Fuel Economy Challenge - FG XR8 vs VE SS (with AFM) + other tests...

[FireArc]

So Car Advice did a bunch of tests to determine the fuel savings of AFM and how much it impacts on other parts of the car (i.e. performance) in contrast to its traditional XR8 rival.

The whole writeup plus videos is available here:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/29909/ford-falcon-xr8-vs-holden-commodore-ss-afm-fuel-economy-challenge/


The results, although not remarkable, will show you just how much of an advantage one of the cars has.

Dyno Test

XR8 returned 235rwkw
XR8 returned 288fwkw compared to the advertised 290fwkw

SS returned 204rwkw
SS returned 250fwkw compared to the advertised 260fwkw

Holden Commodore SS (AFM): 118.57kW/tonne
Ford Falcon XR8: 128.99kW/tonne

Performance Results

0-100Km/hr: SS-6.71sec, XR8-6.52sec
400M: SS-14.8sec, XR8-14.72sec
100-0Km/hr(braking): SS-32.02M, XR8-31.4M

***more results available in the videos, just summarising.****

Fuel Economy

Watch this mornings vid to get more details. The economy run hasn't finished yet but here are the interim results. These are quotes from this mornings video:


The XR8 is using just over the 9 litre mark


The SS is travelling at about 9.6 at the moment

There are other comments on there about AFM switching back and forth between 4cyl and 8cyl and comments on ride comfort/quality etc.

Overall seems a pretty good review.

[GODSMACK]

A few things that have left me a little :confused: are:
Dyno test - SS returned 204rwkw ??? Seems a bit low compared to what the Ford returned.

Also the 0-100 time for the SS at 6.71 seconds.. Is there really that much of a diff between the 260 and 270kw engines? Doesnt the VE SS pre AFM do 0-100 in the high 5's?


P.S. im a noob...

[vt2vx]

What fuel are they using PULP?

[vessm]

So Car Advice did a bunch of tests to determine the fuel savings of AFM and how much it impacts on other parts of the car (i.e. performance) in contrast to its traditional XR8 rival.

The whole writeup plus videos is available here:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/29909/ford-falcon-xr8-vs-holden-commodore-ss-afm-fuel-economy-challenge/



Dyno Test

XR8 returned 235rwkw
XR8 returned 288fwkw compared to the advertised 290fwkw

SS returned 204rwkw
SS returned 250fwkw compared to the advertised 260fwkw

Holden Commodore SS (AFM): 118.57kW/tonne
Ford Falcon XR8: 128.99kW/tonne

Performance Results

0-100Km/hr: SS-6.71sec, XR8-6.52sec
400M: SS-14.8sec, XR8-14.72sec
100-0Km/hr(braking): SS-32.02M, XR8-31.4M

***more results available in the videos, just summarising.****

Fuel Economy

Watch this mornings vid to get more details. The economy run hasn't finished yet but here are the interim results. These are quotes from this mornings video:





There are other comments on there about AFM switching back and forth between 4cyl and 8cyl and comments on ride comfort/quality etc.

Overall seems a pretty good review.




you really cant compare this crap, 1 ss mite make 204rws then another can make 230rws standard so there is no point.

[pelagonia_ss]

Wow, that really is a shitty 1/4 time for the SS.

My mate has one and he reckons its easily good for a 13.5 flat completely stock.

[SHANESVZSS]

JEESUS 14.8 is a shitty time..my mates stock vx ss got a 14.7!! even the XR8's time sloooow!! althothe XR8's time doesnt suprise me.

[Alex(AUS)]

There has been a 13.1 out of a stock VE SS ... I think they included the stop at maccas. You really cant/shouldnt compare times like that ... I mean one person may have ordered something that was not made and had to wait in the waiting bay ...

Alex

[oranpark_addict]

The thing is with this comparo, it is AFM. It is such a load of shite. I dont know abou this driving or surface because these times are like slower than stock vy, maybe even vx...LOL

[mikek73xu1]

[QUOTE=GODSMACK;1490225]A few things that have left me a little :confused: are:
Dyno test - SS returned 204rwkw ??? Seems a bit low compared to what the Ford returned.

Altough the Ford did actually lose more to the wheels, 53kw compared to SS 46Kw ....

[Kuzman89]

204rwkw is shocking, the ford smashed it in every test...

[Peter B - CV8]

you really cant compare this crap, 1 ss mite make 204rws then another can make 230rws standard so there is no point.

I seriously doubt that there would be all that much variation in newly built engines - especially with the tight tolerances in the modern assembly line. The crucial part is the initial running in of the motor. Glazed bores, poor ring sealing etc would see a subsequent power loss. It would be interesting to see the result of a compression test on the SS. It certainly seems to making poor power.

[King Nothing]

The XR8 lost 19% of power through the drivetrain compared to quoted figures, 18.5% compared to measured fwkw (288)

The SS lost 21.5% of power compared to quoted figures and 18.4% compared to measured fkwk (250).

So both cars had a pretty comparable percentage drive train loss, perhaps the ford was better because of the ZF? It's only because the falcon has a higher output that the falcon losses look worse. The XR8 is more powerful and has less drivetrain loss compared to quoted figures. They are both the same % loss for measured fwkw, but that would probably be because they have used the same calculation to estimate fwkw.

Those times are really, really low, for both cars. I've seen NA BFs do better. Assuming it was the same circumstances though, the ford is still quicker.

And the xr8 is more efficient. Wow. Either the SS was a dud (possible), or, dare I say, the ford is the better V8?

Funny that the XR8 has 31 rwkw more but that isn't converted into a significantly quicker 1/4 time. 0.1 in the 14s bracket isn't much difference.

[Ghia351]

About the only thing certain so far is that in stock form the XR8 sounds great in the dyno vid.

[Alex(AUS)]

31rwkw more and it was still the same pathetic performance ... imagine you got a fresh VE with the typical 230rwkw.

Alex

[Trek52]

Sounds like the XR8 is a good thing

[vyc4b]

Well, 288fwkw ain't 235rwkw anyway.......surely they lose a lot more than just over a fifth of power through the drivetrain.
Estimation......I'd agree.

Aren't the AFM engines L76 anyhow.......?
Cheers.

[VZMY06SS]

Sounds like they tested the SS on a dirt road...
230kw LS1's make close enough to 200 at the wheels, let alone 6L's..

Hard to trust this report. Seems that the VE has less go than a VY..

[lowriding]

why am i not surprised to find its not an acknowledged motoring source but our good old amateur caradvice website again :doh: the new webwombat ? :)
an explore of that site speaks volumes .

[troytroy]

I think the figures look alright to me.....The times aren't olympic standard, but they're probably representative of an average driver on a warm day that's not flogging his car like a journalist??

At least they both tested Auto's and on the same dyno on the same day and they performance tested on the same piece of road at the same temperatures. Both cars are run in......It's as fair as it's ever going to be!! Much better than some other magazines performance times which are recorded over many more different variables. The new FG V8 has a crapload of torque and importantly a wider torque range than previous Ford V8 iterations. (even though it's a very fat heavy pig - small advert for the VT-VZ brethren!)

If you want performance - don't buy an auto AFM SS as a starting point, buy the manual or an XR8 or XR6T (or 6.0 litre VZ!). For the 80% that do most of their driving in a built up area, the cylinder shut down wont kick in and those figures will be alot worse. The Holden Marketers are the true winners here.

However if you're the type that like fast/sporty cars you probably wouldn't buy the XR8 anyway. Because you're likley to be the same person that would possibly add an exhaust or tune and that's when the conservatively tuned 6.0litre wakes up.....and then it's no comparison. (or you'd just buy an XR6T!! which is quicker, lighter, has better turn in, better fuel consumption, easier to tune....if that's enough reasons.........minus the nice V8 sound)

[mikek73xu1]

Well, 288fwkw ain't 235rwkw anyway.......surely they lose a lot more than just over a fifth of power through the drivetrain.
Estimation......I'd agree.

Aren't the AFM engines L76 anyhow.......?
Cheers.

15 - 20% depending on manua/auto is about where drivetrain loss in a V8 Commodore sits.Of course alot of people would prefer to think its higher than this so they can quote a higher eng kw after having their car on the dyno ......

[Brandonsdad]

you really cant compare this crap, 1 ss mite make 204rws then another can make 230rws standard so there is no point.

Just what I was thinking too. they should have gotten 10 cars of each and got the 2 with the highest output. A bit of stuffing around, but a more accurate test.

[Jarhead]

I always get a laugh when a report goes against us. When the tables are turned we punch the air and beat our chests. When a test goes to the blue team we cry foul.

Human nature I guess.

In regards to the dyno figures, if they found a dyno that read 230rwkw for the ss then the XR8 would have had a higher reading too. It's all relaive.

The same goes for the 400m times. They are relative. The track conditions play a significant factor in 1/4 mile times. That said the high 14's is slow by most standards. What isn't in dispute is the fuel consumption and that is what the test was all about.

Is this a reason to think the blue oval has the goods over the General's V8's? No way. Should we be worried about the marginal fuel savings? No.

[Wonky]

you really cant compare this crap, 1 ss mite make 204rws then another can make 230rws standard so there is no point.

My AFM auto with 800km on it did a best run of 201.6rwkw...... :( See http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=1478473&#post1478473

I've seen lots of L76/L98 A6 dyno runs and never seen one get anywhere near 230rwkw!! :eek: Manuals yes, mid 230s I've seen quite a few times!

[bermudablue]

Honestly...Who cares about fuel.
Go buy a Corolla or something when you start thinking like that.

[RED R8]

Yawwwwn who cares who keeps them stock anyway put a cam in it fcuk the fuel economy it sounds angry go's hard and I liiiiiike it.

[vyc4b]

15 - 20% depending on manua/auto is about where drivetrain loss in a V8 Commodore sits.Of course alot of people would prefer to think its higher than this so they can quote a higher eng kw after having their car on the dyno ......

As far as I knew, a 300fwkw car should make around 225rwkw.....25% Manual.
I don't remember talking to anyone or reading anywhere that their C4B {300fwkw untuned} reeled off 240rw Untuned. Manual or Auto.
Most after a Mafless tune made around the 245-250rw mark.

I do understand your second statement though.

Sorry for going OT.
Cheers.

[Alex(AUS)]

My AFM auto with 800km on it did a best run of 201.6rwkw...... :( See http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=1478473&#post1478473

I've seen lots of L76/L98 A6 dyno runs and never seen one get anywhere near 230rwkw!! :eek: Manuals yes, mid 230s I've seen quite a few times!

Be happy in the knowledge that your 200rwkw is as quick as a 230+ Falcon.

Alex

[macca_779]

I'll tell you who cares about fuel. I care about fuel. Its not like I can't afford it and I am well aware that owning a 5.7L V8 means you will use more fuel. But that doesn't mean that I don't care how much it uses. Saying you don't care at all would mean usage upwards of 30L/100km on the highway wouldn't faze you. Which is bullshit.

These comparisons are aimed at the majority of consumers that unlike us will never modify their car at all from OEM. The comparisons also help people decide on which car to buy if they are still on the fence trying to make a decision. Hell if I never intended to modify a car I wouldn't be sitting in a HSV. I honestly do believe the FPV/Ford products are better from factory. Its what you can do aftermarket that keeps my bum in a GM V8 engined car.

So while these guys kick around in their bone stock new demo cars with 200rwkw returning 9+L/100km. I sit here quite smug with a fair chuck more power and torque returning at least 1+L/100km better economy.. God bless the enthusiast who isn't afraid to mod their car, as you really can have your cake and eat it too.

[lollymanv8]

They should have brought along the FG XR6 Turbo as well. It would be interesting to see how it would fare. I reckon it will better both v8s. I drove one for a few days a couple of months ago. The turbo power delivery is insane!

[GODSMACK]

They should have brought along the FG XR6 Turbo as well. It would be interesting to see how it would fare. I reckon it will better both v8s. I drove one for a few days a couple of months ago. The turbo power delivery is insane!

The FG XR6T is quicker than both the FG XR8 & the VE SS, thats no secret.

[Evman]

Credit where it's due. The updates that Ford did on the Boss for the FG range have obviously done it well :goodjob: Did they remove the engines for the flywheel horsepower rating? If not then take those results with a grain of salt haha!

[GODSMACK]

Credit where it's due. The updates that Ford did on the Boss for the FG range have obviously done it well :goodjob:

:goodjob: Well said Evman, post of the thread so far.... :bow:

[Wonky]

God bless the enthusiast who isn't afraid to mod their car, as you really can have your cake and eat it too.

Amen! :goodjob:

[kart_racer]

Credit where it's due. The updates that Ford did on the Boss for the FG range have obviously done it well :goodjob: Did they remove the engines for the flywheel horsepower rating? If not then take those results with a grain of salt haha!

I agree, you can't calculate driveline losses, it's merely an estimation.

It's widely acknowledged that the VE suffers significantly less driveline loss than previous models. This is proven by dyno tests of stock cars as posted throughout this forum.

However, the rear wheel numbers don't lie, so it seems the AFM SS is quite a bit down on power compared to non-AFM (or this car was a bit unhealthy).

I can't remember seeing the XR8 get near the SS, let alone beat it on a 400m sprint in any review before?

[Carby]

Well it certainly clarifies two things:

1. AFM is rubbish and the gimmick that most thought it would be.

2. The Falcon has better brakes, performance and there is nothing in the Fuel economy.

Conclusion: The Falcon not only has superior six cylinder motors but better 8 cylinder motors.

I can't understand why Holden has sat on it's laurels for so long (from 2006), history shows that it takes a while for the better vehicle to claim sales leadership between these marques, but likewise once it happens it's takes a long while to get that leadership back and you will need the better car to do it.

It is certainly not the environment to have an inferior vehilce but at the moment the simple fact is that the Falcon in just about all it's variants is superior to the Commodore.:bawl:

[Evman]

It is certainly not the environment to have an inferior vehilce but at the moment the simple fact is that the Falcon in just about all it's variants is superior to the Commodore.:bawl:

Except for LWB luxury :lmao:

And looks IMO :hide:

[FlatfootV8]

Well it certainly clarifies two things:

1. AFM is rubbish and the gimmick that most thought it would be.

2. The Falcon has better brakes, performance and there is nothing in the Fuel economy.

Conclusion: The Falcon not only has superior six cylinder motors but better 8 cylinder motors.

I can't understand why Holden has sat on it's laurels for so long (from 2006), history shows that it takes a while for the better vehicle to claim sales leadership between these marques, but likewise once it happens it's takes a long while to get that leadership back and you will need the better car to do it.

It is certainly not the environment to have an inferior vehilce but at the moment the simple fact is that the Falcon in just about all it's variants is superior to the Commodore.:bawl:

I recently got a FG Falcon XT company car its OK nothing special really. I prefer my V8 VE Calais over it actually. But since the FG is a company car I just drive it without the thrills.

[King Nothing]

I recently got a FG Falcon XT company car its OK nothing special really. I prefer my V8 VE Calais over it actually. But since the FG is a company car I just drive it without the thrills.

LOL. Of course a VE V8 calais is better than an FG XT, it costs $23,700 RRP more! Try comparing a G6E Turbo with an omega and see which you prefer.

[CarlFST60L]

I cant believe they managed high 14's, this is going back to VT days. The driver must have been a f#$ktard or there were other factors like it was on dirt/greese or in the rain. Or maybe they did the 100m burnout :lol:

I raced a VY II R8 with edit intake exhaust in my new VE SSV UTE with AFM it was nose to nose all the way, i got a slightly better start as the ute gets the power down effortlessly.

I will try to do a 0-100 video today and time it to see what it can do, but im sure its in the 5's from my SOTP meter, especially after matching the VY R8.

As for AFM, it does well while cruising down the M7, it drops from about 9L/100 to 7L/100 when it switch's to '4cyl mode' at 100km/h. If its not in 4cyl mode, its identical just normal. IT will only use 4cyl mode on a flat or downhill, and at almost no throttle application, so unless you drive to get it in that mode, it will make NO DIFFERENCE.

Compared to my VE LS2 R8 M6, over one full week, my R8 did 15L/100 with heavy driving, the ute did 14L/100 with the same weekly duties, so its good to see the A6 doing better than a manual. The last VY LS1 auto I had would do about 18L/100 with that same work load.

Anyway, I find most of these so called Journo's have nfi what they are doing, they don't understand the car's they test, so you end up with dum ass results like this, and unfortunately, people believe what they read.

[Excellent]

It is certainly not the environment to have an inferior vehilce but at the moment the simple fact is that the Falcon in just about all it's variants is superior to the Commodore.:bawl:

That doesn't mean much. If the Falcon doesn't rock your boat, then it's pointless comparing the two cars. There's more to liking one car more than another than just on performance and fuel economy criteria. Looks alone can be the one and only deciding factor, for example.

Sometimes I wonder why we get into a twist over, well, nothing.

[CLUBRED]

Interesting the note the FG is also heavier..

FG - 1825 (google)
VE - 1785 (redbook)
'06 VZ 6.0 - 1664 (for comparison, redbook)

[falcom]

It is certainly not the environment to have an inferior vehilce but at the moment the simple fact is that the Falcon in just about all it's variants is superior to the Commodore.:bawl:

I think the better proportions(looks) of the Commodore has helped keep it ahead of the Ford,but they can only get away with this for so long.

Holden really need to roll out VF ASAP with significant improvements.

[Carby]

That doesn't mean much. If the Falcon doesn't rock your boat, then it's pointless comparing the two cars. There's more to liking one car more than another than just on performance and fuel economy criteria. Looks alone can be the one and only deciding factor, for example.

Sometimes I wonder why we get into a twist over, well, nothing.

I think this is far more than nothing!

Nothing is when we have 12 pages on a 0.1 second difference between an F6and GTS and you would swear some people would kill to have that 0.1 of a second on their side.

It's obvious the VE is behind the FG on many fronts including interior design, though personally I still think the VE is a better looking car. My main beef with the VE is the mechanical side of things, Transmissions, gearboxes, and engines (especially 6 cylinders) are all better in the FG. Like everyone acknowledges the VE needs a revamp asap!

[CarlFST60L]

It's obvious the VE is behind the FG on many fronts

I consider myself open minded and not biased towards either car. Have driven both models at the limit, around town, in traffic, cruising etc I sure don't think the VE is behind other than not having a 6cyl turbo option. Especially if your talking about the top models.

[BlackCalaisVVE]

The 0-100km/h and 1/4 mile times are a lot higher than they should be for both cars. After reading lots of reviews on the V8 VE's i have found 0-100 times differed but where not this high. The average was about 5.7 secs and the worst time was 6.2 sec with a best of 5.5 secs (this is for l98 non AFM V spec v8's) and holden claims 5.4 secs for them. I dont see there being that much difference between the AFM and Non AFM V8's.

In regards to the RWKW to FWKW calculations i think there a bit off. My calais V MY07 (non AFM) ran 226rwkw stock standard air temp was 23 c. On the same dyno a couple of months before my mates VE maloo LS3 ran 225rwkw air temp was about 25 c (saying this the LS3 responed a lot better to mods than the L98). Although i was talking to Sonny who dynoed my car and he said a few days before he had a calais V AFM with E85 only run 187rwkw stock, not sure on air temp.

Most of the LS3's stock will struggle to run more than 245rwkw so its interesting to see that the xr8 ran 235rwkw (similiar to the figures from the VE ls2 engines stock)

Just my 2 cents.

I guess it would be interesting to see if those who have had both the AFM and Non AFM VE's can notice many difference between the 2 in regards to power and acceleration. Some may also have stock 1/4 mile times for the AFM Ve's

[Evman]

There was someone on here that had an XR6T and said it was terrible in the wet. Constantly being held back due to wheel spin. That sounds to me like a major design flaw, and seems to me that it could have done with 275 rear tyres like the VE HSV's. Lucky we have such awesome traction control systems these day eh? :)

[CarlFST60L]

There was someone on here that had an XR6T and said it was terrible in the wet. Constantly being held back due to wheel spin. That sounds to me like a major design flaw, and seems to me that it could have done with 275 rear tyres like the VE HSV's. Lucky we have such awesome traction control systems these day eh? :)

We have a 360kwrw F6 with 285 rears and it makes no real difference with the wider rubber. There is clearly less mechanical grip, but the other problem is the transition from when it hits boost... shit box NA 6 banger to 427 = wheels spin city.

[Ghia351]

Interesting the note the FG is also heavier..

FG - 1825 (google)
VE - 1785 (redbook)
'06 VZ 6.0 - 1664 (for comparison, redbook)Funny that as the Holden website lists the A6 SS-V at 1805Kg


Includes A/C and all fluids. Weights are approximate. Production variations may occur.


I recently got a FG Falcon XT company car its OK nothing special really. I prefer my V8 VE Calais over it actually. But since the FG is a company car I just drive it without the thrills.I'd have you certified if you actually DID prefer a FG XT over a V8 VE Calais....more importantly how does your new company car compare to an Omega...then again A4/175kw/325Nm...don't worry

[CLUBRED]

Ghia, figures I've quoted were for base SS, not the V series, you'd expect the v to be a bit heavier with leather and more options.

Anyways, back to topic, is Ford throwing it down to Holden, and will the H respond, my guess they will in the not to distant future, from memory Ford bump the power and Holden respond and then add a little bit more within 6 months.

[snappy]

(This was posted on another forum)




I did the performance tests for both these cars.

As you'll see in our forthcoming final post, the tests were conducted with 170kg worth of passengers (2 people, plus testing equipment). Both vehicles also had near full tanks of fuel.

That was the fastest both cars were going to go on the day. Having done plenty of this in the past, it's generally routing to launch an automatic.

The Ford had plenty of traction loss off the line, whereas the Holden had next to none.

Our test circuit is flat and made of regular bitumen. It's not a drag strip.

Again, these are real world figures. Unless you drag race your car, you're not going to care how fast is goes down the drag strip. As long as the cars are compared at the same location in the same conditions, it won't make a difference.

We perform all VBOX testing with the same passengers and same fuel load, making the tests as uniform as possible.

[CarlFST60L]

(This was posted on another forum)

As long as the cars are compared at the same location in the same conditions, it won't make a difference.

What a total dum ass. Thats like saying 'it doesn't matter how you drive as long as you press the right button that's as fast as it will go'... dum ass. Its all about testing the performance of the cars properly, if your not doing it properly, don't do it at all.

[snappy]

What a total dum ass. Thats like saying 'it doesn't matter how you drive as long as you press the right button that's as fast as it will go'... dum ass. Its all about testing the performance of the cars properly, if your not doing it properly, don't do it at all.


I know , I cant believe they did take both cars to a real drag strip. Pull the spare tyre out , rip the passager seat and rear bench out and chuck some mt's on . It would been much more accurate .
both cars got the same treatment what more do you want

[CarlFST60L]

I know , I cant believe they did take both cars to a real drag strip. Pull the spare tyre out , rip the passager seat and rear bench out and chuck some mt's on . It would been much more accurate .
both cars got the same treatment what more do you want

Yeah, thats what i meant smart ass, do you sleep with one of the guys at caradvice or something? Do you want to jump up to defend your boyfriends or something? :stick:

Are you trying to say you think im some Neanderthal drag racer? U clearly have no idea. I have only ever raced my cars a few times, and have not yet run the work hack VE SSV with AFM with 400km on the clock.

These days anyone can publish an article. If you think its ok to publish articles about two cars but neglecting to publish why they are a so far behind what ever other mag or car journo's results, good for you, but publishing incomplete and inaccurate is not for me. Most people want details and facts. Its bad for the car companies as they get false data which creates problems in the market, and you get retards out saying dumb shit based on what they read in some article without understanding what they are saying. I can just see it now, some tard going "those XR8 and VE AFM's are shit, they only do high 14's" :lol: If thats the world you want to live in, your going to be a lonely little girl.

far out, im over this, why did i even reply.

[Curtis-R]

Yeah, thats what i meant smart ass, do you sleep with one of the guys at caradvice or something? Do you want to jump up to defend your boyfriends or something? :stick:

Are you trying to say you think im some Neanderthal drag racer? U clearly have no idea. I have only ever raced my cars a few times, and have not yet run the work hack VE SSV with AFM with 400km on the clock.

These days anyone can publish an article. If you think its ok to publish articles about two cars but neglecting to publish why they are a so far behind what ever other mag or car journo's results, good for you, but publishing incomplete and inaccurate is not for me. Most people want details and facts. Its bad for the car companies as they get false data which creates problems in the market, and you get retards out saying dumb shit based on what they read in some article without understanding what they are saying. I can just see it now, some tard going "those XR8 and VE AFM's are shit, they only do high 14's" :lol: If thats the world you want to live in, your going to be a lonely little girl.

far out, im over this, why did i even reply.

LOL your too emotionally attached Carl :)

Can't read into these things too much... the problem is some phools take these reviews like gospel... and high 14's ... thats a bit out of touch..

[cashie]

I think the caradvice comparo was pretty good for what it was.

Those who are debating the fwkW, who cares, both cars were tested on the same dyno on the same day, so the rwkW are an excellent comparison. (but what are they both like in the real world, ie. not on a dyno)?
Those who are debating the times, both cars were tested at the same location, by the same guy, running similar weights onboard, granted, playing around with the launch technique on both cars may have yielded a bit better times.
For the sake of comparing two unmodified "performance" sedans, this test has highlighted a few truths.

Areas the Ford can't touch the Holden on are (IMO)
- Handling in the front end due to the huge mass over the front wheels
- Tunability of the Boss engine (the L76 still has some limitations)
- That annoyingly small power band rev range, where you are just getting into the chunky torque zone and next thing you hit the rev limiter
- Around town fuel economy (in my experience the Boss will slurp more fuel around town, probably due to the cars weight etc)

Overall, I still rather the look and style of the Falcon interior over the VE, I think sadly Holden have rested too long on the VE and it is long overdue a restyle.

[Curtis-R]

Overall, I still rather the look and style of the Falcon interior over the VE, I think sadly Holden have rested too long on the VE and it is long overdue a restyle.

long overdue a restyle?? :confused:

[nang3]

LOL. Of course a VE V8 calais is better than an FG XT, it costs $23,700 RRP more! Try comparing a G6E Turbo with an omega and see which you prefer.

haha exactly, u cant compare poverty pack with luxo spec FFS !!! anyone in their right mind would prefer the Calais !!

good on the XR8 i reckon for finally getting some credibility, still not my cup of tea though..
and good on the non-Cyclops members on here for praising the competition!!!!!


We have a 360kwrw F6 with 285 rears and it makes no real difference with the wider rubber. There is clearly less mechanical grip, but the other problem is the transition from when it hits boost... shit box NA 6 banger to 427 = wheels spin city.

I remember you posting this in another thread somewhere but i cant remember if i replied.. im wondering if its the tune that your particular F6 has - i.e. too aggressive in the way boost comes on??
I've driven a ~330rwkw Turbo ute and driving normally in traffic its nigh on impossible to pick the difference between it and a stocker..
If you just stomp the it to the floor of course it just bags up like no tomorrow, but if you modulate the throttle to maintain traction it's like a slingshot with just a huge progressive wall of torque pushing you forward..

I dont mean gingerly accelerating either to avoid wheelspin, but really driving it hard but just not stamping on it... Not saying you just stomp on it either, but maybe the traction issues are coming from the aggressiveness of the tune maybe?

although now that i think about, my GF has an 09 VE auto and it just wont spin the wheels in the dry, even fully hooked round corners etc.. I dont know if thats because its just gutless (V6) or because it does have much better mech grip??

[cashie]

long overdue a restyle?? :confused:

IMHO Yes............. OK, maybe long overdue was a bit of an exaggeration..... :)

[CarlFST60L]

LOL your too emotionally attached Carl :)

Can't read into these things too much... the problem is some phools take these reviews like gospel... and high 14's ... thats a bit out of touch..

lol, its true, people do take these reviews like gospel. I get people all the time carrying on about this and that without having ever actually driven the cars they are talking about. Its all good fun though.


haha exactly, u cant compare poverty pack with luxo spec FFS !!! anyone in their right mind would prefer the Calais !!

good on the XR8 i reckon for finally getting some credibility, still not my cup of tea though..
and good on the non-Cyclops members on here for praising the competition!!!!!



I remember you posting this in another thread somewhere but i cant remember if i replied.. im wondering if its the tune that your particular F6 has - i.e. too aggressive in the way boost comes on??
I've driven a ~330rwkw Turbo ute and driving normally in traffic its nigh on impossible to pick the difference between it and a stocker..
If you just stomp the it to the floor of course it just bags up like no tomorrow, but if you modulate the throttle to maintain traction it's like a slingshot with just a huge progressive wall of torque pushing you forward..

I dont mean gingerly accelerating either to avoid wheelspin, but really driving it hard but just not stamping on it... Not saying you just stomp on it either, but maybe the traction issues are coming from the aggressiveness of the tune maybe?

although now that i think about, my GF has an 09 VE auto and it just wont spin the wheels in the dry, even fully hooked round corners etc.. I dont know if thats because its just gutless (V6) or because it does have much better mech grip??

Its a hard story to explain properly in here in keyboard land, and its a bit off topic, but originally the F6 had 300kwrw which is the same as my 300kwrw VE LS2 R8 and without a shadow of a doubt, the VE R8 had far more mechanical grip. Its just more noticeable now as that extra 60kwrw happens that comes on pretty quickly when pushing the limits of its performance. I am not trying to bag it or put it down, its heaps of fun, its very powerful and extremely fast. I just rate the mechanical grip and power delivery of the VE HSV over the FPV offering with the same 285 rubber on the rear. And its not from what I read on car's guide, the cars are in the car park ready to go ;)

Regarding the tune, its a good tune, its safe, sure it could be made more tame, but the car has peddle to control how much you want unleashed!

In terms of smile factor and show off factor, the F6 wins, its a wild ride that would make any grown man smile. The R8 is just linear, once its on, its on, there is no character, no Jekyll and Hyde factor.

[Excellent]

I think this is far more than nothing!

Nothing is when we have 12 pages on a 0.1 second difference between an F6and GTS and you would swear some people would kill to have that 0.1 of a second on their side.

It's obvious the VE is behind the FG on many fronts including interior design, though personally I still think the VE is a better looking car. My main beef with the VE is the mechanical side of things, Transmissions, gearboxes, and engines (especially 6 cylinders) are all better in the FG. Like everyone acknowledges the VE needs a revamp asap!

Agree with you on all points you raise. But is it so clear cut as you put it?

Not everyone agrees, though. Apart from the fanboys, does anybody care about Falcons any more? If the sales are any guide, the answer would be not many. Even with the good reviews the Falcon gets, it's not really getting the sales it deserves.

So why aren't buyers interested? As I said, the answer is more than just about winning magazine reviews or fuel economy tests.

[FlatfootV8]

LOL. Of course a VE V8 calais is better than an FG XT, it costs $23,700 RRP more! Try comparing a G6E Turbo with an omega and see which you prefer.

Hell I wished it was a G6E turbo which is the nicest looking car of the whole FG range. A G6E turbo and a Calais V8 I would of had the best of both worlds really.

The FG XT is a good car ok it not a fair comparison to the Calais but the XT and G6E are based on the same basic car as the Omega and Calais just with added extra's.

[Carby]

Agree with you on all points you raise. But is it so clear cut as you put it?


So why aren't buyers interested? As I said, the answer is more than just about winning magazine reviews or fuel economy tests.


Very telling point - it has me quite surprised really, there obviously is a reason but it's beyond my comprehension...............

[nang3]

lol, its true, people do take these reviews like gospel. I get people all the time carrying on about this and that without having ever actually driven the cars they are talking about. Its all good fun though.



Its a hard story to explain properly in here in keyboard land, and its a bit off topic, but originally the F6 had 300kwrw which is the same as my 300kwrw VE LS2 R8 and without a shadow of a doubt, the VE R8 had far more mechanical grip. Its just more noticeable now as that extra 60kwrw happens that comes on pretty quickly when pushing the limits of its performance. I am not trying to bag it or put it down, its heaps of fun, its very powerful and extremely fast. I just rate the mechanical grip and power delivery of the VE HSV over the FPV offering with the same 285 rubber on the rear. And its not from what I read on car's guide, the cars are in the car park ready to go ;)

Regarding the tune, its a good tune, its safe, sure it could be made more tame, but the car has peddle to control how much you want unleashed!

In terms of smile factor and show off factor, the F6 wins, its a wild ride that would make any grown man smile. The R8 is just linear, once its on, its on, there is no character, no Jekyll and Hyde factor.

yeh that makes sense, i should prolly drive a modded big capacity V8 to compare as the last V8 i drove was a stock BA GT :spew:

I wonder just how the Holdens get so much more mechanical grip than the Fords?? my GFs previous company car was a BF XT auto and it felt soft and wallowy like her omega but the XT could spin the wheels at will while the VE just doesn't at all.. the XT defo had more poke but that wouldnt be the only difference..

[snappy]

Yeah, thats what i meant smart ass, do you sleep with one of the guys at caradvice or something? Do you want to jump up to defend your boyfriends or something? :stick:

Are you trying to say you think im some Neanderthal drag racer? U clearly have no idea. I have only ever raced my cars a few times, and have not yet run the work hack VE SSV with AFM with 400km on the clock.

These days anyone can publish an article. If you think its ok to publish articles about two cars but neglecting to publish why they are a so far behind what ever other mag or car journo's results, good for you, but publishing incomplete and inaccurate is not for me. Most people want details and facts. Its bad for the car companies as they get false data which creates problems in the market, and you get retards out saying dumb shit based on what they read in some article without understanding what they are saying. I can just see it now, some tard going "those XR8 and VE AFM's are shit, they only do high 14's" :lol: If thats the world you want to live in, your going to be a lonely little girl.

far out, im over this, why did i even reply.

settle down mate its just a car review . Also another review on afm got a mid 14 run and a slower acceleration time of 1 sec. So maybe is not that far of the mark . Its also not the first time the xr8 has been in the 14's even though i seen a stock one run a 13.5 . Also seen a stock f6 run 12.59 and the quite often get 13.6 in reviews . The fells said the run was done with 2 blokes ,full tank and camera equipment on a private road not a strip so at the end of the day its probly not a bad time .


Very telling point - it has me quite surprised really, there obviously is a reason but it's beyond my comprehension...............

Until recently falcons did not have emission levels accepted by most businesses because there all trying to go green so fleet sales might pick up they might not but i read somewhere that somthing like 70% of falcon sales were private buyers and 60% of those were higher spec models so there probly not doing that bad cash wise . Lots of sales dont always translate to profit. But in saying that more sales should ensure more jobs which would be nice .

[CarlFST60L]

Far out, i must have had a bad morning, my post was hectic :lol: