Another bad rap for SIDI

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Assuming the bathurst test is indicative of the real world, which in my opinion it isn't.

Why not

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Assuming the bathurst test is indicative of the real world, which in my opinion it isn't.

In stop/go peak hour traffic, most large sedans will use a similar amount of fuel, I'd expect similar results from Camry/Falcon/3.0 SIDI Commodore.

[mik]

Originally Posted by vztrt

That would be an interesting comparo I would like to see that.

But the reason I actually threw the article up was the fuel usage that was obtained by the journo, and the fact that the Falcon scored a better figure then the 3L SIDI. Its just another article showing that the 3L is a rubbish motor.

cheers vztrt, as you pointed out the sidi in most cases is still a step behind the falcon six.

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Assuming the bathurst test is indicative of the real world, which in my opinion it isn't.

OK.
I'm mildly interested.
What is YOUR opinion of real world testing ???

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Traveling while varying your speed from 30 upto 60kph with undulating terrain, with regular stops and starts is infinitely more indicative of the real world than siting on a constant 100-110kph for 9 hours straight from sydney to melbourne though isn't it......

Exactly, I don't understand why kezzer would think that is far from steady
urban driving around some of our larger population centres.

Maybe Holden thinks Australia is all flat roads on cruise at 100 kph....

[XR Martin]

Apart from being on a race track how the hell do you manage to use 24L/100km in a Falcon? Ive driven plenty of Falcons in every situation and never got near that.
Maybe in a XD 351 or something

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Apart from being on a race track how the hell do you manage to use 24L/100km in a Falcon? Ive driven plenty of Falcons in every situation and never got near that.
Maybe in a XD 351 or something

I've seen 72L/100klm on the instantaneous readout in my BA

But that was at WOT

If the average L/100 is as high as 24/100 then there is something wrong with that car. Or those muppets can't drive.

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Exactly, I don't understand why kezzer would think that is far from steady
urban driving around some of our larger population centres.

Maybe Holden thinks Australia is all flat roads on cruise at 100 kph....

Yep, because I mentioned Holden didn't I? :

In my opinion it's not indicative of real world figures for all people, or the cars they drive.

I spent 2 hours today in different levels of traffic. Alot of it was stop starting, with 30-40 minutes stationary, this puts the biggest fuel strain on my FG, and thats not indicative on the bathurst test, (getting out of the car and swapping drivers a few times doesn't really count) 70% of my driving doesn't need the torque I have in my 4.0l at all, as melbourne isn't that hilly, more so where I live.

I'm sure if the FG would have beaten the mondeo and a few other cars on that test as well. I said once in a thread, 'wait until the econetic takes the bathurst test to view its -real- economy figure, and one of the mods gave me a bad rating!!!!!!!! You can't have it both ways!! I remember on top gear they showed a BMW m5 was significantly more fuel efficient to a prius under some conditions, and not so much in other conditions.

Bathurst test might be indicative for some people, but it certaintly isn't for me or alot of people I know. Thats my opinion, which i'm entitled to.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Yep, because I mentioned Holden didn't I? :

In my opinion it's not indicative of real world figures for all people, or the cars they drive.

I spent 2 hours today in different levels of traffic. Alot of it was stop starting, with 30-40 minutes stationary, this puts the biggest fuel strain on my FG, and thats not indicative on the bathurst test, (getting out of the car and swapping drivers a few times doesn't really count) 70% of my driving doesn't need the torque I have in my 4.0l at all, as melbourne isn't that hilly, more so where I live.

I'm sure if the FG would have beaten the mondeo and a few other cars on that test as well. I said once in a thread, 'wait until the econetic takes the bathurst test to view its -real- economy figure, and one of the mods gave me a bad rating!!!!!!!! You can't have it both ways!! I remember on top gear they showed a BMW m5 was significantly more fuel efficient to a prius under some conditions, and not so much in other conditions.

Bathurst test might be indicative for some people, but it certaintly isn't for me or alot of people I know. Thats my opinion, which i'm entitled to.

Kezzer have you been around Bathurst? Secondly Bathurst doesn't just go up, it goes down as well, this means some cars can actually make more benefit out of this than larger capacity engines. The people that originally thought up the test were trying to do the fairest thing possible, just goes to show you some one happy and some one else gets disappointed.

[prydey]

i know plenty of people who have an ave km/h of less than 35km/h. anyone who does inner city travel will find they have similar figures. i would be surprised if the cars on the bathurst test averaged less than 45km/h. regardless of the terrain, the slower your ave speed, the worse your mileage will be.

'real world' is different for a lot of people. some think the bathurst test was indicative of 'their' real world, while others, like kezzer, do a lot more stop start driving.

anyone who thinks the bathurst test represents peak hour in many of the parking lots we call roads/highways is kidding themselves.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by prydey

i know plenty of people who have an ave km/h of less than 35km/h. anyone who does inner city travel will find they have similar figures. i would be surprised if the cars on the bathurst test averaged less than 45km/h. regardless of the terrain, the slower your ave speed, the worse your mileage will be.

'real world' is different for a lot of people. some think the bathurst test was indicative of 'their' real world, while others, like kezzer, do a lot more stop start driving.

anyone who thinks the bathurst test represents peak hour in many of the parking lots we call roads/highways is kidding themselves.

Nobody is saying the test is indicative of peak hr traffic or "worst case scenario", its probably indicative of normal light traffic driving with a mix of freeway and suburban, the point most are making is its a FAR better way to compare the products than driving for 9 hrs at a set constant speed on a hwy.
That test would mean SFA to nearly anyone buying either car....

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by prydey

i know plenty of people who have an ave km/h of less than 35km/h. anyone who does inner city travel will find they have similar figures. i would be surprised if the cars on the bathurst test averaged less than 45km/h. regardless of the terrain, the slower your ave speed, the worse your mileage will be.

'real world' is different for a lot of people. some think the bathurst test was indicative of 'their' real world, while others, like kezzer, do a lot more stop start driving.

anyone who thinks the bathurst test represents peak hour in many of the parking lots we call roads/highways is kidding themselves.

The problem is the 3.0L seems to failing the real world tests. I still haven't seen a 3.0L SIDI excel at a test. 3.6L is what the journos are saying to buy if your gonna get one.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Apart from being on a race track how the hell do you manage to use 24L/100km in a Falcon? Ive driven plenty of Falcons in every situation and never got near that.
Maybe in a XD 351 or something

I managed 48L/100km in my AU for a day on the skidpan, lol. Only traveled maybe 20km over the entire day, so didnt burn much at all really.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I've seen 72L/100klm on the instantaneous readout in my BA

The readout goes to 99.9L/100km from memory :evil3:

[Wally]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The problem is the 3.0L seems to failing the real world tests. I still haven't seen a 3.0L SIDI excel at a test. 3.6L is what the journos are saying to buy if your gonna get one.

Problem is that journalists can be quite visceral, therefore viewed with skepticism.

[mik]

Originally Posted by prydey

i know plenty of people who have an ave km/h of less than 35km/h. anyone who does inner city travel will find they have similar figures. i would be surprised if the cars on the bathurst test averaged less than 45km/h. regardless of the terrain, the slower your ave speed, the worse your mileage will be.

'real world' is different for a lot of people. some think the bathurst test was indicative of 'their' real world, while others, like kezzer, do a lot more stop start driving.

anyone who thinks the bathurst test represents peak hour in many of the parking lots we call roads/highways is kidding themselves.

thats true but many people drive around that sort of traffic, i`d rather drive extra distance and usually do any day than be stuck in bumper to bumper.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

i know plenty of people who have an ave km/h of less than 35km/h. anyone who does inner city travel will find they have similar figures. i would be surprised if the cars on the bathurst test averaged less than 45km/h. regardless of the terrain, the slower your ave speed, the worse your mileage will be.

'real world' is different for a lot of people. some think the bathurst test was indicative of 'their' real world, while others, like kezzer, do a lot more stop start driving.

anyone who thinks the bathurst test represents peak hour in many of the parking lots we call roads/highways is kidding themselves.

The bathurst test was, as is always the case with any 'controlled' test, not ideal in replicating real world (if for no other reason then it is impossible to define 'real world' for every individual vehicle...). The gov. mandated ADR test is not ideal niether. The point people on here have made (and this is backed up by pretty much every 'real life' road test we've read) is that the bathurst test is both
a: much more like 'real life' than the ADR test is....and
b: the 3.0 SIDI is not burning any less than the 4.0I6 and in fact sometimes burns more....

Based on ADR figures the FG would stand to come out worse with heavilly congested slower speed driving..... It has the worse urban figure and by a bigger % margin than its similarly worse highway (extra urban) figure. Therefore, it is plausible that if you did a highway test the FG would go very close to matching the smaller GM donk, and the 3.0 SIDI would do better in a very heavilly congested slow speed driving scenario. BUT, this is all based on the already flawed ADR test which do not translated (very well anyway) to real world results.

This is proven by the fact that if anything the 3.0 SIDI is going alot worse than the FG in congested driving (most road tests involve at least 50-60% urban duties) and the only fuel burn test it has won so far (to my knowledge) was a narrow win over a 5sp auto equiped XT....on the open road!!! So much for that theory then....

Ignoring for a moment the upcoming EB 4pot falcon (which will be better suited to round town work) the 4.0 had done well because it has more torque combined with a better auto gearbox (esp when optioned with the zf). Its all about 'right sizing' the drivetrain package to the mass of the car and the type of driving it will do. The 3.0 is not 'right sized', the 3.6 and 4.0I6 are.... Basically it is does not have enough torque and what it has is not made in a useable fashion or properly exploited by the gearbox.....

In short, it is 'underengineered' at least, if not totally pointless to begin with. So much for the 'we will outengineer' claim hey Mark Reuss!!!!

Originally Posted by Drive.com.au

To be fair, it's also worth pointing out the largest engine here — the Falcon's ageing 4.0-litre six — consistently ran closest to its claimed fuel use and was the only car to finish the test registering less than its official combined economy figure.

That's Engineering.....

EDIT: just read the drive story. Seems like the 'theory' may hold....but only just. Either way provides continual proof that the 3.0 engine does not work. Only 0.1L/100km less burn on average on the urban route over the falc. donk. So 101nm less torque (effectively 25% less) and all for 0.1L/100km. Massive Fail Holden.

[prydey]

how is the adr test figures flawed? the figures i've seen for urban and extra urban have been achievable ( around 12L/100 urban and 7.5ish extra urban).

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Yep, because I mentioned Holden didn't I? :

In my opinion it's not indicative of real world figures for all people, or the cars they drive.

I spent 2 hours today in different levels of traffic. Alot of it was stop starting, with 30-40 minutes stationary, this puts the biggest fuel strain on my FG, and thats not indicative on the bathurst test, (getting out of the car and swapping drivers a few times doesn't really count) 70% of my driving doesn't need the torque I have in my 4.0l at all, as melbourne isn't that hilly, more so where I live.

I'm sure if the FG would have beaten the mondeo and a few other cars on that test as well. I said once in a thread, 'wait until the econetic takes the bathurst test to view its -real- economy figure, and one of the mods gave me a bad rating!!!!!!!! You can't have it both ways!! I remember on top gear they showed a BMW m5 was significantly more fuel efficient to a prius under some conditions, and not so much in other conditions.

Bathurst test might be indicative for some people, but it certaintly isn't for me or alot of people I know. Thats my opinion, which i'm entitled to.

No- what Top Gear demonstrated was that under the same conditions, how you drive and not what you drive has a far greater impact on fuel consumption than most people realise.

Never more so is the stuck in traffic situation people have embraced under the guise of “not representing real world conditions.”

It’s not the chore to your car you think it is.
Idle economy burns don’t alter that much between manufacturers. Trying to simulate that circumstance is an absolute waste of time. The variables to control in representing real world conditions don’t address the primary fault and that sits behind the wheel.

Normally, asking an engine to perform under load at either just under or just over its optimal torque band will produce a number that can be regarded as representative to how that engine will perform under a wide range of conditions.

Any test where two products are asked to perform at the same time under the same conditions are said to have an element of control. While it may not fit everyone’s idea of what a real world commute might be it is still indicative of elements of real world driving. Hill driving removes a lot of driver control or influence. You still have to drive the road but that Bathurst Climb removes a large degree of drive influence. Start stop city commute is the opposite. Mass still rules. How you stop that mass and how you get that mass to move is pretty much the end game.

[UNR8D]

*deleted

[UNR8D]

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0212-nx8u.html

How they stack up


Ford Falcon XT ... From $39,290 plus on-road and dealer costs ($41,690 as tested) ENGINE 4.0-litre, in-line 6-cyl POWER 195kW at 6000rpm TORQUE 391Nm at 3250rpm TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic, rear-wheel drive WEIGHT 1704kg FUEL CONSUMPTION 9.9L/100km (9.2L/100km on test) CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS 236g/km SAFETY 5-star NCAP crash rating, front and front-side airbags; anti-lock brakes; stability control.

Holden Commodore Omega ... From $39,990 plus on-road and dealer costs ($40,985 as tested) ENGINE 3.0-litre, V6 POWER 190kW at 6700rpm TORQUE 290Nm at 2900rpm TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic, rear-wheel drive WEIGHT 1685kg FUEL CONSUMPTION 9.3L/100km (9.4L/100km on test) CO2 EMISSIONS 221g/km SAFETY 5-star NCAP crash rating, front, front-side and curtain airbags; anti-lock brakes; stability control

Toyota Hybrid Camry ... From $36,990 plus on-road and dealer costs ENGINE 2.4-litre petrol 4-cyl, two electric motor generators and battery pack POWER 140kW at 6000rpm (combined) TORQUE 187Nm at 4400rpm TRANSMISSION CVT, front-wheel drive WEIGHT 1645kg FUEL CONSUMPTION 6.0L/100km (6.6L/100km on test) CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) EMISSIONS 142g/km, SAFETY 4-star NCAP crash rating (forecast), front, front-side and curtain airbags; anti-lock brakes; stability control.

[UNR8D]

and then there is this....

http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/2...lcon-xr6-18164

Both vehicles recorded an average fuel consumption of 12.5L/100km across our test loop. Driving styles were kept to smooth, even-handed driving while commuting, with both cars staying in relatively close proximity to ensure fairness. During the fast stuff we let rip.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by prydey

how is the adr test figures flawed? the figures i've seen for urban and extra urban have been achievable ( around 12L/100 urban and 7.5ish extra urban).

I must admit I'm a bit puzzled what the "flaw" is predicated on. It seems Holden took advantage of this when they released their bulletin to the dealers:

The most widely-recognised, independent and official measure of fuel economy is ADR 81/02. It’s used consistently by all manufacturers and simulates urban and extra-urban (highway) driving. Based on combined urban/highway numbers, here is how we perform vs Falcon:
. MY10 Commodore with 3.0L SIDI V6: 9.3 Litres/100 kms
. Falcon G6 (standard trans): 10.5 Litres/100 kms
. Falcon G6 (with $2000 6 speed): 10.1 Litres/100 km

It seems there are those who consider the ADR test deceitful when it comes to Holden parading them? The Panorama test is devoid of any cross brand/model comparisons and has no statutory standing. The ADR test on the otherhand is.... well, a "rule".

I'd like to see how other models scored on the mountain, including V8's, turbo sixes, Toyota's, etc. and the disparity between the ADR figure. Sales indicate there is more to Australia than Ford and Holden and I can't really understand why the Age deliberately went out to perpetuate a rivalry between two struggling minnows of the automotive industry. Sure it fired up bulletin boards, but 90% of those members probably don't buy new anyway and are stuck in a brand bubble.

Harping on and on about how deceptive Holden have been doesn't hold water, when they have an ADR figure to prove the ADR figure they quote is correct. Throwing two vehicles, one with far superior gradeability, on a graded course really is a cynical exercise from the outset. Bogus musings that the downhill runs should level the playing field are nonsensical at best.

I personally have very little interest in the Holden six, but it seems real world SIDI feedback is starting to filter through and the comments range between
delight and cautious approval/disapproval. There doesn't seem to any savaging by owners, but some are wondering if the 3.6 would have been a better choice over the 3.0. Of course few people like to admit their mistakes.

[buggerlugs]

http://www.carsales.com.au/reviews/2...con-xr6-18164/