Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Carby

The ECO challenge was a roads too even around Adelaide. The Bathurst tests relevance would only be for people who lived on the Circuit. I reckon an XR8 would probably beat the Falcon six for economy at this place.

DRIVE have really sucked everyone in with their test - they have got exactly the controversy they wanted - and now publishing rebukes from Holden.

The ADR tests are a guide - all cars are tested the same way, if they didn't have them, who would you rely on for Fuel consumption figures - your mates or Grandmother, I think you might get a fair discrepancy between the two.

This has to be the biggest load of drivel I have ever heard.

[falcom]

It seems Holden have tuned/geared their cars to get a good ADR figure.(Good for marketing)

First the Cruze and now the Commodore are getting worse real world figures compared to cars with higher ADR figures.(as tested by Wheels/Motor magazines)

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Carby

DRIVE are hypocrites - their Bathurst test is no more ludicrous than the ECO challenge. They went to Bathurst fully knowing the Falcon would win (it is a renowned torque circuit afterall) and now because the V8 Maloo has beaten it's ADR figure by more than any other they do not accept this - can't have it both ways DRIVE............

A torque circuit?? Mate, if they dropped both cars off a cliff the VE would still use more fuel. It couldn't even convincingly beat the XR6T. Major, major FAILURE!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Carby

You must be an expert, please divulge how you do that???

Judging by the responses you're getting to your insightful post (sic); I put it to you that you are indeed an expert when it comes to the polishing of excrement; particularly Holden press release excrement.

[galaxy xr8]

I can't wait till the ecoboost 4 comes in the falc, imagine the write up then !!!!.
This is good new's and rightly so, let's just hope the public actually start to listen and do their homework.

[Bossxr8]

Now that Holden has no money the media kickbacks must be running dry.

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by Wretched

No.
The point of the ECO challenge was to try and beat the ADR combined cycle consumption figure by the most %, the Maloo did that.

Yeh and it was a good way of doing it (not), 3000k's on the highway and aprox 500k's city driving. That's a little swayed one way. But I suppose they all had to do the same course.

Still should have been more balance city and highway driving though to get a real indication. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that it would suit the Maloo with that much highway driving with the tall gears that they run for 6th gear and the ridiculous speeds that hey did. 30-40kph under the speed limits.

[Wally]

From what I'm gathering is that the Mt Panorama tilt showed Holden up for overstating fuel economy (fudging the ADR economies). If that's the case should the Sports Wagon take the large car % reduction honours from the XR6 in the Global Challenge by using the corrected base consumption figure from the Bathurst test?

If the ADR prescribed method of test is so inaccurate maybe it shouldn't have been used as the index for % consumption improvement. My gut feel is that Holden and Ford knew which cars to enter to work up the best percentages.

[Dave R]

Good Lord, Drive actually has something negative to say about Holden! I'm guessing Josh Dowlings monthly cheque must have bounced... Holden must really be broke.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

From what I'm gathering is that the Mt Panorama tilt showed Holden up for overstating fuel economy (fudging the ADR economies). If that's the case should the Sports Wagon take the large car % reduction honours from the XR6 in the Global Challenge by using the corrected base consumption figure from the Bathurst test?



The sports wgn was against the xr6 turbo hardly a good match for each other, however the the xr6turbo only used .5l/100klms more than the wagon did on average. yet still out accelerate the maloo ute.



If the ADR prescribed method of test is so inaccurate maybe it shouldn't have been used as the index for % consumption improvement. My gut feel is that Holden and Ford new which cars to enter to work up the best percentages.

The test is only as relevant as the vehicles you enter, so if you(holden) enter a vehicle that has a bad ADR then smash the average set buy the company by nearly 50% then you will look like the vehicle you are selling is quite frugal when in actual real day driving not be so cheap to run. Although the challenge will be good for holden as any holden purchaser will now be able to say to their other half "look maloo 6.2 v8 ute won the global challenge, so it must be cheaper to run than a 4cylinder as it gets 7.8l/100klms". This is not real world. Ps wally sorry about stuffing up your post.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Wally

From what I'm gathering is that the Mt Panorama tilt showed Holden up for overstating fuel economy (fudging the ADR economies). If that's the case should the Sports Wagon take the large car % reduction honours from the XR6 in the Global Challenge by using the corrected base consumption figure from the Bathurst test?

If the ADR prescribed method of test is so inaccurate maybe it shouldn't have been used as the index for % consumption improvement. My gut feel is that Holden and Ford knew which cars to enter to work up the best percentages.

You are mixing tests and and cars, one test was a Turbo Falcon the other an n/a. Drive chose the cars for thier own test, Ford and Holden had nothing to do with it.

[TUF_302]

Holden,we mean more to ourselfs than you lot!!

What a bunch of lying buggers!, how can they compare a turbo falcon to there standard 3ltr, bunch of morons run that place!!

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Allen

In regards to the Bathurst test, the nature of the road is irrelevant.
Both the Ford and the Holden did the exact same route, under the same conditions and at the same time. The only variable was the person behind the wheel.

If the Falcon is more fuel efficient than the Commodore under these circumstances, then logic tells me that it will also be more fuel efficient at other times too.

Logic doesn't tell me that. Top Gear did a test around a track with a Prius and an M3. The M3 followed the Prius and was more economical in the test. Would logic dictate that the M3 would be more economical in every other test?

I agree with the poster that suggested that the test around Bathurst is only relevant to those who do laps around Bathurst. Sure, there's hills and bends on the roads I drive on but there is also traffic, traffic lights, intersections, accidents, delays and many other variables that make or break my fuel economy. A few weeks ago, the trip computer was telling me my average was 8.9, today it went over 11. Doing the same sorts of journeys, in differing traffic conditions.

Drive both vehicles around a city, taking the same route over several journeys over a couple of weeks. That would be an efficiency test that I would consider relevant and more 'real world' results. Endlessly lapping a public road containing little to no traffic doesn't mimic my driving experience.

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Ah...no it wouldn't. That exposes your either extreme naivete or pro-holden bias...or both. Fuel burn is one of the most complex part of car design.....and i'm talking real world not in a lab niether. Either way, the suggestion in terms of fuel burn a 5.4 V8 without VCT would take down a 4.0 I6 with DIVCT etc. at bathurst is just not realististic. For one....on idle it woud be using a good 20% more fuel all the way down the bathurt hill. So it would have to use LESS fuel going up by some margin to equal that out alone....not very likley when its both heavier and does not have the capability to as adequetlly adjust timing/injection/spark etc. for the given load (which is what real world stop/start/hill driving requires.....).

For one, unless you clutch in / neutral it, the ECU will stop injecting fuel when engine braking. So 0 fuel used, for both the I6 and V8.

And the BOSS V8 does have control over fuel, and spark timing. The only thing it does miss out on over the I6 is variable valve timing.

[jakkes]

if i remember correctly topgear raced the two the drive test was not a race!

[Scott]

I didn't believe that a media outlet would spruik the virtues of a Falcon over a C****dore when the first results came out and I can't believe it now.

Is this April 1st or can't Holden afford to buy a good story anymore??

[gokhan]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Logic doesn't tell me that. Top Gear did a test around a track with a Prius and an M3. The M3 followed the Prius and was more economical in the test. Would logic dictate that the M3 would be more economical in every other test?

The Falcon and Commodore are more of a close match than a Prius and M3 though. Plus the Top Gear track is even less of a real world comparison than Bathurst, which is at least a public road. Holden should have run their new SIDI V6 in the ECO challenge so we could see what kind of figures it would get.

Originally Posted by Rodp

Drive both vehicles around a city, taking the same route over several journeys over a couple of weeks. That would be an efficiency test that I would consider relevant and more 'real world' results. Endlessly lapping a public road containing little to no traffic doesn't mimic my driving experience.

This kind of test would make more sense.

[fairmont1998]

Originally Posted by jakkes

if i remember correctly topgear raced the two the drive test was not a race!

That's correct. They flogged the Prius and the M3 only had to keep up with it. Of course it would win.
The Falcon and Commodore were driven in the same manner.

[XRtowcar]

I would of thought that testing the cars at Bathurst at legal road going speeds would be more typical of everyday driving around suburban roads.
Shows that the torque of the inline 6 is of more value to fuel economy than the outright horsepower of the v6 when your trying to push 1800kg's of car along.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by RAPID XR8

Yeh and it was a good way of doing it (not), 3000k's on the highway and aprox 500k's city driving.

It was actually less than 200k's city driving.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by data_mine

For one, unless you clutch in / neutral it, the ECU will stop injecting fuel when engine braking. So 0 fuel used, for both the I6 and V8.

And the BOSS V8 does have control over fuel, and spark timing. The only thing it does miss out on over the I6 is variable valve timing.

Quite possible data_mine.....in so far as coming down you would have no fuel burn you are right there. HOWEVER, the BOSS cars are up to 100kg heavier, and that would make it fun going up the hill i reckon.

As i said, it is a complex business and its part of the reason why even in this day and age of computer simulation/design rigth from day dot of every part on the car engineers still do a hell of a lot of real world testing out on the highway, in traffic, up hills, air con, air con off, with a load etc. And with the rolling roads they have now they do even more of it. You can't say for sure unless you do it.

It is just my rough estimate that while it may not burn much more, i highly doubt it woudl burn less. The extra weight alone would be the factor. Manufacturers say that fuel burn can increase up go 0.1L/100km for every 10kg...which is for than enough to hobble the V8. The only part of Holden's ludicrous claims that hold true was its 'engineering a car for a specific conditon' statement. In so far as for a given job a certain car may not be as suited to another. In this cae, think Ford has done a great job getting the 4.0 I6 to burn very little fuel for the size/power of the car in the real world....something that matches this test very well (despite Holden's bleating). The experience of others on here RE FG versus previous falcons also shows that Ford has continued to make noticeable real world economy gains.....something the 3.0 SIDI is very much not doing compared to its own 3.6 SIDI brother....

[Wally]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

.... This is not real world. Ps wally sorry about stuffing up your post.

It's a good response and quite relevent. What I'm getting at is that regardless of what vehicle the Holden was tested against, the fuel consumption was abysmal compared to the published ADR economy figure... on the Bathurst circuit. This could be for a myriad of reasons, not the least that the Holden was taken out of it's comfort zone.

What I'm saying is that the ADR figure is obviously a mean or median figure based on some test procedure. Perhaps the the Bathurst test pushed it to an extreme on one end of the scale and likewise the Global Challenge pushed it to the other, which co incidently favoured the XR6 and Mallo too.

Having a best fit car for all conditions is a hard ask. Until we see some real world figures for suburban driving, the tribal knives are going to be out for the SIDI engine. The danger is the one making the biggest noise could find themselves losing face and market share when the real world figures come in and word of mouth begins.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

It's a good response and quite relevent. What I'm getting at is that regardless of what vehicle the Holden was tested against, the fuel consumption was abysmal compared to the published ADR economy figure... on the Bathurst circuit.

I suppose it might have been a bit much to ask of getting a 3l v6 to push a car the size of the Commodore up the mountain at Bathurst, but it did come down again just like the car beside it. I think everone forgets that having a small frugal motor is going to save you money, but the real saving is really in buying a car that suites your purpose. You don't buy a small four cylinder if you do a lot of highway driving, & you don't purchase v8 if you do a lot of stop start in the city either.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

What I'm saying is that the ADR figure is obviously a mean or median figure based on some test procedure. Perhaps the the Bathurst test pushed it to an extreme on one end of the scale and likewise the Global Challenge pushed it to the other, which co incidently favoured the XR6 and Mallo too.

Holden was sort of stuck between a rock & a hard place on this one, if it advertised its ADR as being lower then in the global challenge it would not have looked like it had made so much ground in its consumption, & it had put it's ADR up any higher it would have been criticized buy the mags, and lost sales, however the same applies to ford as well but the torque of the 4litre six was just enough to keep the motor at a better average as the smaller sixes not having as much torque would have saved more in some spots but used more in others.

[XRQTR]

Interesting, I especially like how many are discounting the relevance of the Bathurst excursion.

Well my fine feathered friends, what's the one BIG claim they make on the TV ad?? Melbourne to Sydney on one tank, ring a bell??

I'm going to hazzard a guess and say that most of you Bathurst rejectionists have never driven this road, or perhaps not very often, thing is that their are actually quite alot of long hills, BIG ones in fact.

So what I'd like to see is both cars start in Melbourne and drive to Sydney, on cruise of course so as to eliminate as much driver input as possible with regard to how the car is driven. Fill the tanks right up to the top of the filler neck till it's just about spilling out and then drive them till they stop, pretty much Top Gear style.

I'm willing to take one, anyone else keen to do the trip??

[dom_105]

The real question is the fact that there were at least 2 people out there that put their hand up to drive 1000kms around the mountain at 60kph.

I love Bathurst, but jeez, that would push it.

[XRQTR]

What I'm talking about is the speed limit all the way, none of this namby pamby just to get the best possible mileage.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I suppose it might have been a bit much to ask of getting a 3l v6 to push a car the size of the Commodore up the mountain at Bathurst, but it did come down again just like the car beside it. I think everone forgets that having a small frugal motor is going to save you money, but the real saving is really in buying a car that suites your purpose. You don't buy a small four cylinder if you do a lot of highway driving, & you don't purchase v8 if you do a lot of stop start in the city either.

DAMN RIGHT. 110% agree with your point cosmo. It is about the right car for the right job. Problem is the 'mt panorama' test, while far from perfect, had some very clear good points:

1. As much as possible, it was controlled. Same drivers, which swapped around, same road, same day, same conditions, same distance.
2. It did do a better job or replicating the 'real world' driving done by the cars then the ADR test. If for no other reason then it wasn't on a rolling road.... There are hills in the real world too...not to mention alot of stop start that hurt fuel burn alot more than going up a hill at 60clicks....
3. The VE was so far off its ADR it wasn't funny. Yeah the falcon beat it, but more importantly the FG was very close to its ADR. Alot of people on forums are starting to ask the unfortunate question.....given the high 'tunability' of modern engines, are manufacturers 'rigging' their cars to do well in ADR tests but not bothering to focus on real world fuel economy gains??

[Joshmcmillan]

Yet even after reading this and the 1st article from Drive, there is a huge number of people that will go out and buy a Commodore without even considering test driving a falcon... It's sad.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Wally

From what I'm gathering is that the Mt Panorama tilt showed Holden up for overstating fuel economy (fudging the ADR economies). If that's the case should the Sports Wagon take the large car % reduction honours from the XR6 in the Global Challenge by using the corrected base consumption figure from the Bathurst test?

If the ADR prescribed method of test is so inaccurate maybe it shouldn't have been used as the index for % consumption improvement. My gut feel is that Holden and Ford knew which cars to enter to work up the best percentages.

Damn right they did. Ford put alot of effort into the challenge...the entered the diesel fiesta econetic to try to win overall (which they did) and the XR6T was there to win overall % improvement. HSV entered (very late in the piece i was told) a Maloo to rain on that parade. And give them their dues..they did just that. Holden entered the omega sportwagon probably just to show off the SIDI tech. I doubt they thought they would win since the bulk of the 'improvement' the SIDI has over the previous engine is in the urban portion of the ADR test. I only improves a few points of a litre on the 'extra urban' portion. the XR6T (and maloo) are the opposite. They get hammered in the urban test, but are quite frugal on the highway. Esp. the maloo being a manual.

As for ADR...there is alot of incorrect information getting around about it. ADR 81/01 basically uses the european ECE standard now. So rolling road, 95 ron, set temp etc you start up the car and 'drive' it through a test cycle. This is mostly highway based on distance (which is a problem straight off) but more importantly the car has no load (well i think it accounts for a driver...not sure of the fine print) and NO HILLS. Clearly not real world....also there is not wind resistance..... See below graphic: