caradvice.com.au on a roll - now its the AFM's turn

[Chilliman]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/50810/ho...iew-road-test/

Now its the AFM 6.0Litres turn:

Test saw 16.2L/100km on a city/highway cycle.
6-speed auto described as dull - they like the engine note though and its torquey

[Falcon Coupe]

Second thread and second link fixed, for some reason you are adding like this: [URL=http://]http:

Only require a single http after the URL brackets.

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Second thread and second link fixed, for some reason you are adding like this: [URL=http://]http:

Only require a single http.

Thanks - I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Mr Hardware]

I'm liking this caradvice website - it seems to tell it how it is in the real world.

[4Vman]

Pity some of the bigger sites and publications arent as brave and honest as these guys.

AFM + SIDI = FAIL.

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Pity some of the bigger sites and publications arent as brave and honest as these guys.

AFM + SIDI = EPIC FAIL.

I fixed it for you Norm.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Pity some of the bigger sites and publications arent as brave and honest as these guys.

AFM + SIDI = FAIL.

I guess Holden doesn't pay enough money to keep em quiet.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I guess Holden doesn't pay enough money to keep em quiet.

It still absolutely amazes me the AFM cars arent outed by the media more....
Clearly they dont do what they claim to.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I guess Holden doesn't pay enough money to keep em quiet.

Ever thought they might just be looking to get on the books, the best way to get to the top of the ladder would be to punch out an all out full frontal assault then just wait for the phone call.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Pity some of the bigger sites and publications arent as brave and honest as these guys.

AFM = FAIL
SIDI = FAIL.

Being smaller and not relying on the corporate dollar (as much) means they can do this. There is less commercial risk i suppose.

That kind of review has not in my recent living memory been written by a mainstream media.

We have all seen plenty of examples of having words not line up to the facts as presented. Eg VE SS Felt faster [was slower].

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Pity some of the bigger sites and publications arent as brave and honest as these guys.

AFM + SIDI = FAIL.

They call it like it is, part of the reason alot of us are starting to take more notice of what they say. Sometimes they review Ford's and i think they are being a bit harsh but by and large they are pretty much impartial. they are hars on everyone.....

Goauto (lesser extent these days though) and Caradvice are the two outfits i find the most impartial in their assessment of cars. They provide clear cut statements, and reasons why. If you dont' like them then so be it, but is all out in the open. Carpoint (carsales....wheels mag offshoot) and drivel are all over the shop, make errors and in drives case, exhibit pretty clear cut bias at time IMO.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

They call it like it is, part of the reason alot of us are starting to take more notice of what they say. Sometimes they review Ford's and i think they are being a bit harsh but by and large they are pretty much impartial. they are hars on everyone.....

Goauto (lesser extent these days though) and Caradvice are the two outfits i find the most impartial in their assessment of cars. They provide clear cut statements, and reasons why. If you dont' like them then so be it, but is all out in the open. Carpoint (carsales....wheels mag offshoot) and drivel are all over the shop, make errors and in drives case, exhibit pretty clear cut bias at time IMO.

Funnily enough both are mud over at the darkside...
Seems the truth hurts.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Funnily enough both are mud over at the darkside...
Seems the truth hurts.

Indeed. Like i said, i don't agree with everything they say, but FFS you have to have a bit of a backbone no? Call it like it is, right now. There is an awful lot of hedging going on when it comes to GMH....talk about how the 'next model' will take Ford out, how a car 'feels faster' or 'has recorded better times (prob. tuned press car...)' etc. Ford gets no such reprieve. Maybe this, combined with the skeptical fan base is why Ford has worked so hard globally and locally on producing quality product. If you look at FG, while there are issue, most were/are minor and are already fixed. The biggest gripe i heard on launch was the lack of a locking fuel filler flap (now added). FFS that is nothing compared to the disapointment and downright anger i would have if i shelled out for a new VE My2010 where the main 2 'new' powerplants updates were so comprehensively proven to be rubbish.....

Getting back on topic, i wonder how the holden engineers feel about all this... i assume they were forced to put this rubbish to market half baked because of budget limitations or somethin.... The tech involved here might have been useable had GM invested more owrk into the base design and local tuning..... I have to say, the 16.2L/100km is one of the worst fuel burn figures ive ever seen for a car in a media review...esp one that inolved highway running. And a 0-100 of 6.5 sec is nothing to crow how about niether (hell the 'slow' BOSS 290 at FG launch was doing better than that without being run in...).

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

And a 0-100 of 6.5 sec is nothing to crow how about niether (hell the 'slow' BOSS 290 at FG launch was doing better than that without being run in...).

Maybe it was wet when they tested it because 6.5 is very slow for an eight these days, the six cyl brigade do those numbers now.

[Giant Cranium]

i get 13.6 in my boss 290 manual. below fords claim. where holden cant even get close to theres with a 260kw auto

[TUF_302]

Its good to finally here and read a non Holden biased review of a commy, it was getting ridiculous how all the others were trying to make Ford look bad even though they are going better!

[Dr Smith]

Do you get the feeling it's going to be a "Annus Horribilis" for Holden in 2010?

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Do you get the feeling it's going to be a "Annus Horribilis" for Holden in 2010?

Sounds like something you recieve with your first go at a "H.S.V"

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Sounds like something you recieve with your first go at a "H.S.V"

Herpes Simplex Virus. Sounds terrible... But once you have it. Can't get rid of the problem.
To the O.P. i'll get back on topic now!

[SSD-85]

Do we have any other negative (aka realistic) reviews of holdens' POS fleet? something other than caradvice, just so it cant be said theyre biased.

[Auslandau]

the Commodore SS ute develops an adequate 260kW of power and brawny 517Nm of torque (in automatic guise) and is fitted with Holden’s AFM (Active Fuel Management) cylinder-shutdown technology in a redundant attempt to save fuel.

Yes they do seem to be getting what Ford got for years!



| [/url] |

[Falcon_Crazy]

Geez..not a great review for the Lion Corner.the comments are typical CA with the regulars in there. My neighbour has one of these new caprice with AFM. Was crowing about its 9l/100km on a trip to Brisbane. I was expecting a much lesspr figire given he keeps to the limit and drives like a nanna

[CADSKY]

great to hear. i havent really been keeping an eye on the ss camp lately and im shocked that the ss is still only putting out 260kw to say the least. no wonder you never here them talk about the power figures on there ads.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by CADSKY

great to hear. i havent really been keeping an eye on the ss camp lately and im shocked that the ss is still only putting out 260kw to say the least. no wonder you never here them talk about the power figures on there ads.

AFM puts out 260
Non AFM puts out 270.

[CADSKY]

Originally Posted by vztrt

AFM puts out 260
Non AFM puts out 270.

still not a very big step. base boss puts out 290kw's. what happens later on in the year when the base coyote comes out. 307kw's is what i have heard.

[Kamshaaft]

That figure is so ridiculously high I still have a hard time believing they did their maths correctly, especially since LS1s were getting 11.5 - 12.5 back in the day driven normally (with a manual however, but it's still food for thought). This is higher than everything else I've got about AFM, however this is newer than all that. If this is accurate then Holden really have gone and failed harder than even a blind Ford boy could imagine. It would be on a scale comparitive to when they introduced the Camira.

The fanboy aspect to this thread is outstanding though, whether or not the reporting is accurate. Always the same people too. I just love the golden nuggets of approval for 'realistic figures such as 16L/100km', and 'it's a breath of fresh air to see truthful reporting', as if everythng else was just part of some big conspiracy including first hand accounts and pen & paper proof.

I remain exactly as sceptical of this report as you Holden bashing fanboys are ready to accept it so easily, however I haven't yet heard anything good about the AFM cars, from the small amount of info going out and within GMi, and I do think AFM is a tremendous heap of crap. I'll wait for more sources, instead of swallowing this pill so easily - after all, you guys say these car journalists all have an agenda. I don't hold out much hope though, in all seriousness.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

That figure is so ridiculously high I still have a hard time believing they did their maths correctly, especially since LS1s were getting 11.5 - 12.5 back in the day driven normally (with a manual however, but it's still food for thought). This is higher than everything else I've got about AFM, however this is newer than all that. If this is accurate then Holden really have gone and failed harder than even a blind Ford boy could imagine. It would be on a scale comparitive to when they introduced the Camira.

The fanboy aspect to this thread is outstanding though, whether or not the reporting is accurate. Always the same people too. I just love the golden nuggets of approval for 'realistic figures such as 16L/100km', and 'it's a breath of fresh air to see truthful reporting', as if everythng else was just part of some big conspiracy including first hand accounts and pen & paper proof.

I remain exactly as sceptical of this report as you Holden bashing fanboys are ready to accept it so easily, however I haven't yet heard anything good about the AFM cars, from the small amount of info going out and within GMi, and I do think AFM is a tremendous heap of crap. I'll wait for more sources, instead of swallowing this pill so easily - after all, you guys say these car journalists all have an agenda. I don't hold out much hope though, in all seriousness.

Yes...you can be one of the many many on here that sit on the fence and yell 'fanboy' to all the Ford supporters. I respect your right to be circumspect, but mate when it comes to this issue (i.e. AFM V8 and holden biased media reporting) there is a fair old whack of evidence to prove it. Circumstantial alot it maybe, but where there is smoke there's fire.

I'm not saying being one eyed is good, but its become quite fashionable of late from many on here (which is hilarius given it is a ford enthusiast forum) to take this 'im all impratial' mantra a bit far. I've been accused of being one eyed more times than i can count over issues concerning everythign from styling, to GM engines to sale numbers.... That is fine, i respect peole's right to do that. But i consider myself and many others that post on alot of these issues (remmeber we have read a fair bit of evidence, some of it rumours from the inside too...) to be quite impartial. We didn't write the AFM off out of hand, even though it has never really worked for any manufacturer that tried it.... We waited and we saw. You can wait a bit longer if you like, but i've seen enough.

As for the crazy high fuel burn, it could be a typo but its mentoined numerous times in teh article, no one from the site has corrected it and the author made straight reference to it in the text. To be honet, i thought it was 12.6L/100km when i quickly perused chilliman's OP. I thought, hmm, not too bad for a bit of highway work in there from the AFM.... Then i read the article. GM V8 VAFM=STILL EQUALS FAIL!!

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

The fanboy aspect to this thread is outstanding though, whether or not the reporting is accurate. Always the same people too. I just love the golden nuggets of approval for 'realistic figures such as 16L/100km', and 'it's a breath of fresh air to see truthful reporting', as if everythng else was just part of some big conspiracy including first hand accounts and pen & paper proof.

I remain exactly as sceptical of this report as you Holden bashing fanboys are ready to accept it so easily, however I haven't yet heard anything good about the AFM cars, from the small amount of info going out and within GMi, and I do think AFM is a tremendous heap of crap. I'll wait for more sources, instead of swallowing this pill so easily - after all, you guys say these car journalists all have an agenda. I don't hold out much hope though, in all seriousness.

It is so predictable it is beyond funny and just gone straight to sad really.

[mik]

apart from the economy bit it seems pretty similar to other articles on these, to me in certain traffic conditions 16 lp 100 k would seem about average to me for a big engined car, its not a lot to crow about though .