VF's fuel savings an illusion ?

[Rodge]

So we have the new VF which according to the lab tests is supposed to be 10% more economical than the Falcon (V.F.SV6 combined cycle 9.0L/100 km's, Xr6 9.9L/100 km's).

But in this interesting test we have Car Advice comparing the two back to back in real world conditions over 500 km's and the VF SV6 used a staggering 14.5 L/100 km's on the open road 20% more than XR6 auto tested in exactly the same way over the same roads !!
http://www.caradvice.com.au/235713/h...arison-review/

Okay, the overall winner of this comparison test was probably a forgone conclusion to some extent seeing as the VF is a generation ahead but...So much for the lab tested 10% lab test fuel savings.

Thoughts anyone ?

Could it just be that the little 3.6 direct injected Holden wonder is short of torque and you have to rev the living guts out of it to extract decent performance and in so doing negate any benifet of its alluminium this and direct injected that ? As for the self parking gizmo, what self respecting man would ever use that ?

[T3ts50]

Might still need to be run in? Don't brand new cars usually use more fuel for the first 10,000km?

[Rodge]

^^Yes, but nothing like 20% more.

[82XD393.3v]

holden said the VE was more economical than the falcon a few years ago but when it was tested against the falcon on small highways that go up hills it used significantly more than the falcon, typical holden over state everything don't they,

[Hulsty]

Originally Posted by 82XD393.3v

typical holden over state everything don't they,

No they state the figures based on ADR testing which is a level playing field for all in controlled conditions. Real world is obviously different to lab controlled conditions.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Hulsty

No they state the figures based on ADR testing which is a level playing field for all in controlled conditions. Real world is obviously different to lab controlled conditions.

The only way to match lab HWY consumption figures on the road is to drive at around 90-95km/h. The jump in consumption when you drive at 110 is around 30-35%.

If Rodge drove both cars at that lower average speed the Commy will probably do better consumption wise over a Falcon. Increase the average speed or introduce some hills and the Falcon will probably do better.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

The only way to match lab HWY consumption figures on the road is to drive at around 90-95km/h. The jump in consumption when you drive at 110 is around 30-35%.

If Rodge drove both cars at that lower average speed the Commy will probably do better consumption wise over a Falcon. Increase the average speed or introduce some hills and the Falcon will probably do better.

I live in an area that's extremly hilly and frankly I'm going up and down steep hills for the majority of my local suburban driving which accounts for probably 80% of my vehicle use. I'd speculate the Holden V6 with its fairly puny torque output would drink like a fish in my circumstances. Maybe 15 L/100 km's for my SC GT-P (considering the use it gets) isn't so bad after all !!

[Mechan1k]

If that's the case ADR testing needs to be overhauled to be more in-line with real world scenarios.

I remember the testing around Bathurst between the 3L SIDI I think it was and the 4L Falcon ... and even then ... the bigger 4L was lighter on the juice. Mainly due to better low down torque and effortlessness.

[Peter B - CV8]

Just reading between the lines of that review - it sounds as though the reporters literally flogged the VF around for most of the test - trying to find it's upper handling limits.
The overall fuel usage of both cars would indicate that neither were driven in a conservative manner. Will be interesting to see what VF owners actually get in real world conditions.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Peter B - CV8

Just reading between the lines of that review - it sounds as though the reporters literally flogged the VF around for most of the test - trying to find it's upper handling limits.
The overall fuel usage of both cars would indicate that neither were driven in a conservative manner. Will be interesting to see what VF owners actually get in real world conditions.

Seems to me that both cars were pushed really, really hard.
Extra urban ADR rating for the 3.6 Holden is 7.0 L/100 km's, okay you're never going to get near that on a vigirous drive but more than double ?? you've really got to start wondering which is a more reliable indicator to customers, lab tests or real world tests like these.

[Silver Ghia]

I've always thought that ADR figures were a bit dubious.

[MAD]

Holden somehow keep proving that the lab tests are unrealistic, while Ford are the poster child for accuracy.

[FalconXV]

I drove an FGII 4.0 from the Central Coast to the northern beaches every day for a few months. As close as you could get to 50/50 Urban/Extra Urban conditions. What was the AVG L/100? Bang on 9.9. Needless to say I was very impressed.
There was an article on GoAuto, saying the cars know when they're on the lab dyno, and lean out, behave differently accordingly. There is a push to change the ADR's to reflect real world conditions but I don't know if it has a chance.

[Gobes32]

At the end of the day, Ford have nothing to hide whereas Holden have a history of lies and juiced up test cars..........

[b0son]

So a Falcon can produce more torque, without burning more fuel? Probably more to do with the way the car is being driven...

[97Fairmont]

My BFII XR6 6 speed auto does 9.7l/100 and thats 50/50, getting traffic during the week as well. Falcon proves it time and time again you can never go past a straight six for power and economy...

[T4ME]

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by T4ME

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

If true, that is amazing economy! Economy figures should always be expressed as L/100 or km/L as a 'tank' is a non-standard unit of measure ;)

Same with when you see cars advertised with 'very economical, $45 lasts a week'.. useless comment.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by T4ME

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

All depends on what you classify as "town", sounds like a country town with no traffic lights.

Also whats the tank capacity? Is there any difference with falcon vs commy? Range is nice but its all about the L/100...also depends on how you market it.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by Polyal

All depends on what you classify as "town", sounds like a country town with no traffic lights.

Also whats the tank capacity? Is there any difference with falcon vs commy? Range is nice but its all about the L/100...also depends on how you market it.

FG has a 68L, VF 71L

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by T4ME

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

But we all know from testing the odometer was very inaccurate in the VE's ... hence why they can get that range ... but not actually drive the distance.

What town is he driving around though?

I've easily achieved 6.6L/100km from a FG XT driving around town as well .... it can be done ... just needs concentration and momentum.

[Flickxr6fg]

Originally Posted by T4ME

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

I think your uncle is pulling your chain, highway driving maybe but around town no way. my mother owns a VE and she gets no where near that around town.

[82XD393.3v]

reading between the lines the cars where driven pretty much the same but the commy handled better, they went up the blue mountains which has a lot of hills guess thats why they call it a mountain and as with previous v6 commys it drank like booney on a trip to london

[EDManual]

sounds like they were driven in the same way, following each other and its obvious the falcon didnt have to work as hard for the same performance.

[BENT_8]

How do two different people, in two different cars with two different transmission over 500k drive the same.

[Dave R]

14+L is ALOT for a standard six. They must have been thrashing them. The economy they get when being driven enthusiastically is not realistic for people buying them as family cars so I'm going to ignore the results.

One point in that article annoyed me- Since the arrival of the VE Commodore in 2006, and the FG Falcon in 2008, there’s been a simple answer to question of which model was best – if you wanted a standard six-cylinder, buy the Ford, if you wanted a performance model, choose the V8 Holden. - that has never been the case, the XR6 Turbo has dominated the SS since 2008.

[pmacc]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

14+L is ALOT for a standard six. They must have been thrashing them. The economy they get when being driven enthusiastically is not realistic for people buying them as family cars so I'm going to ignore the results.

Ive been sitting around 13.9-15.7 on my G6E for the last 5 months around town and i think its fine when you consider the weight of the FG.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by pmacc

Ive been sitting around 13.9-15.7 on my G6E for the last 5 months around town and i think its fine when you consider the weight of the FG.

Around town that's fine (although our NA FG gets ~13 around town with a heavy foot, the turbo about the same, our towns are obviously a little different) but the article states that they did something like 1000 kays- to be getting 14+ out of a NA six after a long drive, they must have been completely thrashed.

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Around town that's fine (although our NA FG gets ~13 around town with a heavy foot, the turbo about the same, our towns are obviously a little different) but the article states that they did something like 1000 kays- to be getting 14+ out of a NA six after a long drive, they must have been completely thrashed.

Driving Sydney traffic too and from work ... even in manual mode ducking and weaving through traffic ... I can't get over 11L/100km ... no matter how hard i try.

[MAD]

However, it’s not unusual for car trip computers to claim the car is using less fuel than it actually is; unlike speedometers – which aren’t allowed to read lower than the actual speed being travelled and can read up to 10 per cent above the travelled speed – trip computers aren’t nearly as closely legislated.

Geez, it annoys me when someone dosn't quite grasp a concept, and yet they still try to explain it, and it's totally wrong.

These two points are exactly the same.
If the speed is overstated, the distance must also be overstated, therefore the fuel used will be understated because the car thinks it's gone further than it actually has.