XR8 v SS AFM Dyno Run

[DJM83]

Anyway back on topic

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

4. The nature of the torque delivery and ZF auto make the XR8 slower than you might think moreso than anything wrong with the engine. The journos said it 'seemed slower' than the SS but it was actually quicker.

.

Very true, a mate and I did some back to back testing over a weekend using an FG XR8 and a VE SSV both 6 speed autos. The VE always felt fast and urgent the FG smooth and cruisy. However the FG always snuck away under accelleration, steered better and felt more solid. Whereas the VE is not a bad car, but not as polished as the FG.

We NEVER concerned ourselves with fuel consumption.

However I've now had 3 VE's. All 6.0, 6 speed Autos. My current car a Calais via it's on board computer is after 16,500km at 14.8 l/100km. However this is with less than 500 of country/freeway running. It's an urban car lots of traffic and stop start driving. (my TS50 used to average 18.5 doing the same job) Considering the performance and size of the car I think it does a reasonable job. Cant comment on the AFM haven't driven one, but hopefully I'll get one later in the year. The alternative of an Aurion holds no appeal.

[The Monty]

So did we end up seeing the fuel usage rates from the test, or not?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by prydey

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.

How much power do you need to travel at 100kph?

[EDManual]

i think i have read you only need around 20kw or hp? at 100kmh.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Wally

How much power do you need to travel at 100kph?

How much power do you need to get to 100kph?

[Wally]

You're asking the wrong bloke..if I have to push the accelerator more than 1/4" to go from 0 -100 in the time it takes to change radio stations, I'm peeved, but even then the ponies required aren't all that great. If the engine has to rev it's guts out to achieve peak power, it kinda defeats the attraction of a V8.

[kpcart]

I read a wheels article a couple years ago which did the same testing, and found the Commodore had more power on dyno testing then claimed, and the falcon had less :P
well this test mentioned is at least good for egos on a ford forum (i like both cars).

[snakeoil]

Holden could re-release the AU as the VF and it would outsell the FG..... That's how blind holden's brand loyalty can be..

4V beautiful line and very accurate

The VE always felt fast and urgent the FG smooth and cruisy. However the FG always snuck away under accelleration, steered better and felt more solid. Whereas the VE is not a bad car, but not as polished as the FG.

MYTS beautiful line and very accurate


Ford has always been a smooth and cruisey a solid and stable family run business

GM has always run a policy of sell it sell it sell it and I reckon there day has come

If you look at the amount of models released by Holden in this country over the last 30 years it is like a phone book Ford have made there mistakes too but the Falcon name is still viable and a bloody good drive

I am 50 this year still drivin a Ford V8 still having fun and am so excited by the impending release of the Prius ute.............yeah right

Cheers fellas

[Swordsman88]

Ok guys....Caradvice have put up the story now summarising the outcomes. Can be found here: http://www.caradvice.com.au/30255/fo...final-verdict/

To summarise:
.................................................. ...............................................


If you go through all the figures, you will find the following results in summation:

* Ford Falcon XR8
o 9.82-litres/100km.
o 235.0kW - at the wheels. 288.8kW - at the flywheel.
o 6.54-seconds 0-100km/h.
o 14.72-seconds @ 163.89km/h.
o 39.75m 100-0km/h.
* Holden Commodore SS (AFM)
o 9.79-litres/100km.
o 204.5kW - at the wheels. 252.4kW - at the flywheel.
o 6.74-seconds 0-100km/h.
o 14.80-seconds @ 161.38km/h.
o 38.79m 100-0km/h.
.................................................. ................................................

So basically apart from the brake test the FG won all perf. based tests and near as damnit matched the SS AFM fuel burn (i reckon that result is within the margin of error almost anyway with regard to fuel pumps used etc. etc.)

Make of it what you will but for me, if the AFM version had the same poke as the original and therefore could match it with the FG then why not have AFM. But it doesnt. Moreover, it doesn't supply any realworld fuel economy improvement (consider it doesn't work at low speeds and when idling so if didn't work on the highway it won't work anywhere else) so that doesn't provide any consolation.

Maybe if the roads were flatter the AFM might have had more impact, but it's clutching at straws. In this form, in this car, in the real world, AFM didn't do squat. Apart from making a peformance car peform worse that is. 'nuff said.

[vztrt]

This bit was quite interesting point in the article.

The following figures were achieved prior to the test during our regular test drive conditions:

* Holden Commodore SS (AFM): 822.92km @ 14.1-litres/100km (Average)
* Ford Falcon XR8: 902.80km @ 12.25-litres/100km (Average)

Also one thing to note about the drag race:

The results, in case the graph is a little hard to read, shows the Ford Falcon XR8 winning the 400 metre run a 14.72 second pass and a terminal speed of 163.89km/h, while the Holden Commodore SS AFM managed a marginally slower 14.80 second pass with its terminal speed being 161.38km/h.

[Wally]

Not withstanding the good result for the Falcon, it's a shame they didn't include an SS without AFM for true comparison. Apart from the old blue v red cliche, I'm not sure what the exercise set out to achieve, except maybe focus on marginal differences between the two cars, one that employs DOD for efficiency and the other overhead cams.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Wally

Not withstanding the good result for the Falcon, it's a shame they didn't include an SS without AFM for true comparison. Apart from the old blue v red cliche, I'm not sure what the exercise set out to achieve, except maybe focus on marginal differences between the two cars, one that employs DOD for efficiency and the other overhead cams.

If nothing else it proved there's no logical reason for buying the SS just because of AFM... and showed that you get more bang for your buck with the XR8. That alone made the test extremely worth while.
Im not sure how including the superseded SS in the test would matter, you can't buy an auto SS without AFM, if anything it might make the new car look even worse.
Looks like the XR8 scored a knockout unanimous decision on all counts.

[Wally]

I'm sure a diehard Falcon enthusiast would take heart in the results, but I'm not convinced it will translate into anything tangible for sales. Sales volumes of V8s prove there are only a select few of us who actually buy them from new and less likely to purchase on the basis of a viral marketing campaign or a comparo that has a tentative inference prediction and speculative goodness of fit.

It's easy to wipe brand purchases off as ignorance when the choice isn't skewed towards a personal bias. The SS is not my cup of tea, nor are the FPVs, because I prefer my cars to be conservative. The V8 under the bonnet still draws admiration from the late baby boomers and early X generation, but many need an excuse to buy one without being vilified by the boss of the family..... explaining that an overheaded donk tears another one in the pushrodasauris won't cut it when explaining the benefits of one brand over another, but a deliberate piece of kit built into the engine will.

For every plus of the top heavy, cast iron truck engine there will be detractors who will promote the benefits of a cast alloy engine with old school centre of gravity. The flip side would argue issues like the superior breathing and geometry of overhead versus the valve bouncing and flexing pushrod lump. But unless the intent is to street race and generally hoon, either choice is a good one and the purchase comes down to price and styling.

[flappist]

Reading through the whole thing all I can deduce is it is an attempt by holden marketing to allow potential V8 customers to validate an emotional rather than logical purchace with a spin doctored technology giving the customer a story to tell their partner/whomever to explain why they bought the car other than the usual emotional ones.

Irrespective of whether or not the technology works it will be a winner.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Wally

Not withstanding the good result for the Falcon, it's a shame they didn't include an SS without AFM for true comparison.

I would have liked to see that as well.

[ST]

Has the manual version of the SS been detuned to 260kw also?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ST

Has the manual version of the SS been detuned to 260kw also?

According to the website the manual will have 270kw and the auto's will be 260 kw and will have AFM.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by vztrt

According to the website the manual will have 270kw and the auto's will be 260 kw and will have AFM.

According to Holden AFM doesnt work on the manual.. according to testing results so far it doesnt work on the auto either..

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

According to Holden AFM doesnt work on the manual..

I don't think they have got it working in the states as well....I can seee a rise in Manual sales or pre AFM Commos holding their value.

I'm sure tuners will be able to turn it off anyway.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I don't think they have got it working in the states as well....I can seee a rise in Manual sales or pre AFM Commos holding their value.

I'm sure tuners will be able to turn it off anyway.

That's all true, however most people don't want to modify their cars and/or prefer auto's.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

That's all true, however most people don't want to modify their cars and/or prefer auto's.

These will be the same people that don't care about qtr mile times and will probably like the idea of having something in the car that will 'save' them fuel.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by vztrt

These will be the same people that don't care about qtr mile times and will probably like the idea of having something in the car that will 'save' them fuel.

That's true too, and as Flappist alluded to the initial marketing "spin" will suck some in, but give it 12 months or so and some negative press from actual results and it will loose its "gloss". Most consumers aren't that stupid that they won't work it out... are they????

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

That's true too, and as Flappist alluded to the initial marketing "spin" will suck some in, but give it 12 months or so and some negative press from actual results and it will loose its "gloss". Most consumers aren't that stupid that they won't work it out... are they????

I dunno we are talking about Holden buyers!!

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

That's true too, and as Flappist alluded to the initial marketing "spin" will suck some in, but give it 12 months or so and some negative press from actual results and it will loose its "gloss". Most consumers aren't that stupid that they won't work it out... are they????

If they could manage to sell the Camira to an unsuspecting Australian Public.........then GM will have no problems selling this gimick. Space Shuttle technology anyone........LOL

[NC1183]

Ford Marketing need to jump on this and do a new ad campaign.

[prydey]

if the xr8 was detuned to 270 or 280 i dare say it would achieve similar improvements to economy as the afm ss does over the previous 270kw version.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

According to Holden AFM doesnt work on the manual.. according to testing results so far it doesnt work on the auto either..

More-so is the problem of the 'shunt' of the not-so-seamless transition from V8 to V4. The torque converter helps to disguise it. But it's still perceptible according to Drive.com.au

Given their typical bias, it's actually probably noticeable. In a manual, i reckon the V4-V8 transition would be a fair thump!

IMO If you want AFM, buy a supercharger or turbocharger!