Omega & Berlina to get "premium" engine

[1991_Vn2nV]

evidence of this please? when the new fuel consumption sticker system comes out soo this will reveal true figures of what to expect, ie there moving to stickers that show a city figure and a freeway, this combined stuff is b/s

i distinctively remember a reviewer commenting the fg uses more fuel that a ve around town,

after youve driven an alloytec for a while, like 3-4 months, not just one trip to evaluate it, you will never go back to an ecotec, and ive never heard anyone say different to that aswell.

my vs wagon used 15L/100km my vz wagon uses 11L/100km for the same driving, and has more power. ive also had it at a consistant 7.9L/100km on the freeway, do you need it anybetter that that?


also adding to that, ive always believed the vz was a mule car for holden, they used this model to develop the alloytec in real life, they have a very conservative tune and are quite capable of making good power, holden are just using the tune as leverage to make the production life of the engine longer,

I don't see how personal driving figures are relevant. I was getting 11.7L in the VN before I stopped driving and around 11 in my old VS. Our VT I get pretty bad figures, at around 14.5 but its in pretty bad nic. The uncles VX gets great economy and will do 800km's to a tank.

RE: FG figures im sure you can look it up but the base falcon gets like 10.4L per 100km and in real world circumstances it generally impresses. We'll wait for the new fuel sticker though.

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

I know what 1991_Vn2nV means i think..
He is saying the Ecotec came on line and gave out good fuel figures over the Buick V6's, What were the claims 6-7% better?. And the jump from ecotec to alloytech hasn't set the world on fire. The VT gets me 510km to a tank easy, The VP 400-420km. Getting out on the highway and the VT kills the VP which is no slouch on highways at all.

Also i would like to claim here that the I6 from personal experiences isn't flash on fuel at all. BA 04 Fairmont drinking 17l/100 around town, Under 80,000km. But getting into the 7's on highways.
Also i think the VY was claimed to be better on fuel then a BA anyway?.


Bu anyway, Once you drive a SV6 or Calais you can feel the change overall, Then if you drive it well you actually get better fuel then claimed.

There is a big difference between a BA and an FG (especially when the BA was a fairmont).

BA had official consumption of like 11.9L or so, BAII was 11.5L. FG is 10.5L for 5 speed, 10.1L for 6 speed auto.

You're right in a way of what im trying to say. Im not saying its not necessarily an improvement. But since the Ecotec was bought in 13 years ago, you would think the Alloytec would be better than it is, given the technology improvements and money spent as well as the importance of fuel economy to selling a vehicle in this day and age.

 

[Full Spectrum]

(Inserting sarcasm) That is why i have a laugh at the boss motors over the pushrod LS engines. All that modern day technology for what. Whilst we have a drool over VVT Cam phasing quad cams etc, Out on the road it's eaten alive by uncles sams chev from the days when fuel was under 25c.

With the I6 in the BA's most of them were bad, I remember getting on the Ford forums asking for help, And what feedback i got was disturbing. Almost everyone had bad fuel economy from there BA's, Some select few with the BF but plenty with BA's.
But unlike holden ford have been better at getting better figures out of there engine and some good changes in auto's has helped.

One werid thing is the 195 5 speed should be getting better numbers on the sticker. In the real world it's very good, But it seems all that matter is the sticker that goes on the car.
For me driving the Calais was brilliant. I hired it and my auntie said she would pay for the fuel, She ended up paying out for about 1 1/2 tanks over 1200km, Mind you she brought along $500 for fuel because she drives a 626. Expecting high fuel usage she was surprised. We didn't hold about in it at all drive it like you stole it!, Just don't kill it.

 

[Reaper]

My figures are based on CITY mileage for VX compared to COMBINED ADR mileage for the VE.

The sticker mileage anyway which is what is gonna put someone in a car.

VX (Tested to AS2877)
V6 Automatic Sedan City / Highway: 11.0 / 6.6 (L/100km)
V6 Manual Sedan City / Highway: 10.0 / 6.6 (L/100km)

VE (ADR081/01)
V6 Automatic Omega, Berlina: 10.9 (L/100km) 10.6 (L/100km)
V6 195kW Manual SV6: 11.0 (L/100km)
V6 195kW Automatic SV6, Calais: 11.3 (L/100km)
V6 195kW Automatic Calais-V: 11.6 (L/100km)

The above VE readings are before this fuel economy change with blue being the new figure.

We have a VE, VX and VT in the family that I drive also (well until March this year when I had to stop driving lol). I've driven VE Omega, Berlina, SV6 and WM Caprice (that was just a new rental). Whilst the alloytec is a big step up in the VE over the VZ, im still not impressed.

I haven't read the whole thing but if you are arguing about just the engines, comparing them in a VE to a VX/T is not really valid as there is 200kgs or so of extra lard that the VE has to push around. Just out of interest, what were the figures in the VZ vs the VY? (different motors in more or less exactly the same body).

Reaper

 

[Reaper]

(Inserting sarcasm) That is why i have a laugh at the boss motors over the pushrod LS engines. All that modern day technology for what. Whilst we have a drool over VVT Cam phasing quad cams etc, Out on the road it's eaten alive by uncles sams chev from the days when fuel was under 25c.

Yeah well in that one you have a marketing department who needed a ****load of technology to put in the brochures. For me, minimalistic, simple, effective design is the epitome of great engineering. Technology for technologies sake is just daft.

With the I6 in the BA's most of them were bad, I remember getting on the Ford forums asking for help, And what feedback i got was disturbing. Almost everyone had bad fuel economy from there BA's, Some select few with the BF but plenty with BA's.
But unlike holden ford have been better at getting better figures out of there engine and some good changes in auto's has helped.

One werid thing is the 195 5 speed should be getting better numbers on the sticker. In the real world it's very good, But it seems all that matter is the sticker that goes on the car.
For me driving the Calais was brilliant. I hired it and my auntie said she would pay for the fuel, She ended up paying out for about 1 1/2 tanks over 1200km, Mind you she brought along $500 for fuel because she drives a 626. Expecting high fuel usage she was surprised. We didn't hold about in it at all drive it like you stole it!, Just don't kill it.

The word from Holden engineering is the current test is not suited to the calibration of their 5 speed, however they (the engineers/Holden) claim that calibration is best for all round driving conditions (Ford have done the opposite). Thus, the test provides an inferior number compared to what it otherwise could have achieved. I can see how this is possible. Weather you blame Holden or the test I guess is up to the individual. I have thought about it and in the end I think GM did the right thing in calibrating the car for real world but you can't change the test to suit one particular brand of car.

Reaper

 

[greenfoam]

Unfortuently not even 1 billion dollars is enough to change the laws of physics (not they they are currently correct) But still! the torque produced isn't enough to push that much weight around at a pace people have come to expect these days

 

[andyman]

I haven't read the whole thing but if you are arguing about just the engines, comparing them in a VE to a VX/T is not really valid as there is 200kgs or so of extra lard that the VE has to push around. Just out of interest, what were the figures in the VZ vs the VY? (different motors in more or less exactly the same body).

Reaper

vz was 10.9 and i think vy was 11.2 or 11.4 or something

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

I haven't read the whole thing but if you are arguing about just the engines, comparing them in a VE to a VX/T is not really valid as there is 200kgs or so of extra lard that the VE has to push around. Just out of interest, what were the figures in the VZ vs the VY? (different motors in more or less exactly the same body).

Reaper

VY figures:
V6 Automatic Executive: CITY 11.0 (L/100km) HIGHWAY 6.6 (L/100km)

VZ figures:
V6 Automatic Executive: 11.0 (L/100km)
V6 190kW Automatic Sedan: 11.4 (L/100km)

VX weighs 1519kg, VY weighs 1522kg, VZ weighs 1568kg. Both in V6 form.

The word from Holden engineering is the current test is not suited to the calibration of their 5 speed, however they (the engineers/Holden) claim that calibration is best for all round driving conditions (Ford have done the opposite). Thus, the test provides an inferior number compared to what it otherwise could have achieved. I can see how this is possible. Weather you blame Holden or the test I guess is up to the individual. I have thought about it and in the end I think GM did the right thing in calibrating the car for real world but you can't change the test to suit one particular brand of car.

Reaper

I've seen reviews where the FG has returned under 10L per 100km combined.

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

vz was 10.9 and i think vy was 11.2 or 11.4 or something

The VY was rated at 11.0L city and 6.6L highway compared to a combined figure of 11.0 for VZ. The VY returned a combined figure of 9.2L in a test by the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/25/1032734218468.html)

 

[CSP]

Whilst the alloytec is a big step up in the VE over the VZ, im still not impressed.

Cool. Don't buy one.