Commodore becomes more gutless in the name of economy

[fpv_gtho]

Holden cuts power to save fuel - drive.com.au

Holden is sacrificing power and performance in its Commodore V6 in an effort to save owners between $1.68 and $3.65 per week.

In only the second time in the Commodore’s 30-year history a new model will arrive in dealerships with less power than the model it replaces, all with the aim of reducing fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.

I can seriously see this backfiring and causing the real world economy of the Commodore to increase. Less power at a higher peak will just cause the engine to work harder.

[SlickHolden]

But it's all about the sticker - and that's all people care about..

Noone cares i thrashed the suit case out of the VE Calais a few years back and got around 9l/100km. And did it easy. All they care about is what it says from the factory on the window today.

I have worked out the 5 speed auto is better in real driving. But the 4 speed is better when being officially tested maybe because it's got lower ratio in it?.

My tip is we will all have to reduce car sizes. But i don't think old falcon/commodore sizes will be enough anymore.. I'm leaning towards 4600-4750mm lengths 1800mm width 1420mm height and around 2700-2800mm wheelbase. I think interior size will be good enough at the expense of boot size. LWB will probably be the old size cars.

That's my personal thought on falcon/commodore moving into the future - even with lower fuel prices. That's plan b.


Also my little bitch almost forgot.. This shows holden disrespect to 6's. You never see it from the V8's. People like myself like V6's. And i want to be able to buy a powerful one. But it's very limited comparing it to the V8's.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by fpv_gtho

Holden cuts power to save fuel - drive.com.au



I can seriously see this backfiring and causing the real world economy of the Commodore to increase. Less power at a higher peak will just cause the engine to work harder.

the point of having the engine working at a slightly higher rev is good, because at higher rev the engine is more generally efficient. that means that it would pollute less and require less chemical power (so fuel) to obtain the same mechanical power (so hp). it's the same principle behind cylinder deactivation systems in some V8/V12 engines( (MB, Ferrari) or of using small turbocharged engines. surely, in those moments, the engine would consume a higher quantity of fuel than, but it will spend it better obtain more power with less emissions.
besides, this considerations are good just when speaking about the homologation process, when the car, and the engine, are tested to evaluate the emission and consumption levels. unfortunately, the way those levels are evaluated are completely unrealistic. so we could finally obtain a car that pollute less than its predecessor, but just from a theoretical point of view.

[AERO_HDT]

A measly 5kW?

I'm sure fleet buyers would be happy to lose 5kW to gain better economy, mum and dad buyers would be rather thankful.

I think losing less than 3% peak power (who uses it anyway?) will be noticed by no-one except the idiots down at the pub who drive Proton Satrias and Nissan Micras.

Hehe.

[pimento]

On the second page they mention that peak torque is delivered a little lower in the range, so it may actually work. Still, it's pretty minimal. If they really wanted to go green they should commit to a diesel option, or at least a media friendly hybrid.

[clutch-monkey]

i guess they just looked at the idea of "let's not make such huge barges" and thought, nah, we'll just cut power instead.

[Daz27]

I was reading an article in a magazine which stated buying an old vt v8 ss instead of a new hybrid is actually a good thing considering the amount you would fork out to buy the new car versus actual savings to the pocket in fuel costs and to the environment. It would take something like 26 years to see a benefit to your wallet and much longer for the environment considering there would be another shitbox hybrid on the road. As far as I am concerned hybrids are just there for wank value for tofu lovers. Save the whale I say, leave our big cars alone. Diesels are ok though as long as they are a turbo and go like stink.

[fpv_gtho]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

the point of having the engine working at a slightly higher rev is good, because at higher rev the engine is more generally efficient. that means that it would pollute less and require less chemical power (so fuel) to obtain the same mechanical power (so hp). it's the same principle behind cylinder deactivation systems in some V8/V12 engines( (MB, Ferrari) or of using small turbocharged engines. surely, in those moments, the engine would consume a higher quantity of fuel than, but it will spend it better obtain more power with less emissions.
besides, this considerations are good just when speaking about the homologation process, when the car, and the engine, are tested to evaluate the emission and consumption levels. unfortunately, the way those levels are evaluated are completely unrealistic. so we could finally obtain a car that pollute less than its predecessor, but just from a theoretical point of view.

Thats assuming the owners are going to be content in driving like an old man. Local large car buyers expect a reasonable amount of performance even from the standard vehicles. If that power's not at an easily accessible part of the rev range (the current engines produce peak power above the indicated rev line for christ sake) the economy will surely turn to crap.

Its almost proven with the Aurion and Falcon here. The Toyota has a lower government rating (9.9L/100km) than the Ford (10.5L/100km) but the higher peak outputs of the Toyota regularly turn back real word figures of 12-15L/100km whilst the Falcon has consistently come back around 9L/100km.

As far as it only being only 5kw lost for the Commodore, its 5kw less on an already embarrasingly cheap package.

[Daz27]

Originally Posted by fpv_gtho

As far as it only being only 5kw lost for the Commodore, its 5kw less on an already embarrasingly cheap package.

Harsh

[2ndclasscitizen]

Have you driven a VE? They're not really that gutless. The V6 picks up and goes just as quick as the old 235kw V8s.

[AERO_HDT]

Erm.... just as quick as a V8 with 5.7 litres of capacity, miles more torque and almost 60kW more power?



As for the Commodore being embarrassingly cheap, I guess we'll see who's talking when the Falcon goes to a Brazilian built V6 engine and becomes front wheel drive...

Fordota Falmry anyone?

[clutch-monkey]

why would the falcon go FWD if they have the mondeo? i thought they were merely getting the V6 engine to replace the I6.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Originally Posted by AERO_HDT

Erm.... just as quick as a V8 with 5.7 litres of capacity, miles more torque and almost 60kW more power?

I didn't say as quick. In a flat out drag the V8 would still wallop it, but only once it got up and boogie-ing, the Holden-spec LS1's need a good rev. In the real world, where you really only need a quick spurt of acceleration to clear an intersection or turn across traffic, they're pretty much identical. And it's 40kw, not 60kw.

Oh, and this in a brand new, as in 300km on the clock, VE Calais against a VY2 Calais.

[Ferrer]

Wouldn't it better to fit low rolling resistance tires, longer gear ratios and improving the aerodinamics?

Originally Posted by clutch-monkey

why would the falcon go FWD if they have the mondeo? i thought they were merely getting the V6 engine to replace the I6.

Maybe the plan is the next Falcon being Mondeo-based and stop importing the Mondeo.

Altough I hope it's not the case.

[SlickHolden]

Originally Posted by 2ndclasscitizen

Have you driven a VE? They're not really that gutless. The V6 picks up and goes just as quick as the old 235kw V8s.

Well i gave a VY SS a hell of a fright in the VE calais v6 in 1st gear. Past that he flew away after 87kp/h.