drive com fg vs sidi ve. surprise!

[Falc'man]

Wally, can you see this :thebirds: ?

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by Chopped

The only interesting result was how long it took to do the 161 laps (21hours) compared to the v8 Supercars lol.

It wasn't a race and they stuck to the speed limit. It's a regular TWO WAY* public road most days of the year, and is a 60km/h zone.

So if they managed to average 60km/h around the whole lap (quite possible), it's still far slower than the average time the V8's do it in (avg speed over IIRC ~170km/h)

*with no lanes marked.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Wally, can you see this :thebirds: ?

LOL yeah I can see that. I took you off my ignore list a few weeks back.

[Hubble80]

Originally Posted by madmelon

They show a pic at the end- the commodore has over 1000 whilst the falcon is at 970 something...

...or are you referring to how run in each car is?

That is what I actually meant mate. The FG has been out a while longer (particularly media drive cars) than the new SIDI Crumpledore.

[prydey]

there was another thread on here regarding the new 'sidi' commodore. it made reference to the latest wheels comparo between a 5sp auto falcon xt, 3.6L calais 6sp auto and 3.0L omega 6sp auto.

they went from melb. to broken hill and back but used alternate routes to main highway for a lot of it. still mentioned that 95% of the test was flat highway road.

omega - 9.9L/100km
calais - 10.0L/100km
xt - 10.5L/100km.

not exactly worlds apart. they gave the calais a pretty good wrap, (3.6L) but wondered how holden claimed a 9.3combined figure for the 3.0L.

again, all 3 cars were tested in the same conditions. falcon doesn't get much of a mention as its basically only there as a reference for economy. main focus is on the new holden engines.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

falcon doesn't get much of a mention as its basically only there as a reference for economy. main focus is on the new holden engines.

Yeah, otherwise they would have used the ZF6.

[prydey]

i think we all get a little too carried away with the numbers. 1/2 a litre every 100kms is not something that will decide a purchase. that means your weekly round town fuel cost on average would vary by about $3-$6 per tank. thats assuming you get 5-600km to a tank.

[FalconXR6]

Top result and one that I hope gets plenty of media attention.

Love the blokes that claim this isn't "real world" enough for them and that "real world" driving is city driving.

It's also good to see that Holden are being taken to task with their claims of best in class fuel efficiency.
Sure, fuel efficiency is all the rage now days but don't think your going to get away with making claims and not try and have people disprove / confirm them - especially when it's something as "in" as fuel consumption.

Holden, you may have got away with it ten years ago but not today, son.

[Bossxr8]

It won't bother them too much, they can always order more mirrors and smoke machines.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by prydey

there was another thread on here regarding the new 'sidi' commodore. it made reference to the latest wheels comparo between a 5sp auto falcon xt, 3.6L calais 6sp auto and 3.0L omega 6sp auto.

they went from melb. to broken hill and back but used alternate routes to main highway for a lot of it. still mentioned that 95% of the test was flat highway road.

omega - 9.9L/100km
calais - 10.0L/100km
xt - 10.5L/100km.

not exactly worlds apart. they gave the calais a pretty good wrap, (3.6L) but wondered how holden claimed a 9.3combined figure for the 3.0L.

again, all 3 cars were tested in the same conditions. falcon doesn't get much of a mention as its basically only there as a reference for economy. main focus is on the new holden engines.

Wasn't the 10.5 a typo and was actually 10.1 if you read the article?

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Wasn't the 10.5 a typo and was actually 10.1 if you read the article?

Yes it was a typo (as stated in the other thread)
*9.9L VE 3.0L
*10.0L VE 3.6L
*10.1L FG 4.0L (5spd auto)
Take into account the 3-6% better economy of the ZF6 over the A5 and Ford would've most likely (9.5-9.8L) won that one too!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Wasn't the 10.5 a typo and was actually 10.1 if you read the article?

depends how you read it. i took it the 10.1 was for the first tank when it ran out on them. at the end of the article it states 10.5 as well as 10.5 in the specs bit.

either way, its not enough to influence any buying decision i would think.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Rodp

The claim that "At the end of the day you cant calibrate the car to perform perfectly in every condition" is a fair one, though the rest sounds like bunk. After all, Top Gear showed that a BMW M5 is more economical than a Prius under certain conditions.

It is a fair comment, but what's to say their calibration wasn't meant for the lab? Their (not so safe) tyre choice proves they only have one agenda - it's not safety, that's for sure. Some journos have noted that no adjustment has been done to the DSC to allow for the low friction tyres.. Poor form, Holden.

[ltd]

In the G6E-T whipping calais's butt, the 3.6 only managed 11's on fuel economy. Pretty bloody poor form.

[Pinch]

Rented an older (non SIDI) HFV6 Calais a few weeks ago.

For Holden's sake hopefully it was a just an example of how thrashed rental cars can get (but only had 9K on odo).

Fuel economy was woeful (driving VERY carefully - its a long story - see The Bar.). I was running E10 (like the person who had it before me probably did), but even on cost v distance I have never spent that much in any car per km. Including my NC (except when towing). Would have thought the SIDI would have been much better, and with an auto 6 too, but guess not hey.

The A5 gearbox was hands down the worst I have ever used. In any car. Ever. The sequential function delay in changing was seriously measured in whole seconds, then snapped a change like you did a 4 to 1 instead of 3 in a H manual. And it rolled back on hills, markedly.

Engine noise into the cabin (base Calais here, not V) was much too much for a luxury oriented car, and way louder than my NC. Wind noise was less though, and the actual note of the engine wasn't that bad. Wasn't even styled much different to an Omega. A bit of chrome around the windows, grille moustache and some 17ins and other than that, from the outside, you are in an Omega!

Would never ever rent one of these again, let alone buy one. If they gave me one again I would self downgrade to an Aurion. Much better. Thrifty has G6E's so going with them next time for a comparo.

Very dissappointing. Especially since I found out on return they gave me the newer Calais as an 'upgrade' over a BF Fairlane - with a ZF box. Meh.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

It is a fair comment, but what's to say their calibration wasn't meant for the lab? Their (not so safe) tyre choice proves they only have one agenda - it's not safety, that's for sure. Some journos have noted that no adjustment has been done to the DSC to allow for the low friction tyres.. Poor form, Holden.

Further to this. The reason that GM Holden took the standard tyre out and replaced it with a spacesaver last year was to get VE into the next lower weight zone by a 1kg or something stupid. This meant that the test was going to show a better reading by a 2 per cent. Add the detuning and more upshift ready 4spd saved them official fuel consumption...

The not "econo-low grip" tyre DSC tune is poor. Though it will be good when the originals wear out and are replaced with regular tyres...

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

It is a fair comment, but what's to say their calibration wasn't meant for the lab? Their (not so safe) tyre choice proves they only have one agenda - it's not safety, that's for sure. Some journos have noted that no adjustment has been done to the DSC to allow for the low friction tyres.. Poor form, Holden.

Indeed...i was discussing this with a mate the other day. Holden's respone was a bit like toyota saying 'but the wheels rollover was caused by the driver...the kluger's computer didn't detect any problem' - of course it dind't....it didn't work.

Fact is that for any given test on any given road with any given driver will be different so it is a difficult balancing act to achieve good driveability with a best fuel efficiency as possible. On this test, the Ford achieved the balance better. Problem is, you string together enough of these scenarios (diff reviews, private users, fleet stats etc.) and the holden keeps losing...then you really are stuffed. As you pointed out, you can certainly tune a car to deliver the best economy under a certain situation...such as the ADR standardised test. Oh, wait a minute....

Engineers do what they are told....and when you are told to get the best ADR number possible then you do that. Too bad if you screw driveability (toyota aurion???). Holden used to have better form than this...they are getting desperate.

Originally Posted by phillyc

Further to this. The reason that GM Holden took the standard tyre out and replaced it with a spacesaver last year was to get VE into the next lower weight zone by a 1kg or something stupid. This meant that the test was going to show a better reading by a 2 per cent. Add the detuning and more upshift ready 4spd saved them official fuel consumption...

The not "econo-low grip" tyre DSC tune is poor. Though it will be good when the originals wear out and are replaced with regular tyres...

I thought i read that holden did retune the DSC for the new tyres? Made it more reactive (cut in earlier) to stop excessive sliding. Either way using low rolling resistance tyres is always a slippery slope...eventually the tyre becomes compromised in lateral grip.

I think you will also find that a 'can of goo' is now what holden provides. They did go space saver (as did ford) on some models to lower fuel burn on the so called 'econo alloytec' models. Given the SIDI engines were barely 12months away you wonder why they bothered...until you find out later that they were totally bankrupt, had a 'secret' gov. loan at the time (since revealed) and atcually 'detuned' the old port injected V6 to save some very large gov/company fleet deals. Screwed over thousands of mum and dad buyers to keep the fleet deals running basically..... Now with the new one they have gone for the goo to get rid of the last 4-6 kg or whatever. When you look at that saving (every 10kg is 0.1-0.2L/100km apparenlty) and then the 6sp auto one wonders how much difference the SIDI tech actually makes....

[ieatsports_cars]

i have no idea why ford is still going to do the i4 when the i6 is just as good, i know they emission thingymibob but, that test just proves how good the falcons really are, why wouldnt any one buy a holden over a falcon ?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ieatsports_cars

i have no idea why ford is still going to do the i4 when the i6 is just as good, i know they emission thingymibob but, that test just proves how good the falcons really are, why wouldnt any one buy a holden over a falcon ?

Probably because they can get even lower fuel burn with the ecoboost.... That and marketing/perception. Oh and government contracts that dictate 4cylinders. Alot of the reasons are not engineering related....but it will deliver real world benefits and i look forward to giving one a spin....

[steve851]

Football, Meatpies and Holden Cars...Blah!! Blah!!...the problem is, You could put four wheels and a holden badge on a dog and Aussies will still buy it...No matter how much better the Falcon is.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by steve851

Football, Meatpies and Holden Cars...Blah!! Blah!!...the problem is, You could put four wheels and a holden badge on a dog and Aussies will still buy it...No matter how much better the Falcon is.

Some car companies build brands, others build cars.

I know which I prefer driving.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Some car companies build brands, others build cars.

I know which I prefer driving.

perfectly put. Damn shame that the 'brands' sell more than the 'cars'.

[prydey]

a little off topic...

a workmate has a ba and is looking to downgrade to a smaller car. holden cruze is top of the list. i'm constantly niggling hm about it, reminding him its actually a daewoo lacetti. he googled it today only to find that i was in fact serious and that it is a daewoo rebadged (at least until they start assembling them here). sort of threw him a bit.

then i asked if the sole reason he wants to downgrade is due to fuel costs and apparently it is. i suggested looking for a 2nd hand FG falcon to which he responded, 'why would i get another big 4L'. i explained to him that they have improved a lot since the ba and that fg owners are regularly getting 10's for economy. they aren't that much worse than a small car. personally i don't think theres a big enough gap to warrant downsizing based on fuel costs alone.

regardless of which team you bat for, these large cars are very impressive but continue to battle a mislead public.

[GT69]

Originally Posted by prydey

a little off topic...

a workmate has a ba and is looking to downgrade to a smaller car. holden cruze is top of the list. i'm constantly niggling hm about it, reminding him its actually a daewoo lacetti. he googled it today only to find that i was in fact serious and that it is a daewoo rebadged (at least until they start assembling them here). sort of threw him a bit.

then i asked if the sole reason he wants to downgrade is due to fuel costs and apparently it is. i suggested looking for a 2nd hand FG falcon to which he responded, 'why would i get another big 4L'. i explained to him that they have improved a lot since the ba and that fg owners are regularly getting 10's for economy. they aren't that much worse than a small car. personally i don't think theres a big enough gap to warrant downsizing based on fuel costs alone.

regardless of which team you bat for, these large cars are very impressive but continue to battle a mislead public.

I've never understood people spending $20,000 on a NEW small car....to save 3 - 5 litres per 100km.....seems like a false economy to me.

Like the prius being $40,000 or so.....buy a corolla or focus...or fiesta and put that spare $10,000 - $20,000 into fuel.....Or shock/gasp/horror, put it in the bank and start earning interested.

A few years back (when fuel hit $1 a litre) I was talking to my mechanic, I suggested putting the Cortina on LPG....He laughed at me....his point of view was that $2000 (for an LPG system at the time) = a lot of fuel. The logic is correct, As pointed out in a few threads, the difference is minimal, normally dependent on what kinda of driving you do, and how you drive.

[Swordsman88]

Found this little tidbit buried in another drive.com.au review....this time of a new omega sportwagon...

Originally Posted by drive.com.au

We couldn't match the fuel-consumption numbers on the window label, using more than 14 litres in city driving (against a quoted 12.7 litres per 100 kilometres) and about 8.5L/100km in sedate freeway cruising. That matches our experience during the media drive of the Commodore sedan, where we found that the bigger 3.6-litre engine returned similar economy figures to the 3.0-litre.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...6772&vf=7&pg=2

As i've said before, Holden can't keep claiming it was the 'specific test' forever. Eventually someone has to put up their hand and say enough is enough....the new 3.0 doesn't deliver enough benefit in enough cases to justify the bother. Its now becoming pretty clear this was a huge marketing effort from Holden, but one with very little practical use.

Final verdict?

Originally Posted by drive.com.au

Holden has focused its attention almost single-mindedly on reducing fuel consumption, delivering it bragging rights as the most fuel-efficient petrol-powered large car on sale in Australia.

Elsewhere, nothing much has changed, which is no great shame because the original model was pretty good. It still has some flaws — most notably poor vision and a cabin in need of a tart-up — but it remains a frugal and sporty alternative to many slab-sided, thirsty soft-roaders on the market.

Note the usual Drive.com.au bias at the end. Please...at $41,990 plus on roads i could get a brand new, just launched Kia Sorento with $2k to spare. And that is the diesel that has...wait for it....a brand new 2.2L I4 turbo diesel that pumps out:

The small capacity diesel puts out an impressive 145kW and a massive 436Nm of torque at just 1,800 RPM (in auto – manual is 422Nm). Fuel economy is 6.7L/100km in manual and 7.4L/100km in auto according to caradvice (launch review here: http://www.caradvice.com.au/45891/kia-sorento-review/).

And before you knock it for being a kia, it has all the kit in the world, looks better and frankly has an interior at least as good. At least Ford has the decency to charge ($4k) less for the fully kitted and infinitely more appealing mondeo wagon..... $42k for this thing....honestly they must be kidding.... :

[Murph-51]

I hope Ford don't advertise this test, otherwise we will get all these climbing into our falcons.
The people in the "know" who know which is the superior brand will be the people we want driving our falcons

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

And before you knock it for being a kia, it has all the kit in the world, looks better and frankly has an interior at least as good. At least Ford has the decency to charge ($4k) less for the fully kitted and infinitely more appealing mondeo wagon..... $42k for this thing....honestly they must be kidding.... :

It's a wobbly soft roader, it is not a car. If you think it is then, well, you are probably the target market for them.

[ltd]

I think what he was getting at mcnews is that it's a better alternative to the Holden.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by mcnews

It's a wobbly soft roader, it is not a car. If you think it is then, well, you are probably the target market for them.

And i'm sure holden's decision to hobble the commodore lineup with low grip tyres really helps its handling advantage. Though FWD versus RWD (and obviously down on power) i reckon in the low speed twistied a mondeo zetec (4k less) would have no problem outhandling a omege sportwagon. Having driven a mondeo sedan when it first launched it is a very impressive handler.

Fact is LTD is right. I think its great that cars like the Sportwagon and Mondeo wagon are bringing the wagon back in vogue. I'm not a fan of SUVs much anyway but the price they want is just too steep for a car with so many deficiencies. Its really because they set a precedent with an overpriced sedan in the first place. I realise they have new engine technology in it but so far while better than what they ahd before its no better than what competitors have out there already. And for less money. I could of used a range of other cars as an example....either way this car still comes out very iffy RE cost versus capability.

[BrisVegas]

hmmm. Commodore wagon versus Kia Sorento 2.2 diesel.... I'd take the Kia in a heartbeat. It's practical, seats 7, good value and fuel efficient... All the things the commodore is not.