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!

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??

Pointless.

If you don’t want to fill up your V8, don’t buy one!

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

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

We used the same dyno, the same tester and the same conditions for both cars. It cannot possibly be any fairer than that.

The XR8 is a direct competitor to the SS, the AFM SS competes in no way with its manual sibling.

Dont know if thats still the case. Perhaps someone who has had more to do with that side of things can elaborate.

Also, if this test is to see if the AFM is worth it, why isnt it an SS Commodore versus an AFM SS Commodore.
Thats the only true indicator

We’re XR6T converts – trust me.

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.

If we wanted an all out performance war, the XR6T would have been at the top of the list.

Interestingly I note that the claimed ADR fuel consumption figure for the XR6T is 12.1 litres per 100Km’s significantly better that either of the two here on test and I suspect the fact that maximum torque is made from as little as 2000 r.p.m all the way out to 4750 r.p.m.. means in real world conditions it wouldn’t just be in fuel economy where the XR6T would be ahead.

It’s irrelevant which system either Ford or Holden uses.

There’s one way to compute torque and power on an engine dyno and likewise on a rolling road arrangement like the one we have used.

If either manufacturer wants to bluff figures, they will be caught out when the cars are actually tested using industry standards.

Either way, both the SS and XR8 were within 10% of their claimed flywheel power figures. It’s just that one was further than the other in terms of the accuracy of the claimed figures.

There was also an interesting discrepancy with torque.

Either way, you guys can check out the figures and discuss it amongst yourselves once it all goes online.