Well so far after 3500km I'm averaging 11.4/100k, thats about 50/50 hway city driving. The sticker says 12.4/100. As the engine wears in it gets alot better. The only problem is the fuel tank is so small, only 64 litres, the smallest in its class of vehicle. Even the CX-7 has a 69 litre tank. The local Wheels magazine here tested the Tribeca and came up with fuel figures of around 17/100k that was high, must of driven really hard, so I thought I'd set the record straight.
Fuel consuption on Aussie Models.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Joined
·
5 Posts
That is good. I took one for a (gentle) test drive around town and for a short run up to 90km/h. When we got back I checked the trip computer and it was showing 19l/100kms. With that and the smallish back seat, I got scared off straight away !
How is it all going ?
How is it all going ?
When I picked it up from the dealer, my first tank only got me 400k's. That blew me away, but the longer I drove the better it got, now I get about 500-550k,s out of the tank. The run in period seems to chew up the gas, but every tank of fuel is getting better.iamthestig said:
Love the car, a pleasure to drive everyday. People comment on it everywhere I go. The Tribeca is a cruising car, on the H/way doing 110km feels like 80km, so quiet and smooth. Best value for money when comparing to other luxury SUV's, it has everything.
Joined
·
54 Posts
Yeah- if a long range is your target- then the Tribeca falls a little short. I've been getting 320-340 miles (510-545km) out of a tank- but I run it down to empty.
11.4L/100km sounds about right for 50/50 mileage. (that's 20.6 mpg for those of you stateside)
11.4L/100km sounds about right for 50/50 mileage. (that's 20.6 mpg for those of you stateside)
Joined
·
46 Posts
I'm still trying to calculate the conversion from KMPH to MPH!!!
Joined
·
32 Posts
Conversion
It's funny, those Aussies do everything backwards / opposite. They express their fuel consumption as figure of: fuel per distance traveled, and we are distance traveled per fuel consumed. So a good number for them is low.
11.4 L / 100 Klometers = 0.0484663 Gal / Mile = 20.63 Miles / Gal
12.4 L / 100 Kilometers = 0.0527178 Gal / Mile = 18.96 Miles / Gal
17.0 L / 100 Kilometers = 0.0722744 Gal / Mile = 13.84 Miles / Gal
19.0 L / 100 Kilometers = 0.0807773 Gal / Mile = 12.38 Miles / Gal
69 L = 18.23 Gal tank
It's funny, those Aussies do everything backwards / opposite. They express their fuel consumption as figure of: fuel per distance traveled, and we are distance traveled per fuel consumed. So a good number for them is low.
11.4 L / 100 Klometers = 0.0484663 Gal / Mile = 20.63 Miles / Gal
12.4 L / 100 Kilometers = 0.0527178 Gal / Mile = 18.96 Miles / Gal
17.0 L / 100 Kilometers = 0.0722744 Gal / Mile = 13.84 Miles / Gal
19.0 L / 100 Kilometers = 0.0807773 Gal / Mile = 12.38 Miles / Gal
69 L = 18.23 Gal tank
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
