drive com fg vs sidi ve. surprise!

[388cube_edxr8]

In my old job, I would drive 8 hours a day in and around Brisbane. My satnav would record the average speed. After a month, I checked it, it was reporting an average speed in Brisbane of 4. Yes, 4km/h. I checked after another month and it had dropped to 1km/h. The recorded time stopped was twice the time moving. And yes, I turned it off whilst out of the car.

For real world conditions (in Brisbane anyway), park both cars, start them up, and put them in drive with the handbrake on. Then record the Liters per Hour. That would be a real world test.

[hydraulicmonkey]

Can't say I'm one bit surprised about these figures. Before buying the BF Futura looked at v6 camry (missus wanted it till she drove the BF) and you had to really hit it to make it go anywhere.
The falcon will go from 0-120 km/h all below 2000rpm it wont break any fasest time doing that but it uses sfa fuel.
As soon as I heard about 3.0 SIDI I knew this is exactly what would happen.

[mrbaxr6t]

thumbs up ford, don't spend all your money on spin doctors, spend it on the car itself biig thumbs up great to see holdens' myths busted

also my AU can go from 0 to 100kmh at 2krpm or less, doesn't go terribly fast but gets to 100kmh under 2krpm -- and on the sydney to melbourne claim, any car can do it on a single tank, just need a big enough tank :Up_to_som

[The Monty]

Asked to explain the results, Holden said the new 3.0-litre engine was the most economical locally built six-cylinder on the market. Group manager of engine design Simon Cassin points out our Bathurst test was not necessarily representative of people’s average real-world driving. ‘‘Real-world is all about a variety of conditions,’’ he says. ‘‘At the end of the day you can’t calibrate the car to perform perfectly in every condition.’

Just thought I would bring this comment into the spotlight a little.
So 1/3 of the track is straight, 1/3 of the track is uphill and windy, and 1/3 downhill and windy (approx.).
What other sort of variety of driving conditions are there?
Man, these guys spin more crap then a yarn factory.
I think its the most perfect way to test a cars abilities, the average driving conditions on the track are pretty much what the average driver would drive on average.
I know on my way to work, I go up hills, down hills, and along some straights, and I drive a route to work which around 90% of people in Brisbane would everyday.
Wake up Holden and smell the roses, people are starting to see your product for what it really is, over the top media defined junk.

[spvd02]

New ad for Ford: "Holden may have achieved good results at Bathurst this year, but at Ford, we achieve results where it counts..."

Something along those lines would be a good comeback for losing Bathurst in a bad way!

[merlin]

Interesting result - its such an injustice how poorly the FG's sell compared to the VE.

I thought also that the ADR figures now had to represent highway and city cycles. Is that the combined figure that people keep throwing around for the SIDI (the 9.3?)

[Falc'man]

Well spotted Monty. And they still have the nerve to say it's the most economical six? Roflmao!

[Polyal]

If I had some more time on my hands I would make a group on facebook with stuff like this in dispelling all the BS that GM spread. Wonder how many people would join..LOL

[NC5L]

I agree with monty. Also not to mention the 20 stop/starts for the driver changes every 8 laps. would have to be the closest to real world conditions with a managable criteria. Regards Dan.

[Wally]

What claims do Holden actually make about the sidi?- I thought it was along the lines of "the most fuel efficient Australian built six cylinder engine in the market". How does that relate to false marketing and 161 laps around Mt Panorama in a car?

The circuit they chose is a grueling one, that is why it is such a challenge. Putting a 4.0 up against a 3.0 was always going to get the results, which as petrol heads they would have known too.

If I was in the market for a fuel efficeint six, which I'm not, I would be comparing figures for city use. If I was in Toowoomba I'd be comparing ease of getting up mountain ranges.

[f6.au]

hahahahha, not surprised... and wow excellent from the FG... if only more people knew about this :(

[DJL351]

I'm guessing most have seen the advert.
The voice-over says 'SIDI Direct Injection' - Wouldn't that make it SIDIDI?

As for the numbers - you can't trust any of them.
The olds have a TTG that should - according to the sticker do about 14L/100KM (Av).
Well, they manage as low as 11.5L/100KM and see about 12.9L most weeks.
(measured from the tank - not the trip comp)

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Just thought I would bring this comment into the spotlight a little.
So 1/3 of the track is straight, 1/3 of the track is uphill and windy, and 1/3 downhill and windy (approx.).
What other sort of variety of driving conditions are there?
Man, these guys spin more crap then a yarn factory.
I think its the most perfect way to test a cars abilities, the average driving conditions on the track are pretty much what the average driver would drive on average.
I know on my way to work, I go up hills, down hills, and along some straights, and I drive a route to work which around 90% of people in Brisbane would everyday.

I don't really consider 2 cars driving around a track representative of real world conditions. So far today I've spent 2 hours in the car in varying levels of traffic and at least 30 of those minutes stationary. What puts the biggest hit on my cars economy is the time it's spent not moving and the that period of time it's accelerating from a standing start (which is a lot more often than a driver change between leisurely laps on a track with no traffic).

I've taken the same route to a destination at differing times of the day and achieved a 3l/100km difference in consumption.

The claim that "At the end of the day you can’t 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.

[Chopped]

Stacked for Torque - they should have thrown in the XR8 and SS as they wouldn't have been far behind in fuel usage.

Using the same test scenario - the Falcon would have beat the 4 cyl Mondeo & Camry aswell.

Kudos to the 4L I6 - very underrated by most

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

[Quicksand]

Originally Posted by DJL351

I'm guessing most have seen the advert.
The voice-over says 'SIDI Direct Injection' - Wouldn't that make it SIDIDI?

I remember laughing about this to the missus just last week

Kind like the old PIN number and ATM machine

lol

[GT69]

Originally Posted by Wally

What claims do Holden actually make about the sidi?- I thought it was along the lines of "the most fuel efficient Australian built six cylinder engine in the market". How does that relate to false marketing and 161 laps around Mt Panorama in a car?

The circuit they chose is a grueling one, that is why it is such a challenge. Putting a 4.0 up against a 3.0 was always going to get the results, which as petrol heads they would have known too.

If I was in the market for a fuel efficeint six, which I'm not, I would be comparing figures for city use. If I was in Toowoomba I'd be comparing ease of getting up mountain ranges.

My FG 6T uses exactly 1 litre of petrol going up the Toowoomba range, starting as you hit the 100kph sign at withcott, to the mobil at the top.

I think the only reason this is a good test is because it had both competitors doing the same thing, over the same distance, at the same speed. Real world consumption relies on you, the route you take, and the weight of your feet. And this proves on a consistent 60kph trip over varied terrain, the FG is better on fuel.

Its a good comparison. If Holden were worried about putting a 3.0l up against a 4.0l then they shouldn't have released it.

[Hubble80]

Would be interesting to see how many kms were on the odometers of both cars...

[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?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by GT69

My FG 6T uses exactly 1 litre of petrol going up the Toowoomba range, starting as you hit the 100kph sign at withcott, to the mobil at the top.

I think the only reason this is a good test is because it had both competitors doing the same thing, over the same distance, at the same speed. Real world consumption relies on you, the route you take, and the weight of your feet. And this proves on a consistent 60kph trip over varied terrain, the FG is better on fuel.

Its a good comparison. If Holden were worried about putting a 3.0l up against a 4.0l then they shouldn't have released it.

Maybe I didn't put it too well, fuel economy would be secondary to me if I did a fair bit of hill climbing. The occassional trips I take to Towoomba are light work in my 6.0.

You could be right about the FG being better in this test, but this is easily forecasted merely by looking at the running resistance curves on a vehicle performance graphic.

My guess is the average tractive effort required sits pretty well with the I6, whereas the V6 is more suited to city conditions.

Were/are Holden worried?

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Wally

...
My guess is the average tractive effort required sits pretty well with the I6, whereas the V6 is more suited to city conditions.

Were/are Holden worried?

Heavy stop start might replicate a constant hill drive. Then again I think long idle periods is where the 3l SIDI will be the most advantageous.

Ecoboost will murder it though.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Wally

What claims do Holden actually make about the sidi?- I thought it was along the lines of "the most fuel efficient Australian built six cylinder engine in the market". How does that relate to false marketing and 161 laps around Mt Panorama in a car?

The circuit they chose is a grueling one, that is why it is such a challenge. Putting a 4.0 up against a 3.0 was always going to get the results, which as petrol heads they would have known too.

If I was in the market for a fuel efficeint six, which I'm not, I would be comparing figures for city use. If I was in Toowoomba I'd be comparing ease of getting up mountain ranges.

What goes up must come down Wally.. the thing about a circuit is for every meter you climb you must descend the same amount to get to the starting point. The descent would be equally as miserly on fuel as the climb is thirsty.
This test, while sounding extreme on paper does more to replicate every day driving than sitting on a constant speed for 900k's from syd to melb..
City figures are the most appropriate ones, but im not so sure the result would differ much out in the real world where poeple drive normally and away from light footed holden engineers and journo's.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

What goes up must come down Wally.. the thing about a circuit is for every meter you climb you must descend the same amount to get to the starting point. The descent would be equally as miserly on fuel as the climb is thirsty.
This test, while sounding extreme on paper does more to replicate every day driving than sitting on a constant speed for 900k's from syd to melb..
City figures are the most appropriate ones, but im not so sure the result would differ much out in the real world where poeple drive normally and away from light footed holden engineers and journo's.

Precisely.
Let's face it. Mostly sales reps and other fleeters will have the 3 litre, and it is not going to be driven gingerly. They'll thrash the guts out of it just to get up to speed and this alone will give it woeful fuel consumption. No offence, but the 3 litre SIDI is inSIDIously flawed.

[hardaz]

honestly who really cares

[Wally]

4Vman, the only time I see your posts is if someone quotes them. If what you say is true, the test would have just as easily been done on the flat with a few twisties. Conservation of eneregy doesn't work like you suggest.

But as hardaz suggested "who really cares".

[Falcon_Crazy]

Very good article - My FG has just turned 12 months old. Ive never reset the trip computer.
Avg Speed 71km/h
Avg l/100 km 9.0

I do 140km a day including hills, Freeway driving (F3), no traffic and stop start traffic and i enjoy the loud pedal!

It has 33,500km on the clock and the one of the highest the DTE has read is 1026 which you can see here http://www.flickr.com/photos/24543914@N08/3110377030/. That was on a trip back from melbourne to umina 200km in rain, no air con, sitting at 115km/h on cruise.

The results from the fuel chalange thing in the XR6 from darwin to adelaide will be telling..driving at 80km/h in my ute from syd to melb..may be able to nudge high 6s i reckon!! Would i bother, nah

[mik]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Crazy

Very good article - My FG has just turned 12 months old. Ive never reset the trip computer.
Avg Speed 71km/h
Avg l/100 km 9.0

I do 140km a day including hills, Freeway driving (F3), no traffic and stop start traffic and i enjoy the loud pedal!

It has 33,500km on the clock and the one of the highest the DTE has read is 1026 which you can see here http://www.flickr.com/photos/24543914@N08/3110377030/. That was on a trip back from melbourne to umina 200km in rain, no air con, sitting at 115km/h on cruise.

The results from the fuel chalange thing in the XR6 from darwin to adelaide will be telling..driving at 80km/h in my ute from syd to melb..may be able to
nudge high 6s i reckon!! Would i bother, nah

wow thats pretty good for a big limo, you must be happy with that.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Heavy stop start might replicate a constant hill drive. Then again I think long idle periods is where the 3l SIDI will be the most advantageous.

Ecoboost will murder it though.

Yes, it will. The 3.0 had problems in this situation because of a lack of torque...something which it could not make up for down the hill. In traffic idling a 3.0 burns less than Ford's 4.0 I6...it probably burns less when accelrating slowly on the flat too. But the ecoboost I4 will burn less again in both these conditions. In fact there is virtually nowhere on the torque/load map that a I4T ecoboost will burn more than the 3.0 DI. It idles with less, it coasts with less, and due to the high compression ratio and low blow turbo, it probably burns little if any more on acceleration (despite being quite a bit faster to accelerate at that). It burns less on the highway too.

The role of the I6 will most probably shift to higher performance then what we have now. It will make well over 200 kw and 400nm of torque and while efficient (esp on the highway) it will burn more around town than a 3.0 or I4T (though looking at this test, not much more around town....). BUT the I4T is the real 3.0 SIDI competitor, and because it makes some 10% more torque at even lower RPM this is what will help significantly. It also loses less energy at constant load because its smaller and has 2 less pistons to move.

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Crazy

The results from the fuel chalange thing in the XR6 from darwin to adelaide will be telling..driving at 80km/h in my ute from syd to melb..may be able to nudge high 6s i reckon!! Would i bother, nah

I agree, Ford should keep its powder dry on Holden's SIDI claims until the end of the Global Green Challenge. That'll be a lot harder for The General to refute as compared to some half baked 'Drive' test. Besides, 'Drive' using the Falcon with a ZF transmission leaves the door open for a rebuttal. Comparing 3.0 SIDI to the 4.0 with a 5-Speed Auto would be a more accurate orange for orange test.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

This economy test is all the more newsworthy because it was contrived comparison that backfired on them.
Lukeyson

Gee, the motoring journos can't win can they. Do a proper honest test and still the tin foil hat brigade on here say it was engineered to show up the advantage of the Holden, LOL. Too funny :-)

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Crazy

Very good article - My FG has just turned 12 months old. Ive never reset the trip computer.
Avg Speed 71km/h
Avg l/100 km 9.0

I do 140km a day including hills, Freeway driving (F3), no traffic and stop start traffic and i enjoy the loud pedal!

I envy your driving habits.. :(

My average speed is 36km/h but I get close to the same economy from my V6. Highest in a 100 hour cycle, 9.6. Lowest 8.3, at the moment 9.1.