Comments on: South African exports of Holden Ute to continue

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:09:41 +0000

yes Golf,
but the real world figures of a falcon can be 8L/100k too dont forget. thats why we always talk in reference to the official figures in such exercises meaning you only drop 2L/100k
i still dont see the benefit of throwing it in a falcon. the current falcon motor has torque on tap above and beyond what the equivalent Jap diesels have so the torquey argument is out of the question.

i can understand it in the ford territory though as it would represent a bit more of a sizable saving but still not the aussie sedans.

and your last comment……….
yep i still cant figure that out either

By: golfschwein

golfschwein — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:48:34 +0000

Hmmm. If a Commy V6 gives a real-world mix of 12litres/100km and a Commy turbo diesel gives a real world mix of say eight and a half, there’s 40% straight up. With the torquey drive characteristics of turbo diesel, that’ll be enough for some people to put a large Aussie made car in their driveway instead of an import. Whatever it costs.

If our locals “don’t bother” then there’s a very good chance that an increasing number of punters “won’t bother” buying them. It’s already started.

As for Toyota, well, their customers are buying huge numbers of a 4 cylinder car that has slightly worse fuel economy than the same car with a V6. They march to a drum they know the sound of.

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:17:32 +0000

Golf,
thats right mate “in your case” the diesel gives 50% better milage,
but in the falcons case it wouldnt give anywhere near that sort of benefit, hence why i say why bother

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:15:55 +0000

Golf,
mate i only pulled out the calculator to prove to others what is only to clear to me.
i didnt need to go right through the maths to see that paying 20c more per L wont balance the 2L less you lose.

it is only really beneficial where there is a greater consumption difference between petrol and diesel which is clearly demonstrated in commercial vehicles.

diesels are proven to beneficial in the jap trucks and small cars but i doubt the set up would be as beneficial in the large sedans. they would have to return 6L/100k in a commy or falcon for savings to be the reason to buy one.

LPG is good but ford foolishly didnt run with it.

Phillip,
no traction control on LPG because it interupts the “carby style” fuel delivery currently used on the E-gas

well if ford and holden have been slow in getting on the diesel band wagon, then where the hell are the market leaders toyota? not one single diesel passenger vehicle, yet their small car (corolla) still manages to sell strong

By: Phillip

Phillip — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:32:38 +0000

You’re right Golfschwein, Holden and Ford are disastrously slow in the diesel stakes. Just imagine if Ford have have introduced the TDCis when they first started importing Fiestas and Focuses – they’d be kicking goals by now! But instead they played what they considered to be a safe hand, and although their doing quite well, the cost of the opportunity they missed is incredible. Plus, Fords lack of commitment to LPG is evidenced by the fact that they are not offering traction control or the new 5-speed auto with the new Falcon range.

BTW, my security word is Eunos. Now there’s an unfortunate blast from the past!

By: golfschwein

golfschwein — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:17:52 +0000

Ooooo look at moi, I’m just warming up.

Right now in March 2008, it would be fair to assume that Holden and Ford honchos wish they had a turbo diesel offering RIGHT NOW for their large cars instead of 2009 onwards. They never forecast where fuel prices were heading during the developmental stages of their large cars and must sorely wish they had something in the showrooms right now.

I know you love LPG and swear by it, but it just isn’t firing in the market. The take-up rate of turbo diesel cars is what’s firing. Just ask a BMW, VW or Peugeot dealer.

By: golfschwein

golfschwein — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:01:39 +0000

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew….what have I said about calculators before? If people used calculators half as zealously as you do here, you could safely remove three quarters of our cars from the market on the grounds that they “don’t make sense” or “would only recoup costs after 8 years’.

It’s pretty easy to tell I’m a diesel convert and I can assure you that a Commodore with a turbo diesel would have great appeal for a larger number of people out there based on driving characteristics alone. Diesel’s impost is about 10% greater than standard ULP and gives 50% greater mileage in my case over the equivalent petrol car.

The cost of the car? Whatever its price is.

LPG yukkie yukkie (okay, just putting that bit in to be cheeky)

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:24:57 +0000

Richo,
mate im hearing you……….
you make some valid points but here are a few of mine in return……….

to my understanding ford are not actively seeking more exports but rather just conducting another study into whether or not an export program would be viable for the falcon. it was brought on after the changing of the guard with the coming of the new ford basketball playing head honcho.

also how much are holden making on the VE exports if they can palm them off over seas and be sold at an equivalent rate of 33 aussie dollars?
im not having a dig but rather saying that the doller per unit profit on a focus is propably on par with a commy profit per unit when exported because they obviously arent making near the same profit on the export market that they turn when sold for australian roads

also whats to big deal about diesel?
why would we honestly want our commodore or falcon on diesel?
i think ford and holdens decision to implement diesel options was a pure kick of the can by the CEO’s in realising that the consumers arent that bright.

just some quick math…….
for eg the current falcon returns 10L/100k.
with a diesel it would return a predicted 8L/100k

dont forget diesel is 20c dearer and asks a half decent premium

100k from a petrol falcon would cost you $12.00 (@1.20/L)
100k from a diesel falcon would cost you $11.20 (@1.40/L)

now what would the premium be for owning a diesel falcon or commy? you save $160 a year if you bought a diesel falcon or commy.
you could easily pay upwards of $2000 for the “benefit” of owning a diesel engine which means it takes you more than 12 years to recoup the outlay………
at least an LPG option would see you recoup the outlay in under 1 year

the main benefit for diesel engines are in our commercial vehicles hence why Hilux’s, Tritons, Rangers etc have had it for years. the reason being because the petrol versions can chew up to 15L/100k where as the diesels hover around 8L/100k.

and the difference is even greater once load is added as fuel consumption in diesels is a little more constant under load than petrol

so who is going to rush out and buy their beloved falcon or commodore once a diesel option is added??? NOT I

By: Richo

Richo — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:25:32 +0000

the general consensus amongst holden’s top brass is the daewoo experiment has failed

By: Richo

Richo — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:24:40 +0000

don’t depress Philip, from what i hear the current generation of holden daewoo’s may very well be the last with Holden’s new CEO apparently very keen to go back to opel as their prefered supplier of smaller cars. The captiva is probably the only daewoo that will still be sold as a holden within 4 or 5 years