Global Green Challenge Winners
November 3, 2009 by Alborz Fallah
The Global Green Challenge 2009 has come to an end so here is a table of all the winners for each category.
Production Class Small Car Diesel
- Ford Fiesta ECOnetic
Production Class Small Car Petrol
- Suzuki Alto GLX
Production Class Ute/Light Truck
- HSV Maloo Ute
Production Class Large Car Petrol
- Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo
Production Class Large Car Diesel
- Skoda Superb
Production Class Medium/ Off Road
- Hyundai Santa Fe SLX – Entry#5
Production Class 2 seat Electric
- Tesla
Modified Production Small Electric
- Deep Green Research
Modified Production Hybrid
- Annesley College
Modified Production Motor Bike
- Top Gear Magazine – Honda CT-110
Suzuki:
The Suzuki Alto smashed all records and achieved a surprising 2.0L/100km fuel economy figure on the last day of the Global Green Challenge.
What’s more amazing is that this figure was achieved on the inner city roads of Adelaide in the middle of morning peak hour.
Proving that fuel economy can be achieved in stop start motoring, setting a new standard for fuel economy not only for petrol cars but for diesel cars too.
Most of the 3000km journey from Darwin to Adelaide was against headwinds and some of Australia’s toughest roads and conditions. The manual Alto recorded an economy rating of 3.9L/100km, 18.55 per cent lower than the ADR fuel rating of 4.8L/100km. CO2 emissions also recorded a low 89.9g/km compared to the usual 113g/km.
“The Global Green Challenge has been a fantastic opportunity for Suzuki to show its commitment to fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles driven in real-world conditions and readily available to all consumers,” said Suzuki Australia General Manager Tony Devers.
“The Alto proves that it is possible to maintain economical driving in urban traffic where we all know most motorists do the bulk of their driving and all of this without costly technologies such as hybrid powertrains or stop-start technologies.
“Starting in November the Alto will be priced at less than $13,000 on the road. That price tag is more than $10,000 cheaper than any other vehicle competing in this event. It’s simple and safe motoring at its best.”
Skoda
In the medium to large car class the Skoda Superb proved to be to most fuel efficient vehicles in the last days of the Global Green Challenge. Coming in at fourth place behind the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic, Mini Cooper D and Suzuki Alto GLX, all competing in the light to small class.
The fuel consumption was as low as 4.59 litres per 100km, the 2.0 TDI with 125kw and 350Nm took most contenders by surprise.
As well a being a contester the Skoda Superb was also a support car for the Top Gear Australia team and its ‘postie’ bike. Carrying an excess amount of weight, an extra passenger and frequent fuel stops for the bike all affecting the fuel consumption the Superb still came in ahead of its large car competitors.
Skoda Australia has achieved the goal of proving that a large luxurious car carrying luggage and passengers can still be as economical as a traditional small car.
Hyundai
The new Santa Fe R diesel has won the SUV class in the Global Green Challenge and is one of the best medium SUV to own in its class.
On the southward bound trip the Santa Fe had a consumption rate of just 5.1L/100km beating its official government specified fuel consumption by 23.9 per cent.
The week long trek from Darwin to Adelaide included two urban loops and covered a distance of 3,147 kilometres, all vehicles had to keep an average speed on highways.
After the seven day trip the Santa Fe consumed a total of 160.46 litres of diesel fuel and also produced a low 137.67 grams of CO2 per kilometre.
The Santa Fe was driven by former Australian rally champion Ed Ordynski and motoring commentator John Cadogan. “This is a practical, versatile and rugged vehicle with serious off-road capability and seven seats. Yet with a combination of the latest technology and conservative driving techniques, we achieved the equivalent of 56 miles per gallon – a result that would have been unheard of just a decade ago,” said Cadogan.
Ordynski added: “Competition in the category was extremely close. I think what we proved was that smarter driving and making the right choice of vehicle can make a real difference to ordinary Australians – both economically and environmentally.”
The R 2.2 diesel produces 145 kilowatts and up to 436Nm of torque (manual), seats seven and has a five star safety rating.
Over the same journey two years ago the Hyundai i30 CRDi had a 3.2L/100km.
Every body’s a winner~
Not quite Jon.
The “losers” are the SIDI Commodore, the Minis and the Kia Sorentos.
That is, the cars that failed to win their class. All economy performances were pretty damned good.
Where is the S.I.D.I commodore?
It managed a 33% improvement I do beleive. Wasn’t as good as the XR6T’s higher 30s% improvement.
LOL as if Car Advice would have anything positive to say about a Holden…or in this case, anything to say about Holden at all.
FYI The Commodore managed 6.48 l/100
And here is the list of the cars that didn’t win a prize:
Kia Sorento Diesel
Holden Sportwagon SIDI
BMW Mini Diesel
@family guy…
ahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
classic
What about the LPG/Hybrid Kia Cerato LPi?
Cheers,
F-0
Was not in the starting list.
The Maloo ute should have been judged with the falcon. They are basically the same things as there sedan counter parts.
Should they combine petrol and diesel engines also? After all, they are both internal combustion engines, which are basically the same thing.
This test was flawed.
It is far from being credible when HSV engineers and other non independent parties are involved in the testing.
Some good results. Well done to the XR6T. As an owner of a N/a FG XR^ Ute who travels 140km a day (Freeway, no traffic, traffic, hills and who loves the right boot and keeps at pace with traffic), not suprised by the figure. In 35,000km, it has used 9L/100km. On a trip from Umina (NSW) to Melbourne, via Albury, i recorded 7.7l/100km and thats at 110km most of the day.
Some great figures from various suppliers for sure – not a bad figure for the Maloo either!
What on earth did they do to the Suzuki Alto on the last day???
no way would it improve that much on a city leg let alone at all
2L must be a typo….
It broke down and was towed? xD
V8’s in a global green challenge, what a joke. They should have just called the event “the wacky races”. The only thing note worthy of this event was seeing a Tesla roadster do 500kms on a single charge.
Probably didn’t disconnect the diesel generator that was on the back of a support truck!
I thought he was using one of those super long red & yellow extension leads from bunnings.
yeah, a cordless extension lead!
Well done Skoda, what an amazing achievement.
Still trying to work out which deisel large car competitiors thay beat. Thats right there are none. The Skoda numbers ARE good but to suggest that it bettered a non-existant competitor is just garbage.
The Skoda bettered all the other petrol powered large cars in terms of fuel economy!!
Exactly my point. It DID NOT BEAT ANYTHING in it’s own class, because like quite a few others it was the only entry in it’s class.
Like I said it’s a good result on it’s own without having to make up cra#p like Skoda have.
It did beat all the other CARS, IN THE LARGE CAR CLASS!!
I guess all the falcodore lovers would have sulcked and and a cry, if they didn’t create a petrol powered class…
What next, a class win based on car colour?!!
Tomas, stop having a sook.
It’s an economy challenge, and as such the fuel type was always a class criteria, the same as size was.
You can’t go changing the rules and make up new classes after the event – manufacturers would have entered different vehicles.
Lets see now:
in the 4 door class the Skoda is soudly beaten by several cars.
in the 4 wheel class Skoda was soundly beaten.
in the class where the manufacturer starts with a “S” skoda lost.
See making up your own classes after the event is easy.
Skoda was the ONLY entry in the “Production Class Large Car Diesel”
It came first, beating nothing.
If you are not going to play by the rules why bother?
DE, you are the one having the sulk!!
Just admit it, it did beat all the other cars in Large Car Category, even if the rest was Petrol Powered!!
By the way, technically, skoda doesn’t start with S, but Š.
So yeah, it did too win your category of cars beginning with Š!!
OK Tomas if you insist on comparing large cars regardless of fuel, then under the rules which every car entered, the Falcon beat the Skoda because it achieved a 39% increase as oposed to Skodas 33% increase.
Why don’t we talk about how the Fiesta and Minis were more economical that the Skoda in the DEISEL car class.
Doesn’t matter how you twist it the Skoda OFFICIALLY competed in a clas in which it was the ONLY entry. It “beat” nothing either officially or unofficially.
NEWSFLASH: SKODA COMPETES GLOBAL GREEN CHALLENGE IN A CLASS ALL BY ITSELF – AND WINS.
See the stupid thing here is all your stupid ranting and false claims actually detracts from Skodas achievment.
LOL, DE you are really clutching at straws, and mentaly loosing it!!
So are you telling me, you don’t even have the decency to admit the skoda was the most fuel afficent out of all the Large Family cars??
It’s not Skoda’s fault the local falcodores are unable to come up with a diesel powered car!! Especialy to an economy contests!! (Another nail in their coffin!!)
And get beaten by a diesel powered support vehicle that was carying extra weight, working as a team support vehicle for 2 teams…
Most articles/commentators says that the “most improved” factor in this contest was flawed!!
And please don’t be pathetic by brining in Fiesta, and minis, are a significantly smaller cars?! Atleast two size classes below!!
You must be really deluded ford fanboy not to admit that the most fuel efficient large car present in the contest was a skoda superb!!
D!ng0 stop being totally deluded pal, the competition was NOT about outright economy, it was about IMPROVEMENT in official fuel ratings. Ford entered their least economical car because it was playing to the rules, skoda missinterpreted that and lost. EOS.
no.1) I’m not D!ng0. Even though that guy showed you guys a thing or too!! Even though he made you cry, i don’t find it particular insulting to be called D!ng0 !!
no.2) Yes, the primary criteria was about improving the official figures. But this criteria has already been publicly criticized, and will be changed next year!!
And none of this takes aways from the skoda being the MOST FUEL EFFICENT LARGE CAR present!!
If this would have been a true, credible and global event, Skoda would have used the Superb Greenline model, which is specifically economy focused. Not to mention there would be more European/Global economy focused car present!
And Ford would have used the Fusion Hybrid and Mondeo Econetic as well as the Fiesta… Maybe Ford BMW Mecedes & Honda could have used their Hydrogen vehicles….
But the vehicles used were Australian market vehicles (except the Tesla). The Skoda did fine, but then wasn’t hugely ahead of the Hyundai Sante Fe in it’s economy figures and I reckon the Hyundai (under the improvement over adr rules of the challenge) would have beaten the Superb if they competed against each other…
Safety First, don’t forget the skoda was team support vehicle for atleast 2 teams. And as well, it isn’t Skoda’s economy focused variant, such as the Skoda superb Greenline!!
As I said earlier well done Skoda brilliant result.Good cars with great fuel consumption. It wouldn`t matter what you said Tomas they wouldn`t get it, as my father always says “you can`t educate idiots”
Obviously he was refering to you and Tomas when he said that desparingly.
Tomas would argue that a black car was white rather than admit reality.
Too right Jon!!
DE,
Reality = Skoda was the most fuel efficient Large Car Present, even though it stopped many more times, and carried extra weight supporting 2 teams!!
And Jon was obivuosly refering to you when he said “you can`t educate idiots”!!
FORD FIESTA was the most fuel efficient deisel car present, easily BEATING the SKODA.
See that’s just as true and irrelevant as your statement, because in each case they are competing in a different class.
And BTW, not that it was what the competition was about, but if Skodas most economical large car didn’t beat Fords performance (& least economical) large car then something would actually be wrong wouldn’t it? But then if outright eceonomy was what the competition was the Ford would have entered a different car wouldn’t they. As it wasn’t perhaps Skoda got it wrong and entered the wrong car because the Turbo Falcon beat it under the terms of the competition.
Tomas,
And dont forget Ford didnt enter their “economy focused Variant” either.
If they wanted the most economical Falcon they wouldnt have chosen the XR6T.
But eitherway if all the large cars were grouped together as you would like to think, the XR6T still would have won because the awards are based on improvement not overall economy.
Yes even I think its flawed how a Maloo and XR6T place 1st and 2nd over the obvious winner in the Fiesta, but the comp is on improvement not outright economy.
As you were already told, stop changing the rules and creating your own fantasy classes in the aim of starting bullsh*t
LOL, Funny how the ford fairies are getting their painties in a knot!!
And Also are too immature to admit that the SKODA WAS THE MOST FUEL EFFICIENT LARGE CAR THERE!!
Yes, the FORD FIESTA was the most fuel efficient deisel car present!!
And Yes, the HSV Malloon won the Overall most improved Price.
But this criteria has been publicly criticized.
And none of this takes aways from the skoda being the MOST FUEL EFFICENT LARGE CAR present!!
The Skoda Superb, even though it was used as a suport car Completely blowing of the Falcadores in terms of Fuel Economy!!
As the “Global Challenge” is all about the fuel efficiency of a cars engine; shouldn’t that be the Volkswagen powered Skoda?
You mean like the GM LS powered Maloo??
Also Wheelnut, do you have the list of engineers specifically worked on the Volkswagen motor?
Jon – It wouldn`t matter what you said Tomas they wouldn`t get it, as my father always says “you can`t educate idiots”
But does he say that to you… or about you?
Another awkward wheelnut moment,
Obviously Wheelnut, he tells him, about people like you!!
Quite frankly over the years he has occasionally said that to me NUT. But at least I don`t live a life of delusion about whats a good car. You see obviously I have become educated, so I guess it never really applied to me.But you on the other hand is whole different ball game, your the epitome of an uneducated idiot.
Too right Jon, speaking of delusions.
How did the Holden saving SIDI engine go?
Or the Torana you been promising us over the years?
Nice to see your mum has let you on the computer, I noticed she has a new set of initials these days. Ah well you kept your original name at least.
What are you talking about Tomas?
Lol, more signs of dementia!!
Nah I think Wheelnut has schizophrenia.
jon/Tomas thinks that DE and BM are the same blogger hahahhah what a loser.
And the backward comments start coming, I mean I`m prepared to take as much as I give but when someone from SA starts calling others losers, well that will do me. I visited SA once and once was enough, what a backward state that is. The number plate for SA should read “SA The Backward State”.Or are you from South Africa? Then that would be worse.
So your uninformed, biased comments extend beyond cars to demographics now.
Your lack of intelligence is outstanding.
Please refrain before you are banned.
LOL JON, Don’t mess with RADELAID!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQBhueN9lRI
HEHEHE, your being attacked by 2 brand new identities, But we both know who she is!!!
See thats the funny thing Tomas79, you actually are wrong and dont know anything what you are talking about.
IP addresses prove it.
Haha, You can ban me if you like in actual fact if you had the power you would of just deleted my comment.
I think the CA team will first ban the desperate posters who is trying to speak for them!!!
Haha brilliant link Tomas very funny stuff, but oh so true.
S Ucked
I n
D opey
I mbociles
Congratulations XR6 Turbo. Epitome of Aussie Engineering. World beater on a shoe string budget!
HSV Maloo 7.74
Ford Falcon XR6T 7.04
Holden Sportswagon 6.48
Congrats to Holden for an excellent result with the new 3.0, which the Ford equivalent couldn’t get near. In fact the 6.3 V8 Maloo was as close to the 4ltr 6 cyl Falcon as the Falcon was to the Commodore…the fanboys tend to overlook this fact when sugarcoating the Falcon’s result.
Epitome of Aussie Engineering? Don’t think so.
So the “economy” version of the Commodore just beat the “stonking hot performance” version of the Falcon and you don’t think that the Falcon 6 is the “Epitome of Aussie Engineering”?? Please tell me what is then? The US designed GM V6?
Yes Rhubarb, please enlighten us,
The Commodore 3.0 SIDI is 1L smaller and missing a turbo.
How is the I6 being .56L in avg. consumption and only 10gm/km of Co2 more than the 3.0L SIDI not a testament to Australian ingenuity?
Not that I have anything against the Maloo but the engine isn’t exactly Australian *ahem*Chevrolet*ahem*..
Joker: How does the Ford having a turbo make one iota of difference tootling around a highway at 85kph, over the non-turbo? Is the non-turbo I6 now the ‘Economy version’?? haha
Please enlighten us?
Don’t be a Goose: So the Falcon 6 cyl just beat the 6.3 ltr *ahem*Chevrolet*ahem* V8 of the Maloo…are you sure the I6 is the “Epitome of Aussie Engineering”??
Rhubarb,
Having the Turbo as opposed to an N/A will effect the consumption figures in some form, period. The I6 NA would almost certainly have a lower consumption figure again. Once again, for the 3.0L SIDI to be only .56 of a Litre under a 4.0L I6 with or with out a Turbo only points out that the 3.0L with lower torque has to work harder to move the same mass along the road.
As for the Chevrolet Powered Maloo or the GM V6,…we didn’t exactly get an answer from you did we? :)
Rhubarb, the XR6 uses a whole 1L less than the Turbo extra-urban. The “economy” XT (similar spec to Omega) uses even less again. Given that the difference SISI Omega to XR6 Turbo was only 0.56 L/100km there is every chance that the non-turbo Falcon would have beat the Commodore.
“In some form, period”…? Care to elaborate?
How would the non-turbo I6 have a lower consumption than the turbo if the turbo wasn’t being used?
Regards the 3.0 vs the Maloo, the 3.0 used 1.26 l/100 less than the Maloo V8. There’s your answer…it’s easy with a calculator.
The Falcon “Epitome of Aussie Engineering” used only 0.7 l/100 less than the Maloo 6.3 V8. This proves that the “Epitome of Aussie Engineering” I6 has to work harder than the *ahem*Chevrolet*ahem* V8 to move the same mass along the road. For Ford (or it’s payrolled fanboys) to claim bragging rights, the Falcon would’ve had to have used less fuel than the 3.0 – this didn’t happen.
Your argument is going around in circles..you can’t argue that the Falcon achieved outstanding fuel consumption without acknowledging that the Commodore also achieved outstanding fuel consumption. Neither (or anyone else) got anywhere in the ballpark near the Maloo for % improvement.
Elaboration: Typically, the Turbo in the Falcon will be spooling all the time…when above 1900- 2000RPM possibly even lower. It doesnt take much for that turbo to come on boost either, even brisk progressive throttle will cause it to start to consume more fuel . These guys would have tried to avoid this altogether, gentle on the throttle but the Turbo causing more fuel to be used in some way at at 2000RPM or over is inevitable. I do drive a turbo, and no, its not an XR6 ;).
The commodore did achieve great consumption figures but for what it is and all the hype, it should have been better.
The 3.0L V6 will work harder than the I6 as the I6 will have to work harder than the V8, More power and torque generated and torque is what the 3.0SIDI lacks Inline Sixes inherently produce more torque than a V configuration 6. Holden have done a good job compensating with the gearbox but it’s probably not enough to conceal the underpowered factor.
Fuel economy hurt under light throttle conditions by lower compression ratio & higher exhaust restriction.
Though small price to pay for extra torque flexiblity on tap when needed/desired.
I’ll elaborate for the uneducated, the first thing to effect the economy of the Turbo over the NA is the Diff ratio, then we go into the changes to the engine management system , the air flow through the induction system and the exhaust system (both of which are freer flowing in the N/A version particularly when the turbo is not on boost), the heavier stronger and less effiicient bottom end given to the Turbo for longevity, the 245/40×18 directional tyres vs the 245/45×17 assymetrical tyres, the limited slip differential, just to name a few reasons….. would accept that these are worth a minimum of 1L/100 difference in consumption or perhaps you would really like to get down to all the little mechanical changes in the engine the different gear ratio’s of the N/A 6 speeder to the Turbo’s, the drag coefficient of the front mount cooler…etc…etc……??????????
Thanks for adding on to that SF!
Has anyone else noticed that the overall consumption results are almost perfectly organised in order of engine size(vs improvement in ADR)?
This test goes to prove how the ADR testing is flawed in that the larger the motor, the more unrealisticly high the ADR result will be. Well, except for the altos 2l/100ks result, that just seems too low to me, maybe its an error?
The Suzie did 3.91 overall
Yep realise that,
Thats why I also say there is no way on one day it can plod around at half its average.
Gotta be an error
actually our government gives decent ADR figures
the extra urban figure is for freeway driving (Fiesta 3.2L)
the urban figure is for city driving
(4.6L)
this Challenge (3.13L) involved cross country driving, naturally it would beat the combined figure (3.7L)
Don’t forget that the Suzuki Alto can only use premium unleaded, which – in terms of how much it will cost you at the bowser – makes it far less impressive.
But the same thing can also be said about the cost of Diesel, although it is now better than what it was a few months ago.
What a gimmic! The whole damn exercise is a marketing ploy.
These are not real world driving conditions. I can’t believe motoring journalism has come to this. If a stunt like this was pulled off in another domain, the journalists would rightly call it’s credibility and feasibility to account.
I’m sorry to say it, but all the stories associated with this event are rubbish and serve the consumer no benefit.
In Hear you Simon,
as soon as I read HSV engineers among others were driving their own respected vehicles it became a farce to me. Where was the independence!!!
I live in the Territory and have driven the Highway many times NEVER have I seen a HSV driver doing under 100 kph on it, That’s what made me laugh. How torturous must that have been for the poor bastards.
yeah caradvice should step in and provide useful information
a table comparing the Challenge result against the extra-urban figure to give the public a better reading
HSV Maloo 7.74 10.8 28.3%
Ford Falcon XR6T 7.04 8.8 20.0%
Skoda Superb 4.59 5.3 13.4%
Holden Sportswagon 6.48 7.3 11.2%
Suzuki Alto 3.91 4.3 9.1%
Kia Sorento 5.17 5.5 6.0%
Cooper D 3.42 3.5 2.3%
Fiesta ECOnetic 3.13 3.2 2.2%
this results in a partially different ranking
Absolutely SPOT ON Simon.
Look there were many achievements in the competition but I was really impressed with the Skoda as were the Car Advice team by the looks of things.
Jon agreed, but personally I am totally impressed by the Fiesta result, and not just in this trial but its official figures in everyday driving.
And I think you’ll find that the CA team have been really impressed with most of results thoughout the challenge.
Yes the Fiesta was impressive too, but considering the Skoda was used for lugging everything around, I think that is real world driving right there.
Care to give the Skoda a wrap again???
I havent heard you mention it once yet
I should put the 300TD in it next year. See how 30 year old technology compares to the new stuff!. It wouldn’t serve a purpose really but for making me feel good, and let me show off my car, but hey, that’s why the HSV guys entered right?
Thats right Sam would be good to see