Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phillyc
Yourself and Gobes have some interesting thoughts. I hope this adds something to them. Also consider that on 95ron that the Commodore would be using about 3% or more fuel too.
So VE AFM figureswould be approx 255kw, 510Nm (95ron) & 13.3L/100km.
|
Actually i'm pretty sure that the fuel burn figures are on 95 RON (ADR fuel burn specification), as for all ADR fuel burn figures. The real problem for Holden i see with this is with respect to performance. As others have noted, it sets a bad example when you are hobbling an engine (which has been widely aclaimed) in order to achieve fuel burn savings at the best of time. Companies like VW (twin charger tech), Ford (I6,I6T), hell even toyota (aurion 3.5V6) have all produced engines/cars with more horsepower and lower fuel burn. In fact due to weight increases specific fuel consumption has often improved by quite some margin.
It is clear that after reading a few reviews you can feel it activating (unlike Honda etc.) and given holden's comments about delaying AFM to get the NVH right this is not surprising. What is surprising to me and no doubt most performance car fans is that Holden would reduced power and torque on a top line model to save $150 bucks a year. Hell the difference in fuel burn a year between an XR8 and SS would only be $300 tops - maybe less if you run the SS on 98 RON to make its power figures. I know heaps of V8 fans that would gladly pay that for an extra 30kw - let alone the many advantages the FG has over the VE anyway....