Govt: Falcon EcoLPI cheaper to run than a Golf

[Cleveland351]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/135319/f...rs-government/

Now wouldn't that make a great ad. If Ford actually decided to start to advertise the Falcon...

[FGX-351]

This is great news!

[Venomous1]

Awesome really hope these get the ATTENTION THEY DESERVE.Everybody should tell there mates and family spread the word.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Venomous1

Awesome really hope these get the ATTENTION THEY DESERVE.Everybody should tell there mates and family spread the word.

It would help even more if Ford A-D-V-E-R-T-I-S-E-D that fact but sadly,
our favorite company, FoA lives in a world where Falcon sells itself....

[new2ford]

I don't want to rain on the parade but I can see the government figures are based purely on fuel costs - which most people can't see past. The true cost of running a car is the whole-of-life operating cost which includes things like maintenance, parts, insurance, depreciation etc. I reckon I've got a good deal with my RWD TX Territory which has lower WOL costs than the I-Tech Toyota Prius - and even the LPG Falcon!

You need to look at the NRMA/RAC operating costs calculator, e.g.:

http://www.mynrma.com.au/mynrma/oper...alculator.aspx

Average weekly WOL cost:

Falcon LPG $253
VW Golf 118TSI $176
VW Golf 103TDI $175
Toyota Prius I-Tech $251
Territory TX RWD $243

If I was watching my bank account I'd be buying a Golf first, a RWD TX Territory second, a Prius third and an LPG Falcon last!

The best thing about the LPG Falcon is that it runs on a sustainable locally-produced fuel, better for the country's energy-security and reducing dependence on middle-east oil. Ford should extend the LPG option to all its other cars. But lets not kid ourselves that there's a cost benefit.

[Fairlane]

It would be nice if we could actually get one. Thinking of selling my G6ET for an XR6 Eco LPI ute. But stock has been delayed again.

[Gobes32]

Why on earth would the LPG Falcon be so high? It has near the same parts, rrp and maintenance costs as the Territory. If anything, I would almost have sworn the territory would be dearer.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Why on earth would the LPG Falcon be so high? It has near the same parts, rrp and maintenance costs as the Territory. If anything, I would almost have sworn the territory would be dearer.

Does the LPG system require extra servicing / inspections for certification????

Also, does the weekly running costs include depreciation? Perhaps they have pinned that figure against the usual FG petrol model? But then that poses another question, does the Tezza or the Falcon depreciate more?

Does seem odd however.

[new2ford]

OK mea culpa - I accidentally picked the XR6 LPG. The XT LPG is $240 a week. That difference may be explained by insurance and depreciation perhaps. The petrol XT is listed at $252 and the fuel cost may be a factor there.

The NRMA figures are based on a lot of factors determined by service, repair and insurance industry feedback among others. They can be taken with a pinch of salt but are a good broad guideline. Perhaps service and maintenance costs for gas are higher?

But no way can anyone kid themselves they'd be financially better off in a gas Falcon than a Golf! Choosing a car is usually more a case of other lifestyle factors such as how much kids, luggage, towing etc you need to do, you pay for what you need.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by new2ford

I don't want to rain on the parade but I can see the government figures are based purely on fuel costs - which most people can't see past. The true cost of running a car is the whole-of-life operating cost which includes things like maintenance, parts, insurance, depreciation etc. I reckon I've got a good deal with my RWD TX Territory which has lower WOL costs than the I-Tech Toyota Prius - and even the LPG Falcon!

You need to look at the NRMA/RAC operating costs calculator, e.g.:

http://www.mynrma.com.au/mynrma/oper...alculator.aspx

Average weekly WOL cost:

Falcon LPG $253
VW Golf 118TSI $176
VW Golf 103TDI $175
Toyota Prius I-Tech $251
Territory TX RWD $243

If I was watching my bank account I'd be buying a Golf first, a RWD TX Territory second, a Prius third and an LPG Falcon last!

The best thing about the LPG Falcon is that it runs on a sustainable locally-produced fuel, better for the country's energy-security and reducing dependence on middle-east oil. Ford should extend the LPG option to all its other cars. But lets not kid ourselves that there's a cost benefit.

Would this tested Falcon be the new ECOLPi or the old EGAS? The new ECOLPi has a 6 speed auto not the old clunker 4 speed.

[new2ford]

^^
That's another question - unclear. Sometimes there is a time delay before new models are assessed. The diesel Territorys aren't listed yet. I'd be surprised if there was a big difference between the old and new Falcon though - slightly better fuel consumption would not make a great difference to a WOL figure, fuel being a minority factor in operating costs.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Why on earth would the LPG Falcon be so high? It has near the same parts, rrp and maintenance costs as the Territory. If anything, I would almost have sworn the territory would be dearer.

Yes but like many all you see is that LPG is cheaper than petrol so logically everything else must be cheaper, mustn't it?

There is gas involved so there is extra engineering required.
It is a new technology so therefore will have an amortisation component.

If you take a step back and remove the "ecolpi coloured glasses" you will see that there is more to operating a vehicle than just sticking fuel in it.

The ironic part of all the yet unproven claims is the staunch belief that ecolpi will have better resale than the equivalent petrol when the potential market for it is a group of people who are more interested in paying the lowest amount of money than anything else.

[mik]

Originally Posted by new2ford

I don't want to rain on the parade but I can see the government figures are based purely on fuel costs - which most people can't see past. The true cost of running a car is the whole-of-life operating cost which includes things like maintenance, parts, insurance, depreciation etc. I reckon I've got a good deal with my RWD TX Territory which has lower WOL costs than the I-Tech Toyota Prius - and even the LPG Falcon!

You need to look at the NRMA/RAC operating costs calculator, e.g.:

http://www.mynrma.com.au/mynrma/oper...alculator.aspx

Average weekly WOL cost:

Falcon LPG $253
VW Golf 118TSI $176
VW Golf 103TDI $175
Toyota Prius I-Tech $251
Territory TX RWD $243

If I was watching my bank account I'd be buying a Golf first, a RWD TX Territory second, a Prius third and an LPG Falcon last!

The best thing about the LPG Falcon is that it runs on a sustainable locally-produced fuel, better for the country's energy-security and reducing dependence on middle-east oil. Ford should extend the LPG option to all its other cars. But lets not kid ourselves that there's a cost benefit.

how is it your terri running cost is so low?

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes but like many all you see is that LPG is cheaper than petrol so logically everything else must be cheaper, mustn't it?

There is gas involved so there is extra engineering required.
It is a new technology so therefore will have an amortisation component.

If you take a step back and remove the "ecolpi coloured glasses" you will see that there is more to operating a vehicle than just sticking fuel in it.

The ironic part of all the yet unproven claims is the staunch belief that ecolpi will have better resale than the equivalent petrol when the potential market for it is a group of people who are more interested in paying the lowest amount of money than anything else.

I would be shocked to find a petrol falcon was dearer to own than the territory, let alone the lpg model. The only thing I can think of, is that the falcon's terrible resale is the only thing that brings it's overall cost up?

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by mik

how is it your terri running cost is so low?

The RWD TX is basically a Falcon, no reason the running costs should be any different.

I wouldn't use the word "low" - owning any car is nothing more than a huge hole in the pocket. You can have a smaller hole in the pocket with something like a Golf or you can have a very big hole with something like a Chrysler Voyager or Landcruiser - or you can have something in between like an Australian Ford.

[PoweredByCNG]

In the REAL WORLD...

Let's say that you travel 20,000km per year (the usual benchmark).

(20,000 / 100) * 9.9 * 1.4 = $2,772 in petrol fuel

(20,000 / 100) * 12.5 * 0.6 = $1,500 in LPG fuel

Assuming that you can get an LPi Falcon for $500 more than a petrol Falcon and assuming all non gas-related servicing and insurance costs are identical to a petrol Falcon (which it is)...

Annual gas servicing fee at local gas fitter (leak test, etc.) = $100

LPi filter change: $200, MAX

Regarding depreciation, it is common knowledge that LPG-fuelled cars sell for a considerable premium nowadays compared to equivalent petrol-fuelled cars. A five year old LPG Falcon will sell for at least a couple of grand more than a petrol Falcon of the same age, condition and specification.

With all that taken into consideration, there is NO WAY that an EcoLPi Falcon could cost you more over the average lifetime of the vehicle than a petrol Falcon or Territory. In fact, I will go as far as saying that the servicing costs of a Golf would push it above the level of an EcoLPi, especially if something major goes wrong after the warranty expires.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

In the REAL WORLD..

With all that taken into consideration, there is NO WAY that an EcoLPi Falcon could cost you more over the average lifetime of the vehicle than a petrol Falcon or Territory. In fact, I will go as far as saying that the servicing costs of a Golf would push it above the level of an EcoLPi, especially if something major goes wrong after the warranty expires.

Depreciation is where the Golf claws back against the EcoLPi Falcon assuming depreciation is taken into account.

Sure a LPG fuelled Falcon may get more at resale time than a petrol only equivalent but as a percentage of resale price it will have lost a heap more value than a Golf.

And I'm a supporter of LPG. I've been driving LPG fuelled Falcons for the last 12 years. I think the Eco LPi is a great idea and will appeal greatly to fleets (I hope). But I dont suspect a huge spike in private sales just because there is a new LPG Falcon available.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

With all that taken into consideration, there is NO WAY that an EcoLPi Falcon could cost you more over the average lifetime of the vehicle than a petrol Falcon or Territory. In fact, I will go as far as saying that the servicing costs of a Golf would push it above the level of an EcoLPi, especially if something major goes wrong after the warranty expires.

I'm also a gas advocate as you know and the more it's applied across the transportation world the better as far as I'm concerned (except for those modes that can use electricity, our other native fuel resource - and I don't mean cars).

The point I'm making is that assumptions made on fuel economy alone are false, but unfortunately it powers the mass market and leads to unfair stigmatisation of some vehicles, as Ford and Holden know. I don't think people should be left under the illusion that they're making some vast WOL operating cost savings running on gas, just as they shouldn't make an assumption about the "savings" on their Prius compared to my Territory!

Your analysis above, while I respect it, seems a bit light on the whole range of factors compared to the NRMA/RAC analysis. I've already said that I'd recommend taking the NRMA figures with a pinch of salt and no more than a broad guideline - and I'd take the same view with your analysis. I agree with you in this broad sense that a gas Falcon would be unlikely to have higher WOL costs than a petrol Falcon or Territory. But on the other hand, as some might think, it wouldn't be half the costs.

As for the VW (and equivalent Toyota, Hyundai etc) I know about the service/parts cost issue but they'll be balanced out by other factors such as depreciation. And perhaps VW isn't a good reliability example to choose, but you could say the chances of something going wrong with an Australian Ford after warranty expiry is somewhat more than for some of those other overseas brands (as I'm experiencing myself)! So the parts might be cheaper but you need them more often.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by new2ford

^^
That's another question - unclear. Sometimes there is a time delay before new models are assessed. The diesel Territorys aren't listed yet. I'd be surprised if there was a big difference between the old and new Falcon though - slightly better fuel consumption would not make a great difference to a WOL figure, fuel being a minority factor in operating costs.

The figures you put up are for the old E-gas system (you can see its the 4speed), so will have to wait and see what the running costs are for the LPi.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The figures you put up are for the old E-gas system (you can see its the 4speed), so will have to wait and see what the running costs are for the LPi.

Agreed. But I'd be surprised if it made much difference to WOL costs between the two.

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Agreed. But I'd be surprised if it made much difference to WOL costs between the two.

Would be fairly similar or perhaps even higher, as while fuel consumption has gone down, servicing (fixed price) has gone up. From what I can see though, there's no reason for any increased servicing requirements, as LPi systems are far lower maintenance than other styles of LPG system.

[Bossxr8]

The results are higher than Territory solely because the Territorys resale values are much higher than Falcon. If you took that factor out, day to day costs would easily be lower for Falcon, say if you bought new and kept it for 20 years where resale value becomes irrelevant.

[mik]

Originally Posted by new2ford

The RWD TX is basically a Falcon, no reason the running costs should be any different.

I wouldn't use the word "low" - owning any car is nothing more than a huge hole in the pocket. You can have a smaller hole in the pocket with something like a Golf or you can have a very big hole with something like a Chrysler Voyager or Landcruiser - or you can have something in between like an Australian Ford.

i was thinking that the terri is heavier than the falcon , thats why i questioned the figures, but i guess the depreciation thing has something to do with it, although if you keep cars long term i don`t think it means a whole lot personally, and yes you could go the golf if it would do the job for you.

[naddis01]

Can someone please point to where it says in the article that the EcoLPi is cheaper to own than the Golf? The article is about fuel costs. If the only criteria for your buying decison was total ownership costs we would all be driving a Getz or Alto etc.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Can someone please point to where it says in the article that the EcoLPi is cheaper to own than the Golf? The article is about fuel costs. If the only criteria for your buying decison was total ownership costs we would all be driving a Getz or Alto etc.

The article uses the words running costs. Running costs are:

1. Maintenance (servicing, repairs, tyres and lubrication).
2. Fuel.

The article only talks about fuel.

Operating costs include fixed costs and running costs. Fixed costs include:

1. Depreciation
2. Insurance
3. registration

And I don't want a Golf thanks!

[naddis01]

I think in an article titled "Ford Falcon EcoLPi cheaper to fuel than small cars: Government", then running costs in this context can be assumed to mean fuel costs as that is all that is mentioned in the entire article.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by new2ford

The article uses the words running costs. Running costs are:

1. Maintenance (servicing, repairs, tyres and lubrication).
2. Fuel.

The article only talks about fuel.

Operating costs include fixed costs and running costs. Fixed costs include:

1. Depreciation
2. Insurance
3. registration

And I don't want a Golf thanks!

It would appear the problem is caused by the journalist of this article in not understanding that running costs include items other than fuel, whereas the government quote most likely did say its cheaper to fuel(is there a source for that?).

[naddis01]

Their Government source was the adr sticker on the windscreen.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Their Government source was the adr sticker on the windscreen.

"The Federal Government has given the new Ford Falcon EcoLPi a big thumbs up"

so no big thumbs up from govco?.. the article is a real beat up?, doesnt surprise me

[Franco Cozzo]

Is there much different maintenence wise with the new EcoLPI Falcons compared to the petrol ones? I assume costs would be similar.