XR8 v SS AFM Dyno Run - Page 3

Wally · 29-04-2009, 11:47 AM

PS I'd like to see a real fuel consumption test. Both engines/cars run on a track at say 240kW for an hour. It seems a nonsense to me comparing peak powers with minimal power consumption figures.

4Vman · 29-04-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

You're spoiling for a fight. I can't agree on something I don't know. I can tell you that it seems to be an attractive option for some of the guys I've talked to who want an eight, but need a convincing argument for their better halves; perhaps Holden have tapped into that dilemna?

Perhaps it's a pup, but the LS2 was originally designed for DOD and it seems a shame for GM not to pursue it, even if it garners extra funding from the US Energy Dept.

As ZA-289 suggested, there is nothing stopping an owner from doing some fairly easy mods to significantly improve power figures.

I'd like to see the power and torque curves of the two engines under test, to see what really gives at cruise. We could be comparing a 2 pole motor to a 4 pole one. As far as I knew the Boss8 relied on revs to provide equivalent ponies and very few of us V8 owners drive around in excess of 1800rpm .

I didn't think you'd answer the question properly.. that would require you to do or concede something you're not comfortable doing...

geckoGT · 29-04-2009, 11:59 AM

I think an important point is that all those stating this feature is a dud so far seems to be based on one test, one which may have been flawed as the test involved a lot of up hill (something even the manufacturer states will not see an improvement with AFM).

The test is also flawed on the dyno as no non AFM SS was run on the same dyno on the same day and under the same conditions. Therefore this loss of power and performance is null and void unless a non AFM model was tested on the same day.

A more accurate test would have been two identical cars, one with AFM, one without and tested under the same conditions. That would be the only test with any value, this test that was done has too many variables and is therefore not worth serious consideration.

Wheels did a good test driving one from sydney to melbourne (good mix of all conditions, remember AFM does not claim to reduce city driving fuel consumption). Now they just need to do a similar test with same vehicle, one with and without AFM. Now that would be worth considering for the effectiveness of AFM, anything else is just entertainment.

4Vman · 29-04-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I think an important point is that all those stating this feature is a dud so far seems to be based on one test, one which may have been flawed as the test involved a lot of up hill (something even the manufacturer states will not see an improvement with AFM).

The test is also flawed on the dyno as no non AFM SS was run on the same dyno on the same day and under the same conditions. Therefore this loss of power and performance is null and void unless a non AFM model was tested on the same day.

A more accurate test would have been two identical cars, one with AFM, one without and tested under the same conditions. That would be the only test with any value, this test that was done has too many variables and is therefore not worth serious consideration.

Wheels did a good test driving one from sydney to melbourne (good mix of all conditions, remember AFM does not claim to reduce city driving fuel consumption). Now they just need to do a similar test with same vehicle, one with and without AFM. Now that would be worth considering for the effectiveness of AFM, anything else is just entertainment.

The test is a comparison between the AFM SS and an auto XR8, its not a reference to a non AFM SS, holden don't sell a non AFM auto SS, ALL auto V8 holdens are now AFM equipped weather you like it or not, and nobody knows if it can be over ridden.. Holden already concede via posted output numbers that its got less power in its literature.
Personally I cant see how driving from melb to syd or vise versa is a good test for AFM, if anything this plays into the hands of AFM as its best results come from highway cruising, to me driving around suburban sydney or melb for a day till the tank ran out is a far better representation of "real world" use. But as long as both vehicles complete the test together at the same times the results are still meaningful.
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...

rodderz · 29-04-2009, 12:50 PM

Can we stop with the stuff that goes too far. Debate by all means is fair, but not when it starts to get personal.

Any further posts of this nature will be dealt with warnings

Swordsman88 · 29-04-2009, 01:49 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...

Which it is 4vman....except for the marketing angle. If the problem with buying an 8 for some guys is the social responsability angle (or maybe it is for the missus who drives it during the day....) then ok, this makes you feel good.

In some circumstances i'm sure it also works pretty well, saving the equivalent as the ADR numbers illustrate. But for most circumstances people encounter everyday, without significantly changing your driving style, it won't save squat. And for that period all it is is a detuned, effectively lower performance version of the previous car. Throw in that you can't 'de-option' it back to a normal engine with auto and its far from impressive for me. Its style over substance, perception over reality. And you can add it to the list of other such examples from holden, like 'holden is australian', 'alloytec is an world class six cylinder' etc. etc.

colossus · 29-04-2009, 01:53 PM

Looks like Holden are trying to establish AFM as a Point of Difference in their marketing campaign. Never mind it dosn't actually work but they have added perceived value - as usual Holden marketing > Ford.

james22 · 29-04-2009, 02:15 PM

As I just stated in a PM to wally, Way I see it, AFM may not have worked the way holden expected it too. But at least they tried. And thats the important thing. New technologies like these, always take awhile to iron the bugs out. Should we be dissing holden for trying new idea's. I for one congratulate them for their effort. Because in the end thats what it is. An "Effort" to make "Better" fuel efficient car. Its not all about numbers ffs. May not work, but the key word here is "Yet"

vztrt · 29-04-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james22

As I just stated in a PM to wally, Way I see it, AFM may not have worked the way holden expected it too. But at least they tried. And thats the important thing. New technologies like these, always take awhile to iron the bugs out. Should we be dissing holden for trying new idea's. I for one congratulate them for their effort. Because in the end thats what it is. An "Effort" to make "Better" fuel efficient car. Its not all about numbers ffs. May not work, but the key word here is "Yet"

Problem is GM has been trying to do this for 30 years.

james22 · 29-04-2009, 02:28 PM

^^^ Lol @ EcoTec. hehehe

GT69 · 29-04-2009, 02:36 PM

Why does everyone always take the 'atleast holden tried' route on these issues? Do you also support drunks jumping off rooves and breaking their necks as 'atleast they tried something different' no, they failed, the same as the W427, granted there will be x number of happy owners. But no, it failed, as this has.

Top gear tested the BMW v prius on their track and proved that its only as good on fuel as you the driver make it.

Holden have nerfed their engines with this crap for the sake of greenie morons who wouldnt buy the car anyway. Horses for courses, target audience and all that

4Vman · 29-04-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Problem is GM has been trying to do this for 30 years.

The thing about innovation is GET IT RIGHT before introducing it, its great to strive for improvement but only a fool would condone using untried and unproven technology, especially if it doesn't work because it makes everyone look stupid......

4Vman · 29-04-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

So every Falcon ever made "got it right"? No recalls?

That really doesn't have anything to do with AFM does it.. you're trying to divert attention away from the topic with irrelevant stuff..
Its great if holden R+D this technology, but its just a marketing gimmick to use it if it doesnt work..

Wally · 29-04-2009, 02:52 PM

Oh I'm sorry I was just going on your statement:

Quote:

The thing about innovation is GET IT RIGHT before introducing it, its great to strive for improvement but only a fool would condone using untried and unproven technology, especially if it doesn't work because it makes everyone look stupid......

I was concerned you hadn't heard about minor issues like life threatening flaws including F150 trucks catching on fire, firestone tyres, brake line failures, crushed parking pall pins and such....things that someone obviously didn't GET RIGHT.

4Vman · 29-04-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

Oh I'm sorry I was just going on your statement:

I was concerned you hadn't heard about minor issues like life threatening flaws including F150 trucks catching on fire, firestone tyres, brake line failures, crushed parking pall pins and such....things that someone obviously didn't GET RIGHT.

Agree 100%. it still doesn't explain the relevance to this topic.

vztrt · 29-04-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The thing about innovation is GET IT RIGHT before introducing it, its great to strive for improvement but only a fool would condone using untried and unproven technology, especially if it doesn't work because it makes everyone look stupid......

Well I believe it is much better then how it was before. As for savings it seems quite minimal...if any. Mind you this is only one test so we'll see.
But looking at testing that has been done by Volvo on fuel efficiency testing they found that reducing weight is the best thing to do as this is the number 1 contribution to, second being gearing and the engine efficiencies (Hence why the FG was kept to the same weight as the B-series).

One thing I would like to know. Is what is the difference in CO2 emission's between a non AFM SS, an AFM SS and a FG XR8.

Whitey-AMG · 29-04-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windsor220

They're probably the worst performance times I've seen for new model SS and XR8 in a few years. Hell my AU would beat them.

The times are "slow"....but then again....most of us will compare a "test" time with times we have seen at a drag strip where the car only has the driver aboard..LOL........no passenger and fumes in the tank. Some people also remove the spare tyre to lose extra Kg....and those FORD alloys aren't light....let me tellya.

Chop 1 second off those times for the " extra baggage " etc and you get a glimpse of what these cars are capable of in stock trim ...........not too shabby for "cooking" models.

Wally · 29-04-2009, 03:14 PM

To put things in perspective, Ford is persuing the fuel shutoff system as an alternative to DOD (VDE in Ford speak). They are targetting a 1.5% fuel saving, albeit with a drop in engine power. I would suggest a testing regime like the one referred to in this thread would deliver up results showing zero gains in economy, the percentage being so close to imperceptible.

Mercury 8 · 29-04-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

To put things in perspective, Ford is persuing the fuel shutoff system as an alternative to DOD (VDE in Ford speak). They are targetting a 1.5% fuel saving, albeit with a drop in engine power. I would suggest a testing regime like the one referred to in this thread would deliver up results showing zero gains in economy, the percentage being so close to imperceptible.

Ecoboost is what Ford are persuing long term wordwide.Smaller engines with more power using less fuel.Sounds like a plan.

**ebxr8240** · 29-04-2009, 04:54 PM

Holden had that similar, in the old 3.8's..

whynot · 29-04-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

The other thing to remember is that the XR8 had the climate control on, the SS didn't have the air conditioner on at all.

I could be mistaken, but I think that the engine management system cut power to the air-conditioner clutch during wide open throttle. So, it should not make much difference to the acceleration times. As for having the air conditioner on during open road cruising; at any speed above 50kph it is more fuel efficient to have the AC on and the windows up than the other way round.

Pity that the XR8 didn't have a few more kilometres on it (like +15K) before it was tested.

AUXRVIII · 29-04-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The thing about innovation is GET IT RIGHT before introducing it, its great to strive for improvement but only a fool would condone using untried and unproven technology, especially if it doesn't work because it makes everyone look stupid......

Knock sensor added to Boss 290 engine for FG but not fitted to BF. Upgraded rear diff bush for FG V8's and turbo cars after FG was released.

irish2 · 29-04-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james22

As I just stated in a PM to wally, Way I see it, AFM may not have worked the way holden expected it too. But at least they tried. And thats the important thing. New technologies like these, always take awhile to iron the bugs out. Should we be dissing holden for trying new idea's. I for one congratulate them for their effort. Because in the end thats what it is. An "Effort" to make "Better" fuel efficient car. Its not all about numbers ffs. May not work, but the key word here is "Yet"

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

Chilliman · 29-04-2009, 08:36 PM

I get what AFM stands for now - Absolutely Fantastic Marketing

:

phillyc · 29-04-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Oh and just to add further credence to Ford's numbers, they claim 8.8 l/100 for an XR6T 6A highway cycle....not far off what you got CDAA

Yep Extra Urban is listed (6spd auto) litres / 100km
XT 7.6 L/100km
XR6 7.8 L/100km
XR6T 8.8 L/100km
XR8 9.7 L/100km

Just went to the Holden website for information on theirs. They only display ADR 81/01 test. ie combined figures...

ADR 81/01 figures for the
XR6T 11.7 L/100km
XR8 14.0 L/100km
SS 14.3 L/100km manual
SS 12.9 L/100km auto

Lastly the power & fuel consumption figures for the XR6T & XR8 are using 95 octane. The SS Commodore requires 98 octane. So another win for Falcon.

Swordsman88 · 29-04-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Lastly the power & fuel consumption figures for the XR6T & XR8 are using 95 octane. The SS Commodore requires 98 octane. So another win for Falcon.

I noticed Holden are using ECE for measurement, Ford are using DIN. Can someone remind me of which is the more conservative?? I thought everyone was changing over to SAE standards for power output, but maybe not.

Correct me if i'm wrong but apart from the torque number of the FPV BOSS315 all ford numbers for perf engines are on 95RON. Base I6 is for 91RON. By ADR standard all fuel burn numbers are on 95 too (but generally Ford tunes the sixes to get the rated number on 91 anyway....). This kind of confusion makes a mockery of those (particualry holden owners in my experience) people who bandy on about raw numbers and play the one upmanship game.

colossus · 30-04-2009, 10:04 AM

I'm all for fuel saving tech but NEVER at the expense of performance.

We buy these cars primarily for the fun factor otherwise we would all be driving Corollas. When you rationally look at overall ownership costs of a motor vehicle, fuel cost is a fairly small component in the big picture. I really do not think its a good idea for Ford and Holden to be competing over 0.1L fuel savings in the performance market.

Carby · 30-04-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Yep Extra Urban is listed (6spd auto) litres / 100km

Lastly the power & fuel consumption figures for the XR6T & XR8 are using 95 octane. The SS Commodore requires 98 octane. So another win for Falcon.

The SS commodore happily runs on ULP or PULP that is 91 -98 octane, so no win there!

Swordsman88 · 30-04-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carby

The SS commodore happily runs on ULP or PULP that is 91 -98 octane, so no win there!

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???

phillyc · 01-05-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carby

The SS commodore happily runs on ULP or PULP that is 91 -98 octane, so no win there!

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...