Holden's SIDI models fall short of promise

[csv8]

Holden's SIDI models fall short of promise
Article from: The Courier-Mail


By Mark Hinchliffe

December 04, 2009 11:00pm

FUEL economy has more to do with your mind, the size of your right foot and the type and colour of car you are driving.

Yes, you can do all the maths and physics and work out on paper how an engine, transmission, aerodynamics, weight and other factors can affect economy – but these are purely theoretical.

They make a statement on paper, but they don't mean much in the real world.

I recently drove three Holden V6 vehicles with the new 3.0 and 3.6-litre spark ignition direct injection (SIDI) engines.

The Omega and Berlina of all body styles get the 3.0L engine and the rest of the range has the 3.6L.

Holden quotes fuel consumption figures for the Omega 3.0L as 9.3L/100km, down from 10.7L/100km in the superseded model, while the SV6 Ute has the biggest improvement for the 3.6L, down 13 per cent to 10L/100km.

I drove a grey Berlina Sportwagon (3.0L), which returned 10.5L/100km, an even greyer Calais sedan (3.6L), which yielded 10.7L/100km, and a bright-coloured Ute (3.6L), which failed all economy tests with a poor 12.3L/100km.

I cannot claim to have driven to the standard conditions as laid out for official ADR fuel consumption figures – and I can't even claim to have driven the same distance nor type of road conditions for each of the three trials.

Yet these figures still reveal a lot about the cars' performance and economy.

The first thing of note is how good the economy figures are for the Sportwagon, which is heaviest with its big cargo area which I utilised with a loaded-up trip to the dump.

It's not the 9.3L/100km quoted by Holden but it's quite respectable and included the commuter crawl to work for five days, weekend shopping and errands, and very little highway driving.

It's also nowhere near the 6.48L/100km it achieved in the recent Global Green Challenge from Adelaide to Darwin.

The Calais is also worthy of note.

It performed much the same "real-world" duties – albeit no trip to the dump – and returned almost the same economy figures as the Sportwagon.

Both cars appeal to my family nature with their roomy cabin and functional design.

Consequently, I drove like a family man who needs to get home to his family in the 'burbs every night.

Then along came the ute.

It was fitted with a tow bar and there was our old beer fridge that blew up and needed carting to the dump, so it was in for some punishment.

Plus there was circle work to be done . . .

Well, not exactly, but with the lighter weight and the bigger engine, it seemed to sprint off the line a little more willingly and dance around in an entertaining fashion in the corners.

All this, plus the vibrant metallic orange colour ($500 extra), got me all excited all the way down my trousers to my big right foot.

The result was fuel figures that seem to call Holden a liar.

So, unless you are competing in the Global Green Challenge, fuel economy is largely going to rely on your attitude – it also helps to have a sedately coloured family sedan or wagon.

If economy is not your sole goal, but simply a happy side benefit, then you may be pleased to note that these new engines are also more powerful.

Holden claims the power output from the 3.6L is up 15kW to 210kW.

And, even though the new 3.0L is the smallest Commodore engine in more than 20 years, it still develops a healthy 190kW.

The engines also sound quieter and more refined.

That is, until you stamp on the loud pedal and then they wick up the volume quite pleasingly.

Cabin noise may also be decreased by Holden's use of new, low-rolling-resistance Bridgestone tyres and the 50rpm reduced idle speed on the 3.6L. It all helps economy and comfort levels.

It should also be good news that they now all come with a six-speed automatic transmission rather than some of them being hitched to the old four-speed sludge box.

But it isn't.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I don't like the six-speed transmission.

It feels like it has an overactive thyroid gland, too willingly dropping down one or even two gears at the hint of extra throttle.

That may be great for performance, but not necessarily for economy or driver fatigue.

I found it quite annoying how much the transmission jumped around, even though it is quite smooth in its changes.

There is simply no need for such volatile gear changing. After all, the small engine has 290Nm of torque and the bigger engine has 350Nm, up 30Nm from the previous engine. Surely this torque can be used to draw the car up a hill or cope with a little extra throttle without shifting gears.

My comment..Cann't the ACCC charge HOLDEN with false advertising ?
AND Ford should be advertising how economical the FG is over the Commodore, much more than they are now. Go for the jugular Ford !!!

[bigdude1011]

It's funny that it's a Newscorp paper saying this, but if it was Paul Gover writing, he would put a different spin on it

[galaxy xr8]

What paper wrote this ??.
I might need to start buying it, they seem to know what and how to write good journalism.
And the truth shall set you free ,lol...

[csv8]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

What paper wrote this ??.
I might need to start buying it, they seem to know what and how to write good journalism.
And the truth shall set you free ,lol...

The Courier Mail. Queensland. Cars Guide. Saturday's liftout.

[Deco28]

You can't keep saying these figures fall short of promise .

It's not like Holden runs the ADR fuel rating, it is independantly run and Holden's engines got their impressivefigures.

If these articles really wanted to compare propeperly, he would have compared it with another car, say the Falcon, to see howthey compare.

He can't compare his figures directly to the ADR rating, we have no idea how hard he drove, where he drove etc.

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by Deco28

If these articles really wanted to compare propeperly, he would have compared it with another car, say the Falcon, to see howthey compare.

It has already been compared with the FG Falcon on a 1000km test and got smacked then as well. So I think the proof is in the pudding.

It's a DUD!

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by RAPID XR8

It has already been compared with the FG Falcon on a 1000km test and got smacked then as well. So I think the proof is in the pudding.

It's a DUD!

If they wanted to compare apples with apples, they'd also included the torquey 3.6l SIDI.

Bathurst track = need torque.

Its simple.

I can drive my Mates XR6 more economial than my 4 pot lancer over the roads to Port Douglas, because of TORQUE.

I notice nobody wants to compare the 3.0l SIDI in the city, what it is designed for.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Deco28

If they wanted to compare apples with apples, they'd also included the torquey 3.6l SIDI.

Bathurst track = need torque.

Its simple.

I can drive my Mates XR6 more economial than my 4 pot lancer over the roads to Port Douglas, because of TORQUE.

I notice nobody wants to compare the 3.0l SIDI in the city, what it is designed for.

You say that Bathurst is only for torque, then how come sidi did not make up the difference when it was coming down the other side, what goes up must come down. Surely if the sidi was so good it should make up for it for no throttle at all to come down Conrod Straight.

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by Deco28

If they wanted to compare apples with apples, they'd also included the torquey 3.6l SIDI.

Bathurst track = need torque.

Its simple.

I can drive my Mates XR6 more economial than my 4 pot lancer over the roads to Port Douglas, because of TORQUE.

I notice nobody wants to compare the 3.0l SIDI in the city, what it is designed for.

So becuase the Falcon makes more torque is this unfair to Holden and we shouldn't compare..
Whats to compare anyway Holden made the big who ha claims about millage and was shown up.
The problem is the V6 makes its torque all to late, you have to keep it in the higher rev range on the V6 engine to gain good torque, therefor it uses more fuel this surely isn't the torquey Falcons fault.
The Commodores are now heavier and have a smaller displacement since VZ and with the above points to a car that lacks torque and uses more fuel than the Falcon..
Maybe Holden could sell torque in a can.J/K.

[ReVd_uP]

there's been testing directly between falcon and sidi commys, the falcon still came out on top

[Auslandau]

Last weekend drove from eastern suburbs Melb to Bendigo and back in the G6E. Reset the 'thingy' and it showed 8.5/l for the trip. I did not drive for economy either. On the freeway it hovered continuously around 4-6/l at 100km's. Either it was broken, the way I drive, the fact that there is a fair amount of freeway (but quite hilly in areas) ..... but I thought it was damn good anyway

Get of your bums FORD and show the peoples how good the FG is!!!!



| [/url] |

[prydey]

Originally Posted by csv8

My comment..Cann't the ACCC charge HOLDEN with false advertising ?

Originally Posted by Deco28

You can't keep saying these figures fall short of promise . It's not like Holden runs the ADR fuel rating, it is independantly run and Holden's engines got their impressivefigures.

exactly. holden haven't made any false claims yet. it has been proved that they can do over 900km on a tank on the highway, even though due to the tank size it doesn't actually equate to impressive figures, and as mentioned, the other claims are from figures determined by the ADR process.

i don't know why people need to call them dud. if you compare them to the engines they replaced, they are an improvement. for those who care little for how quickly the car reaches 100 (which is a lot more people than some on here may think), the 3L will do the job for the majority of mums and dads who buy them.

people need to get over their bias and embrace the fact that there is still competition. this garauntees that ford will have to keep working at improvements which all benefits the end user.

[mik]

the article points out about the 6 speed being very sensitive to throttle, this is a by product of tuneing a smaller less torquey engine to pull heavy car, if the ve auto was tuned to be nice like the fg 4.0l 6 speed auto, the car would be a slug, horse high power figures are no substitute for torque.

[Joe5619]

I dont know why, but it does brings a smile to my face evey time I read an article that is so bad towards Holden!

[HSE2]

There are those words again

Real world

[prydey]

the Sportwagon, which is heaviest with its big cargo area which I utilised with a loaded-up trip to the dump.

what a waste of a trip to the dump. obviously his wheelie bin was more than half full already, otherwise it would've fitted in there!

[deesun]

Originally Posted by prydey

what a waste of a trip to the dump.

Yep, he should have left the car there.

[gtxb67]

who cares about sidi - each of my cars have a sido and that is all that matters to me

[351capri]

he should have left the pus-boxes at the dump!!!! ive said it before ,and i'll say it again, holden are the kings of b.s. . but it looks like they are slowly being found out. the dopes that buy these sidi commodores based on holdens b.s. ads deserve them. ford's marketing department need to pull their fingers out asap and highlight holden's fraudulent boasts!

[Spanrz]

Spooly, hit the nail on the head there.

I have been at logger heads with a lot of people, on the differences on the V6 vs I6 issues. Regardless of capacity.

V6 needs more revs to get the same power and same torque value of the I6.
More revs = more fuel used to get the same power (allowing differences in bore and stroke)
V6's are good for city/ low load limits and good fuel economy, but place a load on them and they suffer.
Hence the "Bathurst test".

Something not a lot of people can understand this.

An V6 engine, can't go up a hill with a load as efficiently as an I6 can. It's as simple than that.
Why don't they advertise in the ad's a V6 "sisi" engine going up hills with loads and compare it to the Falcon?
That's because they would loose the argument.
Not everyone drives a flat straight FWY road with a tailwind.
Hehe.

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Maybe Holden could sell torque in a can.J/K.

Yeah, can of "Whoop Torq"...... : :

[galaxy xr8]

Some people are getting to petty here,
The fact remain's that this compitition was done like a Dyno result should be,
Same vehicle/s
Same day,
Same track.
One winner, end of story.

[302 XC]

new cars nowadays should nearly run on nothing (technology mechanical advances ect ect )ive got a 1983 nissan patrol (nearly 3 tonne )diesel (3.3 litre)non turbo 4 speed (no overdrive)and it costs about $50 to do 250 klm round trip (mostly highway)but the wifes 1997 4.2l nissan patrol (petrol)4 speed auto(with overdrive ) same trip costs $60 ,wow thats an advancement !!!!!!!
best mates mum has a svz(v6) commodore at the time it was new (only coupla years old),it was the most economical 6 you could buy,but if you try and accelorate at 100 kmh ,the ecu starts to shut down cylinders,(hence cheap to run )if you want to overtake a b double truck ya wont do it in a hurry (gradually accelorate or it starts to shut down ),now are these vechicles safer or more dangerous ??????

[TUF_302]

Not really a surprise that the figures they stated were a fair way off the mark, the 4ltr still has the v6's measure if you ask me, the 3ltr and the 3.6ltr still have some one to go to match the I6s fuel consumption and torque out put

[prydey]

no where in any of my statements have i ever said the sidi is better than the ford motor. i just don't bag it because i believe it has improved on what went before it.

in all the tests i've read/seen, where cars are compared on the same day through the same conditions, the sidi engines have done o.k.

i wouldn't be using a reps driving as an example either.

i didn't realise this was for one eyed members only. sure, ford make a very good product that early signs show has not much to worry about from the competition but that doesn't make the opposition a dud.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by csv8

Holden's SIDI models fall short of promise
Article from: The Courier-Mail

By Mark Hinchliffe

December 04, 2009 11:00pm

Yes, you can do all the maths and physics and work out on paper how an engine, transmission, aerodynamics, weight and other factors can affect economy – but these are purely theoretical.

They make a statement on paper, but they don't mean much in the real world.

I recently drove three Holden V6 vehicles with the new 3.0 and 3.6-litre spark ignition direct injection (SIDI) engines.

I drove a grey Berlina Sportwagon (3.0L), which returned 10.5L/100km, an even greyer Calais sedan (3.6L), which yielded 10.7L/100km, and a bright-coloured Ute (3.6L), which failed all economy tests with a poor 12.3L/100km.

The result was fuel figures that seem to call Holden a liar.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I don't like the six-speed transmission.

It feels like it has an overactive thyroid gland, too willingly dropping down one or even two gears at the hint of extra throttle.

That may be great for performance, but not necessarily for economy or driver fatigue. I found it quite annoying how much the transmission jumped around, even though it is quite smooth in its changes.

There is simply no need for such volatile gear changing. After all, the small engine has 290Nm of torque and the bigger engine has 350Nm, up 30Nm from the previous engine. Surely this torque can be used to draw the car up a hill or cope with a little extra throttle without shifting gears.

Once again, in the real world SIDI fails. Hope this catches on. Another poor review for the SIDI engined VE.

The Falcon is slowly winning back market share, so I hope this the cause of the better car, the Falcon winning.

[uranium_death]

Wow...Holden's claims have fallen well short of reality...I would never have thought....yet people still swallow everything told...

=good marketing by Holden.

There are people out there that actually see FoA as purely American and Holden as purely Australian.

Marketing does that...

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by csv8

There is simply no need for such volatile gear changing. After all, the small engine has 290Nm of torque and the bigger engine has 350Nm, up 30Nm from the previous engine. Surely this torque can be used to draw the car up a hill or cope with a little extra throttle without shifting gears.

I draw particular attention to this. Because, really 290Nm is not good, but 350Nm is a decent figure. I also know that GMHolden spruiked the torque spread of the new engine.

This is what i'm questioning. I'll relate it to the cylinder head flow of a standard versus ported engine. So, with this in mind. Whilst the peak aiflow value might be high for a ported head, the air velocity might be low which affects part throttle response.

I'm wondering if the port sizes on the SIDI - Alloytech range are made large to assist with high flow and therefore peak torque and power outputs, but at the expense of lower air velocity which is required for low rpm cylinder fill particularly low throttle position.

By comparison, the equally thrashy Ecotech 3.8L had small head ports and great step off torque, but poor high rpm output.

Clearly, all this shows is the amazing job that Ford have done with the 4.0L with it's huge torque, solid power and great flexibility. Add the real world economy and it emphasises the point.

[prydey]

holden claim to be able to get 900+ km to a tank based on highway use. this has been proven to be true a few times now. its not an amazing feat given the inceased volume of the fuel tank but its not a lie on holdens part.

the other claims they make are based on the ADR consumption figure, which is done independantly. guess what, its not the first car in the world that doesn't seem to match its ADR figures.

[merlin]

I am really not impressed with any of these fuel figures being thrown around.

I drive an 80km round trip in Sydney peak hour. I average 35km/h with about 80% stop start and 20% freeway. I am constantly stuck in traffic in the CBD going nowhere yet my BF2 XR6 Turbo is averaging 11.5L/100kms.

That really is not far off all these Holden claims - especially the ute. I don't drive it softly either.

So who in their right mind would buy a 3.0L pussbox to save approx. 1 litre of fuel per 100km's? - I'm sure the non turbo FG's are alot more efficient again over my car.

[mcnews]

Mate of mine just got a V8 SIDI Sportswagon and reckons he gets 6 litres per 100km on the highway and even on the city gets heaps better fuel economy than he did in the Subaru Forrester he had before.