'09 V8 Holdens with AFM to drop power

[Quicksand]

So they deactivate half the cylinders is that right?

If so, if only half the engine is running, why is the saving only 5.5%?

I noted that even the Accord V6 which can run on 4 or 3 cylinders isn't lightyears ahead of the Aurion V6 or the Falcon I6 in terms of fuel economy for that matter...

So is this deactivation stuff just a marketing ploy?

If Ford was doing this, would they be applauded for trying something new? Dunno...

[Sprint XR8]

Sounds like a dud...
"Test drive: Holden Calais V8 AFM
But it's not as active as I expected. Certain traffic situations could call for a four-cylinder mode, yet repeatedly the dashboard signalled it was remaining as a V8.

When it was working -- primarily freeway coasting or long country downhill runs -- the `4-cyl mode’ tag would illuminate and there would be a slight change in the engine feel. As if, suddenly, the car was driving over tiny road ripples."
http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/ne..._calais_v8_afm

[Gobes32]

Ford 290kw (95ron) vs Commodore 260kw (98ron)

Forgive my ignorance but the savings in fuel would be offset by the higher fuel price due to having to run 98ron vs the Falcon's 95ron?

[FoMoKid]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

If you cant deliver meaningful fuel savings while at least maintaining performance than why bother with AFM at all. Ford managed this with the FG for pretty much all models, appears holden is not able too......

Holden aren't able to because they rely on GM for engine supply so they don't need to do much R&D because it is done for them. Holden will use whatever engine is available from GM. If their engines ran on cocoa pops they would use it! Whereas FordOz build and research and develop and tune their own engines (even the BOSS V8 gets special treatment to a certain extent) so they know what they can do to achieve the best possible results. What i think might have happened is Holden know that the AFM or DOD doesn't really save much fuel which is why they have delayed using this tech. But now that people are more fuel conscious and not buying V8s, they introduce the AFM feature with lower power figures and say something like "at holden we hear that you want a sports performance car that uses less fuel so we have gagged our V8s and pulled the wool over your eyes. Holden. Used-to-go-better." garbage

[Gobes32]

Holden, Used to go better....................Ha ha, classic.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Holden, Used to go better....................Ha ha, classic.

This could possibly be the biggest error Holden has ever made with their performance range.
For a company that's had a very clear path of "continuous improvement" with their performance range this is a huge glitch.
People are already talking about editing out the AFM software.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Based on specs on websites, it now works out for auto variants to (as far as i can tell):

Ford XR8 sedan: 290kw, 520nm (95RON), 14 L/100km
Ford XR6T (for comparison sake): 270kw, 533nm (95RON) 11.7L/100km
Holden SS commodore: 260kw, 517nm (98 RON), 12.9 L/100km

Now Holden won't admit how much power you lose running 95RON but estimates i have read say up to 10kw and 10nm (probably more like 5kw/5nm).

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Ford 290kw (95ron) vs Commodore 260kw (98ron)

Forgive my ignorance but the savings in fuel would be offset by the higher fuel price due to having to run 98ron vs the Falcon's 95ron?

Yourself and Gobes have some interesting thoughts. I hope this adds something to them. Also consider that on 95ron that the Commodore would be using about 3% or more fuel too.

So VE AFM figureswould be approx 255kw, 510Nm (95ron) & 13.3L/100km.

[4Vman]

Practicle independent usage is showing 13.5l/100km....

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Based on specs on websites, it now works out for auto variants to (as far as i can tell):

Ford XR8 sedan: 290kw, 520nm (95RON), 14 L/100km
Ford XR6T (for comparison sake): 270kw, 533nm (95RON) 11.7L/100km
Holden SS commodore: 260kw, 517nm (98 RON), 12.9 L/100km

So the SS makes less power and torque, yet still burns more fuel than the Xr6 Turbo, and needs to run 98 to make the lower power and torque figures. Holdens go better. :

AFM- Auto Fool Management?
Always Fools Mongols?
A Fools Mistake?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Yourself and Gobes have some interesting thoughts. I hope this adds something to them. Also consider that on 95ron that the Commodore would be using about 3% or more fuel too.

So VE AFM figureswould be approx 255kw, 510Nm (95ron) & 13.3L/100km.

Actually i'm pretty sure that the fuel burn figures are on 95 RON (ADR fuel burn specification), as for all ADR fuel burn figures. The real problem for Holden i see with this is with respect to performance. As others have noted, it sets a bad example when you are hobbling an engine (which has been widely aclaimed) in order to achieve fuel burn savings at the best of time. Companies like VW (twin charger tech), Ford (I6,I6T), hell even toyota (aurion 3.5V6) have all produced engines/cars with more horsepower and lower fuel burn. In fact due to weight increases specific fuel consumption has often improved by quite some margin.

It is clear that after reading a few reviews you can feel it activating (unlike Honda etc.) and given holden's comments about delaying AFM to get the NVH right this is not surprising. What is surprising to me and no doubt most performance car fans is that Holden would reduced power and torque on a top line model to save $150 bucks a year. Hell the difference in fuel burn a year between an XR8 and SS would only be $300 tops - maybe less if you run the SS on 98 RON to make its power figures. I know heaps of V8 fans that would gladly pay that for an extra 30kw - let alone the many advantages the FG has over the VE anyway....

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

Considering the auto option was an extra $2,000, it means there isn't any difference.


BTW, I'm anti AFM/DOD whatever as I don't believe there arre any real world benefits.

Holdens Auto isn't worth $2k for starters, so yeah you are paying about $1,000 for AFM. You get the ZF option on the XR8 for what $1500 and I'd bet the farm it costs Ford a lot more to buy ZF than Holdens Slushbox.

[DJM83]

Looks like we have a winner with the AFM junk :togo:

[Escort_RPDriver]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/20132/20...ong-term-test/

another test apparantly its also a full second slower than the manual vertion

[4Vman]

Some out-takes worth noting:

"The six-speed automatic SSV8 AFM makes 260kW of power and produces a reduced 517Nm of torque, so you would expect those reductions alone to lead to some reasonable increase in fuel efficiency!"

"Not so it seems as we are still struggling, despite all manner of careful driving to achieve anything like a real reduction in fuel consumption."

"Another week of driving has seen the odometer rise to a total of 3625 kilometres, which means I managed to slip 406.61km under the wheels of ‘Big Blue’ and it managed to gurgle 61.33 litres of 91RON petrol down its intakes.
The nett result was an average of 15.08 litres per 100 kilometres, which is certainly nothing to crow about."

"The acceleration times for the car aren’t all that great a tale either as the car is a full second slower than the official figures for the manual SS V8 with the best of three runs being a 6.43 seconds to 100km/h."

The auto 6spd FG XR8 has this thing kicked to death id say...

[data_mine]

On paper, and on the road maybe, but it (FG) won't win in sales.

Sad.

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Some out-takes worth noting:

"The six-speed automatic SSV8 AFM makes 260kW of power and produces a reduced 517Nm of torque, so you would expect those reductions alone to lead to some reasonable increase in fuel efficiency!"

"Not so it seems as we are still struggling, despite all manner of careful driving to achieve anything like a real reduction in fuel consumption."

"Another week of driving has seen the odometer rise to a total of 3625 kilometres, which means I managed to slip 406.61km under the wheels of ‘Big Blue’ and it managed to gurgle 61.33 litres of 91RON petrol down its intakes.
The nett result was an average of 15.08 litres per 100 kilometres, which is certainly nothing to crow about."

"The acceleration times for the car aren’t all that great a tale either as the car is a full second slower than the official figures for the manual SS V8 with the best of three runs being a 6.43 seconds to 100km/h."

The auto 6spd FG XR8 has this thing kicked to death id say...

Hmmmmm...............what I don't understand is how a 10Kw decrease has destroyed the SS's performance so much !!!!!!

Methinks the engine management in these things is overly conservative.......perhaps they've slipped in the FPV tune as well ????...........


I reckon their philosophy is that they've had the FORD V8's kicked to death for so long.......what does it matter if their new lineup isn't miles ahead of the FORD stuff............so long as it's on par and the public perception is that it is capable of being more fuel efficient..........their marketing department will go to town like it normally does and they'll sell in droves.........If HOLDEN PR can sell the EPICA.........they can sell this...easy.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ESP

Hmmmmm...............what I don't understand is how a 10Kw decrease has destroyed the SS's performance so much !!!!!!

Methinks the engine management in these things is overly conservative.......perhaps they've slipped in the FPV tune as well ????...........


I reckon their philosophy is that they've had the FORD V8's kicked to death for so long.......what does it matter if their new lineup isn't miles ahead of the FORD stuff............so long as it's on par and the public perception is that it is capable of being more fuel efficient..........their marketing department will go to town like it normally does and they'll sell in droves.........If HOLDEN PR can sell the EPICA.........they can sell this...easy.

Well it all depends on what you take as the true 'ss performance'. Truth is that Holden has told fibs on the true pace of the SS (auto) since launch. From SV6s going to 100 a full 1 second quicker than production models to supposed HSV equalling SS manuals evidence abounds of holden tweaking press cars at launch. We all know they do it (ford does the opposite, not even running BOSS motors in when it is a known issue).

Truth is a SS auto is a high 5 second car on a good day anyway (5.8 typical). Sure it will do a 5.5 in perfect conditions, but it is rare. Based on power/torque loss alone this makes the AFM version a 6+second car easy IMO. A XR8 auto when run in will do low 6s quite easilly, as has been proven many times on here. In fact it has dipped under 6seconds in a few tests....

You may al so be right RE engine management. Part of the reason Holden V8s have had the wood over BOSS engined cars (auto in particular) is the engine managememt and how it delivers it horsepower. I'm no V8 expert but generally Holden outperforms its on paper power numbers partially because of misqouting figures (launch SS made 290+kw at the fly based on dynos, HSVs made barely any more) and aggresive engine calibrations that delivers pretty poor real world fuel economy. Now holden has realised this going for broke mentality is a bit silly and are desperately trying to lower fuel burn - sadly though they can't maintain performance.

One quick thought it that Holden has changed camshafts/calibration to improve NVH/fuel burn in the AFM version and since the engine isn't VCT (gotta love the pushrods) they simply can't make the compromise work when at full noise. In the end it is a lack of sufficient complexity in the GM V8 that everyone loves that is now coming back to roost. Yet another reason why engines like the I6T are showing the way...the big cube V8 is not suited to this sort of manipulation.....

[Cobra]

Can the DOD system be de activated by edit? You would still have mechanical componentry that makes DOD work, but you should be able to remove/disable it too. If they have changed their cam profile then I just see more gain coming from an aftermarket cam change. Either way, If i was a holden an I'd be spewing. I reckon there will be a whole lot more manual SS sales now. Too bad if you want a tough Calais V8...