Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[Bluehoon]

Stumbled Across this! Go Drive - they're sticking it to Holden's PR team!!

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.

http://www.smh.com.au/drive/motor-ne...1106-i0w6.html