2009 Holden Commodore SS V8 AFM – Long Term Update
December 31, 2008 by David Twomey
Well another week with ‘Big Blue’ and I’m slowly unravelling some of the intricacies of the Active Fuel Management V8, not all of them flattering, I must say.
- David Twomey
In my previous report I mentioned the power output figures for the previous SS V8, which some people took to be the figures for our current car, but in fact we didn’t have the power figures for the AFM V8 at the time.
As soon as I drove the car I have to say I felt it was down on power compared to previous SS V8s I’d driven and I also got the same feedback from my colleague Paul Maric after he briefly drove the car to do some photography with it.
A check of the GM Holden Media Site proved our suspicions and the AFM V8 is a full 10 kilowatts down on the engine, which is now fitted to the six-speed manual gearbox car, which has the 270kW and 530Nm that I previously referred to.
The six-speed automatic SSV8 AFM makes 260kW of power and produces a reduced 517Nm of torque, so you would expect those reductions alone to lead to some reasonable increase in fuel efficiency!
Not so it seems as we are still struggling, despite all manner of careful driving to achieve anything like a real reduction in fuel consumption.
Another week of driving has seen the odometer rise to a total of 3625 kilometres, which means I managed to slip 406.61km under the wheels of ‘Big Blue’ and it managed to gurgle 61.33 litres of 91RON petrol down its intakes.
The nett result was an average of 15.08 litres per 100 kilometres, which is certainly nothing to crow about.
Now I must admit a lot of that was city driving, what with it being Christmas and all there was all that shopping to do for the CarAdvice Christmas tree!
Thinking I may have developed an overactive ‘lead foot’ I gave the car to Paul Maric for a few days while I had a play with the Lancer Ralliart sedan he’d also been testing for a review on CarAdvice.
Now Paul’s not the slowest driver around but he was very, very good and spent quite a bit of time on the freeway with the cruise control locked on and he managed to get the onboard trip computer to produce a readout of 12.3L/100km – better but it’s going to take a lot of work to make any significant fuel savings with this engine, it would seem.
During this time Paul also ran the car on 98RON fuel as we planned to do some acceleration tests on it and wanted it to have the best possible chance.
Trouble is if you need to run the car on the most expensive petrol available to get even a small saving on fuel consumption then that doesn’t seem like a real saving to me.
The acceleration times for the car aren’t all that great a tale either as the car is a full second slower than the official figures for the manual SS V8 with the best of three runs being a 6.43 seconds to 100km/h.
Tests conducted by Paul Maric. Graph shows Speed | Time | Distance.
It will be interesting to see how Holden goes with this engine, which it will fit as standard to all automatic transmission, V8 powered models in its range from January.
On the plus side the Commodore is a pleasant enough car to drive, easy to live with and you can certainly see the seduction in such a large car at this time of year when you’ve got friends and relatives who need transporting.
There’s oodles of room inside for five adults, a boot that will swallow all the excesses of Christmas shopping and it still makes that lovely V8 engine growl when you give it a bit of the right foot.
We can only hope that as ‘Big Blue’ totes up the kilometres things improve in the fuel consumption stakes, because after all that’s what this car and the technology in it are all about.
Print it: 
david toomey,
how about a close up piccy of the motor,see anything different,or is it a no go zone…
so AFM is pointless then?
This is a bit like the V8 Landcruiser diesel engine – the output is about the same as a really good 4 cyl motor, meaning 4 cyls are performing no function other than to double the internal friction of the engine.
That’s why you can’t improve fuel economy to any meaningful extent simply by not firing half the cylinders.
Dont forget that this is by nature a fuel inefficient engine. Large capacity, pushrod engine with only 2 valves per cylinder. If you buy this sort of engine u dont expect to get anything but a gas guzzler so why are Holden trying to kid us and themselves ? The technology would be good on a modern V8 but not on grandpas axe……..
What a disapointment. I must say, im the biggest die hard Holden fan ever, i have always owned Holdens, but yesterday i got to drive a FG XR6t, and there is no way i would consider anything from the red lion after that. It is just perfect in everyway, would get better fuel consumption then even the AFM v8, and was brutally fast in a way no standard Holden v8 is. It was simply incredible.
The noise it makes with the jet like induction sound over the roar of a inline 6 is more theatrical than a v8 ever will be too!
I looked at one of these at the local Holden dealer and while the outside stying is not too bad, but not as good as an FG, the interior is a joke for a 2 year old car!! I couldnt believe how badly it has aged in such a short time……yuk !!
It seems to be completely pointless.
Does it sound like a 4 cyl car at idle, or does it only switch to 4 cylinders when coasting or cruising?
Holden should let the rev heads enjoy this car unadulterated and offer real choice to those who want an economical Commodore. I don’t mean the dual fuel LPG model that has the same boot space as my Golf, either. Nor E85.
It has to be turbo diesels, decent 6 speed autos, turbocharged 4, smaller capacity direct injection sixes, or any combination thereof.
How about that 220kw 3.6Di in the CTS? Thats a nice choice, it has a 6 speed auto to go with it too.
This really is a joke. It has aged horribly, the interior is shocking and this new AFM technology has done nothing…..AND nearly 7 seconds to 100km/h for a V8.
Whats the point of this thing if there is the FG Falcon which is quite better than this. I wont even mention V6/4 cylinder alternatives which are more desirable, faster, better quality vehicles.
Your comments are spot on ZF.! G.M how about putting the money into a decent cyl.head design [D.O.H.C 4 valve] which would also allow for a better combustion chamber shape, s/plug location and inclined valves.
Instead of handicapping the engine design, power output and fuel consumption with inefficent [thanks ZF] “push-rod
o.h.v” 1950’s tech.
Oh speaking of “ZF” that’s the brand of the [German]
6 speed auto fitted to the Falcon!
Another up-on Commodore!
Am suprised that they’ve basically de-tuned the engine, same as they did with the V6. How is it that Ford can manage to simultaneously decrease fuel consumption (albiet slightly) yet at the same time improve power and torque, yet Holden can’t do the same thing? And this with the V6 being much newer than the 6 in the Falcon.
But AFM looks like a big gimmick to me. If you want a fuel-efficient vehicle you don’t buy a V8. If you want a V8, you pay more for petrol.
It just comes back to the fact that the biggest impact on fuel economy is vehicle weight. If the vehicle is heavy then all the pissing around in the world with things like cylinder deactivation isn’t going to have anywhere near as much impact as lopping 100-200kgs off the bugger. And let’s face it, the Commodore (and the Falcon for the matter) needs to go on a serious diet.
scottb,
agree totally,just don’t know if they can.the ve has ALOT of plastic allready. gm were talking about deleting the spare tyre to save weight,and use run flat tyres,god help em if that comes true…
Typical Holden; hype and spin, no actual achievement. Though it does explain Krudd’s affinity for them.
Is it any wonder that GM are teetering on bankruptcy?
My 05 XR6T manual gets down to 11.5 per 100kms on Fwy driving and around 12-13 per 100kms in the city. The Holden AFM system sounds pointless. There is no real saving there, I was expecting 10’s per 100kms. And why the lower power??? I will stick to the Falcon then, FG 6 turbo here we come, power and economy.
So an XT falcon is as fast as an SS commodore? On no sorry its slower than a SS commodore by 0.1 of a second!!! And the falcon will get fuel consumption figures in the low 9’s regularly!!
Like the Accord v6 system u are still overcoming the latent inertia of all the moving bits that are turned off so how can it be more efficient.
Might work as a marketing con job but not in reality.
That begs the question how come Toyota haven’t adopted this technology yet?
I use to think that this cylinder deactivation tech would also incorporate a means of decoupling the latent parts from the working engine physically at the crankshaft thus eliminating the drag of the non functioning cylinders.
These performance results should sure up resale on used examples with the mow defunct engine.
This is very disappointing to read. I have a VE SS at the moment and on runs between Sydney and Melbourne, I get 9.9 – 10.8 L/100KM depending on the fuel, air con settings etc.
Round town I can squeeze high 13’s, low 14’s but I tend to be somewhere between 16 and 17 most the time.
I was hoping AFM would be in the 8’s on the highway and 12’s in the city. Most disappointing :(
from tom says;
What a disapointment. I must say, im the biggest die hard Holden fan ever, i have always owned Holdens, but yesterday i got to drive a FG XR6t, and there is no way i would consider anything from the red lion after that. It is just perfect in everyway, would get better fuel consumption then even the AFM v8, and was brutally fast in a way no standard Holden v8 is. It was simply incredible.
The noise it makes with the jet like induction sound over the roar of a inline 6 is more theatrical than a v8 ever will be too!
its good to hear good comments about the “FG FALCON” from the darkside
just as i expected.
if honda cant make the accord make inroads with this tech, how was holden going to do it with this big V8??
better off putting it on LPG. Ive read of an SS on LPG that tested to have higher power figures with a decent system under the hood.
And if you are worried about boot space Golfie, how about ripping out the fuel tank and putting it where that was like they do on the falcon???
Waiting for the further review to hear how seamlessly it doesnt switch between modes aswell.
Can you opt to not have the AFM on an Auto model??
Lets not forget the role of the right foot and miserly driving. Ive got the old 4spd auto XR6T and in non-highway Canberra traffic I get as good as 11.5L/100km even tho my official figure is 12.9L (on sticker when acquired new).
Now I might be able to crack 10.9 if I had a 6-spd auto FG…which I want this year…mmm…
I think AFM is a w–k because if you drive a V8 “properly” you can achieve close to the fuel efficiency of a 6 cyl without the ECU having to deactivate cylinders etc..
It’s really just a marketing ploy by Holden to make some of their customers feel/believe that they are doing something good towards the environment.. similar to those who drive a Prius
Not only that but those who buy an SS with AFM can say “my car has AFM” and therefore; because it has the optional extra/unique feature [compared to a regular SS] their car must be better and so improves their “image”
So true, people should just learn how to drive.
I also agree with Toms comments in relation to the awesome performance of the FG XR6-T.
I too am a Holden fan; and I have always believed that if I had to buy a 6cyl it would definetely be a Falcon.
Because its easier to extract more power from an inline 6 than it is a V6 and still maintain balance etc.. power to rival a V8.
I think one of the worst decisions Holden ever made was to ditch the inline 6 [from the VK VL] in favour of the V6.
What makes the poor performance of the AFM SS even worse is that the engine in the TT-ID Saab that Car Advice are also testing is built by the Holden Engine Company.
Which makes you wonder if Holden build fuel efficient 6 cylinder engines for other car companies such as Saab [and Alfa Romeo].. why is it that Australians have to wait for it to be in the Commodore
Holden should offer the Twin-Turbo / Diesel 6cyls ASAP.. and not focus as much on AFM which appears to be a flop
Yeh seems like a waste of time for nothing realy.And looks like thay were even trying to drive it easy to get good figures and on top of that the car is as slow as some good non turbo sixs
So they’ve limited the power/torque output and also added AFM to the engine and the fuel consumption is still crap?
Geez this is a real disappointment. If this engine is fitted as standard then it would be complete rubbish in performance.
0-100 in 6.43s is ridiculously slow. I honestly hope they rethink their strategy with this engine and maybe offer it as an option only so people wanting a V8 Commodore with proper performance can still get one.
The V8 commodore is all about performance so dumping this engine at standard in the car is pointless.
Wheelnut Says:
What makes the poor performance of the AFM SS even worse is that the engine in the TT-ID Saab that Car Advice are also testing is built by the Holden Engine Company.
Ahhh wrong. The TTiD engine in the Saab is a joint venture engine by Opel & Fiat.
^^^^^^^^^^Yeah, Holden build the petrol engines for the Saab 9-3, I’m pretty sure.
The only engine Holden build for Saab is the 2.8 V6 Turbo in the 9-3 Aero
I think i will wait until a few more KM are under the belt before i pass serious judgement. But from the outset, those fuel numbers are humdrum for Holden. Sounds like manual SS’s will increase there sales somewhat and suddenly Fords 5.4 is looking more competive if a V8 is what you must have.
Whats the latest on this Behemoth CA. I’d be interested to see what the consumption is like.
I have owned a SS commodore auto since mid 07 bought new and have never had such bad fuel economy as i keep reading about even to the point i have refueled it and driven it like it was stolen then and only then does it get into the high 16,s but as road conditions and traffic get in the way the economy soon drops back to normal at mid 12,s.I have just returned from a 2700k trip from Adelaide to Melbourne via the great ocean road throughout Melbourne and the Dandenongs and home via Nhill driven to enjoy not economise and returned 11.2 average speed 72kph
Im with the Cupid Stunt.
a conclusion must be due around now.
it would be a bit corny if they released it on australia day (tommorrow)
seems this thread is a flop nothing updated at all. seems you are just as disapointing as Holden’s new AFM
Can someone tell me the point of AFM?
It doesn’t appear to work very well.
If you want good fuel economy buy a Toyota Aurion.
7.8L/100km at 110 km/h,tank average, 4 adults with luggage, over 1600km, and not on a multilane freeway.
If you want grunt, but an SS commodore and forget the AFM.
I have brand new SS ute with AFM (1800km on clock) around town driving (Brisbane traffic) I average 12.2l/100km and on the highway (cruise control on at 100kmh) I get 8.3l/100km compare to my previous ute (BA XR8) which averaged 15.1 and 14.1 under the same conditions. The other thing I like about the SS ute is that driving around town (idle to 3000 rpm) it has better throttle response (get up and go) then the XR8 had.
Its excellent. I drop 1lt/100 and it goes like the wind!
I own a manual VE SS and consistently get 11.4 to 12.4 L/100Km fuel consumption, and on longer trips will dip into the 10s. Thing is, I owned an SV6 prior to the SS and the fuel economy was not a lot better. As for driveabilty its chalk and cheese, the SV6 is a nice car but its geared too high and hasn’t the torque to deliver the goods.
The SS delivers smooth effortless power and is a joy to drive.
Sounds like no AFM (V8 Auto) has been put on gas anywhere
in Australia!
The governing body must approve it first, so we need a
gas conversion company to test their own car first
to ensure it will work, I guess just turn the AFM off?
Cheers Joe.