VF's fuel savings an illusion ?

[MAD]

Well for one, considering it was the next line after talking about the fuel consumption figures.
And if it was lagging behind due to grip, that lends itself to pushing harder in other areas to try to make up the loss.
And, smooth driving is more efficient.

[Chopped]

I don't think this comparo was a fuel comparison test.
I'd say that are all three (Aurion, Falcon, Commodore) are pretty similar in fuel usage, there wouldn't be much more than a litre per 100k between them.

I have read that the new auto in the Commodore is now better than the ZF in the Falcon which seems hard to believe.

Looking at the pics, I was thinking how well the FG shape has aged (still looks good). Yet I didn't like it when it was first released.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by Polyal

All depends on what you classify as "town", sounds like a country town with no traffic lights.

Also whats the tank capacity? Is there any difference with falcon vs commy? Range is nice but its all about the L/100...also depends on how you market it.

FG has a 68L, VF 71L

[gumbi_18]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

One point in that article annoyed me- Since the arrival of the VE Commodore in 2006, and the FG Falcon in 2008, there’s been a simple answer to question of which model was best – if you wanted a standard six-cylinder, buy the Ford, if you wanted a performance model, choose the V8 Holden. - that has never been the case, the XR6 Turbo has dominated the SS since 2008.

I read that and wondered what the reviewer had been smoking...

[mikeeman_ford]

we had an Ve 2 Sv6 hire car in adelaide.

We drove that around for 3-4 days, and calculated that the fuel economy was roughly the same as my XR VCT AU model. there is no substitute for the 4l torque, you just need to drive her easily, and the fuel aint bad.

And a brand new car had the abs kicking in when reversing. I think the motor is nice and quiet, but that is where it ends.

Sure it is newer by 13 years, but i expected the economy and quality to be better

[deadfish2]

I drive that run from Bathurst to Goulburn regularly..... its hardly a drive that you would ever consider testing fuel economy on..... it is a trip that gets you excited if you love hills, valleys and tight corners....... as they said they were driving the ringer out of them so I wouldn't even bother taking that economy as a guide....

[burnz]

Originally Posted by mikeeman_ford

we had an Ve 2 Sv6 hire car in adelaide.

We drove that around for 3-4 days, and calculated that the fuel economy was roughly the same as my XR VCT AU model. there is no substitute for the 4l torque, you just need to drive her easily, and the fuel aint bad.

And a brand new car had the abs kicking in when reversing. I think the motor is nice and quiet, but that is where it ends.

Sure it is newer by 13 years, but i expected the economy and quality to be better

your falcon is 300kg lighter.

[ivorya]

Another disappointing article for Holden regarding Fuel econ.

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...618-2ofve.html

So why don't people here start court actions regarding fuel econ like they've done in the US? It's time to bring them to their knee's!!! ;)

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by T4ME

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

But we all know from testing the odometer was very inaccurate in the VE's ... hence why they can get that range ... but not actually drive the distance.

What town is he driving around though?

I've easily achieved 6.6L/100km from a FG XT driving around town as well .... it can be done ... just needs concentration and momentum.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by pmacc

Ive been sitting around 13.9-15.7 on my G6E for the last 5 months around town and i think its fine when you consider the weight of the FG.

Around town that's fine (although our NA FG gets ~13 around town with a heavy foot, the turbo about the same, our towns are obviously a little different) but the article states that they did something like 1000 kays- to be getting 14+ out of a NA six after a long drive, they must have been completely thrashed.

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by deadfish2

I drive that run from Bathurst to Goulburn regularly..... its hardly a drive that you would ever consider testing fuel economy on..... it is a trip that gets you excited if you love hills, valleys and tight corners....... as they said they were driving the ringer out of them so I wouldn't even bother taking that economy as a guide....

But in saying that ... if they were driving the wringer out of them ... the Holden still used a lot more than the Ford ... in the same driving conditions. So it's still a fair comparison ... and the Holden is a thirsty bugger.

[290v]

Holden have always played with words (good marketing)I remember when they stated that the new Commodore can now travel 1,000Kms on one tank of fuel what they didn't tell everyone they made the tank bigger from 67Lt to I think 75 lt tank

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Around town that's fine (although our NA FG gets ~13 around town with a heavy foot, the turbo about the same, our towns are obviously a little different) but the article states that they did something like 1000 kays- to be getting 14+ out of a NA six after a long drive, they must have been completely thrashed.

Driving Sydney traffic too and from work ... even in manual mode ducking and weaving through traffic ... I can't get over 11L/100km ... no matter how hard i try.

[jpd80]

Why not do the Drive Bathurst 1000 thingy again but this time with Evoke & SV6 versus XT Ecoboost & XR6.

Remembering the previous result, there could be a few red faces over at Holden.....

[burnz]

Originally Posted by ivorya

Another disappointing article for Holden regarding Fuel econ.

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...618-2ofve.html

So why don't people here start court actions regarding fuel econ like they've done in the US? It's time to bring them to their knee's!!! ;)

if you read the article, stopping regularly to take photo's, drive on the beach, do 130kph, hard accelerating.....and so on.

[MAD]

However, it’s not unusual for car trip computers to claim the car is using less fuel than it actually is; unlike speedometers – which aren’t allowed to read lower than the actual speed being travelled and can read up to 10 per cent above the travelled speed – trip computers aren’t nearly as closely legislated.

Geez, it annoys me when someone dosn't quite grasp a concept, and yet they still try to explain it, and it's totally wrong.

These two points are exactly the same.
If the speed is overstated, the distance must also be overstated, therefore the fuel used will be understated because the car thinks it's gone further than it actually has.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 290v

Holden have always played with words (good marketing)I remember when they stated that the new Commodore can now travel 1,000Kms on one tank of fuel what they didn't tell everyone they made the tank bigger from 67Lt to I think 75 lt tank

no, they made the fuel tank smaller!

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by ivorya

Another disappointing article for Holden regarding Fuel econ.

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...618-2ofve.html

So why don't people here start court actions regarding fuel econ like they've done in the US? It's time to bring them to their knee's!!! ;)

The Holden Calais 3.6 is rated at 7.0 L/100 km's on the extra urban cycle which is what they're effectivly using it on and its burning 10.1 L/100, 44% more than Holden's lab testing. To be fair, I suspect that they're in a fair hurry to get that great lap test completed and crusing at times at 130 k.p.h. definitly doesn't help fuel consumption.

[ivorya]

Still not good publicity if you ask me...
Also, where are the boys in blue? 130kph... ;-)

[Mechan1k]

It's legal in NT .... if driving around Aus ... they'd be definitely going through NT just to do this really.

[ebxr8240]

My EB gets very good fuel consumption... In the garage..

[Elks]

Fords real world fuel economy has always been in line with there published figures, whereas Holden has had a habit of blitzing the test and having relatively poor fuel in the real world.

Net result Holden is better on fuel. Look the test says so.

A bit like their revised lower pricing. Same as there old actual pricing. Just seems cheaper. No one said Holden was bad at spin. (Just cars LOL)

[mik]

Originally Posted by burnz

your falcon is 300kg lighter.

300 kg sounds like a lot, i have weighed mine at about 1580 kg, dry weight would be a bit less , they say the commy is about 1688 kg, i assume thats kerb,
probably more like 150/200 kg.

[deadfish2]

Originally Posted by MAD

Geez, it annoys me when someone dosn't quite grasp a concept, and yet they still try to explain it, and it's totally wrong.

These two points are exactly the same.
If the speed is overstated, the distance must also be overstated, therefore the fuel used will be understated because the car thinks it's gone further than it actually has.

its not as easy saying if the speed is over reading the odometer must be too.


cars are not stupid, using factory fit tyres and drivetrain the car knows exactly what speed they are doing, this is what the odometer runs off.... its parts of adr's that speedometer have to read higher and is normally upto and around 10% average, (my last 2 cars have been 10%)

my current ute was ticketed at 8.9L/100km lowest ive ever had it on the highway, not using cruise control, using hills to advantages etc has never been better 10.5L/100km..

[Flickxr6fg]

Originally Posted by T4ME

My uncles SV6 VE gets 800kms to the tank around town.

I think your uncle is pulling your chain, highway driving maybe but around town no way. my mother owns a VE and she gets no where near that around town.

[Mechan1k]

My current car was listed with the following consumption figures:

Extra urban : 7.2L/100km
Combined : 9.9L/100km
Urban : 14.6L/100km

This is a 2010 FG XT with ZF ... albeit has 70,000km on it now.

And testing on the flat in a straight line with 3 different GPS units ... and reporting 99km/h when indicating 100km/h on the speedo ... using factory 215/60R16 rubber as well. So near enough to exact speed.

I can get well under the manufacturers fuel consumption claims with ease ... I may be lucky and have one of those freak cars that can do it ... and others unfortauntely can't get there.

What I would like to do though ... i get out there and really test it out ... and see how far I can go on the one tank.

But in many instances ... I have been able to get 700+ km from 62-65L (that's on pump figures and litres used figures from the MFD ... and literally every fill match each other as well)

This is driving from Sydney's west to North Ryde ... and just to the shops and back ... and not using M4/M2/M7 either ... as it's quicker using other main arterials in the morning and evening.

A day trip to the south coast with family on-board and full boot ... low-7's

And on my own using back country roads and concentrating on momentum (but keeping to the speed limits and not staying under them to try and achieve good figures) ... and 6.6l/100km averaged is doable.

I'd say a lot of the help is the ZF gearing and being in top gear at low revs (sometimes down to 1000rpm) with good low down torque where there is no labouring ... and this is where the Falcon consumption really shows the Holden up.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Why not do the Drive Bathurst 1000 thingy again but this time with Evoke & SV6 versus XT Ecoboost & XR6.

Remembering the previous result, there could be a few red faces over at Holden.....

That course would favour the I6's torque delivery (half of it is hill climbing). I imagine, on average, most people wouldn't encounter those conditions on the daily commute- so I'd ignore the results. If they did it at a flatter track like Eastern Creek or similar then I'd give the results more credit.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by deadfish2

its not as easy saying if the speed is over reading the odometer must be too.


cars are not stupid, using factory fit tyres and drivetrain the car knows exactly what speed they are doing, this is what the odometer runs off.... its parts of adr's that speedometer have to read higher and is normally upto and around 10% average, (my last 2 cars have been 10%)

my current ute was ticketed at 8.9L/100km lowest ive ever had it on the highway, not using cruise control, using hills to advantages etc has never been better 10.5L/100km..

The VE was noted many times to have overestimated the distance it had traveled.
Unless they've changed the system with this update then I'd say it's safe to assume that it is exactly how they still operate.

[mikeeman_ford]

might be lighter, but still, build a lighter car holden !!!

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

That course would favour the I6's torque delivery (half of it is hill climbing). I imagine, on average, most people wouldn't encounter those conditions on the daily commute- so I'd ignore the results. If they did it at a flatter track like Eastern Creek or similar then I'd give the results more credit.

A 1000 km run is not a daily commute, it's an interesting thought though up and down hills, nowhere to hide with economy....
Maybe that's why Holden would never entertain comparisons of its VF against the I-6 and Ecoboost...