Another bad rap for SIDI

[Chilliman]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/52194/ho...iew-road-test/

Pans boths the 3.0Litre SIDI and the six-speed auto.

14.1L/100km recorded during their testing - mostly city driving.

Concluded that the 3.6Litre is the better SIDI motor with heaps more torque and only slightly more fuel use.

[OLDFORDNUT]

your link doesn't work

[buggerlugs]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

your link doesn't work

Does for me...........................Ouch !!!!! There is some nasty comments about the Dunnydore in there..............."Times are a changing"

[Watto_Cobra]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

Does for me...........................Ouch !!!!! There is some nasty comments about the Dunnydore in there..............."Times are a changing"

Check any Falcon or Commodore article on Car Advice and the same three or four detractors (jon, Tomas79, Callous Aussie, Will) are there sledging anything from FordOZ or Holden. They have a strange affinity for Toyota and Skoda.

The review was pretty much what I expected, although some on there are now accusing CA of Ford bias.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Watto_Cobra

Check any Falcon or Commodore article on Car Advice and the same three or four detractors (jon, Tomas79, Callous Aussie, Will) are there sledging anything from FordOZ or Holden. They have a strange affinity for Toyota and Skoda.

The review was pretty much what I expected, although some on there are now accusing CA of Ford bias.

Even so, if the car doesn't meet the basic premise, it deserves to come in for some stick. It appears someone isn't doing their job or worse at GMH. Luckily for them the vast majority of people don't read reviews and think the govt rules are implicitly accurate and reliable.

Had the Age/Ford not conducted and espoused the Bathurst trial, there would be a more receptive and less cynical reading audience who would take the content of this article more seriously rather than consider it a battle in an ongoing, trivial brand war between two traditional protagonists (yawn).

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Wally

Had the Age/Ford not conducted and espoused the Bathurst trial, there would be a more receptive and less cynical reading audience who would take the content of this article more seriously rather than consider it a battle in an ongoing, trivial brand war between two traditional protagonists (yawn).

Not sure what you are saying there wally. Should ford have refrained from using the drive test at all? Effectively give up that very rich (and pretty damn cheap from their perspective) bit of evidence (which is proving incresingly true) of the failure of SIDI both as a piece of engineering tech AND marketable advantage??

As for GMH....well i'm not sure if we can blame holden entirely on this one. The aloytec range (esp the 3.0 SIDI) has been a less than brilliant performing frankly. Since day dot it has had issues delivering on what GM claims, the only truly decent versions were not even very true to the origianl form (2.8 turbo in saab and a highly modified (heads wise) 3.2 in the alfa....). I know you and other may think it nothing more than Ford bias, but compare the recent SIDI range (or aloytec range generally) and how it has been recieved in this country by the motoring enthusiast with, for example, the continual evolution of the I6 or for that matter the upcoming Coyote 5.0 V8.

One company has matched or exceeded its claims, delivered truly competitive if not class leading engines and done it all while getting pretty good (if not very good) real world fuel burn and driveabilty. At is recent national launch, the fiesta econetic matched or bettered its ADR number despite several journos driving it quite sprightly. The 5.4 BOSS V8 has had no problem matching the 6.0 AFM V8 in the SS (and been faster with more weight to boot). The list goes on. One company delivers, the other claims, then backpedals and calls names when they don't match up.

Given the current situation it is in GM needs to start building products that deliver IN THE REAL WORLD and soon.....

[Watto_Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wally

Even so, if the car doesn't meet the basic premise, it deserves to come in for some stick. It appears someone isn't doing their job or worse at GMH. Luckily for them the vast majority of people don't read reviews and think the govt rules are implicitly accurate and reliable.

Had the Age/Ford not conducted and espoused the Bathurst trial, there would be a more receptive and less cynical reading audience who would take the content of this article more seriously rather than consider it a battle in an ongoing, trivial brand war between two traditional protagonists (yawn).

Trust me, I wasn't sticking up for GM's SIDI drivetrains.

Merely pointing out there are some posters on that site that are deadset vitriolic against anything Falcon/Commodore whether it is, in reality, good or bad.

[Falcon Coupe]

From what they're saying a BA wagon with four speed auto is a better option, more economical, smoother drive and carries more load.
230 klm range with 3/4 of a tank !

[TP351]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

From what they're saying a BA wagon with four speed auto is a better option, more economical, smoother drive and carries more load.
230 klm range with 3/4 of a tank !

Just a side comment, I've been driving a BF3 wagon 4 spd auto, which is only a couple of months old, on a commute from Geelong to Campbelfield, getting an average of 8.7l/100km. It is predominately highway, but the western ring road section is usually stop start at that time. I'm very impressed with it actually!

[ebxr8240]

Never buy the first model out...Especially with new engine plant etc..

[The Monty]

Soooo, its no good around Bathurst, as that doesnt replicate peoples everyday driving according to Holden, city driving would show where the gains are. Than they put it in the city, and it gets even worse for Holdens credibility.
Id like to see the marketing spin they put on this one.
It seems the only thing its good at is long distance highway drives, where just about ANY large car, be it turbo 6, supercharged 8, or even the humble 4 pot, is going to get single digit returns to the 100km.

[dave289]

Well Will Ford Capiltalise On This Or Sit On There ***** Like Usual.

When Holden Bought Out There Craptiva Korean Shitebox They Went On About How Fuel Effeicient It Was Against The Ford Teritory( And Yes It Was But Is An Absolute Piece Of Crap Compared To A Territorry ,which Was Said To Ride Better Than The Bmw 4wd Upon Launch). So Will Ford Pump Out And Add To State That There 6, Be It Turbo Or Not Is More Economical Than Both The 3.0 And Also There 3.6 Litre Engine. You Would Have To Be A Tool To But A Holden Six Cylinder Commodore. So Will Ford Capitalise On This Or What?

[Bundy]

Originally Posted by dave289

Well Will Ford Capiltalise On This Or Sit On There ***** Like Usual.

When Holden Bought Out There Craptiva Korean Shitebox They Went On About How Fuel Effeicient It Was Against The Ford Teritory( And Yes It Was But Is An Absolute Piece Of Crap Compared To A Territorry ,which Was Said To Ride Better Than The Bmw 4wd Upon Launch). So Will Ford Pump Out And Add To State That There 6, Be It Turbo Or Not Is More Economical Than Both The 3.0 And Also There 3.6 Litre Engine. You Would Have To Be A Tool To But A Holden Six Cylinder Commodore. So Will Ford Capitalise On This Or What?

Shockingly typed post

And yes ford did do this aready with a full page ad after the Cars Guide Bathurst 12Hr test.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by dave289

Well Will Ford Capiltalise On This Or Sit On There ***** Like Usual.

When Holden Bought Out There Craptiva Korean Shitebox They Went On About How Fuel Effeicient It Was Against The Ford Teritory( And Yes It Was But Is An Absolute Piece Of Crap Compared To A Territorry ,which Was Said To Ride Better Than The Bmw 4wd Upon Launch). So Will Ford Pump Out And Add To State That There 6, Be It Turbo Or Not Is More Economical Than Both The 3.0 And Also There 3.6 Litre Engine. You Would Have To Be A Tool To But A Holden Six Cylinder Commodore. So Will Ford Capitalise On This Or What?

It appears you have already capitalised on this.

[4Vman]

It begs the question why are the ADR test methods so out of wack with reality...????

[SVTVNM]

Thats a nasty review, Love the Description of the torque as "rather limp"

[pottery beige]

Dob them in to TT and ACA...............

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

It begs the question why are the ADR test methods so out of wack with reality...????

As i and others have alluded to in other posts....its because the ADR test not only does not use have things like wind resistance and loads etc. (hills or weight etc.) but also due to modern drivetrain tuning.

In the past when there was not twin VCT, DOHC, 4v per pot, computer controlled on the fly engine optimisation etc. etc. engineers had to 'tune' a car to perform on the road, then do the ADR test and just lump it. The ADR test is a well specified test which is over a certain spead range cycle with light loads on the car on a rolling road. Is it not possible for engineers to tune a car to peform on said test, to a degree that is better and therefore 'non represetative' of the cars real world performance?? I think it is, and i think manufacturers all over the world are and will be doing it more and more. Of course they can use the same tech to try to make a good engine in the first place for the real world, but i bet that is much more expensive...

Frankly when the holden announced the 'brilliant' 9.3L/100km ADR figure there were doomed straight off. Not only would the ecoboost 4pot falcon get into the 8s, but with the 3.6L SIDI at 9.9 and the falcon at the same figure (and getting lower in the near future probably) there was simply too little improvement based on the ADR figures. Given for heavy large cars the ADR is always of little use in real world urban driving then they were never going be very impressive.

Not to mention, the very 'urban' driving the 3.0 SIDI was 'good' at in the rolling road is where these 'loads' are so apparent, standing start, mum and the kids plus gear, fleet users with crap in the back, hills etc. So now it has bugger all improvement of the larger engined cars on the highway and with the additional loads nullifying the misleading ADR urban cycle number how on earth was it ever supposed to burn less then the 4.0I6....

[Falc'man]

I don't know what's funnier: Holden claiming how economical it is, or the amount of sheep that buy it.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

It begs the question why are the ADR test methods so out of wack with reality...????

That's a great point. The damning thing - for Holden - is it's only them that cannot come near the ADR test figures.
They remind me of KFC. They sell you something that was born in a lab with a tube up it's back side and then claim selling you what they call a chicken.

[Blue Ice]

Someone should forward it on to Ford PR or something.

[ea90gl]

Yeees but remember you can get 900Km up the highway... nice lame excuse

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

Yeees but remember you can get 900Km up the highway...

On a single tank!!!1!11one

[Nikked]

just goes to show that a gutless small capacity engine is useless in a large car. Its just too bad that at least 50% of car buyers a lured buy ludicrous claims.

[Romulus]

Wow, that's a scathing review of the Berlina sportswagon. I wonder what internal memo GM-H will forward it's dealers like it did after the Bathurst test?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

Wow, that's a scathing review of the Berlina sportswagon. I wonder what internal memo GM-H will forward it's dealers like it did after the Bathurst test?

perhaps, but it is nothing we haven't seen before. Some outlets (e.g. wheels mag) who have to straddle the fence RE marketing and public perception have been a bit kinder, but even they have complained. All this review is is the plain truth about the car.....alot of the reviews i've read have pointed out these deficincies of the latest MY2010 VE, this review just puts them all together in one place. Public percpetion (based on the few people i've spoken to) is one of either total ignorance of the new Holden engine (probalby because the advertising they ran spun off the back of the continual misleading 'we are australian mantra....') or worse, that is doesn't atcually work (probably helped by Ford's drive bathurst test based advertising....).

[SM1DY]

I reckon the more people who buy that SIDI sportswagon the better. In the end it will leave a lot of people scourned and negative imagine of Holden is all that will remain.

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by SM1DY

I reckon the more people who buy that SIDI sportswagon the better. In the end it will leave a lot of people scourned and negative imagine of Holden is all that will remain.

I like the way you think :

[Paull]

It will be interesting to see what the large fleet companies have to say to Holden. In effect, the Lease companies have to lease out all vehicles with an expected fuel consumption and then charge the customer accordingly. If Holden supply a 9.3L/Km figure but it is more like 14.1, there will be a lot of unhappy customers getting pinged at the end of the lease due to far greater fuel consumption than expected.

[Scooter]

Not sticking up for Holden 1 bit, But doesn't 14l/100km sound excessive even for city driving? And the photo of the trip metre may only be telling us he has given it a hiding for quarter of a tank to have 230km DTE showing? For $45k I would be dis-appointed.

[mik]

short stroke (80mm) small capacity engine in a very large car, it will have to work harder to move that large mass, higher revs and more gear changes = more fuel used, power/economy figures look good on brochures though.