XR8 v SS AFM Dyno Run

[4Vman]

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...

[Swordsman88]

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.

[DJM83]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[DJM83]

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.

[rodderz]

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

[colossus]

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]

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]

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.

[4Vman]

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......

[vztrt]

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.

[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.

[AUXRVIII]

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.

[4Vman]

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]

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

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.

[irish2]

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]

I get what AFM stands for now - Absolutely Fantastic Marketing :

[Kieron]

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.

[james22]

^^^ Lol @ EcoTec. hehehe

[GT69]

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

[ebxr8240]

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

[colossus]

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.

[GT014]

Can the FG XR8 run on RON91 or not recommended?

[500SEC]

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'?

[imugli]

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.

[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.

[prydey]

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.

[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?