CarAdvice embarks on Aussie V8 showdown
April 20, 2009 by Paul Maric
Key Dates:
Wednesday 22nd April, 11AM – Spingy Motors dyno testing.
Tuesday 28th April, 6AM onward – Economy drive to Tarcutta, first live feed at 6AM from South Yarra.
AMD versus Intel, Labor versus Liberal and AFL versus soccer – er that should be football, lifelong rivalries that rarely ever reach a conclusion. Passionate followers will never be swayed and future generations follow on with what their elders have taught them.
Well, with baited breath CarAdvice is stepping into the fight, putting Holden’s new Active Fuel Management (AFM) SS Commodore up against Ford’s BOSS XR8. The gloves will be removed in earnest to bring readers a duel worthy of boast.
CarAdvice will set out to see not only which vehicle is the most efficient in a long distance drive, we will also performance test the cars on both a rolling road dynomometer and with our VBox measurement equipment.
It WILL be the ultimate showdown.
The following diagram illustrates where we will drive. Unlike some other publications that go to the effort of taping gaps and folding mirrors during economy drives, we will simulate genuine driving conditions, just as average drivers would normally undertake.
In addition, you will be able to follow our journey via live Google Maps updates and four live video updates from South Yarra, Glenrowan, Tarcutta and Glenrowan again.
So, make sure you log on to CarAdvice on Wednesday 22nd April from 11AM Eastern Standard Time for some live video from our dyno day and again on Tuesday, 28th April from 6AM for the main event to see how we’re going on our economy drive.
In addition to the live video, you will be able to chat to us – live – as well! So if you have any questions that you must have answered right away, we’ll be on hand to answer them.
We have no idea how the results will pan out, we are genuinely very keen to see the results!
Print it: 
With the Dyno,
Im not saying any results will be unfair.
I was just offering some reason as to why actual results may differ from those stated
I also know that the XR8 is the direct competitor, but as you said earlier the aim of this test was to see if the AFM is worthwhile.
The only true way to evaluate that is to run it against the previous model Auto SS (before the AFM was introduced)
hypotheticlly speaking, say the pre AFM SS was better than the XR8 to start with, and the AFM still proves that, how will it be decided if AFM has bettered the SS.
On the flip side, say the SS was previously worse than the XR8, and it still is, it doesnt mean the AFM is a waste of time.
For example if the XR8 is 14L/100k and PRE AFM SS was 16L, and the AFM is 15L
WOuld you class the AFM as a waste of time because it isnt better than the XR8 even though it made for improvement in economy over the pre-AFM
Andrew M, it sounds like you’re clutching at straws.
If you order an auto SS, you get AFM, you get no choice in the matter. That makes it directly comparable to the auto XR8. The products Holden used to offer are totally irrelevant to the new car market.
With all these comparisons, it’s nigh on impossible to sway loyal brand supporters.
Paul,
No straw clutching here, you obviously dont understand my point. I realise that AFM is a must with the Auto.
QUOTE Paul……….
“The basis of this test was to find out if AFM (Active Fuel Management) was really worth all the time and effort Holden has spent on the project.”
Sorry, but I just cant see the logic that benchmarking the economy of the SS AFM against the XR8 will give a clear cut answer to the question of whether or not AFM was worth the time spent on it.
So lets say the SS was already more economical than the XR8 before they added AFM.
Lets say the AFM SS is still more economical than the XR8.
how is it to be determined from that whether or not the AFM is worthwhile???
The only way to give a clear cut answer is to compare the Pre and post AFM models
Did ford compare their 6cyl falcon to the 6cyl commodore to find out whether it was worth while fitting the ZF6 to the falcon??
It was an n95 8gb? I don’t know what settings you’re using as I have the exact same phone and it sure takes better audio and video than that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIlhAlBoUmM
KC:
Due to the bandwidth limitations of live streaming, the maximum we can stream in terms of the video size is 320×240. Although the camera supports 640×480, it can’t be streamed at that size.
It’s easy to tape it and then upload it like you’ve done, but it’s unrealistic for it to happen with the setup we have at the moment.
Part of the issue was with the audio quality, which was inherently set to low. This has been fixed. The other issue we had was that the microphone wasn’t facing us and it was being blocked by the tripod it was tied to.
As I mentioned earlier, we’ve fixed this and it won’t be an issue with the subsequent video feeds we do on Tuesday.
We encourage you guys to chat to us and ask any questions you may have. That way we can make it as interactive as possible.
Hey guys really looking forward to this test – great thing to do, testing two Aussie muscle cars over the ANZAC weekend!
Personally I think that AFM is a gimmick and a complication that is unrequired, those small gains could be had by using a better transmission or exhaust system.
Don’t forget to make comment on the braking capabilities of both cars also – I take it that the V Box equipment can do that as well as indicating the handling traits of both cars.
PAUL i belive that holden (apart from propagander marketing)didn’t spend anything on it as it is a GM(usa)design, they have had it in the states for a while and it should not be marketed as australian idea or that holden has come up with it because they didn’t. That is misleading.
Ian,
Spot on!
Great spelling Ian.
Of course Holden spent money on the technology you dingbat.
They didn’t implement it here and hope for the best. The reason it took them this long to implement the technology was because they couldn’t get it to work and had to develop it.
Paul didn’t say anywhere that they marketed it as their own.
And Ian, you don’t need to come back as another user to try and amplify your half-brained comments.
Isn’t having a V8 economy showdown a little like seeing which heavyweight boxer can arrange flowers the best?
Pointless.
If you don’t want to fill up your V8, don’t buy one!
are you using PULP on both cars?
Benjie,
“Develope” is a pretty strong term for tweaking a few parameters in some software for a crate motor fully imported from the States.
See, it’s people like you that shows that the GMH propaganda machine is worth much more than any real engineering development.
And BTW no, I’m not Ian either. Perhaps it’s you that is so shallow to have multiple aliases??
AussieCars Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“@Devils
On an economy test wouldnt using an XR6 be a little fairer than using an XR6T?”
If anything AussieCars, it would be a fairer test using the XR6T over the XR6. The reason I mentioned the XR6T with the SV6 is that BOTH of them are higher performance versions of the base model car. ie, upgraded/modified engines as well. If you went the cooking XR6, you may as well use an XT as the only difference is a more sport biased suspension, a bit of fibreglass stuck on here and there and a couple more creature comforts inside. If anything, the XT (with the ZF option ticked of course) would be even more economical than the XR6, not to mention faster due to it being lighter!
wait till FG SERIES2, 320kW standard for XR8, some say 570Nm standard, and some say GT/GT-P may be 330kW but with 600Nm all from the very same architecture starting from old BOSS260 ” in fact 294kW” de-tuned to 260kW;) , while the current XR8 290kW or as previous BA/BF GT is 312kW de-tuned to reliable 290kW. Not to mention that current 315 GT is actually making 338kW, but restricted again to 315kW. ciao