Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[prydey]

you honestly think performance comes into the equation for the majority of car buyers. a car enthusiast forum isn't a very good cross section of the buying public. 8 sec 0-100 times doesn't = failure. failure is when something doesn't work. AFM i would consider to be in the failure mould as it doesn't really deliver any benefits. the sidi engines promise to be more powerful and use less fuel and they do. early signs show they may not actually be ahead of the competition but they are early signs.

don't get me wrong, i'm a dyed in the wool ford fan but i try not to be one eyed.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

you honestly think performance comes into the equation for the majority of car buyers. a car enthusiast forum isn't a very good cross section of the buying public. 8 sec 0-100 times doesn't = failure. failure is when something doesn't work. AFM i would consider to be in the failure mould as it doesn't really deliver any benefits. the sidi engines promise to be more powerful and use less fuel and they do. early signs show they may not actually be ahead of the competition but they are early signs.

You are correct RE the performance issue. I realise the average schmuck wouldn't know the difference. Particulalry when 'upgrading' to a newer car everything feels so much better (think of a guy going from a VS to a VE SIDI....). BUT, you'd be surprised how easilly non-car people can tell your car has problems WHEN COMPARED TO CURRENT CARS. Every man and his dog has said in reviews of the cars that the 3.6 and 4.0 are quite close....the 3.0 while sprightly for its engine size/weight is noticeably slower. And more importantly, less responsive.

If the 3.0 SIDI models sell well because the average buyer doesn't know any different and don't test out competitors then good on Holden...MARKETING. The engineers dont' get no points. AFM is a failure as you noted because it lost both performance and didn't save any (or very little) fuel. While the SIDI may not be quite as bad, its really the same thing is it not?? (note the AFM failure was not recognise by the general buying public niether....)

Originally Posted by prydey

don't get me wrong, i'm a dyed in the wool ford fan but i try not to be one eyed.

are you implying i am prydey? I feel terrible....i always thought i was very impartial LOL!

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by prydey

the sidi engines promise to be more powerful and use less fuel and they do. early signs show they may not actually be ahead of the competition but they are early signs.

don't get me wrong, i'm a dyed in the wool ford fan but i try not to be one eyed.

No, they promise 9.3L/km. Early signs show they do not. (I.E. fialure). This engine does not live up to what is promised IMO!!

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

They are a failure in so far as they don't 'out engineer' (GMHs own words) their competitors. With a 0-100 time deep in the 8s and a fuel burn no doubt in excess of medium car competitors (plus higher rego) why bother.

What do you consider out engineering? A quick 0 - 100km/h time? Pleeease, anyone can build a quick car, but to build one that is reliable, can turn corners, put up with 300,000+km of mixed driving conditions and drivers and deliver decent economy requires a little more talent.

So obviously you have an engineering degree, what part of it doesn't out engineer it's competitors? From Holden's point of view, I would assume they're talking about the direct injection (Ford and Toyota do not have and are competitors) which has allowed them to reduce the size of the engine, increase power and reduce fuel consumption.

You can the faster medium car contenders into the 8s (or low 9s) and they don't cost any more (less in fact) while still burnign less (esp around town...the only area the 3.0 SIDI benefits). Probalby handle better too after Holden put low grip tyres on it...... Holden market it as 'large car capability' for 'medium car running costs' which is bulldust because a key part of the 'large car capability' is grunt...not just so you can tow, and take the entire family but also because there are plenty of very good (and quite quick) medium cars already out there.

What a load of biased BS. You're comparing medium cars with far less interior and boot space with a large car, good going. Think about it, the Commodore is a large car, has a decent boot, can fit five people comfortably with more than enough power to get it around town and get decent fuel economy. While I am a fan of the Honda Accord and Mazda 6, fitting five in those cars and acheiving the same results isn't easy. Not everyone who buys these cars need to race to the lights, many of these are fleet hacks or family get abouts, want power that's what the LSx models are for and they can easily cater for that (the same with the Ford camp where the turbo and V8's can cater for this).

Large cars are more than ever 'aspirational' purchases, with private buyers going after luxury/sports versions with the horsepowr to match the space. The VE is a fleet hack now and this 3.0 engine will only increase that situation.

WTF do you think the XT Falcon is? Nothing more than a fleet hack, Holden knows this and the only way to keep those fleet purchases is to increase economy, Ford have done the same with the 4.0 I6 and will be aiming for that with the I4T.

Yes the engines are better than what they had before. But so what...their previous effort was a disgrace. I don't doubt that in some scenarios the 3.0 wll be quite frugal...easilly more frugal then its 3.6 brother and 4.0 Falcon. But equally there are scenarios where it doesn't benefit at all. Given its is a slug pretty much 100% of the time regardless (and it is....it is no faster than the omega model before it and no match for the large car market) its hardly a good trade off.

A slug? In comparison to what? You sir have no idea what you are talking about. Your immaturity and lack of market knowledge is certainly showing. The large car market consists of three cars, the Falcon, the Commodore and the Aurion, I think the Commodore stacks up ok with them.

Of course the engine won't be as frugal in some situations, just like any engine, the 4.0 litre I6 included. Both perform with these comprimises well though, both deliver good power, decent reliability and for their size good economy. Again performance for these cars isn't everything, that's what the V8s and the I6Ts are there for.

The point of the ecoboost I4 engine going in falcon is that it won't be a huge drop off in performance versus the larger engine but still deliver real world savings. This 3.0 doesn't do that.....at least not enough. Numerous reviews are pointing out that the 3.6 cars on the same drive routes are matching the 3.0.....

No one has tested the I4T in a Falcon outside of Ford, so until then it is all theory.

i woudl agree with this completely. Since VE launched you coudl pretty much right off the V6 versions because they were so uncompetitive. Now the 3.6 models are worthy of consideration. Too bad the rest of the car's issues have gone unaddressed....for now. The SV6 and XR6 are a hell of alot of car for the money and prove how good aussie car manufacturers have become....

Out of your whole drivel, the last sentence is the only decent comment.
The local cars are no way near perfect and have a long way to go but have in their current forms come a long way in the last ten or so years. Their latest iterations are the best yet.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wretched

What do you consider out engineering? A quick 0 - 100km/h time? Pleeease, anyone can build a quick car, but to build one that is reliable, can turn corners, put up with 300,000+km of mixed driving conditions and drivers and deliver decent economy requires a little more talk

So you know that that the 3.0v6 is reliable when they have not been on the market long enough to accrue those sort of klms?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

You are correct RE the performance issue. I realise the average schmuck wouldn't know the difference.

!

More than average. I would say about 80% at least, going on market share and if you add in the entire ~10% Holden owners as you suggest and 50 % of Ford owners, that equates to ~95% of the population being schmucks = a marketer's dream.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

So you know that that the 3.0v6 is reliable when they have not been on the market long enough to accrue those sort of klms?

No, I don't and I never stated that now did I? I was generalising on what "out engineering" would consist of, i.e. more than just straight line performance.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Wretched

What do you consider out engineering? A quick 0 - 100km/h time? Pleeease, anyone can build a quick car, but to build one that is reliable, can turn corners, put up with 300,000+km of mixed driving conditions and drivers and deliver decent economy requires a little more talent.

So obviously you have an engineering degree, what part of it doesn't out engineer it's competitors? From Holden's point of view, I would assume they're talking about the direct injection (Ford and Toyota do not have and are competitors) which has allowed them to reduce the size of the engine, increase power and reduce fuel consumption.


What a load of biased BS. You're comparing medium cars with far less interior and boot space with a large car, good going. Think about it, the Commodore is a large car, has a decent boot, can fit five people comfortably with more than enough power to get it around town and get decent fuel economy. While I am a fan of the Honda Accord and Mazda 6, fitting five in those cars and acheiving the same results isn't easy. Not everyone who buys these cars need to race to the lights, many of these are fleet hacks or family get abouts, want power that's what the LSx models are for and they can easily cater for that (the same with the Ford camp where the turbo and V8's can cater for this).


WTF do you think the XT Falcon is? Nothing more than a fleet hack, Holden knows this and the only way to keep those fleet purchases is to increase economy, Ford have done the same with the 4.0 I6 and will be aiming for that with the I4T.


A slug? In comparison to what? You sir have no idea what you are talking about. Your immaturity and lack of market knowledge is certainly showing. The large car market consists of three cars, the Falcon, the Commodore and the Aurion, I think the Commodore stacks up ok with them.

Of course the engine won't be as frugal in some situations, just like any engine, the 4.0 litre I6 included. Both perform with these comprimises well though, both deliver good power, decent reliability and for their size good economy.

No one has tested the I4T in a Falcon outside of Ford, so until then it is all theory.


Out of your whole drivel, the last sentence is the only decent comment.
The local cars are no way near perfect and have a long way to go but have in their current forms come a long way in the last ten or so years. Their latest iterations are the best yet.

Mate, out of all the contributors to these forums Swordsman88 is one of the most even handed, thoughtful and insightful who weighs up both sides of an argument before contributing.
I think you need to discover what transference is and target your faux rage on someone a little more myopic in their views.
In other words, your attempt at cutting Swordsman88 down to size is like the Holden SIDIDIDIDIDI engines; Epic Fail.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, out of all the contributors to these forums Swordsman88 is one of the most even handed, thoughtful and insightful who weighs up both sides of an argument before contributing.
I think you need to discover what transference is and target your faux rage on someone a little more myopic in their views.
In other words, your attempt at cutting Swordsman88 down to size is like the Holden SIDIDIDIDIDI engines; Epic Fail.

Yeah ok champ whatever, that's your opinion and I certainly cannot agree but what more can I expect, obviously not a well thought our rebuttal to anything I posted? ;)

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wretched

No, I don't and I never stated that now did I? I was generalising on what "out engineering" would consist of, i.e. more than just straight line performance.

So you're generalizing is alright then, but not swordsman88 though?

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

So you're generalizing is alright then, but not swordsman88 though?

HAHA apples and oranges. Think about it. :togo:

[Wally]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, out of all the contributors to these forums Swordsman88 is one of the most even handed, thoughtful and insightful who weighs up both sides of an argument before contributing.
.

All that, but you must admit he did go a little brand bias overboard on the latest posts. I think he was on a roll. LOL

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

All that, but you must admit he did go a little brand bias overboard on the latest posts. I think he was a on a roll. LOL

As for what swordsman 88 said i would have to agree as what is it that holden REALLY offer, a car that doesn't perform quite as well as its predecessor, that has no other upgrades other than the six speed auto, & a marginally better fuel economy that now cost $700 more, which by the way will take 2 years & 50000klms to make up the deficit so long as the price of fuel does not go up. I think it would not be hard to find some other make on the market that can better these supposed gains.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Yeah ok champ whatever, that's your opinion and I certainly cannot agree but what more can I expect, obviously not a well thought our rebuttal to anything I posted? ;)

Nice sarcasm. Someone doesn’t agree with you and you infer intellectual inferiority. Who made you the intellectual grand master of the forums? If you deem others to be beneath you and your opinion then why are you even here? Could it be that you are just another troll?

For someone like yourself with an obviously very limited perspicacity, suggesting that anyone rebut the pro-Holden propaganda you wrote is pointless. Facts are that your views are yours alone and trying to attack other members to seeing your point of view will only alienate you even more. I dare say that you are exactly the kind of customer that Holden is banking on being a loyalist as opposed to having any objectivity; too dumb to know the difference.
Perhaps you should just bugger off back to the pro-Holden websites and troll there.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by ltd

Nice sarcasm. Someone doesn’t agree with you and you infer intellectual inferiority. Who made you the intellectual grand master of the forums? If you deem others to be beneath you and your opinion then why are you even here? Could it be that you are just another troll?

For someone like yourself with an obviously very limited perspicacity, suggesting that anyone rebut the pro-Holden propaganda you wrote is pointless. Facts are that your views are yours alone and trying to attack other members to seeing your point of view will only alienate you even more. I dare say that you are exactly the kind of customer that Holden is banking on being a loyalist as opposed to having any objectivity; too dumb to know the difference.
Perhaps you should just bugger off back to the pro-Holden websites and troll there.

Nice one. Wrong as usual though. I am not pro Holden (I have never owned one and never will consider one, funny all I have owned is Fords and come from a family that only owned Fords) but nice assumption anyway, I didn't realise I bagged Ford in my post. Just because I don't jump on the anti Holden bandwagon doesn't mean I am pro Holden, I like to see issues from both sides not something you're used to I guess.

[RG]

Nice. How about we end the school girl like bickering and carrying on and get back to the topic?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Nice one. Wrong as usual though. I am not pro Holden (I have never owned one and never will consider one, funny all I have owned is Fords and come from a family that only owned Fords) but nice assumption anyway, I didn't realise I bagged Ford in my post. Just because I don't jump on the anti Holden bandwagon doesn't mean I am pro Holden, I like to see issues from both sides not something you're used to I guess.

I didn't accuse you of bagging ford, who's being paranoid?
You say you like to see issues from both sides yet you're abusive of the points made in Swordsman88's original post; you're a hypocrite. You want your opinion respected but disavow others than your own? Throwing in a disclaimer that you like to see both sides doesn't cut it either; you dislike others with a different opinion to your own as evidenced by the dismissive and abusive ad hominem attacks of your posts.

"I like to see issues from both sides not something you're used to I guess"

You guessed wrong.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

As for what swordsman 88 said i would have to agree as what is it that holden REALLY offer, a car that doesn't perform quite as well as its predecessor, that has no other upgrades other than the six speed auto, & a marginally better fuel economy that now cost $700 more, which by the way will take 2 years & 50000klms to make up the deficit so long as the price of fuel does not go up. I think it would not be hard to find some other make on the market that can better these supposed gains.

Look the fact really is that you and probably Swordsman are favourable toward the Ford product and there is nothing wrong with that. But what a few members fail to understand is that there are real car enthusiasts out there who like cars, regardless of their quirks. Car manufacturers are no different to any other producer, they differentiate their product and brand loyalty is a big driver in that equation. You get comfortable with a car that carries a blue oval and your next purchase will probably also have the same badge.

Rubbishing the Holden brand to prop the Falcon brand might garner localised support and a few reward smilies, but it's that vocal minority in both camps that have effectively talked down the local product for generations that has contributed to an overall decline in sales. It's like the husband and wife who fight, tease and bicker whereever they go, eventually no one invites them to parties.

The simple answer as to why "schucks" buy Commodores in preference to Falcons is Brand Equity. Technobabble and engineering differences mean nothing to Joe Bloggs, he's not interested in semantics, he just wants a car that looks nice, feels comfortable, doesn't break down and doesn't gouge him at the pump. And as we all know from looking at girls in bikinis, after satisfying entrenched bias, looks are 80% of everthing to a man, including a purchase decision.

[yanknbank]

....come on guys, stand back a bit a smell the roses.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by RG

Nice. How about we end the school girl like bickering and carrying on and get back to the topic?

There is no topic to get back to based on the last page.

Interestingly Holden seem to have felt the need to address this development at dealership level. Seemingly the results were conceiving potentially damaging to sales and they felt a need to educate their sales staff in effective damage control.

I wonder if the opposite occurred at Ford?

While it’s nice to dissect posts in detail to provide some one upmanship rather than add quality to the conversation it might be advantageous to actually recognise that some of what is being discussed actually stems from some of Holden’s engineering claims more so that any individual belief or preference.

Undoubtable the SIDI engine might be an improvement on what has been on offer under the hood of the Commodore and to be honest that really is what the name of the game is. Constantly improve on what one can provide the consumer. If that turns out to be better than the competition then you market accordingly, if it’s not so much of an advantage you try to improve on it.

On this occasion we are done. There is no evolving of this conversation in a meaningful way.