Australian Drivers Are Ignoring LPG

[cindyandwayne]

We had our 4WD converted to gas, huge mistake. uses twice as much gas to fuel, no savings, maintenance of the vehicle doubled, just in maintaining the gas system, gas leaks have been a night mare, loss of power, I would never do this again, give me diesel any day.

[z80]

Originally Posted by zetec

How do you explain my 12.5L/100 average in a 2,000km old FG Falcon XR6 Turbo then?

Pfffft. Must be bulldust. I'll book you in for an appointment with my trip computer.

22 Miles per gallon in an XR6T around town?

Maybe...if you are driving on the flat, with a tailwind and less than 2000rpm constant...and never using the boost.

[RG]

Originally Posted by z80

22 Miles per gallon in an XR6T around town?

Maybe...if you are driving on the flat, with a tailwind and less than 2000rpm constant...and never using the boost.

So I take it you have personally been in this vehicle with this member and that is the reason you know it not to be true?

I really am sick of the attitudes of some in here.

[z80]

Originally Posted by RG

So I take it you have personally been in this vehicle with this member and that is the reason you know it not to be true?

I really am sick of the attitudes of some in here.

Nope.

But have driven the same model vehicle for a few tankloads of fuel and couldn't get anywhere near the fuel economy he described.

So...I courteously offered a plausible set of circumstances in his defense.


Have YOU driven with him and can attest to his claims?

[RG]

Originally Posted by z80

Nope.

But have driven the same model vehicle for a few tankloads of fuel and couldn't get anywhere near the fuel economy he described.

So...I courteously offered a plausible set of circumstances in his defense.


Have YOU driven with him and can attest to his claims?

No, but I'm not the one claiming to know better than him am I?

This thread is about LPG anyway, so let's get back on topic before we both receive alerts/warnings.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

The public are fools. That's ok, more LPG for me.

The main reason why so many of the public shun LPG are the four main myths:
It'll use twice as much LPG as petrol, meaning no savings
It'll explode
It'll sap my power to a point where i no longer enjoy driving
The payback period is almost forever

My aversions are the halitosis smell, the dirty big cylinder, increased servicing (?), the perceived hassle of filling up and sheer laziness. If I ran dual fuel is the additional weight noticeable on eonomy?

[Mr Hardware]

My aversions are the halitosis smell, the dirty big cylinder, increased servicing (?), the perceived hassle of filling up and sheer laziness. If I ran dual fuel is the additional weight noticeable on eonomy?

Ok, those are pretty much all valid points. Personally i like the smell, much more than i like the smell of petrol, let alone diseasel. Yep the cylinder can be a concern for some people. Increased servicing is a give and take thing, ie more often spark plug and lead changes, far less often exhaust system changes. Percieved hassle of filling up? I actually find it easier. Screw it on, clamp the handle on and walk away. Additional weight comes in at about 85kg for full tank and all, so not really. Maybe .2ltr/100klms?

Oh and russellw's stats don't include the fact that most LPG vehicles are not bought new with LPG but converted aftermarket for various reasons.

[PepeLePew]

I dont usually think much of my cylinder, and usually think the publics worry about it are unfounded.

However it put a scare up me the other day when I spotted a car side of Pt Wakefield Rd that had a SEVERE rear ender. Under the same circumstances, my cylinder would be in my back seat. Now while my kids dont travel in my car generally.....how would I feel if that happened to me and they WERE loaded in there? That big hard article makes a joke of the crumple zone?

Yes the fuel tank might have ruptured in a petrol only car, but it likely wouldnt have snapped their spines.

[Mr Hardware]

Well Pepe back in the old days when EFs and ELs were cabs, we had a few instances of really severe rear enders, one in particular was in a 70 zone where a Landcruiser with a bullbar slammed into the back of a stationary cab. Completely wrote off the car, you know, crumpled the roof a bit and couldn't open the rear doors, all of that. LPG cylinder didn't move too much really, maybe 10cm and wasn't damaged at all. Crash was so violent the cabbie got a nice payout a couple of years later and was never seen or heard from again.

So the saying goes with cylinder tanks, if you're in a crash severe enough to rupture the tank you're dead from the crash anyway.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Well Pepe back in the old days when EFs and ELs were cabs, we had a few instances of really severe rear enders, one in particular was in a 70 zone where a Landcruiser with a bullbar slammed into the back of a stationary cab. Completely wrote off the car, you know, crumpled the roof a bit and couldn't open the rear doors, all of that. LPG cylinder didn't move too much really, maybe 10cm and wasn't damaged at all. Crash was so violent the cabbie got a nice payout a couple of years later and was never seen or heard from again.

So the saying goes with cylinder tanks, if you're in a crash severe enough to rupture the tank you're dead from the crash anyway.

I quite doubt that an EF/EL whose body shape and structure date back to the EA can be compared cruple zone wise to an 09 build vehicle.

Passenger safety and crumple zones have come a very long way in that time.

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by RG

I quite doubt that an EF/EL whose body shape and structure date back to the EA can be compared cruple zone wise to an 09 build vehicle.

Passenger safety and crumple zones have come a very long way in that time.

Yep you're quite right. The EF/EL is a dinosaur in comparison to modern cars. I have faith that a modern car okayed for LPG would be ok.

[PepeLePew]

Yeah dont recall what style of vehicle I saw, I just noticed the rear was shoved right in to the rear window. The front compartment looked intact.

Anyway, score 1 for myth or otherwise, public have a fear of LPG cylinders.

[eb2fairmont]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

Rubbish.

Mixer-based conversions can be had for under $3000 which will leave you less than $1250 out of pocket after the rebate.

Care to tell me how you got PAID to convert your XF ute to LPG???

Regards,
Dave

Brought the ute which was already converted. Simple really. But given that the ute only does about 5-6K per year why would I bother to convert it in the first place?



But anyway, thanks for the correction on the price.

[XRtowcar]

Had the BA XR6 converted in June.
Used to get 10.5-11/100 normally.
Getting 13/100 on LPG with liquid injetcion setup.
Minor cold running issue so far was caused by poor contact of coil wire with sparkplugs.
Now fixed.
Hope to get slightly better economy as this is about 20% higher consumption than petrol.
No other issues as car dosen't feel any different to drive on LPG to petrol.

[HSE2]

Would LPG help or hinder global warming?

[Stoney!]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Stoney, i have an 08 Triton TuboDiseasel work truck. That ain't amazing driveability. And 12L/100klms mixed driving! With no load! What a joke!
If diseasels were fantastically economical you'd see the worlds biggest tightarses using them, ie taxi operators. That just doesn't happen, because it's not true. LPG is king and always will be king for people who want the lowest TCO.

And diseasels would do a lot better if they didn't sound like they had a timing chain rattle, rooted bearings and several knocks all at once. In short, diseasels sound shitty, have no go unless you've got a snail strapped to it and still chew through enough fuel to make you cry at the pump.

Wow you really are living in the dark ages aren't you, a friend of mind just bought a Mk 6 gold diesel, you can barely hear a thing inside, and just like petrol the more cylinders the more refined they sound.

Your highly mistaken if you think you can compare a commercial diesel engine to passenger car engines to win a debate.

BMW 535D

Fuel Cons (L/100k's):

Urban: 9
City: 6.7
Average: 5.4

Power: 210kw @ 4400rpm
Torque: 280nm @ 1750 - 2250

Weight unladen: 1735kg

0-100: 6.4 seconds

Gearbox:

Engine size: 2993cc (3 litre)

Prett awesome for a 3 litre inline 6 turbo diesel, Can't argue the power and performance figures when you look at the fuel consumption, and you'd barely hear it.

Stoney!

[dilox]

Hmm i thought LPG would be pretty big.. bigger than those figures any way, it seems like the way to go... isn't there some form of LPG kits you can buy the improves the performance of the LPG or something?

[Mr Hardware]

Would LPG help or hinder global warming?

Help, but only slightly.

Also stoney, to the average punter standing in a carpark, even a modern diseasel sounds terrible.

And fair call, yes you can't compare a commercial motor with a passenger car motor. Also talking about living in a different land, you mustn't be in Aus because you can't buy a 535d here. And anyway, if i could afford a 100k+ car i wouldn't give two damn hoots about fuel economy.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by z80

22 Miles per gallon in an XR6T around town?

Maybe...if you are driving on the flat, with a tailwind and less than 2000rpm constant...and never using the boost.

mate your off the mark . i know 2 people with fg xr6's both drive to work on freeways in and outside of peak hour both use cruise control . the xr6 na 5 spd is getting around 10.5 l per 100kms the xr6t 9.5 l per 100kms. bf xr6's are also very economic , the ba , not quite so .
all the figures are on petrol

[Fireblade]

My F6 gets around 12l per 100km around town most of the time, find some nice twisty roads and it gets up to 15l per 100kms. If I didn't live 5 mins from work I reckon I could have that into the 11's easily, but my BA NA XR6 gets 14.5l per 100kms constantly.

Depending on the situation defines the economy of any vehicle, My boss had a 351 F250 that he used to tow his drag car with, that was on gas and get 160kms per tank on the highway and that was a standard tank. For this situation a diseasel as you put it would be a much better option with plenty of low down torque and much better economy.

My uncle has a 2006 F250 with the 7.3l V8 Diesel turbo and that gets 15l per 100kms around the city and they are a monster truck in my book.

LPG can seriously ruin an engine if the engine isn't built for it, ask the commodore boys with their V6's, they stuff the valve seats in a big way.

I'm not against LPG but it just isn't my fuel of choice.

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by russellw

From this we can see that diesel has risen from 1% to 6.5% of sales while Hybrids started at 0.26%, peaked at 0.78% last year and are currently running at 0.63%. LPG started at 0.91%, peaked at 1.39% in 2006 and is currently running at 1.16%.

Across all segments (including SUV), diesel holds 23% of the market, Hybrids 0.45%, LPG 1.15% and petrol the rest - 75% or still 3 of every 4 cars however when we compare this to 2005 petrol vehicles made up 87.6% of all new car sales.

Why this is the case is the difficult question to answer but clearly motorists are turning to alternatives in substantial numbers. Whether these decisions are based on marketing initiatives, perception of "green" or the alignment of the planets is perhaps a question we don't have an answer to.

Cheers
Russ

I originally tried to provide a detailed answer to your question and some others, but then lost it, so here's a summary. :

LPG is an environmental winner - similar CO2 emissions to diesel, 20% less than petrol. But diesel also has a serious problem emissting nitous oxide (which produces smog) and particulates 9Whiuch cause a host of health problems including cardiovascular disease and lung cancer. Diesel is an oily dirty fuel by Europeans like it (lower taxes) and their car makers produce some wonderful hi-tech engine - that still produce ultra-fine particulates, the ones that damage health. See:
http://www.green-car-guide.com/featu...-or-hybrid.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_matter

Ford need to do the engineering work to produce a hi-tech LPG Falcon/Territory across the model range. At the moment it has lumbered the LPG Falcon with serious image problems - reliability & refueling issues, 4 speed auto, missing safety equipment. If Ford did the engineering they could proudly sell the LPG Falcon as an all-Australian response to: peak oil, climate change and local air pollution; and this could be done honestly pointing out the shortcomings of European hi-tech diesels.

Why not take advantage of LPG's high RON (up to 110 for propane, n-butane has only 91RON) and produce an engine that adapts its comprerssion up to that level - that would give more power and efficiency from LPG. Part of the efficiency trick of diesel is the high compression ratio. My Fiesta has a knock sensor and is able to adjust timing and fuel mix to operate on 91 RON fuel even though it's designed for 95 RON, the European standard. Why can't Ford Australia do something similar for LPG engines. They'd have the market to themselves, they practically do already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

I don't understand why nobody bothers to point out that diesel will be unaffordable in 10 years (if not sooner). : It is NOT a solution for Australia. Diesel is all imported, unlike LPG (we export >50%) and petrol (much still is refined here). No fuel will be in greater demand beyond "peak-oil" than diesel.

[PoweredByCNG]

Modern diesel engines emit very low NOx levels. IIRC, the Euro 4 limit for NOx is 3.5g/kWh and that applies for both diesel-cycle and spark-ignition engines. The Euro 5 limit for NOx is 2.0g/kWh.

Furthermore, it's not only the fuel that you use or the engine's operating cycle that dictates emissions output. Whereas diesel engines have fairly steady NOx outputs, petrol and LPG engines can have wildly fluctuating NOx emissions depending on state of tune. A normal spark-ignition engine that runs rich will produce minimal NOx but CO emissions (and fuel consumption) will be through the roof. The same engine running lean will produce sky-high amounts of NOx while increasing combustion temperatures.

Direct injection petrol engines suffer from the same NOx problems as diesel engines because of higher oxygen levels in the exhaust due to the lean-burn combustion concept. Higher oxygen in the exhaust = inefficient NOx oxidation.

Regards,
Dave

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Ford need to do the engineering work to produce a hi-tech LPG Falcon/Territory across the model range. At the moment it has lumbered the LPG Falcon with serious image problems - reliability & refueling issues, 4 speed auto, missing safety equipment. If Ford did the engineering they could proudly sell the LPG Falcon as an all-Australian response to: peak oil, climate change and local air pollution; and this could be done honestly pointing out the shortcomings of European hi-tech diesels.

you are aware that Ford will be releasing a liquid injected version sometime middle to late 2010 aren't you?

also regarding the current egas model, what are you basing your opinions on? first hand experience or hearsay? if you jump in one expecting a rocket ship, then sure you will be disappointed but if you accept it for what it is, it does the job with ease. my wife and mum both have driven petrol ba's and both have driven my bf2 egas and neither could tell much of a difference. they aren't out there trying to win the traffic light gp. it has plenty of get up and go, even comparable to other large cars (apart from falcon of course). never had any filling up issues or reliability issues and as for dsc in the family wagon, i've never had it in all my older cars... maybe i've just been lucky. in any case, the current egas actually does have dsc now i believe.

liquid injection has been availabe aftermarket in australia now for some time. the system available, some would argue, is the best system on the market. people who shun lpg because of power loss or excessive consumption compared to petrol just aren't up to speed on where its at.

[Stoney!]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Help, but only slightly.

Also stoney, to the average punter standing in a carpark, even a modern diseasel sounds terrible.

And fair call, yes you can't compare a commercial motor with a passenger car motor. Also talking about living in a different land, you mustn't be in Aus because you can't buy a 535d here. And anyway, if i could afford a 100k+ car i wouldn't give two damn hoots about fuel economy.

It's not to do with the price of the car or where it is, I was showing what diesels are capable of, performance wise and their amazing fuel economy.

The more people to embrace it (which many many people are) themore we will get, including diesel Commo's and falcons. The 2.9 they are looking at putting in the commodore IIRC is 185kw and 550nm..... DAMN! all with a fuel consumption also around the 6's. I'm sure the falcon Diesel will be just as fantastic.

When these models eventually arise they will be extremely popular, esspecially because alot of ppl buy Ford and Holden 6's and 8's for towing, they will be welcomed with open arms, as diesels also deal with extra weight a lot better and fuel consumption rises for towing are a much lower ratio for diesel than they are for petrol.

Stoney!

[ADSXR8]

Originally Posted by Stoney!

Wow you really are living in the dark ages aren't you, a friend of mind just bought a Mk 6 gold diesel, you can barely hear a thing inside, and just like petrol the more cylinders the more refined they sound.

Your highly mistaken if you think you can compare a commercial diesel engine to passenger car engines to win a debate.

BMW 535D

Fuel Cons (L/100k's):

Urban: 9
City: 6.7
Average: 5.4

Power: 210kw @ 4400rpm
Torque: 280nm @ 1750 - 2250

Weight unladen: 1735kg

0-100: 6.4 seconds

Gearbox:

Engine size: 2993cc (3 litre)

Prett awesome for a 3 litre inline 6 turbo diesel, Can't argue the power and performance figures when you look at the fuel consumption, and you'd barely hear it.

Stoney!

My oldies have one of these and love it. They drove petrol models for years and now will never get another.

However Stoney, your math does not equate.

Originally Posted by Stoney!

Urban: 9
City: 6.7
Average: 5.4

Average cannot be less that best result, and I would thought Urban is 6.7 and City 9. Average would be 7.8l/100km.

For the record, that is a little better than what my oldies get but the do 90% city driving.

[Director]

We have been looking at buying a new car recently and the wife was ok with keen with LPG..........until she looked in the boot

[ADSXR8]

Originally Posted by Director

We have been looking at buying a new car recently and the wife was ok with keen with LPG..........until she looked in the boot

And the problem is? On the bright side, she would spend less at the shops because there is nowhere to store it lol!

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by Director

We have been looking at buying a new car recently and the wife was ok with keen with LPG..........until she looked in the boot

You can do two things:

* Buy an E-gas Falcon, OR
* Convert using a toroidal cylinder in the spare wheel well.

Regards,
Dave

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

You can do two things:

* Buy an E-gas Falcon, OR
* Convert using a toroidal cylinder in the spare wheel well.

Regards,
Dave

Both give you the same problem, the spare wheel takes boot space away. If Ford can address this issue then it would be appealing to more people.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Stoney!

Urban: 9
City: 6.7

you do realise urban and city is the same thing don't you?

i believe manufacturers use the term 'extra urban'.