Another bad rap for SIDI

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Sorta of debunks this whole thread really

What that the SIDI is a sub-optimal design or that the 3.0L SIDI is junk? That article exactly proves the point. Pretty weak argument there.

The 3.6L is getting better economy than the 3.0L? Probably, the extra torque. Oh wait. The Ford still has plenty more...

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Sorta of debunks this whole thread really

Actually proves that the 3.0Litre is pointless when you can get just as good (if not better) economy out of the 3.6Litre and a better driving experience to boot (i.e. not gutless)

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Sorta of debunks this whole thread really

No, it doesn't. The thread title says 'another bad rap for SIDI', and since the 3.0 is SIDI (and the main one holden spruiks in its own advertising) and it does get a very bad rap i don't see the problem.

The 3.6 is by far the better motor...something everyone on here has admitted. It is also competitive with the 4.0 I6, which is good since it is the first time in a very very long time (maybe ever) that Holden has really come close to being competitive as per six pot engines with Ford. Of course the 3.6 SIDI was introduced some 18months after Ford put out the FG I6....so it remains to be seen if Ford will not go that step further ahead come the near future.

unfortunately the still inferior auto gearbox (and manual for that matter) and other issues with VE (interior mostly) mean overall the FG is still the ticket in the large car segment. Still, good on holden for finaly putting the 3.6 SIDI into the commodore, it's only been in US cadilacs for what....3 years....

[Kamshaaft]

Just wait 'til the 4.0 gets DI! If the Falcon 6 isn't the better of the two at the moment, it will be when it's putting out 220kw with DI / or tuned for the same as current output but with better fuel economy.

Inline configurations have always been smoother and have produced more torque than Vs. It's no-contest really.

Something you said really doesn't make much sense to me though, so I ask what exactly in your opinion (specific things) makes the Falcon interior superior to the Holden interior, and which models are you comparing?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

Something you said really doesn't make much sense to me though, so I ask what exactly in your opinion (specific things) makes the Falcon interior superior to the Holden interior, and which models are you comparing?

Happy to explain....and i was comparing competitive models (i.e. xt verus omega, G6ET versus Calais V etc.).

Basically, the VE interior is not very good. I will preface that by saying that i realise the FG is newer and that in some models there are differences (holden offers some features ford doesn't, so credit there) but overall the VE interior is not in the same league. This is based on my own experience being in both cars and also the wider opinion of motoroing journos.

The FG has softer touch plastics, it has a more ergonomic design (save perhaps a too high seat, too low steering wheel). The Human machine interface is alot better, the LCD screens are of better quality (much better esp colour ones). While the VE is comfortable enough, it is not tactile with sharp panel edges and more gaps. Anecdoctal evidence also suggest its wears worse....alot of VEs i've been in have bad rattles from factory in the dash itself, and the chrome strip over the dash often lifts off.

Other points that come to mind RE the interior and its amenity:
- truly horid and unsafe handbrake
- very hard to see out of, either behind or forward (with a pillars in the way)
- reversing camera not standard (or even option last i checked)
- Lack of colour combinatiosn e.g. optoinal cashmere on FG.
- Drab and outdated binacle/guage design.
- Lack of climate control on several (including high priced) models.
- more interior road/wind noise
- poor HVAC and very bad reliability from electrics etc.
- poor button tactility esp control nobs etc.

In comparison FG has had a few relatively minor issues i have seen. LCD screens had issue with high temps (VE does it too), early build cars had warping glovebox lids, seat too high, wheel too low. That is about it,, save the odd rattle.... The VE has more leg room....that is about the only good thing about its interior for me...

[fte50]

As always, the Holden alloytec has always been compromised in design and the SIDI is just a further compromise ontop.

Although Holden claim to have pioneered it, it was actually Alfas design and engineering used in their 3.2ltr V6 made by Holden.

Difference was though they had their own unique componentry from the heads /manifolds all the way up, and they patented the idea, so while Holden built it, they could never sell it in their car as contractually agreed.

So then Holden launches SIDI which is a half arst attempt at embracing Alfas idea without crossing contratual boundaries.

But i guess enough silly folks believe their ads. :

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by fte50

As always, the Holden alloytec has always been compromised in design and the SIDI is just a further compromise ontop.

Although Holden claim to have pioneered it, it was actually Alfas design and engineering used in their 3.2ltr V6 made by Holden.

Difference was though they had their own unique componentry from the heads /manifolds all the way up, and they patented the idea, so while Holden built it, they could never sell it in their car as contractually agreed.

So then Holden launches SIDI which is a half arst attempt at embracing Alfas idea without crossing contratual boundaries.

But i guess enough silly folks believe their ads. :

Kinda correct fte. My understanding was that alfa intended on using the 3.2 as is (this was back when GM owned fiat...the parent company). But they found it to be so poor in design, they redid the whole engine and only took the block. Whether GM sent the entire engine and they stripped it i don't know, but apart from the tiny GM stamp on the block that engine is pretty much all alfa. I was not aware it was DI, but a quick wiki search confirms you are correct.

The bit you got wrong is the bit about holden designign the DI. That is a GM powetrain design wholly out of the US...and it doesn't work nearly as well as the Alfa one neithre.

Intersting that that quoted figures for the alfa engine are 190kw and 322nm. This is interesting because it makes in excess of 100nm a litre, something Holden seems unable to do with its localy built 3.0. Moreover, the torque figure on the alfa donk is at 3800rpm....which is very respectable when you compare it to the DI GM caddilac 3.6.....which makes its peack torque at 5200rpm!!! And that is with their OWN ENGINE LOL!

No wonder just weeks after being sold by GM an Alfa engineer atcually described the base alloyte design as 'not very good...not suffiiently optimised to our base standards' or something to that effect.....

[fte50]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

The bit you got wrong is the bit about holden designign the DI. That is a GM powetrain design wholly out of the US...and it doesn't work nearly as well as the Alfa one neithre.

Intersting that that quoted figures for the alfa engine are 190kw and 322nm. This is interesting because it makes in excess of 100nm a litre, something Holden seems unable to do with its localy built 3.0. Moreover, the torque figure on the alfa donk is at 3800rpm....which is very respectable when you compare it to the DI GM caddilac 3.6.....which makes its peack torque at 4600rpm!!! And that is with their OWN ENGINE LOL!

No wonder just weeks after being sold by GM an Alfa engineer atcually described the base alloyte design as 'not very good...not suffiiently optimised to our base standards' or something to that effect.....

I have spoken of the alloytecs compromised design in previous posts/threads only to be rediculed by 'the uneducated' mechanical view of some or 1.

By refering to Holden i do mean GM as in my view Holden is no more. Everything Holden now does is GM driven/influenced.

Finally, the complete "ALFA" engines were wholly assembled at Port Melb. as Alfa had all their unique componentry shipped there on a just in time basis.
The design flaws and split of company interests though was not the sole problem for Alfas no longer fulfilling its order obligation.

You have to ask what was the "root cause cause of its relationship break, and IT WASNT the financial crisis. The marriage was split prior and the reason WAS the poor quality delivered to Alfa, whom were rightfully very fussy. Imagine being promised all the hype, then only to have this motor come from half way around the world, go through the complete assembly line proccess only to be delivered to its new owner with a problem which requires an engine pull - term used for removing engine in warranty - whole 2000 thousand faulty units.
This IS THE carmakers worst nightmare and a global benchmark by what each maker is measured.
And to worsen Alfas nightmare, their motoring press continually ran comparo tests against their 'old 3.0, 3.5 V6' which ofcourse for those that know, are amongst the sweetest and most rewarding v6s to drive.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by fte50

I have spoken of the alloytecs compromised design in previous posts/threads only to be rediculed by 'the uneducated' mechanical view of some or 1.

By refering to Holden i do mean GM as in my view Holden is no more. Everything Holden now does is GM driven/influenced.

Finally, the complete "ALFA" engines were wholly assembled at Port Melb. as Alfa had all their unique componentry shipped there on a just in time basis.
The design flaws and split of company interests though was not the sole problem for Alfas no longer fulfilling its order obligation.

You have to ask what was the "root cause cause of its relationship break, and IT WASNT the financial crisis. The marriage was split prior and the reason WAS the poor quality delivered to Alfa, whom were rightfully very fussy. Imagine being promised all the hype, then only to have this motor come from half way around the world, go through the complete assembly line proccess only to be delivered to its new owner with a problem which requires an engine pull - term used for removing engine in warranty - whole 2000 thousand faulty units.
This IS THE carmakers worst nightmare and a global benchmark by what each maker is measured.
And to worsen Alfas nightmare, their motoring press continually ran comparo tests against their 'old 3.0, 3.5 V6' which ofcourse for those that know, are amongst the sweetest and most rewarding v6s to drive.

Interesting RE the way it was built. Alfa was sending its own stuff to GM Holden, who were then building the engine to their specs. Must have been hard to prove GM were not taking the odd measurement and reverse engineering the DI and head set up.... If i was alfa i wouldn't have done a deal like that wiht that mob...but then again, they probably didn't have much choice. The alfa version was seen as much better, but as you say, with such a good existing benchmark in their own preceding V6s you can see why the GM crappytec couldn't match up....

As for the waranty work, well that would be the last straw. Alfa's have a bad enough rep as it is in that department, they were/are trying to remake themselves as a true premium brand. I have to say some of the stories you hear about the dodgy quality of the alloytec engine production are scary. Let alone its design issues...

[mik]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Did anyone realize the weight of the Taurus? 2100kg, XR6 around 1700kg make Taurus look like a barge, yet again our Aussie version outshines the US.

and here`s a short road test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ymRteeU9p4
here`s another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qX4R...eature=channel
it has some nice interior features, cooled seats would be a nice feature for oz.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by mik

and here`s a short road test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ymRteeU9p4
here`s another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qX4R...eature=channel
it has some nice interior features, cooled seats would be a nice feature for oz.

Ta for that but it makes me stand by what I say.

[US kills Falcon]

SIDI sales have been less than spectacular to date.

[vztrt]

Seems that the bad publicity of the 3.0L is costing Holden sales.

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...0115-mbha.html

Smaller engines, smaller sales for Holden

RICHARD BLACKBURN
January 18, 2010

Taking the fuel-efficient route has seen rivals catch up to the Commodore but the future looks bright thanks to the US.

Holden's decision to fit a smaller, more efficient engine to its Commodore range appears to have backfired, with sales slipping since the introduction of a new model in late September.

In its first three full months on sale, the Commodore recorded less than 12,000 sales, compared with more than 13,500 in the same period last year.

The 13 per cent dip in sales is in contrast to the rest of the new-car market, which bounced back strongly in the last quarter (up 12 per cent on last year) on the back of tax breaks delivered through the Federal Government's economic stimulus package.

Typically, the arrival of a new model causes a spike in sales but the model year 2010 Commodore, the first major update since the 2006 launch of the VE, has struggled to find its feet.

At the same time, the arch-rival Ford Falcon has enjoyed a 7 per cent lift in sales.

The dip comes despite deep discounts on the new Commodore. Holden has been running a drive-away promotion on the car, with a discount of about $8000 off the on-road price combined with $7500 worth of extra equipment.

The Commodore, the top-selling car in Australia for the past 14 years, has also lost ground to the Toyota Corolla small car and the HiLux in recent months. The Corolla was the nation's top seller in October, while the HiLux was No.1 in November.

Toyota's vehicles have toppled the Commodore from the top spot for five of the past seven months.

Holden switched to a 3.0-litre engine on its cheaper Commodore models in an attempt to steal the high ground on fuel efficiency over the rival Falcon and the Toyota Aurion.

But in real-world testing conducted by Drive, the smaller engine has proved thirstier than the Falcon fitted with an optional six-speed auto.

Holden managing director Alan Batey admitted this week that the new model had exprienced a slow start.

"Two things really hurt us," he said. "We didn't have the International [special edition] until the middle of November so we had a gap of what we call our retail offer for about six or seven weeks so we didn't capitalise on that.

"And secondly, in the end, we didn't have enough cars out there. We have been very cautious in making sure that every car we build has a customer name, a customer sold or a dealer name on it. So we were probably overly cautious."

He said the company had underestimated the strength of the recovery in the Australian car market in the last quarter of 2009, and had run short of stock.

But as a result the forward-order bank was "fantastic".

He rejected the suggestion that the shift to a more frugal V6 engine had turned traditional Commodore buyers away.

Commodore has always traded heavily on its motorsport and performance image but the new model fitted with the direct injection (SIDI) 3.0-litre engine is significantly slower than its Falcon and Toyota Aurion rivals.

"Look, SIDI to me, you have to be realistic. We are at record high segment shares on large cars anyway," Mr Batey said.

"The real appeal for SIDI is clearly going to be in fleet and that takes time to see the benefits of that commercial program. You don't just launch and, bang, you are back on every choice list.

"And also with fleet buyers, they have been pretty cautious in their purchases."

Fleet buyers make up about 75 per cent of all Commodore sales.

Commodore fleet sales are, however, expected to come under renewed pressure when Toyota launches a hybrid version of the four-cylinder Camry next month.

Toyota says fleet interest in the locally built hybrid Camry, which is likely to undercut the Commodore on price, has been so strong that the company will struggle to meet demand.

The hybrid Camry is expected to be at least 20 per cent more fuel-efficient than the Commodore.

Commodore's domestic woes are in sharp contrast to its rising fortunes on the international stage. A special police version of the car is expected to be exported in significant numbers to the US, while GM heavyweights are flagging the possibility of a major export program that would see performance versions of the Aussie icon sold with Chevrolet badges.

With Bruce Newton

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

Just wait 'til the 4.0 gets DI! If the Falcon 6 isn't the better of the two at the moment, it will be when it's putting out 220kw with DI / or tuned for the same as current output but with better fuel economy.

You do realise the SIDI 3.6l is detuned from 230kw to 210?

I agree IF the I6 gets DI, it will be a better motor, but dont think the 210kw is its maximum.

[outback_ute]

"And secondly, in the end, we didn't have enough cars out there. We have been very cautious in making sure that every car we build has a customer name, a customer sold or a dealer name on it. So we were probably overly cautious."

I think this has hurt Ford too, I'm sure they would have lost some buyers who weren't prepared to wait 2 months for their car.

[Road_Warrior]

I think they thing which may be hurting the VE more is that it looks the same as the VE that was released 4 years ago. No freshen up in 4 years - that's a long time between drinks for a fickle buying public that like new shiny designs every 18 months-2 years.

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by Drive

Fleet buyers make up about 75 per cent of all Commodore sales.

That can't be right, it was 50% a few months ago. The truth is, Commodore buyers are trading into the Cruze & Captiva.

Holden would be devastated that the new engines haven't provided a spike in sales.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by fte50

I have spoken of the alloytecs compromised design in previous posts/threads only to be rediculed by 'the uneducated' mechanical view of some or 1.

By refering to Holden i do mean GM as in my view Holden is no more. Everything Holden now does is GM driven/influenced.

Finally, the complete "ALFA" engines were wholly assembled at Port Melb. as Alfa had all their unique componentry shipped there on a just in time basis.
The design flaws and split of company interests though was not the sole problem for Alfas no longer fulfilling its order obligation.

You have to ask what was the "root cause cause of its relationship break, and IT WASNT the financial crisis. The marriage was split prior and the reason WAS the poor quality delivered to Alfa, whom were rightfully very fussy. Imagine being promised all the hype, then only to have this motor come from half way around the world, go through the complete assembly line proccess only to be delivered to its new owner with a problem which requires an engine pull - term used for removing engine in warranty - whole 2000 thousand faulty units.
This IS THE carmakers worst nightmare and a global benchmark by what each maker is measured.
And to worsen Alfas nightmare, their motoring press continually ran comparo tests against their 'old 3.0, 3.5 V6' which ofcourse for those that know, are amongst the sweetest and most rewarding v6s to drive.

2000 engines pulled is just massive fail. To put that into perspective, Broadmeadows only pulled 3 engines in total last year out of 50,000 + cars.

[vztrt]

Ok so Drive did a test drive on the Hybrid. Anywho after the boring article they had the test figures of the Commo, Falc and Hybrid. It was quite interesting.

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...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.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Ok so Drive did a test drive on the Hybrid. Anywho after the boring article they had the test figures of the Commo, Falc and Hybrid. It was quite interesting.

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

Falcon still wins in my books with those figures however it is the dearer choice.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

2000 engines pulled is just massive fail. To put that into perspective, Broadmeadows only pulled 3 engines in total last year out of 50,000 + cars.

I'd imagine you (and your colleagues) would have a collection of these reviews stashed somewhere in Geelong for a morale booster. If an engine whose roots are firmly in this millennium can't beat an engine that has its bore spacings based in the late 50's, Holden have their work ahead of them.

As for the I6 - they usually last longer than the cars they are supposed to be powering. You boys at Geelong are doing something right, especially with the constant I6 speculation. Well done.

Edit:

Originally Posted by fte50

Finally, the complete "ALFA" engines were wholly assembled at Port Melb. as Alfa had all their unique componentry shipped there on a just in time basis.
The design flaws and split of company interests though was not the sole problem for Alfas no longer fulfilling its order obligation.

You have to ask what was the "root cause cause of its relationship break, and IT WASNT the financial crisis. The marriage was split prior and the reason WAS the poor quality delivered to Alfa, whom were rightfully very fussy. Imagine being promised all the hype, then only to have this motor come from half way around the world, go through the complete assembly line proccess only to be delivered to its new owner with a problem which requires an engine pull - term used for removing engine in warranty - whole 2000 thousand faulty units.
This IS THE carmakers worst nightmare and a global benchmark by what each maker is measured.
And to worsen Alfas nightmare, their motoring press continually ran comparo tests against their 'old 3.0, 3.5 V6' which ofcourse for those that know, are amongst the sweetest and most rewarding v6s to drive.

Why not just have Alfa assemble the engines themselves. It hardly makes sense having Holden in Australia manufacture engines with imported components (probably from Italy), only to send a completed engine back to Italy. The same for Korea - Holden must be really worried that there could be a V6 engine plant in Korea or China that is capable of building the Alloytec. Their V8 is a crate engine, why not their V6? Ford are lucky and also unlucky that their I6 is unique. Lucky because it can't be manufactured anywhere else, but unlucky because it could be killed off at any second and replaced with the Duratec.

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Ok so Drive did a test drive on the Hybrid. Anywho after the boring article they had the test figures of the Commo, Falc and Hybrid. It was quite interesting.

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

Just looking at the figures. I can't believe that the SIDI, with all its technology and a whole 1L less than the Facon is only 15g/km less in the CO2 emissions.

This has to be another Tick for the Broady boys on the work they've done on the Old GAL.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Paxton

I'd imagine you (and your colleagues) would have a collection of these reviews stashed somewhere in Geelong for a morale booster. If an engine whose roots are firmly in this millennium can't beat an engine that has its bore spacings based in the late 50's, Holden have their work ahead of them.

As for the I6 - they usually last longer than the cars they are supposed to be powering. You boys at Geelong are doing something right, especially with the constant I6 speculation. Well done.

We're mushrooms.

Never used to be that way. It all went downhill when they started losing money around 05/06. Things weren't even that bad in the AU days.

[mik]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Ok so Drive did a test drive on the Hybrid. Anywho after the boring article they had the test figures of the Commo, Falc and Hybrid. It was quite interesting.

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

interesting article , but they are talking about running costs, the camry hybrid is an economy car , why did`nt they test the camry against the ford and holden economy gas equipped cars then add up the cost, this would have been a more suitable test to me after all its the $$$$$$ to run on the economy models..

[morak001]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Its not the plastics that have increased the weight of the car, how many 1969 Dodge Pheonix's do you know with a 5 star crash rating, ABS, power windows, climate control, 6 airbags, 19 inch rims, comfortable seats, central locking....see where Im heading with this? Old Mustangs used to weigh 1140kg as well, Id rather be driving a falcon or commode when I crash instead of something old.

Indeed, I fully agree, do a youtube search and look for a late model chevy crashing into a 56? 57? chevy NO CONTEST. I was actually laughing at the 'great wall' car company crash tests when this one came up.... I was suprised at how much the old 'tanks'!!!! crumpled.
Getting off topic but... compare the weight of a valiant sw against a sigma high roof wagon.......

[Trek]

Originally Posted by morak001

Indeed, I fully agree, do a youtube search and look for a late model chevy crashing into a 56? 57? chevy NO CONTEST. I was actually laughing at the 'great wall' car company crash tests when this one came up.... I was suprised at how much the old 'tanks'!!!! crumpled.
Getting off topic but... compare the weight of a valiant sw against a sigma high roof wagon.......

The older Chev in that vid was a '59 malibu...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by mik

interesting article , but they are talking about running costs, the camry hybrid is an economy car , why did`nt they test the camry against the ford and holden economy gas equipped cars then add up the cost, this would have been a more suitable test to me after all its the $$$$$$ to run on the economy models..

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.

[jpd80]

I wish Drive would repeat their "Bathurst 1000" each year with a whole bevy
of economy pretenders and pick the best in class for each.

Let's have a match off later this year between:

1. Falcon, Commodore, Aurion and Accord V6

2. Mid Sized I-4s - Camry (and Hybrid) Mondeo diesel, Accord Euro, Mazda 6 Sonata.

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I wish Drive would repeat their "Bathurst 1000" each year with a whole bevy
of economy pretenders and pick the best in class for each.

Let's have a match off later this year between:

1. Falcon, Commodore, Aurion and Accord V6

2. Mid Sized I-4s - Camry (and Hybrid) Mondeo diesel, Accord Euro, Mazda 6 Sonata.

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

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by kezzer

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

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......