Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Carby

Another expert - tell when was the last time you drove for 1000km's not stopping for traffic lights, slowing for roundabouts and stuck to a 60km speed limit?

The test was ludicrous - it's not a Falcon Vs Commodore thing as I'm the first to recognise that the Falcon has many strengths and in 6 cylinder form is a better car than the VE, but really this test is of interest value only.

Maybe you need to READ what actually happened at Bathurst before rambling on...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jgb

Read the comments below the article.

my bad, only read what was posted in the thread. forgot that modern trip computers tell you fuel used as well and just assumed they'd measured the fuel they put in.

either way it doesn't make a lot of difference to the L/100km figure. still very much achievable by nearly all other 6 cyl cars on the market and a long way from being the best.

[GTpilot]

Originally Posted by prydey

my bad, only read what was posted in the thread. forgot that modern trip computers tell you fuel used as well and just assumed they'd measured the fuel they put in.

either way it doesn't make a lot of difference to the L/100km figure. still very much achievable by nearly all other 6 cyl cars on the market and a long way from being the best.

Cool, Mate I agree with you 100%, Certainly nothing to write home about.

As I said, I reckon Holden sponsored it.... just to save face from the drive article.
I used to get similar figures to them on those same roads in the lmid 90's, in the oldmans 3.0L Magna, However. I'm sure I would have done that trip in a lot less time...IF you know what I mean.

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by Carby

Another expert - tell when was the last time you drove for 1000km's not stopping for traffic lights, slowing for roundabouts and stuck to a 60km speed limit?

The test was ludicrous - it's not a Falcon Vs Commodore thing as I'm the first to recognise that the Falcon has many strengths and in 6 cylinder form is a better car than the VE, but really this test is of interest value only.

It's no more or less valid than the ADR test, or the eco challenge.

They are tests. The point of scientific tests is to remove as many variables as possible to return a repeatable result. So yes, there's no roundabouts or traffic lights on Mt Panorama. But it wasn't a close circuit, it was a public road with other traffic.

The only way you could get 'real world' results, would be to use a statistically large enough sample size - e.g. 500 Falcons and 500 Commodores, give them to 1000 people for 6 months, and track the fuel efficiency. And call me crazy, but I don't think anyone is going to spend the sort of $ required to run that kind of test.

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by saber

What do you guys think??

We’d traveled 983.13 kilometres and burned 78.02 litres of 91RON unleaded.

Our average fuel economy registered at 7.94 l/100km, proving that Holden’s claim was achievable in real world driving.

The 3.0-litre SIDI equipped Commodore can and will travel 900kms – and beyond – on a single tank.
The Verdict

We know the new SIDI Commodore range is capable of some impressively frugal numbers (we steered a 3.6 litre SV6 to 7.2 l/100km at the model’s launch).

If you must buy a 6 banger Commodore, get the SV6. At least you won't be left behind at the lights by a non-turbo 12A rotary towing a caravan.

(I think that just proves, going smaller is not THE answer to economy, you can go too small).

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Sitting on a constant speed (110kph) for 9 hrs from syd to melb is as far away from "real world" as you can get, the figures and results of a test like that are meaningless to most Australian drivers.
...

It's quite obvious none of you get the point of what I'm suggesting and why.

Where in my post did I make any "real world" claims with regard to such a test??

[Wally]

Originally Posted by jgb

.........As I said, I reckon Holden sponsored it.... just to save face from the drive article.
......

Ya think! I'd be suprised if it wasn't a press release. _2:

[Wally]

Here's one for the Sports Wagon 3.6

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/mo...-six-with-SIDI

[greens_tuf]

Originally Posted by Wally

Here's one for the Sports Wagon 3.6

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/mo...-six-with-SIDI

And the new six- speed automatic transmission is a beauty. LOL is this the same transmission that has been described as confused?

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by greens_tuf

And the new six- speed automatic transmission is a beauty. LOL is this the same transmission that has been described as confused?

Wondering how much of that is the love of the fact it has a six speed over the actual performance of the box. Someone posted an article a few days ago (?) saying the auto was a dog and the 6 speed manual mated much better with the SIDI.

One thing about the ZF, I don't recall the media ever saying a bad word about it.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by data_mine

If you must buy a 6 banger Commodore, get the SV6. At least you won't be left behind at the lights by a non-turbo 12A rotary towing a caravan.

(I think that just proves, going smaller is not THE answer to economy, you can go too small).

I'll have you know that I used to tow with my RX2 years ago and it was no slouch, sorry off topic.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by data_mine

It's no more or less valid than the ADR test, or the eco challenge.

They are tests. The point of scientific tests is to remove as many variables as possible to return a repeatable result. So yes, there's no roundabouts or traffic lights on Mt Panorama. But it wasn't a close circuit, it was a public road with other traffic.

The only way you could get 'real world' results, would be to use a statistically large enough sample size - e.g. 500 Falcons and 500 Commodores, give them to 1000 people for 6 months, and track the fuel efficiency. And call me crazy, but I don't think anyone is going to spend the sort of $ required to run that kind of test.

I agree it is no more valid than the ECO test and that is my point DRIVE can't say Bathurst was OK and yet the ECO challenge was a farce.

Your suggested real world results sounds statistically very sound, however I would settle for a WHEELS or MOTOR test of a few days where the two cars follow each other over varied roads/conditions at similar speeds, this would also be quite indicative of fuel usage.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Today when i drove to work it took 35 mins, i averaged about 50kph in flowing but stop start traffic in speed zones from 60 to 80kph.
Im my mind this trip is probably representative of how the majority of people experiece driving who drive daily and live in the bigger city's or if you like 90% of Australia's population, i.e: 15 - 50mins driving in traffic....

You poor bugger.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by burnz

suspension is wishbone not MacPherson struts

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.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Carby

I agree it is no more valid than the ECO test and that is my point DRIVE can't say Bathurst was OK and yet the ECO challenge was a farce.

Your suggested real world results sounds statistically very sound, however I would settle for a WHEELS or MOTOR test of a few days where the two cars follow each other over varied roads/conditions at similar speeds, this would also be quite indicative of fuel usage.

I think this form of test is meaningless as even at a half way point to change over drivers in between two places will nullify test as both will have different characteristics, so unless they did the whole test thing then went back to the beginning then swapped drivers, it is pointless, that is why at bathurst two drivers drove for so long then swapped because two people do not drive alike.

[4Vman]

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.

Where is their V6 block cast again??!!

[Gobes32]

Regardless of whether the Bathurst test is fair or not, it proved one thing, the Falcon is not the thirsty beast it is made out to be, and the SIDI Commodore is not the frugal car that Holden's advertising will have you believe. I like competition, because we, as consumers, are the ones that win in the end......

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by RG

I'm starting to sense a real shift in the media towards Holden bashing.

I'm loving it!

Music to the ears aint it.

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by Carby

I agree it is no more valid than the ECO test and that is my point DRIVE can't say Bathurst was OK and yet the ECO challenge was a farce.

Your suggested real world results sounds statistically very sound, however I would settle for a WHEELS or MOTOR test of a few days where the two cars follow each other over varied roads/conditions at similar speeds, this would also be quite indicative of fuel usage.

Why a WHEELS or MOTOR test?

Oh that's right they always show holden in a good light, no matter how badly they perform.

[bluestreak]

On the original topic, if a new car buyer has heard about or researched and found these claims by Drive, and are still turning up to a Holden showroom, they were probably always going to buy one anyway. Good luck to 'em.

As for the Motor article - I could not finish it without sickening from the fawning sycophantism. I want my ten minutes back!!

Cheers

:

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by burnz

suspension is wishbone not MacPherson struts

[coolelxr]

Barra XR8 - That Yugi-oh card is gold...I'll have to add that to my duelling deck.

[Swordsman88]

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.

Yes i noticed burnz put that in..and of course it is clearly false. You can call it a an 'advanced' mcpherson but a double wishbone it clearly ain't. There is no 'double'. I just didn't have the effort at the time to be bothered pointing out the error. Particularly when he will most likely think we are all 'blinded by ford' and he is always right...

Its never a problem to remember what my EF has supsension wise. Its a v8 supercar. Watts linkage at the rear and a Short arm long arm double wishbone at the front. Funny enough, as used by Comodore V8 supercars too...they clearly recognsied that for best handling you can do better then a strut front end......too bad they didn't apply it to their road cars....

[burnz]

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.

do you really work for ford as car salesman??
about as far as you knowledge goes.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by burnz

do you really work for ford as car salesman??
about as far as you knowledge goes.

not sure what you mean by that burnz? So the commonwhore does have double wishbone then? Or do you admit it atcually has struts. You will find manufacturers call suspensions all sorts of things depending on marketing etc. It can get quite confusing. For example, Ford Europe launched a 'revo knuckle' Mcpherson strut recently that while strut, mimicks a double wishbone.

Fact is the commodore does not have double wishbone. Fact. I think by GMH's own admission it is a 'two arm' mcpherson strut with front mounted stearing rack and anti roll bar. THis means unliek toyota (single lower arm) the VE has two arms. Bit better but no double wishbone that is for sure...

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by Carby

The ECO challenge was a roads too even around Adelaide. The Bathurst tests relevance would only be for people who lived on the Circuit. I reckon an XR8 would probably beat the Falcon six for economy at this place.

DRIVE have really sucked everyone in with their test - they have got exactly the controversy they wanted - and now publishing rebukes from Holden.

The ADR tests are a guide - all cars are tested the same way, if they didn't have them, who would you rely on for Fuel consumption figures - your mates or Grandmother, I think you might get a fair discrepancy between the two.

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.

[ST]

Originally Posted by burnz

do you really work for ford as car salesman??
about as far as you knowledge goes.

So you are saying Ford car salesman are exceptionally knowledgable? Because having factual information on the suspension of a competitor car is going beyond the call of duty in my books. Good to see some positivity for Ford from you for a change burnz! Keep it up.

As for the topic, I don't see why everybody has to get up in arms about the test being not relevant to the daily driving habits of the average person when we've yet to get a more accurate and suitable test on these cars. Fact is the Falcon was more economical by a long shot and the commodore fell short by a large margin of it's own heavily publicised fuel economy figures.

From my own experience i'd even say the figures from this test are optimistic for simulating the average drive, as I know my daily drive would be considerably less economical than driving around Bathurst.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

not sure what you mean by that burnz? So the commonwhore does have double wishbone then? Or do you admit it atcually has struts. You will find manufacturers call suspensions all sorts of things depending on marketing etc. It can get quite confusing. For example, Ford Europe launched a 'revo knuckle' Mcpherson strut recently that while strut, mimicks a double wishbone.

Fact is the commodore does not have double wishbone. Fact. I think by GMH's own admission it is a 'two arm' mcpherson strut with front mounted stearing rack and anti roll bar. THis means unliek toyota (single lower arm) the VE has two arms. Bit better but no double wishbone that is for sure...

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.

[Swordsman88]

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.

Oh dear....we are going around in circles again (this sounds familiar...what was the thread about V6 engines again...). If you were so knowledgeable burnz (as you claim you are) you would know ful well that the use of 'suspension is wisbone' as a generic term in teh suspension business means 'double wisbone'. Just because two lower arms (which form a wishbone) is present does not suffice.

A 'wisbhone' suspension as commonly known has two 'wishbone' shapes (be they solid or made up on individual links, with a non-load bearing strut (often with coilover springs, but no in all cases) sandwiched in between. If you dont' have the 'double' bit with this strut arangement you CAN"T CLAIM TO HAVE A WISBHONE SUSPENSION. Reason? Well because then everyone would have a wisbbone (well not everyone but a hell of alot of cars would) and the entire term becomes useless. For example, the commodore rear suspension becomes 'wishbone' too because its lower arms act as a wisbhone shape....but it isn't one. Even Holden notes this in their own description (AU IRS is pure double wishbone, BA onwards Control Blade isn't...same reason)

As i said, diff. systems use aspects/components of each other, but to just about any person reading your original post it would have been interpreted as 'double wishbone'. Moreover, in the same fashion the 'generic term' for the Holden Front End Suspension is Mcpherson Strut. Its not about 'who builds it' (?? : ) or whatever its the concept of using the strut itself as a load bearing member (i.e. no upper suspension arm). You can put 40 lower links on but if that upper arm is not present and you are using a strut to help hold the wheel on the car (which the VE does) then its a Mcpherson strut design. That's fact.So says the guy that invented it...a one Earle Mchperson.... I hope this helps explain what others are refering too....

Based on this latest episode you are either a very misguided and uninformed person, who pretends to know what they are on about and will not accept helpful correction, or a holden troll who knowingly spins words for whatever reason.
.................................................. ..................................
EDIT: Thanks' to our good friends at Wikipedia here is a description of a TRUE WISHBONE suspension. Take note of the first photo withe yellow painted suspension arms. I'm sure many on here recognise what car its from....and its not a commodore....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_wishbone

[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)