Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Where is their V6 block cast again??!!

This thread is drawing similarities to the Bathurst test; it's going round and
round in circles, and the only difference is the Bathurst test had some meaning
to it.

Such a shock to the system to have Holden get whipped by the media we find
Carby-Burnz-Wally fighting tooth and nail trying to save Holden some face.
People like this need some sheep-shears to clip some of that wool off their
eyes. For once, concede defeat; mimicking the un-Australian Holden Motor
Company's sore-loser attitude won't get you anywhere.
And there's one thing Holden excel with that you three have proven to be
miserable failures at, and that is 'spin'.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by EDfutura25

The test is completely rellevant to everyone. Come live where I live and you will either be going up or down a hill. Now knowing that the ford can go up a hill like Bathurst and use less fuel than a car that boasts everywhere about being the most fuel efficient six, and considering the area I live, I would go the ford based on that test.

At a conservative estimate, I'll be travelling through 100 sets of traffic lights this morning surrounded by many cars at any one time who I'll have to avoid, negotiate and brake for. Last time I lapped Bathurst, no traffic, no traffic lights.

[merlin]

Good on you Drive for not being biased for once.

Regarding all these Sydney to Melbourne tests - how are they relevant in any way??? Its the year 2009 - most people fly this route for $40. Also on the highway ANY car is going to get great economy. There is little difference.

99% of the population are interested which car has the best fuel economy in stop/start city driving - anywhere from a 20minute to 60 minute commute. Why can't the car mags get this through their thick heads and do a relevant comparo?????????? Are you listening journo's?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

This thread is drawing similarities to the Bathurst test; it's going round and
round in circles, and the only difference is the Bathurst test had some meaning
to it.

Such a shock to the system to have Holden get whipped by the media we find
Carby-Burnz-Wally fighting tooth and nail trying to save Holden some face.
People like this need some sheep-shears to clip some of that wool off their
eyes. For once, concede defeat; mimicking the un-Australian Holden Motor
Company's sore-loser attitude won't get you anywhere.
And there's one thing Holden excel with that you three have proven to be
miserable failures at, and that is 'spin'.

I don't think I'm fighting for anything there Falc'man, maybe a bit of grown up talk. You should try it once and a while.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by burnz

your right it does have a single wishbone with two balljoints.
where did i say otherwise, instead of jumping to conclusion's

may post stated wishbone not mcapherson strut!
in fact, mac struts do not make struts for holden. it has a strut type.

thats like ppl saying their old holden has a salisbury diff in it, when no such diff was ever fitted to a holden.

Salisbury was used to describe a type of differential, in other words Banjo meant a diff that could be removed from the front of its housing, and a salsbury was cast into the axle housing which I think just about every Commode got got up to the VS's I think.

[Mr Brooksy]

I've been reading through this thread, seeing some good points for and against. But from what I can see (and I could be as wrong as the next bloke) is that the two different arguments are 1) Bathurst has hills and an avg speed most cars avg on a regular tank, making it a more 'real world' test. The you have argument 2) saying it's not a real world test because it has hills, and you don't stop/start like you do in city driving, and that a drive through the suburbs in both cars would be a better indcator? Then there's a small group saying 3) you should do a drive from Melb to Syd and back, to get a real world figure.

Just my thoughts on each point. 1) yes there are hills in the real world and yes the torque of the I6 helped pull it to the vicors circle and I for one am cheering. But maybe if for every lap the stopped at the start finish straight could have simulated more suburban driving, however wouldn't pulling up the mountain suffice in replicating the constant stop start on a semi flat city road, especially if you take into account the huge amount of throttle adjustment you make to cope with chopping and changing traffic?
2) sure dring through the burbs during anytime of the day could be a good idea, however it also depends highly on "what part of the day you choose" eg, peak hour, huge fuel burn, very slow avg speed equals rubbish economy, whereas 11pm at night (using this time to show the massive extremes in traffic you get in the burbs) where litterally no one can be seen for a few mins at a time. Point is, it's too hard to find the avg traffic congestion, cause each city has different traffic, and each min traffic conditions change in each area of a city. Not to mention not everyone actually lives in a city (me included). Good idea in therory but impossible to please everyon.
3) the trip to and from Melb to Syd and back again would only prove 1 thing. The Coomodore would do 900+ km's with it 75L tank and the Falc should do about 800 with it's 67L tank (guessing here, as I don't own an FG, but my BA achieves between 750 and 800km on the Melb to Syd and back trip) and the FG is more economical.

When all is said and done, My conclusion is... Eat crap Holden marketing! Hahahahaha

[The Snout]

If SIDI had any balls it should be able to test anywhere, any road conditions, any time vs Falcon and perform.

It shouldn't need "the perfect test".

"SIDI - Commodore's biggest change"
*Conditions Apply - Don't drive on hills or at Bathurst

[Lukeyson]

lol i must thank a few people for the entertaining posts in this thread, it seriously cheered me up on this avg morning so far !!

SIDI is over rated, we all knew it. Thankfully someone wrote something about it. Albeit it will probably be the only time.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by burnz

how can i be held responsable for LTD unable to tell the differance between an alloytec and a sidi. (re: V6 is made)

as for the suspenion you are making it sound like a terry type setup. (as i read it)

Why are you bringing me into your private hell?
You know what you said, as does everyone else on the forum. Your reference alone to just seeing "25 tonnes of alloy ingots" made in October this year puts a date on your so called evidence that they were cast here. Do you honestly mean to tell us that Holden is still making the ecotec along side the SIDIDIDIDIDIDI? Do you also mean to tell me that the ecotec was cast here too?

Let me give you a free piece of advice. Let that cut under your lip heal before trying to provoke others.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Salisbury was used to describe a type of differential, in other words Banjo meant a diff that could be removed from the front of its housing, and a salsbury was cast into the axle housing which I think just about every Commode got got up to the VS's I think.

correct just the small compact torana and hq got the banjo type.
uc onward's and larger kigswood upto vs live axel got sal's "type".

[gcg2503]

[QUOTE=Falc'man
Such a shock to the system to have Holden get whipped by the media we find Carby-Burnz-Wally fighting tooth and nail trying to save Holden some face.
People like this need some sheep-shears to clip some of that wool off their
eyes. For once, concede defeat; mimicking the un-Australian Holden Motor
Company's sore-loser attitude won't get you anywhere.
And there's one thing Holden excel with that you three have proven to be
miserable failures at, and that is 'spin'.[/QUOTE]

Bravo Falc'man!

Another well written post

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Its actually struts with A arms, not wishbones. Wishbones are a bit too expensive and advanced for a Crappadore.

Even for a Holden troll you fail miserably. I'm a Ford fan and even I knew that.

What's the difference between A and wishbone? You are right it does look to me like a Mac system at the front.
http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../3028_13lo.jpg

I haven't bothered looking under my VE, but from pics it's looks like a multi link, which for intents and purposes is a derivative of a wishbone rather than Chapman or trailing arm system.

http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st...0/3028_2lo.jpg

Why are wishbone systems better for a daily car?

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by Rodp

At a conservative estimate, I'll be travelling through 100 sets of traffic lights this morning surrounded by many cars at any one time who I'll have to avoid, negotiate and brake for. Last time I lapped Bathurst, no traffic, no traffic lights.

We have no traffic lights at all here. Every place you would expect lights is a roundabout.

[prydey]

maybe instead of doing an economy drive at bathurst between the 2 cars, they should've blocked off the circuit and had a 1000km race!! would've put brock's 6 lap winning margin to shame!

as for the economy of both cars, there isn't a big enough difference one way or the other to sway any buyers.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

What's the difference between A and wishbone? You are right it does look to me like a Mac system at the front.
http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../3028_13lo.jpg

I haven't bothered looking under my VE, but from pics it's looks like a multi link, which for intents and purposes is a derivative of a wishbone rather than Chapman or trailing arm system.

http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st...0/3028_2lo.jpg

Why are wishbone systems better for a daily car?

Wishbone is better from a tuners point of view as you can control the alignment by adjusting the wishbone, tie rods, lower control arm, & castor. However you can only adjust macpherson strut type at steering axis inclination point (bolt down at top of strut point), castor, & tie rod. And modern day cars with alloy wishbones are lighter so less unsprung weight which makes for smoother rides.

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by Wally

Why are wishbone systems better for a daily car?

Double wishbone setup, provides better control of dynamic wheel alignment. Your wheel alignment changes under cornering and bump loads.

A double wishbone setup (where the top arm is shorter) provide dynamic negative camber when cornering, ensuring the tyre has a fuller contact patch. Also because the wishbones support the load of the wheel, the strut only has to control the movement.

A mac strut setup, relies on the strut itself to both support the load and control the movement. Also under cornering load, it can't provide camber or caster angle control. This can be improved, by adding a strut brace, and stiffening the strut towers. You don't see strut braces on Falcons, because they don't need them.

In a street driven daily, there's little advantage to double wishbone, and the mac strut setup is cheaper and generally lighter.

Personally, I _HATE_ the 'falling into a corner' feeling a mac strut car gives (as the wheel alignment moves counter intuitively under load).

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Wally

What's the difference between A and wishbone? You are right it does look to me like a Mac system at the front.
http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../3028_13lo.jpg

I haven't bothered looking under my VE, but from pics it's looks like a multi link, which for intents and purposes is a derivative of a wishbone rather than Chapman or trailing arm system.

http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st...0/3028_2lo.jpg

Why are wishbone systems better for a daily car?

that it what is in your car, a full chapman rear end and a hybred chapman in the front.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by burnz

suspension is wishbone not MacPherson struts

haha well done, burnz, you've succeeded in diverting attention from Holden's bashing with this post. Too bad you - like Holden - couldn't get your facts right. Another failed attempt of 'spin'.

[Wally]

Burnz, the rear doesn't look like it has a coilover strut setup? The Chapman is really just a Mac with the steering arm fixed isn't it?

data-mine, I agree with you. For modest driving I can't see why the imperative to have double A suspension, fixed or multi link.

[HSE2]

back to the point or this end suddenly

[burnz]

Not in this thread you won't be. Take it to PM.

Ian

[Wally]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Wishbone is better from a tuners point of view as you can control the alignment by adjusting the wishbone, tie rods, lower control arm, & castor. However you can only adjust macpherson strut type at steering axis inclination point (bolt down at top of strut point), castor, & tie rod. And modern day cars with alloy wishbones are lighter so less unsprung weight which makes for smoother rides.

True, but adjustments of fixed wishbones are a pain because there is always a secondary adjustment.,... they drive me crazy LOL. The multi link double A is probably the way to go, but adjustements are generally out of bounds to DIYers. At least with the struts you can fairly easily change compliance, although severly resticted.

Edit: Sorry HSE2, I posted before your on track warning. delete this if you want

[phillyc]

On topic. The Alloytec, SIDI are 'sub-optimal' designs which need higher levels of technology to be nearly as good in 3.6L spec as the Falcon 4.0L. The 3.0L is way off the pace.

The Bathurst test is reasonably relevant to me. I drive 8-9kms each way to work. In the morning it's 10minutes, the afternoon 15minutes. With a really big hill in the middle.

The engineers at Ford Australia should be really proud of the terrific motor they've developed for us. Next year's sounds even better!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by phillyc

On topic. The Alloytec, SIDI are 'sub-optimal' designs which need higher levels of technology to be nearly as good in 3.6L spec as the Falcon 4.0L. The 3.0L is way off the pace.

The Bathurst test is reasonably relevant to me. I drive 8-9kms each way to work. In the morning it's 10minutes, the afternoon 15minutes. With a really big hill in the middle.

The engineers at Ford Australia should be really proud of the terrific motor they've developed for us. Next year's sounds even better!

Spot on.
I think in a way ford were lucky they kept the same motor for so long and just kept fine tuning it, Holden have not stuck with a motor long enough to be able to develop it at all. You're absolutely right about the SIDIDIDIDIDI's being off the pace and I dare say that they will find their purpose as replacement boat anchors for the now corroding Ecotecs (all that seawater can't be good for alloy).
Despite the hype and spin from Holden it is just another sub standard engine that looks good on paper but fails in the real world. What else does Holden do that looks good on paper but again fails in the real world..... ahem AFM..?

As I said in a previous post about the publicity Holden is trying to get, you can't polish excrement. Further, the motoring community has moved on from the "Single tank from Sydney to Melbourne"; methinks Holden is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator who are too dumb to see past the empty rhetoric and spin.

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by ltd

Holden have not stuck with a motor long enough to be able to develop it at all.

Holden don't develop motors, they buy them in boxes from Ikea (sorry GM)

And GM's idea of development, is [for V8's] bore it out, and [for 6's] polish a by adding all the latest (that everyone else has been doing for years - direct injection isn't new, overhead cams aren't new) tech to a compromised engine layout. The I6 is the best way to do a 6, the V6 is a compromise for cost and space/packaging.

[Noddy]

Originally Posted by ltd

methinks Holden is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator who are too dumb to see past the empty rhetoric and spin.

The sad thing is there are enough of these people to keep holdens monthly figures looking healthy.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ltd

Spot on.
I think in a way ford were lucky they kept the same motor for so long and just kept fine tuning it, Holden have not stuck with a motor long enough to be able to develop it at all. You're absolutely right about the SIDIDIDIDIDI's being off the pace and I dare say that they will find their purpose as replacement boat anchors for the now corroding Ecotecs (all that seawater can't be good for alloy).
Despite the hype and spin from Holden it is just another sub standard engine that looks good on paper but fails in the real world. What else does Holden do that looks good on paper but again fails in the real world..... ahem AFM..?

As I said in a previous post about the publicity Holden is trying to get, you can't polish excrement. Further, the motoring community has moved on from the "Single tank from Sydney to Melbourne"; methinks Holden is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator who are too dumb to see past the empty rhetoric and spin.

It comes as no shock to those watching the market that Holden appeals to the 'uninformed' masses. whenever you are trying to sell a complex product manufacturers always go for the simplified marketing angles....particularly if you can focus on one quantifiable advantage. Everyone does it....Ford has got a mondeo ad that focuses on one thing (voice control) despite the car being very good in a whole host of other areas. This way you get traction for people to look into the car as a whole. Holden uses the 'australian' angle, and combining it in this case with a 'common' measurement (melb to syd). This is not just because of the oft known distance but also it keeps with the 'aussie' image....back when people used to travel melb/syd in their cars all the time. Now people mostly fly.......but it brings back the 'nostalgia' of doing it with your parents in the old kingswood....

Sadly, while this might get people interested when they come to test drive your car (or research on the net....increasingly common) they find its not so great. This why you hope like hell they don't test drive/investigate your competitors. Its funny because toyota used to cop abuse from people for this very trick...the concept of your first and last car being a toyo....cradle to grave if you will. While frankly insulting at least their Aurion ads refer to 'being your own man', if you buy a 3.0 SIDI commodore for private use now...you need to seriously consider your thought process. If for no other reason their are a host of competing cars that do the job much better (even 3.6 versions of the same car). This is before you take into account the poor real world performance versus the 'stylised' claims. I think Holden's lack of 'option' for the 3.6 in berlina etc. is to force people up the model tree...effectively 'richen' the mix ala Ford with the G series/XR range. Problem is the pricing of the VE is not very competitive up at that level and the deficiencies RE interior just become more obvious.

Its always frustrating to say 'i told you so', but when it comes to Holden (and holden fanboys) i'm really sick of it. You can castigate toyota for being 'boring' and 'whitegoods' but they know it, the market knows it and you buy it accordingly. You do it for the resale, you don't do it to be class leading in any area. Holden on the other hand is becoming public fraud of the highest order. Pathologicaly over promising and under delivering, for nigh on the 30 years. Sure they have had some high points (sports models and concept cars) but the bread and butter models are never really competitive for any length of time. Engieering wise the 3.0 SIDI is clealry a failure, but the irony is that despite NOT picking a 4 cylinder engine (presumably because of bad 80s memories) they still have themselves a Starfire 2. Then again, can't really blame them when their only source of engineering is Government Motors.....

[prydey]

whilst i may agreee that holdens marketing is a little deceptive and regarding the 9.3L/100km combined figure - a little adventurous, i wouldn't go as far to say that the new engines = failure! they make pretty good power from a reasonably small volume and don't drink a lot of fuel in the process.

the first test of the new commo's was done in a wheels mag, where the 3.0L did return marginally better figures than the falcon (see other thread) but for round town commuting, something which hasn't really been tested yet, the 3L will probably fit the bill nicely.

regardless of where your loyalties lie, holden have raised the bar in comparison to the old engines, and have arguably thrown out a challenge with the 3.6L version. nothing wrong with healthy competition.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by Mr Brooksy

I've been reading through this thread, seeing some good points for and against. But from what I can see (and I could be as wrong as the next bloke) is that the two different arguments are 1) Bathurst has hills and an avg speed most cars avg on a regular tank, making it a more 'real world' test. The you have argument 2) saying it's not a real world test because it has hills, and you don't stop/start like you do in city driving, and that a drive through the suburbs in both cars would be a better indcator? Then there's a small group saying 3) you should do a drive from Melb to Syd and back, to get a real world figure.

Just my thoughts on each point. 1) yes there are hills in the real world and yes the torque of the I6 helped pull it to the vicors circle and I for one am cheering. But maybe if for every lap the stopped at the start finish straight could have simulated more suburban driving, however wouldn't pulling up the mountain suffice in replicating the constant stop start on a semi flat city road, especially if you take into account the huge amount of throttle adjustment you make to cope with chopping and changing traffic?
2) sure dring through the burbs during anytime of the day could be a good idea, however it also depends highly on "what part of the day you choose" eg, peak hour, huge fuel burn, very slow avg speed equals rubbish economy, whereas 11pm at night (using this time to show the massive extremes in traffic you get in the burbs) where litterally no one can be seen for a few mins at a time. Point is, it's too hard to find the avg traffic congestion, cause each city has different traffic, and each min traffic conditions change in each area of a city. Not to mention not everyone actually lives in a city (me included). Good idea in therory but impossible to please everyon.
3) the trip to and from Melb to Syd and back again would only prove 1 thing. The Coomodore would do 900+ km's with it 75L tank and the Falc should do about 800 with it's 67L tank (guessing here, as I don't own an FG, but my BA achieves between 750 and 800km on the Melb to Syd and back trip) and the FG is more economical.

When all is said and done, My conclusion is... Eat crap Holden marketing! Hahahahaha

My xr8 got 760ks on the way to sydney

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

whilst i may agreee that holdens marketing is a little deceptive and regarding the 9.3L/100km combined figure - a little adventurous, i wouldn't go as far to say that the new engines = failure! they make pretty good power from a reasonably small volume and don't drink a lot of fuel in the process.

They are a failure in so far as they don't 'out engineer' (GMHs own words) their competitors. With a 0-100 time deep in the 8s and a fuel burn no doubt in excess of medium car competitors (plus higher rego) why bother. You can the faster medium car contenders into the 8s (or low 9s) and they don't cost any more (less in fact) while still burnign less (esp around town...the only area the 3.0 SIDI benefits). Probalby handle better too after Holden put low grip tyres on it...... Holden market it as 'large car capability' for 'medium car running costs' which is bulldust because a key part of the 'large car capability' is grunt...not just so you can tow, and take the entire family but also because there are plenty of very good (and quite quick) medium cars already out there. Large cars are more than ever 'aspirational' purchases, with private buyers going after luxury/sports versions with the horsepowr to match the space. The VE is a fleet hack now and this 3.0 engine will only increase that situation.

Yes the engines are better than what they had before. But so what...their previous effort was a disgrace. I don't doubt that in some scenarios the 3.0 wll be quite frugal...easilly more frugal then its 3.6 brother and 4.0 Falcon. But equally there are scenarios where it doesn't benefit at all. Given its is a slug pretty much 100% of the time regardless (and it is....it is no faster than the omega model before it and no match for the large car market) its hardly a good trade off.

The point of the ecoboost I4 engine going in falcon is that it won't be a huge drop off in performance versus the larger engine but still deliver real world savings. This 3.0 doesn't do that.....at least not enough. Numerous reviews are pointing out that the 3.6 cars on the same drive routes are matching the 3.0.....

Originally Posted by prydey

regardless of where your loyalties lie, holden have raised the bar in comparison to the old engines, and have arguably thrown out a challenge with the 3.6L version. nothing wrong with healthy competition.

i woudl agree with this completely. Since VE launched you coudl pretty much right off the V6 versions because they were so uncompetitive. Now the 3.6 models are worthy of consideration. Too bad the rest of the car's issues have gone unaddressed....for now. The SV6 and XR6 are a hell of alot of car for the money and prove how good aussie car manufacturers have become....