if it has such an accurate way of measuring fuel consumption why that doesn't tie into the way it records residual fuel in the tank rather than the inaccurate resistor. Given that your trip from Mount Victoria to M4 is a signficant downhill stretch perhaps your figure is closer to the mark. I will raise up a few points though. Statistically, if you thought filling up to the 1st click was inaccurate, you'd expect the reading of litres used to go both ways. Sometimes better sometimes worse. Given that Tekkyy's manual fuel consumption is only one way (always worse than the computer), I'd say there is a trip computer error there too. Anyway, all of this goes to say, as the last poster said. There is no harm in you one day verifying on your downhill stretch during first 50km of your trip with a manual calculation. Do it one day and perhaps we'll add to our investigation.

I'll just give you some reasons why I think a manual calculation will always be better than your trip computer. 1. The fuel guage. Fuel guages are notoriously inaccurate. Have a read of this http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-gauge.htm The car trip computer uses the same system to read the amount of fuel as your fuel guage does and trust me it is not accurate and "linear". Your fuel tank is not a standard geometric shape. If your car is like most cars, the fuel guage takes longer to go down from full than it does somewhere round the middle. This due to the mechanics of the fuel guage sensor and the shape of your tank. Therefore your trip computer will underread your fuel consumption during that time. Obviously this is when it is giving you your miraculous fuel consumption figures. 2. The trip computer. Have you noticed how all of Tekkyy's readings are always on the optimistic side, none of them showed the computer's reading to be worse than manual calculation. Toyota has a vested interest to make you think the fuel consumption is slightly better than it is. It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling and keeps you happy with Toyota. Your other comments, yes I think your fuel tank should click off the fuel pump at the bowser at the same level of fill every time you fill up. Yes I think that the calibration of fuel bowsers is fairly accurate. It is regulated, I think, just like the scales at Coles which measure your vegetables. How often it is checked I don't know. I don't have a trip computer on my Aurion, but I know from a Mazda I own that even with daily identical driving, for the first 100km or so, the trip computer may give me a fuel reading of 6.8L/100km, but by the end of a tank the fuel economy will always be about 8.0-8.3 on the computer and closer to 8.5L manually calculated. I see that also with the fuel guage hardly moving off full for the first 100km but then falling more steeply. If you don't believe me, please do try the manual method ie fill to 1st click, reset tripmeter. Refill again to 1st click after your first 75 km and calculate your fuel economy, litres divided by km travelled then multiply by 100. It won't be 5.0. I'm guessing closer to 7.5-8.5. I stand corrected if you do this and it's different.

Just had the dash rattle in our Aurion fixed at Stewart Toyota Rockdale Sydney, where we bought the car. They had preordered whatever clips they needed to replace. Seems to be a standard fix now that is known to Toyota. It helped that when I booked it in they had an Aurion in that day that they were fixing the rattle in. Dash rattle is gone. Hope it lasts.

You guys who think that you are actually getting 4.5L/100km or 5.7L/100km by relying on the car trip computer in the first 50km of a tank after a refill I think are a bit naive. We can see from Tekkyy's results how the trip computer readings are overly optimistic at the best of times and to trust a reading when the fuel guage has barely moved off full is just wrong. If you really want to find out the truth, then do a refill from a servo after 50km, but please don't trust the trip computer.

Has anyone noticed funny behaviour of their air conditioning and ventilation settings. We have an ATX with MANUAL air conditioning. We have noted intermittently that the same settings eg fresh vs recycled air is not being maintained when you switch off the engine and then come back to the car later and restart the engine. More concerning, is that occasionally when you restart the car after having had the A/C on, there is no air blowing. Turning the fan speed off then back on does not work. Finally pushing the air conditioning button on and off finally restores the air blowing. Most of the time it functions normally ie retaining settings and air conditioning comes on immediately if it was on when the car was switched off. Toyota will look at this when we take the car in this week to pull the dash apart to fix the dash rattle.

It's funny how now with time, we are starting to see people who say with just city driving 20 min trips from suburb to suburb that they are averaging 14-15L/100km. If that had been the case, when I started this thread I wouldn't have been too concerned something was wrong with my car. I must say, I've learned a lesson about 6 cylinder cars and city driving. Too bad with fuel prices the way they are, they are now saying when it comes time to offload your Commodore, Falcon, Aurion, 380, we'll all get next to nothing for them.

Blinky I have never had this problem at all my mate has a magna sports that I found does exactly as you said hence i was hesitant in buying a car with a sequential but with the AurionI find it to be extremly responsive and it always goes to the gear i want it to....... Unless you are doing something really stupid like changing to first @ 100km/h I don't think you quite understand how the Aurion Sports mode works. First of all read the manual. It explains it. Put in on 6 and it will use all the gears. Put in on 5 and it will use gears 1-5. Put in on 4 and it will use gears 1-4. 3 = gears 1-3 etc. This is fine for accelerating off a start. You start off in 1 and move it to 2 when you want the Aurion to move to 2nd gear. The reason you control the gearing is that normally you do this when you are revving up the engine say to 4000-5000 rpm. Left to its own devices, the Auto would have already changed to 2nd gear but instead holds onto 1st gear because you have limited it by selecting 1. When you select 2, you finally allow it to move to 2nd gear. It just like the old old Auto transmissions. You know the one that had D, 3, 2, L. The Aurion transmission does the same. If you choose 4 for example, the Auto will still choose the best gear of 1-4 but won't go above 4. Don't believe me, try this. Put the car in 4 and then drive and come to a complete stop. Then start off. You are in fact pulling in 1st gear even though it says 4. Other sequential sports mode transmissions of which I only have experience of the Mazda 6, if you choose 4, you are in fact in 4th gear regardless of your speed. If you come to a complete stop or nearly a stop, you won't have enough power to pull off in 4th gear. This is just like a manual car. You can't pull off from 4th gear in a manual.

I think you guys should really try to verify these trip computer results by manually calculating. I know on my other car a Mazda 6, the car can give fuel economy figures after about 100-200km into a tank of 6.5-7.0L/100km that on verifying manually at the end of a tank is always more like 8.0L/100km. Congratulations about achieving this result but beware, you may be being fooled.

All cars are probably at their most efficient at about 80-90km/h. This is simply due to design and gearing. Having cars at their most efficient at 110km/hr would simply mean that you'd get worse economy at the 50-60km/hr that you normally drive. The higher you go about 90km/hr the more fuel will get used.

I think we will find that there is a huge difference in Insurance Premiums depending on where you live. I think all you guys who live in other states besides NSW will be the ones paying $500-700. Living here in suburban Sydney, I know after having hunted through various companies that the quotes are around $700-$1100 with Rating 1. More cars on the road in NSW, more chance of accident, ? higher rate of theft.