Holden SIDI Ad With Mondeo !!!

csv8 · 26-09-2009, 04:10 PM

I am watching the Grand Final halftime entertainment and the new Holden SIDI ad comes on.
Holden is comparing the new Holden SIDI engine with the Mondeo. The ad states " The new SIDI Holden gets better fuel economy than Fords Mondeo "
Mondeo isn't selling very well, Ford had better counter this ad ASAP !!!!

Kenaz · 26-09-2009, 04:24 PM

Ford has the German Shepherd Mondeo ad.

R-Design · 26-09-2009, 04:39 PM

Holden want to push SIDI as an alternative to medium sized cars, unfortunately they can't match Camry or Mazda6's fuel consumption so they had to pick on Mondeo.

Silly move as Ford can always push the Diesel angle, but we'll see what happens.

Edit: Also, Ford is advertising that the Mondeo Wagon has a larger cargo capacity than the Sportwagon, so it's probably Holden's retaliation.

csv8 · 26-09-2009, 05:48 PM

I haven't seen the Mondeo Wagon ad ? With "green" the in thing, if Holden can sucker people into buying SIDI Holdens, doesn't go well for Mondeo etc. They didn't attack the FG !! Which is a comparable car.

Wretched · 26-09-2009, 06:05 PM

meh, they all do it, Ford did it with the Focus vs Corolla ad.

**Elks** · 26-09-2009, 06:20 PM

Wait to the Falcon with EcoBoost I4 lands in the same showroom. The mondeo will be completely redundant. Who would buy a Mondeo then?

cosmo20btt · 26-09-2009, 06:21 PM

Where Ford went wrong was naming there next mid sized car Mondeo as the previous model ie: 95 and so on were almost considered the nineties version of the Camira which Holden conveniently disowned, so if you are a good marketer then you put your cheapest running car up against some thing that everyone already hates & then your product really shines. Kudos to Holden.(Ford would have done better with Telstar, good product.)

Buzz Box · 26-09-2009, 07:32 PM

Next time you watch that ad READ THE FINE PRINT!!! ;)

GT69 · 26-09-2009, 07:35 PM

I saw a mondeo wagon today. Good looking car

Fairlane · 26-09-2009, 07:38 PM

Holden better to watch themselves here. Theyve obviously given up attacking the Falcon, not surprising see as though the 3.0 Omega doesnt compete with Falcon anymore it all XR's and G-series at Broadmeadows.

Comapared top the Omega, the Mondeo is about a thousand times better built, has an interior thats about a thousand times better and after being in both, more spacious.

Slagging off the Mondeo is a risky business, which they might be able to get away with Mondeo's lowish sales, but if Ford slash say 3g on Mondeo's price, whatch Omega sales crash.

**Elks** · 26-09-2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elks

Wait to the Falcon with EcoBoost I4 lands in the same showroom. The mondeo will be completely redundant. Who would buy a Mondeo then?

PS: No offence to Mondeo owners out there. It's a damn fine car. It's just that doesn't always equal sales success.

AUXRVIII · 26-09-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elks

Wait to the Falcon with EcoBoost I4 lands in the same showroom. The mondeo will be completely redundant. Who would buy a Mondeo then?

With a premium of over $2000 to get into an ecoboost Falcon over the I6 version, I don't think Mondeo sales will be affected too much.

GTpilot · 26-09-2009, 09:28 PM

Anyone read the latest wheels mag yet.

They run a comparo test with the 3l omega, 3.5l Calis and FG XT.
the end result was not a whole lot of difference, AND, surprisingly they actually had a few good words to say on the XT.
They drove to Melb to Broken hill and back.
Off memory the final figures were.
Omega 3L 9.5L/100
Calais 3.5L 9.9L/100
XT 4.0L 10.5(?)L/100

Bugger all difference really especially given most of their driving was Highway.
MY BF XR8 used to get arond 10L/100 on highway.

Not sure where Holden are pulling this 900K per tank crap from. even with their 75L capacity.

naddis01 · 26-09-2009, 09:40 PM

The figures in the Wheels test was:
Omega 3L (6 Speed auto) 9.9L/100
Calais 3.6L (6 Speed auto) 10.0L/100
XT 4.0L (5 speed auto) 10.5L/100

Antwon · 26-09-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naddis01

The figures in the Wheels test was:
Omega 3L (6 Speed auto) 9.9L/100
Calais 3.6L (6 Speed auto) 10.0L/100
XT 4.0L (5 speed auto) 10.5L/100

Had to use a 5 speed XT didnt they...

GTpilot · 26-09-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naddis01

The figures in the Wheels test was:
Omega 3L (6 Speed auto) 9.9L/100
Calais 3.6L (6 Speed auto) 10.0L/100
XT 4.0L (5 speed auto) 10.5L/100

Cheers, I read it quickly last night before the missus had to deliver it to FTG nissan this morning

Could not remember the exact figures.

GTpilot · 26-09-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antwon

Had to use a 5 speed XT didnt they...

haha yeah, But if I remember right they make special mention of it.
They said wanted a "bog stock base model XT"

burnz · 26-09-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgb

Anyone read the latest wheels mag yet.

They run a comparo test with the 3l omega, 3.5l Calis and FG XT.
the end result was not a whole lot of difference, AND, surprisingly they actually had a few good words to say on the XT.
They drove to Melb to Broken hill and back.
Off memory the final figures were.
Omega 3L 9.5L/100
Calais 3.5L 9.9L/100
XT 4.0L 10.5(?)L/100

Bugger all difference really especially given most of their driving was Highway.
MY BF XR8 used to get arond 10L/100 on highway.

Not sure where Holden are pulling this 900K per tank crap from. even with their 75L capacity.

8.33/100 is the ave, easy done.

prydey · 26-09-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgb

Anyone read the latest wheels mag yet.

They run a comparo test with the 3l omega, 3.5l Calis and FG XT.
the end result was not a whole lot of difference, AND, surprisingly they actually had a few good words to say on the XT.
They drove to Melb to Broken hill and back.
Off memory the final figures were.
Omega 3L 9.5L/100
Calais 3.5L 9.9L/100
XT 4.0L 10.5(?)L/100

Bugger all difference really especially given most of their driving was Highway.
MY BF XR8 used to get arond 10L/100 on highway.

Not sure where Holden are pulling this 900K per tank crap from. even with their 75L capacity.

yeah i have wheels mag also. your memory is not quite correct. on test they got
omega 3L - 9.9
calais 3.6 - 10.0
xt - 10.5

before anyone starts the ford v holden thing, the article doesn't really do a lot of comparing between the brands. the ford is mainly there as a reference. would have been nice if they took a 6sp falcon though considering both commo's were 6sp. ford claim 9.9 for the 6sp falcon.

the journo's query how holden claim 9.3 though, which was refreshing to see them question a manufacturers claim, esp holden.

prydey · 26-09-2009, 09:53 PM

also, in the actual article they say the falcon did 10.1 over the whole journey but in the figures at the end they say 10.5 so one is a typo.

phillyc · 26-09-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

yeah i have wheels mag also. your memory is not quite correct. on test they got
omega 3L - 9.9
calais 3.6 - 10.0
xt - 10.5

before anyone starts the ford v holden thing, the article doesn't really do a lot of comparing between the brands. the ford is mainly there as a reference. would have been nice if they took a 6sp falcon though considering both commo's were 6sp. ford claim 9.9 for the 6sp falcon.

the journo's query how holden claim 9.3 though, which was refreshing to see them question a manufacturers claim, esp holden.

I thought the figures were:
9.9 Omega
10.0 SV6
10.1 XT
I thumbed through the article, but didn't buy it. I decided that I won't buy an issue with a Holden on the front. The next to have a Ford I will.

There were no performance tests done, which would show that 3L SIDS to be asleep.

PS The 10.5 is the official Ford XT 5spd figure.

R-Design · 26-09-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

I thought the figures were:
9.9 Omega
10.0 SV6
10.1 XT

That's a fantastic result for the 5-Speed. No wonder they didn't take the ZF, it'd probably out perform them all.

GTpilot · 26-09-2009, 10:07 PM

Just sussed out the omega specs on holden website.
Tank capacity is actually 73L so it would need to get 8.11L/100 to do 900km
thier ADR 81/02 figure states 9.3L/100

Still my point being that for all their advertising and spin, still not the greates figures when I compare to the missus old TJ (2000 model) 3.0L Magna wagon with almost 300,000 k's on it. on the Highway it pulls high 8's to low 9's. loaded up to the roof.

prydey · 26-09-2009, 10:17 PM

my old ef xr6 wagon (72L tank) was very good on fuel. did adelaide to bris a few times in it and would regularly get about 930km to a tank of juice.

its just holden's usual marketing spin!! they don't mention tank size or any other details.

burnz · 26-09-2009, 10:39 PM

i cant see a problem with what they say.
gov test says this, holden say that, motor test say something else.

when you say a car can go A to B in laymans terms, it removes the confusion.

prydey · 26-09-2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

i cant see a problem with what they say.
gov test says this, holden say that, motor test say something else.

when you say a car can go A to B in laymans terms, it removes the confusion.

the whole focus of these new engines is the fuel efficiency of them. they mention 900km range but fail to mention that the car has a 73L tank. 8.1L/100km on the highway is far from ground breaking. i mentioned an e series falcon of mine achieved similar results. i've also done the same journey in a ba, and while i didn't achieve over 900km to a tank (smaller tank) my ave was better (7.8L/100km).

for all the hype over these new engines, early signs are they aren't as efficient as holden make out.

Falc'man · 26-09-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

I thought the figures were:
9.9 Omega
10.0 SV6
10.1 XT

All this proves is the 3 litre was a woftam. With much less low down power/cubes, and crappy low resistance tyres, what have they achieved?

burnz · 26-09-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

the whole focus of these new engines is the fuel efficiency of them. they mention 900km range but fail to mention that the car has a 73L tank. 8.1L/100km on the highway is far from ground breaking. i mentioned an e series falcon of mine achieved similar results. i've also done the same journey in a ba, and while i didn't achieve over 900km to a tank (smaller tank) my ave was better (7.8L/100km).

for all the hype over these new engines, early signs are they aren't as efficient as holden make out.

thats your fuel economy, what did the government say it was??
my car (LS1) uses 9.1 hwy, 14.2 city but the gov says 15 ave.

sidi what its true fuel use is unknown, ecotec is low 7's on hwy.

FlipXW · 26-09-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

thats your fuel economy, what did the government say it was??
my car (LS1) uses 9.1 hwy, 14.2 city but the gov says 15 ave.

sidi what its true fuel use is unknown, ecotec is low 7's on hwy.

shouldnt say that

R-Design · 27-09-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

All this proves is the 3 litre was a woftam. With much less low down power/cubes, and crappy low resistance tyres, what have they achieved?

Next month's Global Green Challenge could be a real marketing nightmare for Holden if the 3.0 V6 SIDI doesn't measure up to the competition.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...ht=green+crown