XR8 v SS AFM Dyno Run - Page 4

phillyc · 01-05-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

It doesn't make those power numbers on 91 though.....which i believe was his point. The fuel burn would be on 95 RON as per ADR requirements though.

It really is just splitting hairs though, since its the nature of the power delivery as much as the raw numbers anyway. I do find it curious though that holden sought to quote the numbers on 98....why bother when it isn't what most would consider a mainstream fuel (you couldnt' get it in some major QLD regional cities even last time i passed through) and surely it makes decent numbers on 95RON anyway???

Thanks for the backup Swordy! I can understand 98 octane for the FPV/HSV ratings but for an SS?

Nope, just typical marketing spin by Holden. Better figures for power / torque / economy. Just hide the fact in small writing it needs more expensive fuel.

Lets face it, Holden's power output is on the way down. With their less sophisticated valvetrain going to struggle to meet emissions standards next year. Guess those Ford DOHC motors are looking better than ever!

Wally · 01-05-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Yeah, i'm sure it does. But not as happily as it does on 98 octane. It would also consume somewhere between 5 & 10% more fuel too versus 91 octane.

So, if it was rated on 91octane, then the consumption would be more and the output figures reduced.

As an example the FG I6 puts out 195kw/391Nm on 91 octane. 95 octane sees 198kw/409Nm. In the press release it also said over 200kw on 98 octane. Imagine probably over 420Nm too...

Din = 1013mbar @ 20°C
ECE = 990 mbar @ 25°C

Conversion ECE = ~Din x 0.9683

LS2 HSV
Power, 305kW(DIN) @ 6000 rpm. Torque, 530Nm @ 4400.(95 Ron)
Power, 307kW(DIN) @ 6000 rpm. Torque, 550Nm @ 4400.(98 Ron)

Difference 1%

FPV GT

Power, 315kW (DIN) @ 6500rpm. Torque 551Nm @ 4750rpm. (98 Ron)

I guess economy also incorporates cost. What is the % difference between Ron91 and Ron98... 7%?

JPFS1 · 01-05-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Lets face it, Holden's power output is on the way down. With their less sophisticated valvetrain going to struggle to meet emissions standards next year. Guess those Ford DOHC motors are looking better than ever!

That's probably why they've got several mules running around Melbourne with OHC's.... ;)

GT014 · 01-05-2009, 02:40 PM

Can the FG XR8 run on RON91 or not recommended?

Kieron · 01-05-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish2

The tech is not new. Caddilac did it in 81 with no success and lots of dead motors to show for it.

Probably more accurate to say the concept isn't new, but the technology is. The Caddy setup was very rudimentary and was of little advantage.

dazbug, the FG XR8 really needs to run on 95, the handbook says it can run on 91 but I get the impression that would only be in an emergency, the knock sensors should handle it though.

Out of interest, the economy of my FG XR8 is getting better with more K's on the clock, nearly up to 8,000 now and the trippy is reporting 13.2. It's never been reset, avg speed about 45 and my driving mix is about 60/40 (peak hour/freeway) with the odd full tilt 1/2 gear squirt and using 95 exclusively.

500SEC · 01-05-2009, 03:18 PM

In Germany, a vehicle must generate the quote power output or the maker risks a fine. What is the situation in Australia? Is it only 'buyer-beware'?

AUXRVIII · 01-05-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFS1

That's probably why they've got several mules running around Melbourne with OHC's.... ;)

6.2 SOHC V8?

imugli · 01-05-2009, 08:33 PM

Regarding air con / climate control, they ran them on alternate runs.
So between Melbourne and Sydney, one car had it on and on the return journey the other car did.

**DJM83** · 02-05-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I can't for the life of me understand how nobbling the performance of a performance sedan IN THE NAME of improving fuel economy then achieve no meaningful improvement in fuel economy atleast against your competitors is a positive...
It seems a "loose loose" situation...

So very true. Why would people that are looking for a 'performance' car in the SS be worried about fuel consumption? Maybe the people that are looking at an AFM equipped SS should be over at the toyota lot looking at a prius. Buy a 'proper' SS or nothing at all

4Vman · 03-05-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM83

So very true. Why would people that are looking for a 'performance' car in the SS be worried about fuel consumption? Maybe the people that are looking at an AFM equipped SS should be over at the toyota lot looking at a prius. Buy a 'proper' SS or nothing at all

Spot on..

AUXRVIII · 03-05-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM83

So very true. Why would people that are looking for a 'performance' car in the SS be worried about fuel consumption? Maybe the people that are looking at an AFM equipped SS should be over at the toyota lot looking at a prius. Buy a 'proper' SS or nothing at all

Because it has the potential to bring the fuel economy down to what you can get from a 6 and still have better performance than the 6.
Regardless of how much fuel it uses they would still use less than the same car without AFM. If anyone thinks a 10kw drop in engine performance is significant then they should remember the difference in performance between it and the car which it's compared against which has 30kw more, it's stuff all, so a 10kw drop is nothing.
It seems to me that there are some that are just looking for an argument regarding the benefit of AFM and are blinded by bias.
AFM is not a dud as some suggest and there are drivers out there which would benefit from it. Anyone who drives from the Sunshine Coast down to the Gold Coast for example would benefit from it as the terrain in most sections is reasonably flat, unlike the Hume section which was used for the test.

prydey · 03-05-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Because it has the potential to bring the fuel economy down to what you can get from a 6 and still have better performance than the 6.
Regardless of how much fuel it uses they would still use less than the same car without AFM. If anyone thinks a 10kw drop in engine performance is significant then they should remember the difference in performance between it and the car which it's compared against which has 30kw more, it's stuff all, so a 10kw drop is nothing.
It seems to me that there are some that are just looking for an argument regarding the benefit of AFM and are blinded by bias.
AFM is not a dud as some suggest and there are drivers out there which would benefit from it. Anyone who drives from the Sunshine Coast down to the Gold Coast for example would benefit from it as the terrain in most sections is reasonably flat, unlike the Hume section which was used for the test.

holdens own figures for the AFM SS show very little improvement in fuel economy. If you detuned a standard SS to the same power you could possibly achieve similar results. adjust your driving style and you could almost achieve better results.

AUXRVIII · 03-05-2009, 11:07 AM

Over a distance of 20,000km for the year what would be the cost saving?
Change your diving style to save fuel? O.k, purchase a car with AFM, change your driving style then save even more fuel.

prydey · 03-05-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Over a distance of 20,000km for the year what would be the cost saving?
Change your diving style to save fuel? O.k, purchase a car with AFM, change your driving style then save even more fuel.

as the owner of a v8, fuel saving wasn't in my thought process when buying. i can adjust my driving style to save a little if i want to but i also know that when i want it the cars full potential is there waiting.

AFM would have more credit if the power was left the same. you could argue that some of the fuel savings are from the 'detune', not the AFM.

**DJM83** · 03-05-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Because it has the potential to bring the fuel economy down to what you can get from a 6 and still have better performance than the 6.

So when the AFM equipped SS is producing better performance then the 6 im damn sure it isnt producing better economy.
You missed my point, if anyone is looking at an SS and wondering about economy then maybe they shouldnt be looking at one.

vztrt · 03-05-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM83

You missed my point, if anyone is looking at an SS and wondering about economy then maybe they shouldnt be looking at one.

Thats when you point them to the XR6T... :evil3:

4Vman · 03-05-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM83

So when the AFM equipped SS is producing better performance then the 6 im damn sure it isnt producing better economy.
You missed my point, if anyone is looking at an SS and wondering about economy then maybe they shouldnt be looking at one.

It seems kind of stupid to "dumb down" the product to produce a characteristic not fundamental to the model.... 43KW/l of displacement? they're going backwards, espcecially when the competition is at 54KW/l.....
By all means make the car as economical or efficient as possible, but to make it slower and reduce its performance relevant to the previous version let alone its competition AND get no measurable improvement in economy seems like a double whammy to me..

AUXRVIII · 03-05-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM83

So when the AFM equipped SS is producing better performance then the 6 im damn sure it isnt producing better economy.
You missed my point, if anyone is looking at an SS and wondering about economy then maybe they shouldnt be looking at one.

Where did I suggest the AFM car could get better economy than a 6?

prydey · 03-05-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM83

You missed my point, if anyone is looking at an SS and wondering about economy then maybe they shouldnt be looking at one.

too true.

i also believe there is a lot of 'old school' mentality out there. people hear the term 'v8' and it automatically conjures up images of petrol guzzling tanks. under normal conditions the city cycle economy of todays v8's is not much different to the 6cyl of 10yrs ago. when you also consider the amount of power they produce compared to the fuel they use and the weight of the car, they are world class.

its a marketing ploy at best. they may fool some buyers once but they won't be fooled twice.

AUXRVIII · 03-05-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

It seems kind of stupid to "dumb down" the product to produce a characteristic not fundamental to the model.... 43KW/l of displacement? they're going backwards, espcecially when the competition is at 54KW/l.....
By all means make the car as economical or efficient as possible, but to make it slower and reduce its performance relevant to the previous version let alone its competition AND get no measurable improvement in economy seems like a double whammy to me..

Show me a buyer who walks into a showroom and demands that the car must have an engine with a superior kw/litre than the competitors. If that was such a factor then the F6 would clearly outsell the Boss powered cars. It's just a figure for car mags to have something to give their stories substance, bit like this thread really.

**DJM83** · 03-05-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Where did I suggest the AFM car could get better economy than a 6?

Quote:

Because it has the potential to bring the fuel economy down to what you can get from a 6 and still have better performance than the 6.

As good as.

Also im not being biased because it is a Holden id be of the same opinion if it were a Ford and the results were the same. It may be a good thing when it is developed a little more but until then ill have the same opinion on it.

AUXRVIII · 03-05-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

too true.

i also believe there is a lot of 'old school' mentality out there. people hear the term 'v8' and it automatically conjures up images of petrol guzzling tanks. under normal conditions the city cycle economy of todays v8's is not much different to the 6cyl of 10yrs ago. when you also consider the amount of power they produce compared to the fuel they use and the weight of the car, they are world class.

its a marketing ploy at best. they may fool some buyers once but they won't be fooled twice.

Whether this is to be true or not, you simply cannot deny the fact that Holden do sell more Commodores than Ford sell Falcon, even after many comparisons stating the Falcon is a better product, but once again Holden have given the public another reason to walk into their showrooms than what Ford have.

GT69 · 03-05-2009, 11:36 AM

Out of curiousity, whats the litres per 100km on a BMW 5.0litre?

AUXRVIII · 03-05-2009, 11:38 AM

The closest they have to a 5.0 is a 4.8 and it uses 10.8l/100km in the 5 series.

4Vman · 03-05-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Show me a buyer who walks into a showroom and demands that the car must have an engine with a superior kw/litre than the competitors. If that was such a factor then the F6 would clearly outsell the Boss powered cars. It's just a figure for car mags to have something to give their stories substance, bit like this thread really.

Im not saying its a selling feature, its a good measure of technology advancement though....

4Vman · 03-05-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUXRVIII

Whether this is to be true or not, you simply cannot deny the fact that Holden do sell more Commodores than Ford sell Falcon, even after many comparisons stating the Falcon is a better product, but once again Holden have given the public another reason to walk into their showrooms than what Ford have.

BS... holden have a legion of blind brand loyal customers Ford will never have short term, simple as that, its not because their products are better at all..