Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[Bluehoon]

Stumbled Across this! Go Drive - they're sticking it to Holden's PR team!!

Holden has "trained" its dealers how to cope with difficult questions on the shock result of Drive's exclusive fuel test that showed the much-hyped new 3.0-litre Commodore is thirstier than its Falcon rival.
Holden has "trained" its dealers how to cope with difficult questions on the shock result of Drive's exclusive fuel test that showed the much-hyped new 3.0-litre Commodore is thirstier than its Falcon rival.

The company has sent a dealer bulletin with notes on how to answer questions surrounding the results of the most comprehensive independent fuel test between the two large-car rivals, which involved driving for 1000 kilometres around Bathurst's Mount Panorama race track at or below the 60km/h speed limit to simulate city driving.

It showed the Commodore was 10 per cent thirstier than its Ford rival, despite its windscreen fuel label claiming it is 8 per cent more frugal.

The dealer bulletin was preceded by an email to journalists in which the Drive test was described as “extreme” and Mount Panorama's 174-metre climb likened to mountains in Switzerland.

"We don't think your Bathurst test gave a true indication of real-world driving conditions,” spokesman Scott Whiffin said. “That's what we're telling our dealers, our customers, our people.”

Yet Holden later issued a press release spruiking the efficiency of its 3.0-litre Commodore based on the controversial Global Green Challenge, a 3000-kilometre fuel test between Darwin and Adelaide.

It failed to mention the extremities of the testing, which involved driving through the desert at up to 60km/h below the 130km/h Northern Territory speed limit in 40-degree heat without the air-conditioning in use.

Unlike the exclusive Drive test, the Global Green Challenge — won by the thirstiest car in the field, a V8-powered HSV Maloo — was arguably as far from real-world driving as you could get.

Holden admitted that it was “an extreme event”. “We thought it was pretty obvious this event was not simulating real world conditions ... it was an out-and-out fuel economy run, may the best car win,” the company said.

Holden also failed to point out that the Falcon it beat by just 0.6L/100km was the high-performance turbocharged version that accelerates faster than Holden's 6.0-litre V8.

http://www.smh.com.au/drive/motor-ne...1106-i0w6.html

[Polyal]

Well bugger me.

LOL..bloody Holden, "our people"

I cant believe that green challenge turned into such a farce, it had promise. The maloo didn't use the least fuel but it wins?..WTF.

[Wretched]

Good article, I found the Bathurst test more relevant than the so-far-out-of-reality "eco" challenge.

[RG]

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

I'm loving it!

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by RG

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

I'm loving it!

Same...it only takes one to start.

[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.

[BENT_8]

Lol..ya gotta wonder who's coming up with this rubbish.

Anyone would think the Commy was running up and down the hill all day whilst the Falcon did laps of the pit area...
Wouldn't the 170m climb be off set with the 170m decline on the other side?

Fact is, over 1000k's of equal conditions the Falcon kills it and has way more torque.

I still cant believe anyone would buy these lemons when the Falcon is a far superior offering.
If you were buying a LCD TV you wouldn't buy an inferior product for the same money as a top shelf unit, so why spend $30+k on an inferior car!

[DeKay1989]

hahaha best news all day

[Luke Plaizier]

Remember that Holden laid off some 200 of it's Sales and Marketting team recently.

It's only a misfire, the juggernaut is not stalling yet. Remember that Josh Dowling was actually in the Holden during the Eco challenger. Is he still on the drive books or has he been ousted?

But yes, it is rare to see Drive say negative things about Holden.


Lukeyson

[auxr]

Well - that's got to set the cat amongst the pidgeons. Following reading all the market bs in the last couple of well known car magazines, spruiking the all new frugal lion product - this article finally confirms what most people in the know already are starting to work out.

[R-Design]

I found these comments under the nominations for this years Drive Large Car of the Year. I don't know if I like the Commodores chances:

Originally Posted by Drive

The updated Commodore might look no different but it houses arguably the biggest change to a locally made large car in decades. Its V6 engine has shrunk in size to just 3.0 litres but it gets more power and claimed economy gains of up to 12 per cent.

Combined with a six-speed transmission, the recently updated Commodore answers the concerns judges had last year and remains a strong package.

While the Falcon has changed little over the past 12 months, the fact it beat the Commodore in a recent Drive fuel-economy challenge earned it dispensation into the 2009 field.

The Falcon is surprisingly frugal for its size and the combination of a torque-laden six-cylinder and slick (optional) six-speed auto transmission makes for a rewarding drive. The Falcon steers and handles impressively, without sacrificing comfort. Inside, there's plenty of room, although still no curtain airbags for rear passengers, something we've begged Ford to fix.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...5&vf=7&IsPgd=0

[Carby]

DRIVE are hypocrites - their Bathurst test is no more ludicrous than the ECO challenge. They went to Bathurst fully knowing the Falcon would win (it is a renowned torque circuit afterall) and now because the V8 Maloo has beaten it's ADR figure by more than any other they do not accept this - can't have it both ways DRIVE............

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Carby

DRIVE are hypocrites - their Bathurst test is no more ludicrous than the ECO challenge. They went to Bathurst fully knowing the Falcon would win (it is a renowned torque circuit afterall) and now because the V8 Maloo has beaten it's ADR figure by more than any other they do not accept this - can't have it both ways DRIVE............

What? The test was on a circuit that is a road, its a complete mix of different grades etc so whats the problem? Its a better test than sitting on a highway.

The ADR figure test is BS. Maybe Bugatti should have entered and won that title with the Veyron...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Polyal

What? The test was on a circuit that is a road, its a complete mix of different grades etc so whats the problem? Its a better test than sitting on a highway.

The ADR figure test is BS. Maybe Bugatti should have entered and won that title with the Veyron...

I think he may be trying to polish excrement polyal.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by ltd

I think he may be trying to polish excrement polyal.

You must be an expert, please divulge how you do that???

[Wally]

Unlike the exclusive Drive test, the Global Green Challenge — won by the thirstiest car in the field, a V8-powered HSV Maloo — was arguably as far from real-world driving as you could get.

I don't quite understand this piece of the article. I thought the Omega Wagon was the best overall for stock Oz build?

http://globalgreenchallenge.com.au/a...%20Results.pdf

Like most magazine articles, the content is just fluff anyway.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Carby

You must be an expert, please divulge how you do that???

Judging by the responses you're getting to your insightful post (sic); I put it to you that you are indeed an expert when it comes to the polishing of excrement; particularly Holden press release excrement.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by Polyal

What? The test was on a circuit that is a road, its a complete mix of different grades etc so whats the problem? Its a better test than sitting on a highway.

The ADR figure test is BS. Maybe Bugatti should have entered and won that title with the Veyron...

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.

[HSE2]

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.

What rubbish

In the real world there are hills. These hills are responsible for the lion share of extended engine effort encountered in real world conditions. How engines cope with this particular ask is exactly the point. There is no good Ford bringing out a turbo four if its characteristics aren't matched to peoples driving expectations. This is exactly what we have been talking about. What’s on the table today is pretty damn impressive and Drive’s effort reflects that. If you can get economy on the mountain then you should be able to get it practically anywhere.


In this case what goes up must also come down. I applaud Drive for working out that putting load on an engine and making it work in such away is pretty much what is expected of these sorts of cars and commend them and the media in general for starting to put some effort into looking at real world conditions.
The Eco challenge went too far to be considered relevant but the HSV doesn't come with a 6 litre engine as Drive seem to think.

Under the circumstances the HSV deserved its win. It is a shame they didn't try to enforce conditions that make this test more representative of what consumers can expect.

Regardless provided all parties completely disclose how these results were derived, consumers should be smart enough to know which sort of driving they will likely to encounter the most.

[Jack91]

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.

Yeah, because everyone else lives on a completely flat straight road with zero traffic?

[Swordsman88]

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.

Ah...no it wouldn't. That exposes your either extreme naivete or pro-holden bias...or both. Fuel burn is one of the most complex part of car design.....and i'm talking real world not in a lab niether. Either way, the suggestion in terms of fuel burn a 5.4 V8 without VCT would take down a 4.0 I6 with DIVCT etc. at bathurst is just not realististic. For one....on idle it woud be using a good 20% more fuel all the way down the bathurt hill. So it would have to use LESS fuel going up by some margin to equal that out alone....not very likley when its both heavier and does not have the capability to as adequetlly adjust timing/injection/spark etc. for the given load (which is what real world stop/start/hill driving requires.....).

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Ah...no it wouldn't. That exposes your either extreme naivete or pro-holden bias...or both. Fuel burn is one of the most complex part of car design.....and i'm talking real world not in a lab niether. Either way, the suggestion in terms of fuel burn a 5.4 V8 without VCT would take down a 4.0 I6 with DIVCT etc. at bathurst is just not realististic. For one....on idle it woud be using a good 20% more fuel all the way down the bathurt hill. So it would have to use LESS fuel going up by some margin to equal that out alone....not very likley when its both heavier and does not have the capability to as adequetlly adjust timing/injection/spark etc. for the given load (which is what real world stop/start/hill driving requires.....).

For one, unless you clutch in / neutral it, the ECU will stop injecting fuel when engine braking. So 0 fuel used, for both the I6 and V8.

And the BOSS V8 does have control over fuel, and spark timing. The only thing it does miss out on over the I6 is variable valve timing.

[cosmo20btt]

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.

I think you will find that an ADR is the average amount of fuel used between the most a car can use & the least a car can use, all the challenge did was to try push the boundaries of the highway cycle & what other city cycle there was. ( a small percentage was city) It is not accurate driving around a 60kph in a 100pkh speed zone with the windows up & the A/C switched off in 40 celcius heat.

[The Monty]

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.

This has to be the biggest load of drivel I have ever heard.

[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.

[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.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Carby

DRIVE are hypocrites - their Bathurst test is no more ludicrous than the ECO challenge. They went to Bathurst fully knowing the Falcon would win (it is a renowned torque circuit afterall) and now because the V8 Maloo has beaten it's ADR figure by more than any other they do not accept this - can't have it both ways DRIVE............

A torque circuit?? Mate, if they dropped both cars off a cliff the VE would still use more fuel. It couldn't even convincingly beat the XR6T. Major, major FAILURE!

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by drive

it houses arguably the biggest change to a locally made large car in decades

They have got to be kidding - a new cylinder head and fuel injection system is the biggest change in decades???

[Fev]

Thats awesome! Someone finally ragging on Holden.
Some good PR for Ford too! Good on ya SMH

[Allen]

In regards to the Bathurst test, the nature of the road is irrelevant.
Both the Ford and the Holden did the exact same route, under the same conditions and at the same time. The only variable was the person behind the wheel.

If the Falcon is more fuel efficient than the Commodore under these circumstances, then logic tells me that it will also be more fuel efficient at other times too.