drive com fg vs sidi ve. surprise!

bathurst77 · 10-10-2009, 03:11 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/drive/motor-ne...1009-gqou.html

They did 161 laps of mt pan at the speed limit (how boring) in both cars
Berlina 3.0-litre V6 6speed and G6 auto.

surprising results
some quote

After more than eight hours and 60 laps, it’s clear there’s already a favourite among our team of drivers ... The superior driving feel of the Falcon is making it the car our drivers are looking forward to sitting in. The Falcon is emerging as the more rounded package.

From a performance perspective, the FG Falcon has an edge. the Falcon was quickest in the 0-100km/h sprint, taking just 7.7 seconds, the Commodore reached 100km/h in 8.9seconds.

CLAIMED FUEL ECONOMY
Commodore claimed 9.3 litres per 100 kilometres fuel use is 6percent better than the 9.9L/100km claimed by the most frugal of Falcons (XT) thre G6s claimed fuel use is 10.1L/100km, almost 9per cent more than the Holden.

ACTUAL FUEL ECONOMY ON TEST
The Holden is using more than 11.0L/100km around Mount Panorama, meaning the fuel needle is dropping—fast.
There’s no way to sugar-coat it. The Commodore was thirstier. Despite the new direct injection technology, the Holden’s new 3.0-litre engine used 11.09L/100km, the Ford used 10.02L/100km

(Commoodore used) not only 19 per cent more fuel than its official claim but 10 per cent more than the Falcon.

And enthusiast publication Wheels, recently recorded near identical fuel use for the 3.0-litre Commodore and the more powerful 3.6-litre version, with the Falcon only slightly thirstier.

For this great race, it’s a shock victory to the Falcon.

-----

Are Holden telling porkies?

The Monty · 10-10-2009, 06:27 AM

Title should read FG, not BF.
Great article, nothing too new though, Holdens ridiculous claims on just about everything from fuel efficiency to power make it hard to believe anything that they say.
WOOT, a 9 second 0-100 commodore that you cant see out of and thats sips fuel to the tune of 11L/100km. Now where do I sign up?

**Falcon Coupe** · 10-10-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monty

Title should read FG, not BF.

*Fixed.

Hardly a surprise with the Falcon having a huge torque advantage to pull up the hills at a lower rpm.

Late braker · 10-10-2009, 07:56 AM

Torque is what you need, top end power is nice but in the real world, torque is the most necessary and useful.

8 hours around the mountain- it wouldn't be that boring even at the speed limit surely

Yellow_Festiva · 10-10-2009, 07:57 AM

Amazing, all the whiz bangery and lower cubes of the Holden and the Falcon had the better economy BY FAR.

Very good results. PLEASE market this result to DEATH Ford!

4Vman · 10-10-2009, 07:58 AM

Hope they do an Auto XR8 V Auto AFM SS next.....

Kenaz · 10-10-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Hope they do an Auto XR8 V Auto AFM SS next.....

Why? Who buys either of those cars with fuel economy in mind?

4Vman · 10-10-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenaz

Why? Who buys either of those cars with fuel economy in mind?

Because Holden marketed the AFM 6.0l as having better fuel economy.
Not only doesnt it have but its slower too....

Kenaz · 10-10-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Because Holden marketed the AFM 6.0l as having better fuel economy.
Not only doesnt it have but its slower too....

Fair enough...

You're right, I've no doubt the XR8 would be quicker and possibly more economical.

Ringo · 10-10-2009, 08:13 AM

Superior torque and a superior driving package....says it all really

SVTVNM · 10-10-2009, 08:49 AM

How official was this test? If it was done under strict conditions then this would be a marketing dream for Ford, A basic 30 sec add correctly worded would be perfect to put Holden in it's place.

**Falcon Coupe** · 10-10-2009, 09:06 AM

http://media.drive.com.au/cars/car-n...t-780932.html?

Apparently the Commodores trip computer is a fair way out too.

Mark s · 10-10-2009, 09:35 AM

While it all looks good for the Ford and the Falcon in this test. The torque in the Falcon helped with the 161 trips up the hill, where the 3 litre 6 would have reving much harder, causing it to use more fuel.

I wonder how a test between the same 2 cars, sitting on the speed limits on a trip between Sydney and Melbourne would turn out. Still throw 2 adults and 2 teenage kids with bags and my guess is we would see simular figures.

Really this test will do sweet bugger all in the sales of the Falcon. It will be slick ads and public perception that will make the Commodore the winner on the show room floors.

Right or wrong, it does not matter, people will feel they are saving the planet by using less fuel, they are also keeping extra $$$$$$ into their back pockets each week with the fuel saving Direct injection V6.

Still one has to think the new 6 speed auto is going to really help the Commodore along after all these years of the dreadful 4 speed box.

**Bundy** · 10-10-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark s

While it all looks good for the Ford and the Falcon in this test. The torque in the Falcon helped with the 161 trips up the hill, where the 3 litre 6 would have reving much harder, causing it to use more fuel.

I wonder how a test between the same 2 cars, sitting on the speed limits on a trip between Sydney and Melbourne would turn out. Still throw 2 adults and 2 teenage kids with bags and my guess is we would see simular figures.

Blah Blah Blah,,, whats your problem??

This is a great test for ford, its real world and real driving.

Going from Sydney to Melb is a mute point as you "guess" later on in the same paragraph.

Looks like some people are never pleased, another test please the last one wasn't real enough.

Paxton · 10-10-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bundy

Blah Blah Blah,,, whats your problem??

This is a great test for ford, its real world and real driving.

Going from Sydney to Melb is a mute point as you "guess" later on in the same paragraph.

Looks like some people are never pleased, another test please the last one wasn't real enough.

I still don't get why Holden see it as a great feat for their 3.0 to get from Sydney to Melbourne on one tank. I've done it in an Automatic EF Falcon for Christ's sake.

Romulus · 10-10-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

I still don't get why Holden see it as a great feat for their 3.0 to get from Sydney to Melbourne on one tank.

Neither do I. Instead I'd fly, do my days business then fly back in time for tea at home. In less time than it would take to drive one way.

What a stupid example from Holden, just like their fuel economy claim

Smoke Pursuit · 10-10-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

I still don't get why Holden see it as a great feat for their 3.0 to get from Sydney to Melbourne on one tank. I've done it in an Automatic EF Falcon for Christ's sake.

A 270 KW G6ET will do Syd to Melbourne on one tank...

4Vman · 10-10-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark s

While it all looks good for the Ford and the Falcon in this test. The torque in the Falcon helped with the 161 trips up the hill, where the 3 litre 6 would have reving much harder, causing it to use more fuel.

I wonder how a test between the same 2 cars, sitting on the speed limits on a trip between Sydney and Melbourne would turn out. Still throw 2 adults and 2 teenage kids with bags and my guess is we would see simular figures.

Really this test will do sweet bugger all in the sales of the Falcon. It will be slick ads and public perception that will make the Commodore the winner on the show room floors.

Right or wrong, it does not matter, people will feel they are saving the planet by using less fuel, they are also keeping extra $$$$$$ into their back pockets each week with the fuel saving Direct injection V6.

Still one has to think the new 6 speed auto is going to really help the Commodore along after all these years of the dreadful 4 speed box.

Baffling....

This test is a far more realistic representation of how these cars would fare in the real world compared to a trip from melb to syd which has SFA relevance to virtually anyone...

vztrt · 10-10-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark s

I wonder how a test between the same 2 cars, sitting on the speed limits on a trip between Sydney and Melbourne would turn out. Still throw 2 adults and 2 teenage kids with bags and my guess is we would see simular figures.

Wasn't that the wheels test? Where the 3.0l just beat the Falcon. But the engine was bagged and it was gutless (surprise surprise for the Commo six).

Nikked · 10-10-2009, 09:52 AM

Ford, please use this info in an add

"who's more likely to bring real world fuel savings to your pocket"? Ford of course.

"Motoring publications show that fords 100% Australian designed and built 4l 6cyl delivers more power and lower fuel consumption then Holdens 3.0 v6."

Why waste your money when ford is the Going Thing"

bangm001 · 10-10-2009, 09:53 AM

Yeah good to hear this! I thought this would be the case actually with the new 3L less torque.. Oh well, it will keep the eco people happy I guess.. How do they get a 9.3L/100 in the ADR 81/01 test though??
I wonder how many kms each car had??

Scott · 10-10-2009, 11:21 AM

Highway comparisons, whilst interesting, hold little real world siginificance to 90% of cars on the road. Depending on which urban area you live in, your average speed will probably be between 30km/h and 45km/h for the life of the car.

You will be stopping and starting, slowing down and speeding up, going up hills and down. I think the Bathurst test is pretty reasonable.

Falcon wins, no more meeds to be said

GASWAGON · 09-11-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP006

Highway comparisons, whilst interesting, hold little real world siginificance to 90% of cars on the road. Depending on which urban area you live in, your average speed will probably be between 30km/h and 45km/h for the life of the car.

You will be stopping and starting, slowing down and speeding up, going up hills and down. I think the Bathurst test is pretty reasonable.

Falcon wins, no more meeds to be said

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

:

Mark s · 10-10-2009, 11:21 AM

Bundy

I have no problems, I own 4 Fords and have supported them pretty much all my life.

MY point was that it does not matter what results come up for Ford, it never seems enough.

Most people will look at the figures posted on a TV add and will think this is wonderful and will not look beyond that. It seems to me only the die hard hard car nut will look at something like this and think how good is this for Ford.

In my opinion the Falcon 6 has been a better car than the Commodore for many years, but it does not equate to sales.

Also my point Sydney to Melbourne in a real world situation where a family of 4 may travel and not some test pilot trying to be as frugal as possible on fuel, I fell would produce a simular result for the Falcon, in a real worl family situation.

My post was not to bag out the Falcon as you seem to think, my point was great for Ford but at the end of the day average joe blow, will see something on TV and take it as Gospel.

Maybe as many of us have talked about in the past, Ford should use these tests in the promotion of it's cars, in place of standing idle.

Mark s · 10-10-2009, 11:44 AM

Paxton

Mate we are not talking about you and I, who are car heads.

We are talking fleets, Mums and Dads who look at fuel economy, how much they think they are saving, and helping Australian economy by buying a dinky di product and believing everything they see on TV.

Chilliman · 10-10-2009, 12:03 PM

Ford, I've got the tag-line for your new Falcon ad.

Who's more likely to achieve better real world economy in a large six-cylinder car.........FORD, OF COURSE

Rastus · 10-10-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilliman

Ford, I've got the tag-line for your new Falcon ad.

Who's more likely to achieve better real world economy in a large six-cylinder car.........FORD, OF COURSE

Chilliman, I've just sent Ford an email via their website, pointing out the drive.com.au Bathurst fuel econ test, along with a link to your quoted post.
Hey, there's all the content of what should be their next series of Falcon ad's to combat the SIDI Commo right there! Real world results & slogan!

SumoDog68 · 10-10-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastus

Chilliman, I've just sent Ford an email via their website, pointing out the drive.com.au Bathurst fuel econ test, along with a link to your quoted post.
Hey, there's all the content of what should be their next series of Falcon ad's to combat the SIDI Commo right there! Real world results & slogan!

I am pretty sure Ford marketing deparment would be very aware of this article.

Rastus · 10-10-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

I am pretty sure Ford marketing deparment would be very aware of this article.

Best to be sure I reckon! Going on Ford's recent advertising trends....
Strike while the iron's hot!

Chilliman · 11-10-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastus

Chilliman, I've just sent Ford an email via their website, pointing out the drive.com.au Bathurst fuel econ test, along with a link to your quoted post.
Hey, there's all the content of what should be their next series of Falcon ad's to combat the SIDI Commo right there! Real world results & slogan!

Thanks for the vote of confidence Rastus. I really do hope Ford pick up the ball and run with it on this one. They don't seem to celebrate good news as much as they should.