Holden's 3.0l car thirstier than the Falcon?
Marts
Holden has "trained" its dealers how to cope with difficult questions on the
shock result of Drive's exclusive fuel test that showed the much-hyped new
3.0-litre Commodore is thirstier than its Falcon rival.
Holden has "trained" its dealers how to cope with difficult questions on the
shock result of Drive's exclusive fuel test that showed the much-hyped new
3.0-litre Commodore is thirstier than its Falcon rival.
The company has sent a dealer bulletin with notes on how to answer questions
surrounding the results of the most comprehensive independent fuel test between
the two large-car rivals, which involved driving for 1000 kilometres around
Bathurst's Mount Panorama race track at or below the 60km/h speed limit to
simulate city driving.
It showed the Commodore was 10 per cent thirstier than its Ford rival, despite
its windscreen fuel label claiming it is 8 per cent more frugal.
The dealer bulletin was preceded by an email to journalists in which the Drive
test was described as �extreme� and Mount Panorama's 174-metre climb likened to
mountains in Switzerland.
"We don't think your Bathurst test gave a true indication of real-world driving
conditions,� spokesman Scott Whiffin said. �That's what we're telling our
dealers, our customers, our people.�
Yet Holden later issued a press release spruiking the efficiency of its
3.0-litre Commodore based on the controversial Global Green Challenge, a
3000-kilometre fuel test between Darwin and Adelaide.
It failed to mention the extremities of the testing, which involved driving
through the desert at up to 60km/h below the 130km/h Northern Territory speed
limit in 40-degree heat without the air-conditioning in use.
Unlike the exclusive Drive test, the Global Green Challenge � won by the
thirstiest car in the field, a V8-powered HSV Maloo � was arguably as far from
real-world driving as you could get.
Holden admitted that it was �an extreme event�. �We thought it was pretty
obvious this event was not simulating real world conditions ... it was an
out-and-out fuel economy run, may the best car win,� the company said.
Holden also failed to point out that the Falcon it beat by just 0.6L/100km was
the high-performance turbocharged version that accelerates faster than Holden's
6.0-litre V8.
--------------[end of article]--------------
Holden is complaining that the Bathurst trial was no "real world". Yet, it was
beaten by a Falcon also subjected to the same conditions.
Having said that, what Drive should have done is to take the two vehicles and
drive them around the city together, then out onto the freeways for extended
runs and so on. Each time logging the fuel fills and kays travelled.
That's "real world" testing.
I've yet to own a car that has come within cooee of the supposedly fuel
consumption ratings (eg, city cycle, country cycle and whatever they use these
days as "standards").
I remember when Holden released the VN and all the hype over its "new" V6
engine. When I purchased one I expected to see these magical 30 mpg figures or
whatever it was s'posed to be back then. But when I found that it was only
marginally better than my then departed VK 5.0l Commodore I was somewhat
disappointed. Shortly afterwards, after having no joy with the dealer and
accusing them of misleading me, I converted it to gas.
They've gotten better over the years, the last Commodore that I owned, a VX SS,
able to get 9l/100km on a trip. Around town it was still poor at around
15l/100km. But given the extra weight, the more power, and so on, it's still an
improvement over the earlier Commodes.
--
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Trevor Wilson
"Marts" <ma...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:k20kf5p2pv2h5o9fh...@ymail.com...
**LOL! Yeah, right. Extreme for Adelaide or Melbourne, maybe. Perhaps the
Holden design guys need to test drive their cars in and around Sydney.
>
> "We don't think your Bathurst test gave a true indication of real-world
> driving
> conditions," spokesman Scott Whiffin said. "That's what we're telling our
> dealers, our customers, our people."
>
> Yet Holden later issued a press release spruiking the efficiency of its
> 3.0-litre Commodore based on the controversial Global Green Challenge, a
> 3000-kilometre fuel test between Darwin and Adelaide.
>
> It failed to mention the extremities of the testing, which involved
> driving
> through the desert at up to 60km/h below the 130km/h Northern Territory
> speed
> limit in 40-degree heat without the air-conditioning in use.
>
> Unlike the exclusive Drive test, the Global Green Challenge - won by the
> thirstiest car in the field, a V8-powered HSV Maloo - was arguably as far
**Bullshit. I regularly beat 8L/100km on a trip on my ancient VP. My best
figure was 7.1L/100km. Around town, I'll usually manage 13 ~ 14L/100km. I
have no idea what the guys at GMH are doing, but making more economical
engines is not one of those things.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dan----
"Marts" <ma...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:k20kf5p2pv2h5o9fh...@ymail.com...
> http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/holden-protests-extreme-fuel-test-20091106-i0w6.html
>
>
> They've gotten better over the years, the last Commodore that I owned, a
> VX SS,
> able to get 9l/100km on a trip. Around town it was still poor at around
> 15l/100km. But given the extra weight, the more power, and so on, it's
> still an
> improvement over the earlier Commodes.
Im getting around 9L /100k's in the E series HSV wagon only slightly more
than the VY2 Calais.Although this is on highway runs in 6th gear. Around
town it isn't as kind but then again I wouldn't of bought the car if I was
really worried about fuel economy. :-p.
Still its heaps better than the Calais and that was a good car too.
---
Regards
Dan.
John_H
>
>I've yet to own a car that has come within cooee of the supposedly fuel
>consumption ratings (eg, city cycle, country cycle and whatever they use these
>days as "standards").
That's probably because ADR 81/02 (the current standard) isn't an on
road test... just like the one before it (ADR 81/01)....
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/mynrma/hs.xsl/consumption_labels.htm
"The test is done in laboratories, not on the road. The car makers
themselves conduct the test and supply the figures to the relevant
federal departments."
You could therefore reasonably assume that manufacturers would
engineer their cars for the optimum laboratory result, even if they
don't fiddle the figures. :)
--
John H
Jason James
>
> Holden has "trained" its dealers how to cope with difficult questions on
> the
> shock result of Drive's exclusive fuel test that showed the much-hyped new
> 3.0-litre Commodore is thirstier than its Falcon rival.
Hmmm,..3 litre,..lets put the old red 186 in her then!
Jason
Dan----
"Jason James" <a...@ass.com> wrote in message
news:4afa3d19$0$78376$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
>
> Hmmm,..3 litre,..lets put the old red 186 in her then!
Although some people can mock but Ford is thinking about putting a 4 potter
in their Falcons. But turbocharged and high tech.
Although it seems so far that the Europeans come up with the goods of using
smaller capacity but turbocharged engines that can out perform the large
capacity or equal it in terms of performance but better fuel economy like
BMW for instance.
I still prefer a big cube v8 but a big cube v8 with some blowers even
better. ;-).
---
Regards
Dan
The Raven
labels aren't usually based on any real car driving. However, it is possible
to achieve those figures BUT ONLY if you drive very carefully. The "average"
driver is unlikely to get anywhere close to that in normal day to day
driving.
As for the 900K per tank figure of the new 3.0L.....well my 3.6L model (just
on a year old) can *just* about do that with very careful freeway driving.
Doug Jewell
> I remember when Holden released the VN and all the hype over its "new" V6
> engine. When I purchased one I expected to see these magical 30 mpg figures or
> whatever it was s'posed to be back then. But when I found that it was only
My 5 speed manual VN averaged 27MPG (10.5L/100Km) of mostly
city driving. Out on the highway it jumped to around 45MPG
(6.3L/100km).
The Auto VS I have now is much worse around town at only
17MPG (16L/100km), but is still pretty good on the highway
at 40MPG (7L/100km).
--
What is the difference between a duck?
Dan----
news:4afa8c23$0$6094$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Did you end up getting a SV6 Sportswagon did you?
---
Regards
Dan.
hippo
VN auto wagon wasn't that flash either; 14 Sydney traffic & about 10
L/100Km hwy IIRC.
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
The Raven
news:0084a881$0$26858$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Yep, but you probably had to look that up :)
On a "short" highway trip from Melb to Echuca I easily managed
8.1L/100K....that included grinding through the usual Melbourne peak hour
traffic until I got out of town.
atec7 7
I recently drove the old ef foulcan to Maryborough and back some 650k
and it used $66.00 worth of petrol
Dan----
>>
>> Did you end up getting a SV6 Sportswagon did you?
>>
>
> Yep, but you probably had to look that up :)
Not really sometimes my memory doesen't fail me. ;-).
>
> On a "short" highway trip from Melb to Echuca I easily managed
> 8.1L/100K....that included grinding through the usual Melbourne peak hour
> traffic until I got out of town.
Thats pretty good wonder what the new Sidi versions will be like after its
clocked a few k's on it.
---
Regards
Dan.
The Raven
"atec7 7" <"atec 77"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdjl1v$vn5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
What, the car or the mileage? I'm happy with both.
> I recently drove the old ef foulcan to Maryborough and back some 650k and
> it used $66.00 worth of petrol
Good work. I'd rather you quote actual litres than dollars as one changes
more regularly than the other and thus makes it hard to do a real comparison
;-)
The Raven
From memory the new SIDI 3.0L does 7.5L/100K. Considering the engine just
took a massive hit to displacement I'd be expecting better than that. As a
fairer comparison to the old 3.6L, I think you'd need to compare the 3.6L
high output to the 3.6L SIDI.
atec7 7
> "atec7 7" <"atec 77"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hdjl1v$vn5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The Raven wrote:
>>> "Dan----" <N...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0084a881$0$26858$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> "The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4afa8c23$0$6094$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> Getting back to the real world.... The figures quoted on those
>>>>> windscreen labels aren't usually based on any real car driving.
>>>>> However, it is possible to achieve those figures BUT ONLY if you drive
>>>>> very carefully. The "average" driver is unlikely to get anywhere close
>>>>> to that in normal day to day driving.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the 900K per tank figure of the new 3.0L.....well my 3.6L model
>>>>> (just on a year old) can *just* about do that with very careful freeway
>>>>> driving.
>>>> Did you end up getting a SV6 Sportswagon did you?
>>>>
>>> Yep, but you probably had to look that up :)
>>>
>>> On a "short" highway trip from Melb to Echuca I easily managed
>>> 8.1L/100K....that included grinding through the usual Melbourne peak hour
>>> traffic until I got out of town.
>> Not really thast good was it ?
>
> What, the car or the mileage? I'm happy with both.
improvement
>
>> I recently drove the old ef foulcan to Maryborough and back some 650k and
>> it used $66.00 worth of petrol
>
> Good work. I'd rather you quote actual litres than dollars as one changes
> more regularly than the other and thus makes it hard to do a real comparison
> ;-)
>
>
Brad
"hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
message news:hdf8rd$hk4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
One run from Rocky to Brisbane in my falcon, left at 11:00PM was filling up
on the outskirts of Brisbane at 3:00AM took about 34 gallons. I doubt I'd be
doing that any time in the future. Can't see me having those magical letters
on the lower guard again any time soon either.
--
Brad Leyden
6� 43.5816' S 146� 59.3097' E WGS84
To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or
laugh at my mistakes)
>
>