Global Green Challenge daily results

[greenfoam]

You guys will be interested in this SIDI Sportwagon vs XR6T out on the open road rather than around Bathurst

http://globalgreenchallenge.com.au/t...-eco-challenge

Note the Fiesta ran 3.19L/100 today, pretty impressive

[The Monty]

Falcon with the biggest improvements. The commodore is pretty damn Frugal though.
And the Fiesta, WOW.
Sportswagon - 6.75, 27.4% better than ADR.
XR6t - 7.31, 37.49% better than ADR.
Maloo for some reason didnt record anything. It probably run out of fuel.
Holden Viva was the most thirsty out of the group, lol.

[EDManual]

Not much difference between the falcon turbo and the 3.0 litre commy! Haha!

Good stuff!

I read that they had to have an average speed of 75km/h. Thats pretty slow though!! I would think that up around 100-110 the ford may be more aerodynamic and get closer or beat the 3.0. At these slow speeds aero doesnt play as big a part. Plus take off the spoiler and put skinny wheels on them!

[phillyc]

Holden Viva - a truly awful 2star crash rating light car - used 7.34L/100km
Ford XR6T - a wonderful, massively powerful/torquey - used 7.31L/100km

How embarrasing for General Motors Holden.

Fiesta creamed the lot with 3.19L/100km!

A great win on the first day for Ford Australia!

[phillyc]

Holden Viva - a truly awful 2star crash rating light car - used 7.34L/100km
Ford XR6T - wonderful, massive grunt 5star family car- used 7.31L/100km

How embarrasing for General Motors Holden.

Fiesta creamed the lot with 3.19L/100km!

A great win on the first day for Ford Australia!

[kircher]

What is a Holden Viva? Isn't it an ugly small Daewoo that Holden doesn't sell anymore? That's amazing the big Ford beats it.

Good to see that Ford are doing so well. That result for the XR6 turbo is impressive. I think the extra 100kW the Ford has over the Commodore wagon is worth the half litre extra fuel consumption. The Fiesta result is impressive too, but was expected. ADR consumption figures are a combined rating aren't they? I think this challenge shows mostly that if you take it easy on the Highway you save fuel.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by EDManual

I read that they had to have an average speed of 75km/h. Thats pretty slow though!! I would think that up around 100-110 the ford may be more aerodynamic and get closer or beat the 3.0. At these slow speeds aero doesnt play as big a part. Plus take off the spoiler and put skinny wheels on them!

You'd be surprised how difficult it would be to get an average speed of 75km/h. Take in to account the slow driving through towns and the such and you'd most likely see an average in the 60's. I'd reckon there would be a fair amount of driving up in the three figure range to maintain that average.
As an example, we traveled from our home here in the Barossa to Naracoorte down in the SE of SA. It's an approximate 400km trip. The Peugeot trip computer had the average in the 60's for that trip, but that included driving through Adelaide even though once we were on the freeway, it was 110km/h for the majority of the trip.

[FalconXR6]

Hmmmmm....
Will be interesting to see how this plays out and the marketing that occurs as a result...

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Holden Viva - a truly awful 2star crash rating light car - used 7.34L/100km
Ford XR6T - a wonderful, massively powerful/torquey - used 7.31L/100km

How embarrasing for General Motors Holden.

Fiesta creamed the lot with 3.19L/100km!

A great win on the first day for Ford Australia!

The viva is a privately entered car, not a GMH vehicle. Annesley College in SA has entered it and it says 'hybrid' in the participants listing. So probably a modified base car and if it is a proper hybrid it won't go well out on the highway. Holden wouldn't bother to enter that old thing since it isn't even on sale anymore (well in phase out).

XR6T going well so far but its early days. Still, based on those numbers (XR6T versus 3.0 SIDI) a betting man would take a punt on the 4.0 Atmo engine coming very close to knocking the 3.0 SIDI off if it had been entered. If you can get within 0.5 L/100 approx with the turbo the petrol would have to give it a run for its money. As i said in another thread, ford did it with the turbo to get the biggest % improvement overall.

The fiesta econetic will go for outright honours and based on early days it is going very well. They said it would do about 3.2 L/100km on the extra urban (highway) cycle and its is doing around that so far.

EDIT: Oh and points to the skoda superb. Beating its adr by almost 30% with a 4.87. That is the 2.0 diesel in that car i believe. Mini D is being a bit outclassed by the Fiesta at the moment too....

[R-Design]

Joshua's up to it again, who's winning!

Originally Posted by Joshua Dowling

V8 ute heads the field of diesel and petrol small cars

The new HSV Maloo is leading the field after two days of long distance driving in the 2009 Global Green Challenge, according to provisional results.

The six-day, 3000km economy run from Darwin to Adelaide has encountered the shockwave of an earthquake (in Katherine yesterday) and a dust storm (this morning in Tennant Creek).

But that's nothing compared to the storm brewing between HSV and Ford who are at the head of the field in their performance cars.

Although the V8 ute and turbocharged Falcon sedan are using more fuel than the rest of the field, the competitors are judged on the biggest improvement they make on the fuel rating label.

The HSV Maloo, with a rating label combined figure of 15.1L/100km averaged 8.0L/100km on day two (a 46 per cent improvement), in the run from Katherine to Darwin which took nine hours yesterday, while the XR6 Turbo averaged 7.1L/100km (a 39 per cent improvement).

The Holden Omega wagon made a 33 per cent improvement, while a trio of diesel Minis and the new diesel-powered Ford Fiesta bettered their ADR figures by an average of 15 per cent.

The petrol powered Suzuki Alto is making impressive inroads into the diesel dominance. It improved by 19 per cent on day two.

In the 4WD class, the new Kia Sorrento and facelifted Hyundai Santa Fe, both powered by identical 2.2-litre turbo diesel engines, made improvements of between 19 and 26 per cent.

The Korean battle is an interesting one given that Hyundai has invested heavily in the event and is being followed by its own documentary crew. Hyundai also has a media event planned in Adelaide on the eve of the finish.

But its sister brand Kia looks poised to upset the party, with Kia getting a better result than the Hyundai for two days in a row.

The going is hot and sweaty for all participants -- including Carsales contributor Joshua Dowling -- with most teams electing to switch off their air-conditioning systems to save fuel.

Temperatures outside the car are in excess of 40 degrees; inside the cars is hotter.

LeMans 24 hour winner and first time economy run driver, Vern Schuppan, who is driving one of the Mini diesels, compared endurance racing with the Eco Challenge thus: "There is no comparison, except in both you get very sweaty."

The run continues from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs today, ahead of the longest run of the event tomorrow (Tuesday).

http://carpoint.com.au/news/2009/com...hallenge-17178

[greenfoam]

Ah now I seen why both camps have entered fuel suckers. The Maloo is a very good highway cruiser compared to what it sucks down around town. Still you could drive the Fiesta around town at full thottle and beat both of them for outright in corner speed and still use less fuel than they do on the highway:P

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by Toby Hagon

Forget hybrid cars and electric vehicles; two of Australia’s fastest, thirstiest cars are on target to win a controversial 3000km economy run from Darwin to Adelaide.


HSV Maloo

The two thirstiest, most powerful cars in the field are on track to win the Global Green Challenge, an environmentally focussed fuel economy run from Darwin to Adelaide.

Two of the fastest cars ever produced in Australia – the HSV Maloo R8 and Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo – are first and second in the 14-car “Eco Challenge” field.

They’re on track to beat a fleet of fuel misers and even an electric car, which must be followed by a fuel sucking truck that’s likely to use as much fuel as six of the fuel misers fighting for line honours.

But it’s not because the V8-powered Maloo and turbocharged Falcon are the most frugal in the field.

Instead, it’s because the event ranks teams according to their fuel use in comparison to the official, Government-supplied rating that goes on the fuel label. Cars that use less than their claim as a percentage will be crowned the green car winners.

The HSV Maloo’s claimed fuel average is 15.1L/100km, yet the high performance ute used 64 per cent less than that on the first day (5.34L/100km) of the 3000km event and 47 per cent less than that on the second day (8.00L/100km).

Driver and journalist Joshua Dowling is cautious about the results.

“While our figure looks impressive, we aren't getting too excited yet,” he wrote in a daily blog on HSV’s website. “For safety reasons, event organisers aren't brimming [filling the tanks to the top so you can see fuel in the filler neck] each car until the last day.”

The Falcon XR6 Turbo has a claimed average of 11.7L/100km but is using almost 40 per cent less, with consumption of 7.3L/100km on day one and 7.1L/100km on day two.

Event spokesman Mike Drewer says the early results are both “surprising and interesting”.

“It’s probably a surprising result but I think it’s got to be … looked at in combination with the overall fuel use that’s being achieved, particularly by the Ford ECOnetic and the Mini D, which are doing very well,” said Drewer.

“They’ve also got to do an urban cycle in Adelaide,” he said, suggesting the thirstier cars might struggle in the stop-start of city traffic rather than the highway running that makes up most of the course.

The most frugal car in the field – the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic – has a claimed fuel figure of 3.7L/100km and is using less than 3.2L/100km on the predominantly open road route.

However, that’s an improvement of only 15 per cent over its official claimed fuel figure, meaning that while the diesel powered Fiesta will likely use the least fuel on the event – possibly less than 100 litres across the 3000km course – it’s unlikely to win the challenge.

Similarly, the diesel powered Mini Coopers are posting impressive fuel use of as little as 3.3L/100km but are only posting improvements of as much as 15 per cent.

The only electric car in the field – there’s a separate World Solar Challenge running in conjunction with the Eco Challenge – is the US-made Tesla roadster.

However, the Tesla needs to be followed by a trayback truck carrying a high-voltage generator that needs to charge the electric car every 350km.

The truck is expected to consume more than 20 litres of fuel per 100km – triple that of the HSV Maloo – and around 700 litres over the 3000km course.

And that’s before you consider the diesel used by the generator as it charges the Tesla.

Organisers defend the Tesla’s green performance by saying the Tesla driver – internet entrepreneur Simon Hackett – is using the exercise to encourage governments to develop electric car recharging networks.

“Tesla is demonstrating that if electric fuel stations were available that it is entirely feasible and practical for a car of that nature to travel vast distances,” said Drewer.

Despite the surplus of frugal fuel misers, Australia’s greenest car, the Toyota Prius, is not in the event. It’s understood organisers offered Toyota significant incentives to compete in the Challenge, but the maker declined repeated approaches.

There are two different types of diesel-powered four-wheel-drives in the Global Green Challenge – a pair of Kia Sorentos and a pair of Hyundai Santa Fes.

The lighter Kia Sorento is proving more frugal than the similarly sized Hyundai Santa Fe.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...8&vf=7&IsPgd=0

[Polyal]

Surely the % improvement isn't the deciding factor...the ADR is just a system in which vehicles are tested. Im assuming the claimed figures are combined cycles and not highway, if so how is that relevant?

I would have thought whoever uses the least amount of fuel who be the winner.

The HSV is still ugly, poor wild life having to be subjected to that going past, where is the RSPCA when you need them.

[Lynch'd]

It's interesting that the Maloo results for day 1 dont appear on the official website. 5.34L/100km (according to the drive article) sounds a little suspect to me.

[sgt_doofey]

However, the Tesla needs to be followed by a trayback truck carrying a high-voltage generator that needs to charge the electric car every 350km.

The truck is expected to consume more than 20 litres of fuel per 100km – triple that of the HSV Maloo – and around 700 litres over the 3000km course.

And that’s before you consider the diesel used by the generator as it charges the Tesla.

That's all well and good, but if one were to assume that the infrastructure was in place to chage EV's like there are petrol stations to fuel cars...

We travelled 660.9 km over 8h28m of driving time, an average speed of 78 km/h. Average energy consumption was 150 Wh/Km, for a total of 98.97 kWh of energy required for the trip.

Lets round it up to 100 kWh. To drive the equivalent of Adelaide to Melbourne!

Assuming a power cost of 17c per kWh (a fairly typical rate at present), driving that distance would cost about $17.

http://blog.internode.on.net/2009/10...tennant-creek/

No, I'm not some eco-hippy hugging trees all day. I like my cars like the next person. It's a bit hard to look past the $17 cost to drive (supposedly) from Adelaide to Melbourne.
Curious to see at the end of it all if the Internode/Eco Challenge people also take in to account the CO2 emission used to create the power to charge the Tesla as well?

Great to see the Falcon doing so well. I wonder why the Maloo's results weren't up yesterday with the rest of the field?

[Polyal]

Imagine the costs involved in setting up charge stations everywhere! Ah! LPG is hard enough to get in some outer regions. Amusing that they have a recharge truck following them, kind of counters any environmental gain by the Tesla.

Hyrid etc have a place, its inner CBD's and thats about it.

[Gaz]

Somethings bung there....

No way the maloo could use 5.34L/100km one day then 8L/100km the next... I highly doubt a 6.2L v8 could actually use 5.34L/100km.

Looking at the xr6t it used 7.3 then 7.1 suggesting leg 2 was better on economy.

[Transfiguring R]

The Maloo would probably consume around 5.3l/100km if the road was all down hill, or if it was being towed.

[snappy]

Do they have a time they have to do it bye,
Or are they just doing 70 clicks in 6th gear .

[kircher]

The comments regarding fully electric vehicles and charging - I think at this stage the main appeal for an all electric vehicle would be for use within a reasonably short distance of home, so you could commute to work and back, or make other relatively short trips, and just plug the car in to a power point to charge it. A couple hundred km is a decent distance for most trips anyway. For long hauls at this stage petroleum is a better option, but with more and more electric vehicles reaching the consumer (which will happen), there's incentive there for a rollout of charging stations.

[kircher]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Do they have a time they have to do it bye,
Or are they just doing 70 clicks in 6th gear .

They must average 75km/h.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by kircher

The comments regarding fully electric vehicles and charging - I think at this stage the main appeal for an all electric vehicle would be for use within a reasonably short distance of home, so you could commute to work and back, or make other relatively short trips, and just plug the car in to a power point to charge it. A couple hundred km is a decent distance for most trips anyway. For long hauls at this stage petroleum is a better option, but with more and more electric vehicles reaching the consumer (which will happen), there's incentive there for a rollout of charging stations.

Perhaps OT but the point I thought was to reduce emissions. I wonder what the "save" is when we start zapping our cars from home and all over the place every 200kms. I know the tech is new but 300-400 k's per charge while highway cruising is not great. Would be safe to assume that the consumption would be 50% worse in city condition, much like fossil fuel vehicles.

Currently and into the foreseeable future Australia and most countries rely on atleast 70% (if not more) of its energy to be produced by coal.........so thats the first thing that needs to be changed.

I went to a presentation where the idea was to have a LPG electricity generator at home to supply electricity in peak times and even to return to the grid as using the gas to produce electricity is cheaper than what we currently pay, by a far bit. Was interesting.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Would be safe to assume that the consumption would be 50% worse in city condition, much like fossil fuel vehicles.

No, because they would turn off and not use any electricity in situations like braking and stopped at lights. Not to mention, regenerative braking. Granted, the distance probably would be less, but I wouldn't think by too much.

I went to a presentation where the idea was to have a LPG electricity generator at home to supply electricity in peak times and even to return to the grid as using the gas to produce electricity is cheaper than what we currently pay, by a far bit. Was interesting.

Interesting. Any idea what the emission were when burning gas compared to coal? Could I fill up my car at the same time? :P

[Gaz]

Electrics are actually worse on highway cruising because their regenerative braking doesn't get used.

Actually, don't know about 'worse' but certainly aren't any better. There is a graph about their range capacity, their best range is at ~25mph? Was on the internode blog I believe.

^beaten.

natural gas generation is at least twice, or up 75% lower on CO2 emission I believe.


Producing electricity at scale also helps the benefit of reduction in co2 (as opposed to every car running on petrol)

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by Lynch'd

It's interesting that the Maloo results for day 1 dont appear on the official website. 5.34L/100km (according to the drive article) sounds a little suspect to me.

5.34 is more than a little suspect.
If this isn't a typo and rectified soon, this event looses all credibility...

[snappy]

Well if there average speed needs to be 75k's he could be sitting in 6th gear doing 80ks .
Depending on how much stop start there is on the trip but if there is 90% highway it could be done

[Ghiadude]

And what about the the co2 emmisions from the coal burning power stations that will charge those electric cars? what about all the diesel thats burnt by the trucks and the machinery to dig it out of the ground and transport it to the power station??

[EDManual]

like they said, they arent topping up the cars to the brim, like they were at the start. They will be topped up to the brim on the last fill.

I know What they mean with the 5l/100 maloo, its this:

at the start its Full to the brim
next fill goes until the 1st click. And so it takes 10 litres less. So economy is greater.
next fill goes until the 1st click, and so it takes the same as the last fill, so economy is true.

[Swordsman88]

It's quite wierd the claimed day 1 number for the maloo because it is not only noticeably lower than day 2 (when almost every other car burnt more on day 1) but it would have contained some city driver around darwin. Dowling noted that some teams did not realise the event started after fueling up right after scrutineering. Not after leaving the darwin launch event itself. Even if everyone else burnt more because of that error, why would the maloo burn more on the highway leg?? Especially when you consider that the whole reason the HSV is winning %wise is because its rubbish ADR number (14.1) is generate due to woeful city fuel economy.

EDIT: Just found this carpoint story from dowling explaining things....

After the kerfuffle of refueling figures yesterday (some cars took on less fuel than others because the pumps were running hot) the figures seemed to have balanced out a bit today. The HSV Maloo took on the most fuel (about 55 litres) but this made up for the fact that it took on less than expected on day one.

The Ford XR6 Turbo took on about 47 litres today. So with the two days combined, the HSV Maloo and Ford XR6 Turbo are separated by just 3 litres of consumption. However, these are provisional figures only until the cars are refueled on the final day.

http://www.carpoint.com.au/reviews/2...nge-2009-17173

based on correct numbers it illusrates the XR6T at 7.16 and the Maloo at 7.1. Of course the final values will be equalized when topped off completely to their filler necks on the last day.

Given the highway nature of the route its looking ok so far since the Maloo will likely suffer in the city cycle in adelaide. Wouldn't surprise me if the maloo still wins anyway since it has a much higher ADR value (14.1 versus 11.7)

[ea90gl]

Why base the test on how much better the cars real economy figures are than ADR figures? Logic assumes the winner should be the car that uses the least fuel, or maybe even a simple calculation based on power/displacement to fuel used ratio. so imagine if Maloo wins, this thing will be marketed to death giving the false impression it used the less fuel since majority of people probably think that is what determines the winner.