Holden's SIDI models fall short of promise

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

how many have a mountain in their local area. i believe a 100% city cycle test (ave km/h below 35), would show the 3L in a more positive light.

some people fail to grasp the idea that not all people are interested in performance figures. a lot of the people that do put a lot of emphasis on performance times are usually the ones who just want to win the ford v holden arguements and will probably never own one.

I think i have had this debate with you already prydey in another thread but at the risk of rehashing all that (and i'm not attacking you personally) but i'm not really getting your reasoning. Firstly, you have correctly pointed out that a complete urban cycle should, in theory, benefit the 3.0. This is because it is burning less to idle etc.

But the Bathurst test was so damning for holden (and i suspect in addition to the PR hubub there were some knowing looks in the engineering dept.) because it involved a relatively slow pace (60km/h) and at at the same time a good dose of both up and down hill. Some say the bathurst test was not fair because it was so steep. Maybe so but anyone that thinks accelerating a 1.8 tonne large car from 0-60km/h at a traffic light is any less taxing on the engine RE fuel burn then climbing a hill at 60km/h rolling speed is kidding themselves. Do 3 0-60 runs and you would burn just as much as one climb of the mountain from griffon's bend to the top of skyline.....and you don't get the benefit of coasting down the other side niether since in traffic you often have to slow down, then change lanes, accelerate again to merge etc. etc.

Regardless, there have been several reviews (esp launch reviews) on normal aussie city and country roads where journos have driven the VE SIDI engines back to back and the 3.0 has hardly ever beaten the 3.6 by more than 0.5L/100km.....and why would it, its ADR is only 0.7 L/100 better anyway...... Its a pointless engine choice because it delivers sweet FA atcual real world but is noticeably lower in real world, seat of the pants performance then its own bigger brother. I don't much care what its 0-100 time is neither but at the end of the day, you can sure as hell tell when you are in a 3.0 verus the 3.6 (or 4.0 falc) stop watch or not.....

Which brings me too your other post....

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sure you or others may call me one eyed....i can't prove otherwise. But suffice is to say i'd like to know what you would consider a 'failure' then. If the best you can say is that it is better the previous (very mediocre.....) engine options then i'm far from impressed. you'd blomin hope so since why else would you spend millions in R & D. I don't own commodores but i've had alot of holden guys come up to me and say that the alloytec (including SIDI) does not seem to burn any less day to day then the ecotec did....and is hardly any faster. I know the VT-VZ was alot lighter than VE but FFS they have alot more gears now, supposedly 50+kw more grunt and that's it. I mean, my EF would get ripped a new one versus an FG in efficiency, NVH, performance, driveabiliyt you name it..... So Holden hasn't even 'improved' as much as Ford in the last 10-15 years niether....

Sure Ford may have their measure and then some, but it really is the basic standard of any engineering improvement is 'does it deliver?'. Maybe as far as marketing it does, i assume that is why holden did it, but engineering wise it doesn't. Moever, the 3.0 SIDI has never really worked in any of the cars GM put it in (numerous in the US) because it is not 'right sized' for job. It burns too much in the larger cars and is not as responsive, and its too expensive/big for fitment to smaller FWD cars without delivering a big enough horespower gain (Ecoboost style Turbo 4pots can do it better....).

I dont' care if they sell a bucketload, it IS a failure because it doesn't do what holden said it would any where near as well as what else is already out there.

[prydey]

what did holden say it would do, that it doesn't do? holden don't set the ADR figure. they are entitled to make claims based on this figure, surely?

what about the au xr6 v ba xr6? ba only picks up 10kw over the vct version, no quicker in a straight line (possibly slower) and no more fuel efficient. i guess the ba xr6 is a failure then?

like i said before, its not the first car to fall short of its ADR figure now is it!

[Murph-51]

bloody hell guys, the only thing I give Holden cudos for if anything is the cO2 emission reductions. If it has had a genuine reduction in emmissions then I think we all have to agree this a good thing, and a step in the right direction in light of the bigger picture ????
I'm no greeny or nothing, but I'd like to think that someday, my Grandkids will still be able to jump into a combustible engine motorcar and experience the thrill of driving as we take for granted today

I also saw in the paper last week a full page advertisement from Ford with a G6E on it, then some blurb from Ford talking about how the new sidis figures just dont compare to the all new Falcon after a 161 laps at Bathurst, So Ford has taken advantage of this dilema that Holden now has to try and rectify !!!
I'm pretty sure it will get uglier for Holden, before it gets any prettier lol.

When the VN Commy was released in NZ, they also released a 2.0lt model of it, aprrox 2000 units. This was a big failure for Holden NZ back then as it is for Holden today. The car was just simply too big and heavy for the little motor to push around

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by prydey

what about the au xr6 v ba xr6? ba only picks up 10kw over the vct version, no quicker in a straight line (possibly slower) and no more fuel efficient. i guess the ba xr6 is a failure then?

I think you'll find the BA was quicker in a straight line. The BA XT recorded quicker times than previous XR6s.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Oh please . Ive been a member here long enough to know your a gm fanboy


As for the article , It talks about the dealer bulletin sent out at how they were going to use spin to there customers .
Where bathurst test was not real world but the try and claim that the global green challenge was.

From what I've heard, they've never claimed that the Green challenge was a true indication of real world driving.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

what did holden say it would do, that it doesn't do? holden don't set the ADR figure. they are entitled to make claims based on this figure, surely?

what about the au xr6 v ba xr6? ba only picks up 10kw over the vct version, no quicker in a straight line (possibly slower) and no more fuel efficient. i guess the ba xr6 is a failure then?

like i said before, its not the first car to fall short of its ADR figure now is it!

RE holden's claims i'm not getting into the whole he said she said etc. Obviously any company worth anything has a suite of laywers and marketing professionals to work out what they can and can't say and they pick those things so you can't tie them down. Recently ford ran ads pointing out that a toyota corolla was more expensive to run than a FG G6E E gas.....toyota asked ford to provide proof, ford did (based on ADR) and toyota was happy with that.

I was referring to Holden's own media/pr claims. For example, Mark Reuss (the recently promoted head of GM in North America) said they would deliver real fuel burn savings 'right now' (in an obvious dig at Ford over the I4T). Well as i said i've had alot of guys tell me it doesn't burn any less real world (certainly not noticeable) then previous models so there goes that one.

He also said holden would 'out engineer' its competitors. Many industry watchers (and Ford itself) scoffed at that one as the biggest load of horse doodo ever.....and guess what? They were right. The 'outdated' 4.0 FG motor has been more than up to the task and it will only get worse for Holden when ecoboost falcon turns up..... I was accused of being 'one eyed' when i said the 3.0 SIDI (based on US experience) wouldn't be worth the effort of development....well guess i wasn't so wrong was I? Sales have hardly spiked (thank the holden cruze for that....) and its not really deliving any clear advantage real world niether (exept making Holden fanboys feel good about themselves....).

Like i said, i'm not sure what 'failure' means to people but to me its pretty simple. Given its a free market economy if you want my dollar, you need to be at least as good as your competitors. Given the FG (and the its own 3.6 brother) has no trouble matching this thing and are better cars to drive and own i'm not sure how anyone could call this 3.0 SIDI a 'success'.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

I think you'll find the BA was quicker in a straight line. The BA XT recorded quicker times than previous XR6s.

Correct. The AU XR6 VCT was no faster than an EF XR6 (prob slower....) and i can tell you that seat of the pants (and stop watch) a BA 6 pot (non LPG) of just about any type would spank my EF XR. More importantly, if 'feels' alot faster and responsive and easier to drive. And burns less....depsite being heavier....

[ST]

Originally Posted by -X-F-iles

bloody hell guys, the only thing I give Holden cudos for if anything is the cO2 emission reductions. If it has had a genuine reduction in emmissions then I think we all have to agree this a good thing, and a step in the right direction in light of the bigger picture ????
I'm no greeny or nothing, but I'd like to think that someday, my Grandkids will still be able to jump into a combustible engine motorcar and experience the thrill of driving as we take for granted today

Please don't bring that up. PLEASE. What made you form this opinion? Did you research car emissions in relation to natural and other man made emissions?

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Correct. The AU XR6 VCT was no faster than an EF XR6 (prob slower....)

Might want to reconsider that one ;)

The SIDI sure has a lot of defenders on this forum, but the truth is Holden have advertised the hell out of the ADR figures (which they advertise as FACT making Holden responsible for what they write) and have made the average person think this is the kind of economy they'll get daily. It's smart but false advertising (in regards to how it is written and how it is to be interpreted).

[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?!!!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ST

Might want to reconsider that one ;)

Ok maybe it wasn't slower than EF XR6..... I was basing my comment on the fact that an AU XR6 HP (basically a EF XR6 motor) was comonly known at the time to be not really any slower than an AU XR6 VCT because the VCT ran the IRS (which ads quite a bit of weight) and the HP ran the same watt's link as the EF XRs.... Given an AU HP is heavier than an EF XR6 you can see why i think an EF XR6 is still quite a quick old girl..... Of course that may have been auto versus auto not sure what happens with the manuals...

I know that most AU XR6 production racers were HP not VCT due to the lower weight, suitabilty of watts link for the track and easier to mod.

[ST]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Ok maybe it wasn't slower than EF XR6..... I was basing my comment on the fact that an AU XR6 HP (basically a EF XR6 motor) was comonly known at the time to be not really any slower than an AU XR6 VCT because the VCT ran the IRS (which ads quite a bit of weight) and the HP ran the same watt's link as the EF XRs.... Given an AU HP is heavier than an EF XR6 you can see why i think an EF XR6 is still quite a quick old girl..... Of course that may have been auto versus auto not sure what happens with the manuals...

I know that most AU XR6 production racers were HP not VCT due to the lower weight, suitabilty of watts link for the track and easier to mod.

That is all spot on except the AU is actually lighter than the EF/EL. So the AU XR6 HP was the fastest Falcon 6 till the BA came along. The VCT is slightly slower in acceleration due to the weight penalty but still faster than the earlier 6's.

But yeah back on topic, does anybody know if the new engine has made a significant difference in sales? How the VE has had consistantly higher sales than the FG now more than ever is beyond me.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ST

That is all spot on except the AU is actually lighter than the EF/EL. So the AU XR6 HP was the fastest Falcon 6 till the BA came along. The VCT is slightly slower in acceleration due to the weight penalty but still faster than the earlier 6's.

Yeah i've heard some funny figures on the true weight of the AU. Did ford even release its true weight because i'd be shocked if the chassis (body in white) weight of an AU was less than an E series.....its sure seems alot stiffer LOL!

Originally Posted by ST

But yeah back on topic, does anybody know if the new engine has made a significant difference in sales? How the VE has had consistantly higher sales than the FG now more than ever is beyond me.

Sales are down on last year, not up. And its been a few months now since they launched the SIDI and the pattern is pretty clear. Funny because the holden cruze (i.e. daewoo) is going quite well. Methinks the fleets are going over to that (and/or camry) rather then bother with this 3.0 base model. Once ford launches LI LPG next year then it will just get that much harder for Holden. They are pushing the cruze hard esp for gov. dept. to get it when it is locally built in hatch form. That is fine and all to increase local build but at the expense of commodore they will be blowing their own foot off in my view. The '4 pot' policy of gov dept will help Ford thinking longer term i.e. ecoboost but holden get's no such benefit RE V6 SIDI....hence the cruze angle.

[The Monty]

I think Ford is pretty much maxed out for production, they are turning out a consistent 2800 per month for the falcon, which is the amount they are taking orders for, so they are selling what they can make. Better than making a huge amount, only to let them sit in the car yards until you so massively discount them that you are practically giving them away.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

RE holden's claims i'm not getting into the whole he said she said etc. Obviously any company worth anything has a suite of laywers and marketing professionals to work out what they can and can't say and they pick those things so you can't tie them down. Recently ford ran ads pointing out that a toyota corolla was more expensive to run than a FG G6E E gas.....toyota asked ford to provide proof, ford did (based on ADR) and toyota was happy with that.

I was referring to Holden's own media/pr claims. For example, Mark Reuss (the recently promoted head of GM in North America) said they would deliver real fuel burn savings 'right now' (in an obvious dig at Ford over the I4T). Well as i said i've had alot of guys tell me it doesn't burn any less real world (certainly not noticeable) then previous models so there goes that one.

He also said holden would 'out engineer' its competitors. Many industry watchers (and Ford itself) scoffed at that one as the biggest load of horse doodo ever.....and guess what? They were right. The 'outdated' 4.0 FG motor has been more than up to the task and it will only get worse for Holden when ecoboost falcon turns up..... I was accused of being 'one eyed' when i said the 3.0 SIDI (based on US experience) wouldn't be worth the effort of development....well guess i wasn't so wrong was I? Sales have hardly spiked (thank the holden cruze for that....) and its not really deliving any clear advantage real world niether (exept making Holden fanboys feel good about themselves....).

Like i said, i'm not sure what 'failure' means to people but to me its pretty simple. Given its a free market economy if you want my dollar, you need to be at least as good as your competitors. Given the FG (and the its own 3.6 brother) has no trouble matching this thing and are better cars to drive and own i'm not sure how anyone could call this 3.0 SIDI a 'success'.

found this on another forum so not sure how accurate it is but it looks official enough.

Holden VE SIDI Commodore Omega
3.0L 6cyl, Auto 6 speed
Sedan, 5 seats, 2WD
Petrol 91RON
Combined: 9.3 [25.29] Urban: 12.7 [18.52] Extra Urban: 7.3 [32.22]

the official ADR urban cycle figure for a fg falcon is something around 14.5L/100km.

the combined figures, or the way they calculate them, seem to be heavily weighted in favour of the extra urban cycle.


from an engineering standpoint, the sidi, as its name says, has direct injection technology, the falcon I6 does not. it produces similar power from 1L less capacity. torque is down but thats more to do with bore and stroke dimensions and configuration. you could argue that it is ahead of the I6 in engineering stakes.


the I4T ecoboost engine is an unknown in the falcon. anything can look good on paper but you seem pretty confident that it will be anything but a 'failure'.

i'm no holden fanboy. i've said it many times, i'm as blue blooded as the next guy and i actually agree that the 3L seems to be a one trick pony, however, where i disagree is in the calling it a failure part.

[Joe5619]

Delete

[Wally]

Originally Posted by phillyc

In your own words. What was the result?

Don't you mean "In my own words..." ? You obviously want to solicit a response that suits your needs to feign indignation, get your dander up to show the boys you are one of the gang.

The Bathurst results are self evident.

[bigdude1011]

Originally Posted by ST

How the VE has had consistantly higher sales than the FG now more than ever is beyond me.

Two theories
Bogans are still getting the baby bonus
Fleets are being run by bogans

[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.

[El Tazo]

It's all about lack of information. What Holden tell us is that you can do 900ks from a tank. What they don't tell you is that the tanks bigger, the six-speeds are there so the engine doesn't have to get out of the most economical rev range, and the diff ratio has been changed.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by El Tazo

It's all about lack of information. What Holden tell us is that you can do 900ks from a tank. What they don't tell you is that the tanks bigger, the six-speeds are there so the engine doesn't have to get out of the most economical rev range, and the diff ratio has been changed.

holden say syd~melb nowhere does it say 900ks to a tank.
the fuel tank is actually smaller than previous model.
diff ratio is lower, 3.45:1 (2000rpm@110k)

and not uncommon to acheive 1100ks to a tank hwy running.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by burnz

holden say syd~melb nowhere does it say 900ks to a tank.
the fuel tank is actually smaller than previous model.
diff ratio is lower, 3.45:1 (2000rpm@110k)

and not uncommon to acheive 1100ks to a tank hwy running.

dude you run around this forum pretending to know all things holden and you continually put your foot in your mouth

holden DO adverise 900+ km on a single tank. look at their website. open a motoring mag. look at the billboards around!

the fuel tank is BIGGER than before - now out to 73L

and not sure on last one but i thought with the 6sp at least the final drive was around 2.7

[burnz]

Originally Posted by prydey

dude you run around this forum pretending to know all things holden and you continually put your foot in your mouth

holden DO adverise 900+ km on a single tank. look at their website. open a motoring mag. look at the billboards around!

the fuel tank is BIGGER than before - now out to 73L

and not sure on last one but i thought with the 6sp at least the final drive was around 2.7

75 ltr for the six and 80 for the eight. 08VE
final drive on holden is 3:07 fact its the tallest their is fitted to a four speed. 08VE
2.7 a ford unit (cortina)
syd to melb http://www.holden.com.au/vehicles/Co...ion=efficiency even TV says the same

[MAD]

You may have him on the fuel tank, the VZ was also 75L.
But they definitely show a sign with 900km on it in the TV ad.

[302 XC]

not to bothered really with tank size or capacity,but still dont beleive they get 6.5litres to 100klm travelled !!!!!
and if u do beleive it ,ill supply the fuel and see how many times u can acheive it
6.5l/100 klm x 9 (900klm per tank)=58.5l
8.1l/100 klm x 9 (900klm per tank)=73l
6.5l/100 klm x 73 litre tank thats over 1100 klms
in a heavy v6 powered car yeah rite !!!!
maybe holden should stop snifin exhaust pipes that stuff will kill ya !!!!

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by nerida67

not to bothered really with tank size or capacity,but still dont beleive they get 6.5litres to 100klm travelled !!!!!
and if u do beleive it ,ill supply the fuel and see how many times u can acheive it
6.5l/100 klm x 9 (900klm per tank)=58.5l
8.1l/100 klm x 9 (900klm per tank)=73l
6.5l/100 klm x 73 litre tank thats over 1100 klms
in a heavy v6 powered car yeah rite !!!!
maybe holden should stop snifin exhaust pipes that stuff will kill ya !!!!

well I could listen to guys who havnt driven or owned one, or I could listen to the guy at the servo who travels up to 1000km a week in one. when he told me 6.5L/100km he didnt show me any proof so he could have been talking out of his a... He said he sometimes gets into the fives in the mornings, but overall he averages around the 6.5 mark on the expressway- he might have a very sedate driving style, I dont know.

Expressway work is probably the best conditions for an engine so its not out of the realm of possibility. But I do know he was very happy with the economy and found it much better on fuel than his old Accord Euro.

Fuel economy isnt everything though, Id rather take a FG Falcon any day of the week!!

[MAD]

Over 900 is easily achievable from just about any big Aussie family car since 2000. (in the right conditions)

My last trip from Keysborough to Kerang and back, plus two days diving to work saw 780km from a tank in my EL. If I had continued on hwy usage I'm sure I would have seen very close to, if not over, 900. Sitting on 110-115kmh on the hwy, the fuel usage was hovering around 6-8.

I dont see why people are so sceptical of numbers up to and over 1000km. Flat hwy travel is not exactly going to srtetch the engines capabilities.

[1TUFFUTE]

there should be a rule against people on here sayin stuff as if they no what they are talking about...and then the next post someone posts the actual facts that prove them wrong.IF YOU DONT KNOW FOR SURE SHUT YA TRAP.

The difference between previous ford an holden models is that they have never been promoted an re-engineered so much with such little real world backup with real evedence from real world figures before. Thats what nicks people off.

[deesun]

I think the TV add says " you can go 900klms down the highway. Thats the equivilent to Sydney to Melbourne". You have to be careful of the wording,Holden are very good at this. It means you can go 900k along the highway. And it just compares the didtance with that of Syd to Melb. Nowhere does it say you can go from sydney to melbourne on one tank.

[302 XC]

wow this thread is goin well
cant we just say HOLDEN ARE CR*P, and get on with life
is it a FORD FORUM,not a holden forum,were spose to bag the other side not help them
economy doesnt really bother me,i buy a car cause its wat i want,not because it gets 1l/per 100klm more than the other

[MAD]

Originally Posted by deesun

Nowhere does it say you can go from sydney to melbourne on one tank.

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'.