What would you change for the next model Territory? - Page 16 - Ford Forums

Paulv · 02-22-2005, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferris

In all seriousness, even at more moderate (and normal!!) Speeds the range can be a problem. With many intervals between fuel stops exceeding 300 km, and with what 35 plus degrees seems to do to the fuel economy anyway, there is little margin for error.

Also, fuel from some of the locations can be particularly bad, making the economy even worse.

While I hold no expectations for the vehicle to do what my previous did (patrol with 220 L tanks) I would like to think that in this department, if none other, ford had the vehicle live up to its name !! Carrying extra fuel in the back of the car in 20 L jerry cans is not a particularly palatable solution.
Nor safe!

Ferris - I can't help but believe that you may have bought the wrong vehicle. I'd have thought that you would have made large fuel tanks a priority and would have stuck to a Diesel Patrol or Cruiser. Nothing else is going to have the extended range.

It'd be interesting to see what other 4wd-style vehicles get at 180kph. Maybe they're not so different.

Ferris · 02-22-2005, 17:00

Hi Paulv,

No, I don't think I bought the wrong vehicle! For the reality is that I spend in excess of 80% of my driving time driving round and round Darwin I needed a car with room for gear, but driving round and round down for work every day in an off-road truck was making less and less sense.

Am not criticising the fuel consumption at that speed. No petrol vehicle of the Territory's dimensions, with the performance that it has, is going to be significantly better.

Like most others contributing to this thread, I was simply adding my thoughts to the search for the mythical beast: the car that does everything, with no flaws! ;-)

new2ford · 02-22-2005, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferris

Carrying extra fuel in the back of the car in 20 L jerry cans is not a particularly palatable solution.
Nor safe!

Surely safer than taking photos of the dash while driving at 160k! (Just joking) I do agree that that fuel tank should be bigger to cater for all users.

Ferris · 02-22-2005, 19:13

lol new2ford... read the figures again !! I was not doing 160 !! :-)

new2ford · 02-22-2005, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferris

lol new2ford... read the figures again !! I was not doing 160 !! :-)

OK 180. High speed film was it?

Ferris · 02-22-2005, 20:18

What amazed me most was the stability of the vehicle at that speed. Where the photo was taken, the road goes dead straight for about 20 km, with visibility for about 10 before the horizon. It is wide perfect 2 lane bitumen, built for road trains. The verges of the road are graded smooth and obstacle free back for about 20 m. I was able to get the feel of the vehicle therefore in relative safety (certainly in absolute safety as far as others were concerned!) The Territory is by far the most stable vehicle I have ever owned, almost the most stable I have ever driven. (That prize has to go to a five series BMW a few years ago. No surprises there!) Even got to explore the DSC at that speed by changing lanes with increasing severity. Even then, the stability control system cut in before the vehicle would have become too unstable.

Later in the trip, at slower speeds, I was able to test it on some sweeping bends, and was further impressed.

Ouzo · 02-22-2005, 20:34

Agree with you Ferris - I decided to risk my license and give the Terri a burst up to 180 awhile ago (on a very deserted straight road) and it was as solid as rock - far better than any car I have had previously. Makes you wonder why Ford limited it to 180.

Ferris · 02-22-2005, 20:49

Ouzo,
I believe the answer is because the insurance companies will charge much more for premiums otherwise

johnydep · 02-22-2005, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ouzo

Agree with you Ferris - I decided to risk my license and give the Terri a burst up to 180 awhile ago (on a very deserted straight road) and it was as solid as rock - far better than any car I have had previously. Makes you wonder why Ford limited it to 180.

Could be tail shaft issues.

Ford have had a few different tail shafts, steel, aluminium, then steel again, aluminium with a kevlar wrap on one of their performance models, two piece, etc.
The auto's are always wearing out the rear bush where the tail shaft slips, and the manuals had a vibration at extreme speeds.

As for insurance, Holden have the Commodores speed limited at 200km/h and insurance between a Commy & a Falcon are the same.

outback_ute · 02-22-2005, 21:20

Because it is cheaper not to have to manufacture everything with tolerances/balancing necessary for 200 / 220 / whatever km/h. Since only a very small percentage (eg Ferris) would ever want to exceed 180km/h apart from out of curiosity to see what it would do, there is very little benefit in spending the extra money.