Holden's SIDI models fall short of promise

[Stoney!]

Originally Posted by MAD

It was something like "you can travel from Melbourne to Sydney on just one tank" with a cut to an overhead traffic sign showing '900km'.

Which was proven to be more than possible in a recent review!

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/452...0km-challenge/

Still not close to the 5.5 odd i get outta my supercharged, turbocharged petrol golf on the highway lol.

Stoney!

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Brazen

As im waiting on Ford's decision on the Falcon wagon, I am still keeping my knowledge up on the new V6s in the Commodore in case I get a Sportwagon, but I want the Ford..


Well, today at the Shell servo I saw a SIDI SV6 being filled up next to me, I talked to the owner and he said he does about 800km to 1000km a week for work and he gets about 6.5L/100km doing expressway work. He said it is much better on fuel than his previous 4 cylinder Accord Euro. Very impressive stuff.

Must be reading off the trip computer. They aren't the most accurate of things.

During the eco challenge driving at around 80 km an hr, windows up, ac off, tyre pressures way up Holden achieved around that. No way is it possible at 100 kmh with ac on etc in the real world. Holden probably deliberately make the trip computers read low just to BS the customer even more. Wouldn't be suprised if alot of manufacturers do it to make the owner think the economy is better than it really is.

[4Vman]

Please tell me people arent sprouting fuel economy "wins" off the trip computer....

The only accurate way to calculate fuel economy is via fuel used at the bowser divided by k's driven off the speedo......

[FlipXW]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Please tell me people arent sprouting fuel economy "wins" off the trip computer....

I have been thinking the exact same thing : ..

[cosmo20btt]

I will tell you right now that you cannot trust the trip computer on a Commode as we still had 45k's till run out & the petrol gauge still reading almost a quarter of a tank and ran out out anyway, so not to be trusted. :

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I will tell you right now that you cannot trust the trip computer on a Commode as we still had 45k's till run out & the petrol gauge still reading almost a quarter of a tank and ran out out anyway, so not to be trusted. :

This sort of thing can happen in just about any car but i have heard of more than one commodore owner that had this happen to them. In one case the fuel guage was so far out it told him he had nearly 1/4 of a tank left, in another the DTE was so far out (on the highway) that although he was only 4km from a servo down the motorway (and could almost see the exit...) his VE ran out with 38km showing on DTE..... Hillarious when i have driven my EF (not advising you do this though...) into a servo showing 0km left (whent 0 as i drove up to the bsower) and ended up having about 2-3L left in the tank LOL! Not bad for early 90s technology.....

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by IH8HSV

What is SIDI injection??? :

I know it has something to do with direct fuel injection.... But how does this vary from the injection on my BA.

I thought my car injected the fuel straight into the combustion chamber. How more direct can you get?!!!

One is injected directly into the combustion chamber (SIDI), the falcon injects it into a port that is then sucked into the combustion chamber.

SIDI is meant to be more efficient but it raises more problems when it comes to emissions as it starts to get the problems diesels get.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Must be reading off the trip computer. They aren't the most accurate of things.

During the eco challenge driving at around 80 km an hr, windows up, ac off, tyre pressures way up Holden achieved around that. No way is it possible at 100 kmh with ac on etc in the real world. Holden probably deliberately make the trip computers read low just to BS the customer even more. Wouldn't be suprised if alot of manufacturers do it to make the owner think the economy is better than it really is.

Indeed....i never trust trip meters, around town they are often very pessimistic (well they are in the falcon's i've driven) but on the highway they can get a bit optimistic.....

Good point RE the global green challenge. The sportwagon omega did around 6.5 and given the very draconian policies they used and driving purely for efficiency you'd put money on a real world everyday mug not getting very close to the figure in his own car with the aircon on and goind 30km/h faster....

Funny though because in the now infamous Drive bathurst test the trip meter was quite accurate, being only 0.01L/100km out..... Also worth pointing out as noted by Prydey the extra urban ADR value for an omega is 7.3 L/100km.....and that motor report melb-syd got 7.94....that is quite a bit away from 6.5....

[FalconXR6]

Wanna know what I think about the fuel economy debates ?

Hate 'em with the passion of a thousand exploding suns.

Why ?

Because I have two cars. One is a company vehicle - I don't pay for petrol so I don't care how much it uses !

The other is a BA MKII XR6T. Couldn't tell you how much fuel it uses to be honest. Don't care. I didn't buy it for it's low or high fuel consumption. I bought it because I love the package. I love driving it and I'm happy with it's consumption.

And is it just me of have L/100km figures in magazines / brochures taken over the "street cred" or "bragging rights" of 0-100km figures in magazines / brochures?

Have we all gone slightly mad ?

If you want economy - the best L/100km figure - buy a Fiesta.
If you want grunt, driveability, etc - buy a Falcon.
If you want average economy and stuff all grunt - buy a 3.0 SIDI Commy.

[ltd]

Interesting, a mate of mine is a sales rep and he has a 3.0l SIDIDDIDIDIDIDI and is very unimpressed with it. He says that the car is a slug and he regularly only gets 380-400klm from a tank. Admittedly that's a lot of city driving but there is also the motorways around Sydney; about a 20% motorway to 80% Sydney roads mix.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ltd

Interesting, a mate of mine is a sales rep and he has a 3.0l SIDIDDIDIDIDIDI and is very unimpressed with it. He says that the car is a slug and he regularly only gets 380-400klm from a tank. Admittedly that's a lot of city driving but there is also the motorways around Sydney; about a 20% motorway to 80% Sydney roads mix.

That cant be right, my old BA would get better then that doing that type of driving. He must be stabbing the loud peddle pretty hard.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by vztrt

That cant be right, my old BA would get better then that doing that type of driving. He must be stabbing the loud peddle pretty hard.

See, thats exactly the problem. Its has no torque and is a small engine in a large car. To keep up with the traffic you are going to HAVE to get stuck into it and rev its boobies off. For a regular Joe Blow like us, we would see worse fuel economy than in our cars with lots of torque, due to our driving styles.
I used to get 12.5L/100km in my camry because it was so slow, I had the pedal to the floor everywhere I went. The thing was uber fast, 1/4 mile in 21.9 @ 110km/h, lol.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by vztrt

That cant be right, my old BA would get better then that doing that type of driving. He must be stabbing the loud peddle pretty hard.

how many sales reps do you know that drive sedately?

Originally Posted by The Monty

See, thats exactly the problem. Its has no torque and is a small engine in a large car. To keep up with the traffic you are going to HAVE to get stuck into it and rev its boobies off. For a regular Joe Blow like us, we would see worse fuel economy than in our cars with lots of torque, due to our driving styles.

don't agree. not everyone tries to get to the speed limit as quick as they can. the 6sp in the commo has a 4.xx 1st gear and 3.27? diff. getting it up and moving is where torque is needed most and this has been slightly compensated for with the gearing. once up and going it will keep up with the traffic easily. they aren't race cars and are never intended to be. i garauntee you that all the mums that drive them to do the shopping and pick the kids up from school, won't be able to tell you the difference between the 3L and 3.6L

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

don't agree. not everyone tries to get to the speed limit as quick as they can. the 6sp in the commo has a 4.xx 1st gear and 3.27? diff. getting it up and moving is where torque is needed most and this has been slightly compensated for with the gearing. once up and going it will keep up with the traffic easily. they aren't race cars and are never intended to be. i garauntee you that all the mums that drive them to do the shopping and pick the kids up from school, won't be able to tell you the difference between the 3L and 3.6L

Don't be so sure Prydey. I've observed many female drivers (and males too to be honest) that drive their cars alot harder then i ever would because they don't know any difference. Basically right pedal is to speed up, middle to slow down etc. How fast they get there may not be a priority but nor is it something they ignore. My mum knows damn well which car's in our fleet are fast and which are slow and she has no clue what engine they all have (or anything about cars at all...).

Part of the reason why there are so many accidents in the wet is because average drivers have no idea what capabilities their car has...they drive basically at what racing drivers would call 9/10ths all the time....why? They dont' know no different. Sure some older drivers are very sedate (its hard to push on if you can't see where you are going....no offence just stating what i've seen....) and of course if you don't know where you are going etc. But if you give average joe blow 130kw he will use 125kw...granted he will drive so badly he will 'waste' most of that power (ever seen people accelerate hard from one set of lights when clearly the next set right in front are red??) but that is what happens. I've seen some frankly scary drivijng from soccer mums in territories....There is a reason alot of guys on here say their wives/girlfriends/mums/sisters etc. get higher fuel burn then they do.....

Either way if you are saying large car drivers (who lest face it are some of the most power demanding with large loads and a desire for ample performance) should 'drive slower' to save fuel then best of luck but it aint' happening. Even if the hypothical driver didn't know which VE SIDI engine they had they will use 80-90% of whatever its got...trust me. Now in addition to the 3.6 going along faster (until they hit the speed limit of course.....can't go speeding nowdays) it probably won't burn any less fuel (in fact it could burn less...). Now tell me how that makes a case for the 3.0?? If we wanted to go slower and burn less i would get a diesel mondeo with way more kit for the same money as a base omega .....

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by The Monty

See, thats exactly the problem. Its has no torque and is a small engine in a large car. To keep up with the traffic you are going to HAVE to get stuck into it and rev its boobies off. For a regular Joe Blow like us, we would see worse fuel economy than in our cars with lots of torque, due to our driving styles.
I used to get 12.5L/100km in my camry because it was so slow, I had the pedal to the floor everywhere I went. The thing was uber fast, 1/4 mile in 21.9 @ 110km/h, lol.

Yes because 0-100 in under 9 seconds can't keep up with traffic.

Shame all those fast over 9 second small cars.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by prydey

how many sales reps do you know that drive sedately?

Actually a couple, but they drive camry's. lol

But I was trying to highlight the fact that this engine should return a better figure then it is in heavier traffic.

[prydey]

its a bit hard to judge a car on hearsay though isn't it. a lot of the claims against the car in this thread are all a bit 'he said, she said'. know one knows the true circumstances behind one that uses a lot of fuel.

as an example, take the egas falcon. many on here claim it to be an absolute dog, prehistoric, etc etc. others don't mind it but get shocking economy (due to low ave speed) and others see this economy and use it as an example of all egas cars. others on here love the egas. my wife and mum both say they can't tell much difference between mine and a petrol model. everyone on this forum will say thats impossible but it highlights the fact that not everyone jumps in a car and takes any notice of how quickly it accelerates.

swordsman88 - i'm not saying women (or men) won't drive them hard, they just won't drive them wishing they had more power. as has been pointed out on here by deco28 - they are sub 8 sec for the 0-100 sprint. don't be tempted if one pulls up next to you at the lights in your ef - you might be embarrassed by this 'dud' car.

in all the 'official' testing i've seen where they have a 3L and a 3.6L, the 3L has returned more frugal figures. not by much i do admit.

what happens when ford eventually release ecoboost alongside the I6? will one make the other appear 'dud'?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Actually a couple, but they drive camry's. lol

But I was trying to highlight the fact that this engine should return a better figure then it is in heavier traffic.

Obviously those guys aren't paid on commission

No, safe to say my mate drives it pretty hard, thinks it's crap and treats it as such.

[kezzer]

This has been debated so many times

The reason the 3.0L motor was introduced was for fleets haxs. Fleet business's normally go for the 4 cylinder cars these days, something the VE couldn't touch, unless the motor was downsized by .6l, compare that to the 4 cylinder camry's etc and the ve does a good job. Especially around the suburbia, of course the torquier motor is going to thrash the 3.0 on hills lol.

The 3.6 DI I actually respect, been beaten in a few now (FG xr6), its been down-tuned by holden for some reason though, the torque should be more around the 380nm range, higher kw too.

Still saying that, in everyday driving Ive found the FG to be fairly good, shocking in peak hour, but exceptionally good up through the spur

[bigdude1011]

It turns out that a Mazda 3 with a diesel engine displaces marginally more torque than the 3.0 SIDIDI Commodore (360nm vs 330nm)

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by The Monty

See, thats exactly the problem. Its has no torque and is a small engine in a large car. To keep up with the traffic you are going to HAVE to get stuck into it and rev its boobies off. For a regular Joe Blow like us, we would see worse fuel economy than in our cars with lots of torque, due to our driving styles.
I used to get 12.5L/100km in my camry because it was so slow, I had the pedal to the floor everywhere I went. The thing was uber fast, 1/4 mile in 21.9 @ 110km/h, lol.

I dont know if anyone actually bothered to read all my post before picking it apart, the main point I was making here was "Drivers like us" Modified car drivers, people who drag race at the track etc, who drive modified cars already, and are used to a bit of poke, we are the people who will get worse fuel economy then the 98 year old blind soccer mum.
I thought I worded my original post fairly well, obviously not.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by kezzer

The reason the 3.0L motor was introduced was for fleets haxs. Fleet business's normally go for the 4 cylinder cars these days, something the VE couldn't touch, unless the motor was downsized by .6l, compare that to the 4 cylinder camry's etc and the ve does a good job. Especially around the suburbia, of course the torquier motor is going to thrash the 3.0 on hills lol.

We know why it was released, but if the 3L is using more fuel (and the fleet manager will know as they keep track of these things) they will change to another car that has proven to be more frugal. So the 3L better live up to its claims as Fleet managers don't care about brand when buying, they have criteria that the car must meet.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by prydey

how many sales reps do you know that drive sedately?

Quite a few, I'd imagine, if they value their job and license, espcially in Vic and all the hoon legislation's.

[351capri]

Originally Posted by prydey

as an example, take the egas falcon. many on here claim it to be an absolute dog, prehistoric, etc etc. others don't mind it but get shocking economy (due to low ave speed) and others see this economy and use it as an example of all egas cars. others on here love the egas. my wife and mum both say they can't tell much difference between mine and a petrol model. everyone on this forum will say thats impossible but it highlights the fact that not everyone jumps in a car and takes any notice of how quickly it accelerates.

swordsman88 - i'm not saying women (or men) won't drive them hard, they just won't drive them wishing they had more power. as has been pointed out on here by deco28 - they are sub 8 sec for the 0-100 sprint. don't be tempted if one pulls up next to you at the lights in your ef - you might be embarrassed by this 'dud' car.

i drive a bf egas 1 ton ute every day and find it very acceptable as a work hack. (was in an au2 xr8 previously). depending on load and ratio of motorway and city driving (though in sydney metro the difference is sometimes indistinguishable) i get between 400 to 500 kays per tank, say 75 litres costing $42- $48 depending on fuel price. it drives well and accelerates quite acceptably. a dud i think not. would recommend to anyone as real value for money..

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

its a bit hard to judge a car on hearsay though isn't it. a lot of the claims against the car in this thread are all a bit 'he said, she said'. know one knows the true circumstances behind one that uses a lot of fuel.

as an example, take the egas falcon. many on here claim it to be an absolute dog, prehistoric, etc etc. others don't mind it but get shocking economy (due to low ave speed) and others see this economy and use it as an example of all egas cars. others on here love the egas. my wife and mum both say they can't tell much difference between mine and a petrol model. everyone on this forum will say thats impossible but it highlights the fact that not everyone jumps in a car and takes any notice of how quickly it accelerates.

swordsman88 - i'm not saying women (or men) won't drive them hard, they just won't drive them wishing they had more power. as has been pointed out on here by deco28 - they are sub 8 sec for the 0-100 sprint. don't be tempted if one pulls up next to you at the lights in your ef - you might be embarrassed by this 'dud' car.

in all the 'official' testing i've seen where they have a 3L and a 3.6L, the 3L has returned more frugal figures. not by much i do admit.

what happens when ford eventually release ecoboost alongside the I6? will one make the other appear 'dud'?

You make some good points. The he said she said is a real problem....which is part of the reason why independent style tests, which have repeated shown limited efficiency leads by the 3.0 are so damning. The bathurst test was bad news for holden because it was so clear cut....apart from continual debate of the 'suitability' of the track it was pretty obvious the 3.0 failed that one....whether we agree the engine is a 'failure' in general or not LOL!

As i've said on here before, with fuel burn numbers the new 'peformance' figures these days manufacturers are getting very desperate both in terms of tech and weight reduction but also tuning to get lower ADR figures. The question has to asked, given the advanced adjusabiliyt and computer control is it not possible for manufacturers to tune engines that perform well in ADR style test but in the hands of the average mug don't go as wel as they might. How else would you explain how mazda can launch the 'update' CX7 and claim up to 10% better efficiency in its testing when the ADR figure is unchanged??

It is very possible that on a rolling road the 3.0 may have advantages over the 3.6-4.0 engines, but real world burn more. Holden would know based on their own testing but if it is what we all suspect, about marketing and not about real world delivery (hardly the first time holden has pulled this one.....DOD anyone??) why would they come out and tell people. As you say fuel burn is very hard to compare to amongst cars/drivers/roads/loads etc. so as long as no one notices who cares right?? The true measure will be what the fleets do that measure this stuff very closely......

As for the ecoboost....well it may give the 4.0 some cause to worry. But that is how it should be....the new engine should deliver real gains (why bother otherwise) and the existing donk needs to respond. I'm not worried about it too much because the 4.0 has a loyal following (and Territory/LI LPG will keep the block in production) and i believe will deliver better performance then the 2.0 T....which is what it is supposed to do. Conversely the ecoboost model will have 'adequate' grunt (read more than 3.0 commodore) while delivering real fuel burn savings (i'm talking 1-1.5L/100km at least real world) on average. This GM 3.0 (as proven in existing jobs in the US) does niether....hence my negative view of it....

PS. For the record, and i'm not one to usually engage in such stuff, but i can confirm my poor old EF has no prob staying the the VE base models at all. Given the SIDI is only fractionally quicker then the previous engine i'm not too concerned. Regardless, comparing it to a 14 year old car is hardly fair now is it? It has to compete with what is out there now, and if you refer back to that drive bathurst test, they did 0-100 perf tests and the Falcon took 7.7 sec, and the berlina 8.9 sec....hardly comparable i'm sure you would agree..... I'd say i have more to worry about with an ecoboost FG then a 3.0 commodore LOL!

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by The Monty

See, thats exactly the problem. Its has no torque and is a small engine in a large car. To keep up with the traffic you are going to HAVE to get stuck into it and rev its boobies off. For a regular Joe Blow like us, we would see worse fuel economy than in our cars with lots of torque, due to our driving styles.
I used to get 12.5L/100km in my camry because it was so slow, I had the pedal to the floor everywhere I went. The thing was uber fast, 1/4 mile in 21.9 @ 110km/h, lol.

The auto box is tuned to suit the lack of torque as well, with a number of road testers comenting on the hyper activity of the auto in trying to keep the engine revving harder to move the lard.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

You make some good points. The he said she said is a real problem....which is part of the reason why independent style tests, which have repeated shown limited efficiency leads by the 3.0 are so damning. The bathurst test was bad news for holden because it was so clear cut....apart from continual debate of the 'suitability' of the track it was pretty obvious the 3.0 failed that one....whether we agree the engine is a 'failure' in general or not LOL!

As i've said on here before, with fuel burn numbers the new 'peformance' figures these days manufacturers are getting very desperate both in terms of tech and weight reduction but also tuning to get lower ADR figures. The question has to asked, given the advanced adjusabiliyt and computer control is it not possible for manufacturers to tune engines that perform well in ADR style test but in the hands of the average mug don't go as wel as they might. How else would you explain how mazda can launch the 'update' CX7 and claim up to 10% better efficiency in its testing when the ADR figure is unchanged??

It is very possible that on a rolling road the 3.0 may have advantages over the 3.6-4.0 engines, but real world burn more. Holden would know based on their own testing but if it is what we all suspect, about marketing and not about real world delivery (hardly the first time holden has pulled this one.....DOD anyone??) why would they come out and tell people. As you say fuel burn is very hard to compare to amongst cars/drivers/roads/loads etc. so as long as no one notices who cares right?? The true measure will be what the fleets do that measure this stuff very closely......

As for the ecoboost....well it may give the 4.0 some cause to worry. But that is how it should be....the new engine should deliver real gains (why bother otherwise) and the existing donk needs to respond. I'm not worried about it too much because the 4.0 has a loyal following (and Territory/LI LPG will keep the block in production) and i believe will deliver better performance then the 2.0 T....which is what it is supposed to do. Conversely the ecoboost model will have 'adequate' grunt (read more than 3.0 commodore) while delivering real fuel burn savings (i'm talking 1-1.5L/100km at least real world) on average. This GM 3.0 (as proven in existing jobs in the US) does niether....hence my negative view of it....

PS. For the record, and i'm not one to usually engage in such stuff, but i can confirm my poor old EF has no prob staying the the VE base models at all. Given the SIDI is only fractionally quicker then the previous engine i'm not too concerned. Regardless, comparing it to a 14 year old car is hardly fair now is it? It has to compete with what is out there now, and if you refer back to that drive bathurst test, they did 0-100 perf tests and the Falcon took 7.7 sec, and the berlina 8.9 sec....hardly comparable i'm sure you would agree..... I'd say i have more to worry about with an ecoboost FG then a 3.0 commodore LOL!

Only problem with the ecoboost, is the extra 2-4k you'd need to fork out for it. Tht on top of the auto =/....

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

We know why it was released, but if the 3L is using more fuel (and the fleet manager will know as they keep track of these things) they will change to another car that has proven to be more frugal. So the 3L better live up to its claims as Fleet managers don't care about brand when buying, they have criteria that the car must meet.

Anyone on here been saddled with (or have in their pool fleet) a 3.0L SIDI? If so, drive it hard! Make a poor engine look even worse!

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Deco28

Only problem with the ecoboost, is the extra 2-4k you'd need to fork out for it. Tht on top of the auto =/....

How do you know the pricing?

The Eco-Boost will be coming with the 6spd DSG/Powershift Dual Clutch gearbox as standard. That much we do know.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by phillyc

How do you know the pricing?

The Eco-Boost will be coming with the 6spd DSG/Powershift Dual Clutch gearbox as standard. That much we do know.

Oh do we?

Sorry I missed that =/..

Though now that I think of it, I remember that as being a rumour. But if you say so.

Isn't DSG expensive to replace or something? Not trying to find fault wherever I can, I'm just wondering.

On the price premium, 2k is my opinion. Not too much to turn some people off, enough to cover costs.