Holden V8 AFM reviews show its nothing flash!

[EDManual]

Wheels: Freeway driving.

They had to drive at 90kmh (whats this 90!) on the hume freeway to get the consumption into the 9's! Big deal! Going on to say how great it is and that some other cars couldnt get from Sydney to Melb on a tank. They used a huge tank to compare to small tanks on small cars at their govt average consumption, not their hwy use like on the commodore. Wheres the sense in that?

Theres reports of xr6Ts and F6s doing less than that! And thats at normal highway speeds ie 110 to 120.

Check this out:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/category...modore-ss-afm/

They sure arent impressed!

[Escort_RPDriver]

yeah i rea

[Kieron]

Hmmm, i'm getting low 14's in my manual FG XR8 with average speed around 43km/h. Thats peak hour driving and two weekend 80K round trips up and down the freeway and aircon on most of the time.

I reckon increasing my avg speed to 50 odd km/h would drop economy into high 12's, I can certainly get it into high 8's/9's on the freeway at 100 km/h.

[colossus]

My XR6T easily does 9L/100 on the hwy and thats with cruise on at 130km/h. Nothing special in those figures specially considering that modern V8's normally have very good hwy fuel economy anyway as they just trundle along at low revs in 6th.

[4Vman]

Yes... how many people drive from melb to sydney regularly @90kph to make that test even relevant..
I have got 10.9l/100k's from my BAXR8 on trips @110+kph on a trip...
90 in 110 zone to get something meaningful to publish shows the lengths Wheels will got to.
I bet if wheels dropped a AFM V8 Commodore down a 400m mineshaft it would do it in 12 seconds too..... the headlines would read: "AFM SS cracks a 12 second 1/4!"....
Does anyone know what the performance numbers are for a 2009 AFM Auto SS?

[Kamshaaft]

This AFM tech is GMs doing, and in function is very bloody roughly put together without anywhere near as much refinement as it should have been given. In that way it's comparable to Fords ancient LPG system which has been in it's Falcons for a long time now. Lots of GM USA stuff is crap and Holden usually does heaps of dev work on the gear to improve it. Even the almightly LS series of engines get a good rogering from Holden when their crates hit our shores.

Our cars are just a better standard, and we have higher expectations as a result.

My guess is that AFM was rushed into production (like it was when they basically put the prototype into production stateside on the Pontiacs) or they couldn't figure out a way to get it to run as well as similar tech of other brands. It a poo play in my playbook though. Direct Injection (DI Alloytecs have been around for a couple years now stateside, and were done by Holden in the first place, so what gives?!), more cogs (years behind Ford), and lighter vehicles would be much better strategies in my humble opinion.

Oh, and as a P.S. in my 'other car' (AKA the VZ Berlina), I managed to get a trip average of 7.2L / 100km if I recall correctly, at a pace of about 110 when I went across to Adelaide once. I usually hammer it out on those roads though,so haven't seen that figure for a while .

[WILDB]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Does anyone know what the performance numbers are for a 2009 AFM Auto SS?

Not very good It produces 10kw and 13nm less than the old SS.
Caradvice tested their SS AFM and it did 0-100 in 6.43s. An FG XR8 with a ZF auto would leave it for dead, let alone the FG XR6T

[RG]

The six-speed automatic SSV8 AFM makes 260kW of power and produces a reduced 517Nm of torque, so you would expect those reductions alone to lead to some reasonable increase in fuel efficiency!

Not so it seems as we are still struggling, despite all manner of careful driving to achieve anything like a real reduction in fuel consumption.

Another week of driving has seen the odometer rise to a total of 3625 kilometres, which means I managed to slip 406.61km under the wheels of ‘Big Blue’ and it managed to gurgle 61.33 litres of 91RON petrol down its intakes.
The nett result was an average of 15.08 litres per 100 kilometres, which is certainly nothing to crow about.

Going by that thread it seems to me that they are saying it is pointless and doesn't do much for economy.

Fail.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by WILDB

Not very good It produces 10kw and 13nm less than the old SS.
Caradvice tested their SS AFM and it did 0-100 in 6.43s. An FG XR8 with a ZF auto would leave it for dead, let alone the FG XR6T

ok... so effectively holden have "removed" the auto SS from the performance race by fitting AFM which reduces its power and kills performance...? and only delivers "better" fuel economy if you drive long distances at 90kph?? :

EPIC FAIL

[Kamshaaft]

^Not quite. It's just not compatible with the manuals, and therefore not available. Yet another reason why AFM is a P.O.S

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

^Not quite. It's just not compatible with the manuals, and therefore not available. Yet another reason why AFM is a P.O.S

Ok, im very disappointing Holden can't fit the AFM to their manuals and knobble their performance too....
From what i understand its fitted to all auto V8's weather you want it or not.
I hope they spend some money making sure it works on a manual soon..

[WILDB]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

ok... so effectively holden have "removed" the auto SS from the performance race by fitting AFM which reduces its power and kills performance...? and only delivers "better" fuel economy if you drive long distances at 90kph?? :

EPIC FAIL

I know, its quite amusing actually - someone I work with was going to trade their original VE SS with the 270kw V8 in on the AFM version because "it goes just as well but uses less fuel" I quietly walked away and had a good laugh. This womans son is just as bad too always giving me crap about owning an XR6, going on about how his stock as a rock VZ SV6 AUTO will "dust my car because it has 190kw and my car only has 182kw" :

[Kamshaaft]

Hah! It's not so much of an issue in a manual anyway, because you can just shift up a gear or two and sit the tach needle in 1st 1/4 rev range. I think you're right about it being on all autos, which is going to the drag crowd off. It's a bit of an obstacle when it comes to engine mods.

But we all know the XR8 is a pig anyway. On the other hand the SV6 didn't even classify as sport.

[b2tf]

Regardless of whether it works/doesnt/is good enough or not, I am pleased to see Holden developing this sort of technology and I hope Ford follows suit. This is the way of the future and even though most of us enthusiasts dont crunch consumption figures etc, a lot of people do and if this gets more Fords in more driveways it can only be a good thing.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by b2tf

Regardless of whether it works/doesnt/is good enough or not, I am pleased to see Holden developing this sort of technology and I hope Ford follows suit. This is the way of the future and even though most of us enthusiasts dont crunch consumption figures etc, a lot of people do and if this gets more Fords in more driveways it can only be a good thing.

I hope Ford develop a system that actually works.. and does so without hurting performance too...

[JC]

Originally Posted by EDManual

Wheels: Freeway driving.

They had to drive at 90kmh (whats this 90!) on the hume freeway to get the consumption into the 9's! Big deal! Going on to say how great it is and that some other cars couldnt get from Sydney to Melb on a tank. They used a huge tank to compare to small tanks on small cars at their govt average consumption, not their hwy use like on the commodore. Wheres the sense in that?

Theres reports of xr6Ts and F6s doing less than that! And thats at normal highway speeds ie 110 to 120.

Check this out:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/category...modore-ss-afm/

They sure arent impressed!

It is a known fact that driving at 90 instead of 110 will save you around 20% in fuel - the trade off is that you would be holding up kms worth of traffic, and you would arrive at your destination 20% later (roughly) - not a big thing if the trip is a 30 minute one, but it might make all the difference between arriving or falling asleep on the way on a 10hour+ trip (making it a 12 hour trip). Still the AFM technology should be a good thing, and it is a comparison of how it reduces the fuel on that car, not that car against other brands, per se.

[mcnews]

I drove from Perth to Carnarvon in the F6 with the cruise on 130 and plenty of overtaking etc. and a stop for juice etc. and averaged 10.5 litres per 100km. At 90 I reckon it would be 9 litres per 100 quite easily.

[Luke Plaizier]

If you drive at 90km/h to get your instantaneous economy down, but you are on the road 2 hours longer on a drive that's normally 10 hours, does that mean your engine has been running for 2 hours longer and has in fact used more fuel?

I know I know, the answer is no, but it's a funny way to spin the numbers though isn't it, and I reckon you could fool a few Commodore drivers with that line....


Lukeyson

[whales]

Pleaase excuse my ingorance but WTF is AFM

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by whales

Pleaase excuse my ingorance but WTF is AFM

A Foolish Myth or Absolutely Fantastic Marketing, cant quite remember which one.

[5.4 GT]

Originally Posted by whales

Pleaase excuse my ingorance but WTF is AFM

Active Fuel Management.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by whales

Pleaase excuse my ingorance but WTF is AFM

Active Fuel Management, cuts back to 4cyl on light loads or something like that.

That 90 km/hr cruising is BS, I got very close to that (9.8) in my BF XR8 on a Brisbane to Sydney drive and that was at the speed limit +10 all the way.

[Paddyboy]

I just read the article and I picked up a few things..
So they averaged just under 9 (high 8's i think) on the freeway, which is pretty decent, lets just say a little bit lower then a similar v8 sedan (my ba gt would average 10's on same trip, going 110)
The thing is number 1) they drove at 90 which is 20 kmph under limit (you can actually get fined for that, I got done on the way to adelaide doing 80 in a 100 zone and I had a reason for it)
number 2) They got consumption figures not that much different to other v8 sedans.
3) they didnt use cruise control, i dont know how many people wouldnt use it if they had it.
So this test is irrelevant. BUT...........
They made it from sydney to melbourne in one tank, they did it in apparently a cheaper car to run and they did it in a holden.
My point is, no matter how bloody ridiculous we all see this test to be, Holden are going to have a field day as they are very good at marketing and advertising and they will sell these cars with AFM like hot cakes as now all the guys out there who have been refraining from buying a v8 due to petrol costs are now given a reason to buy one again, and they will buy holden.
Ford better come up with a response to this and they better well do a bloody good job of it. If you compared a new bf xr8 to a new ve ss, the xr8 will beat it on fuel consumption, so if Ford do a better job of this AFM thing then they should be able to come up trumps again.
All they have to do now is improve on the marketing and advertising. Coz Ford have always been the better car.

[XR Martin]

Looks like no one has actually read the article.
Speeds were kept at 95-100kmh (alot of the Hume is 100kmh), A/C on, through the massive roadworks on the Hume, and claimed to hit some headwind. And those that travel on the Hume in NSW know its not very flat or straight.

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Hmmm, i'm getting low 14's in my manual FG XR8 with average speed around 43km/h. Thats peak hour driving and two weekend 80K round trips up and down the freeway and aircon on most of the time.

I reckon increasing my avg speed to 50 odd km/h would drop economy into high 12's, I can certainly get it into high 8's/9's on the freeway at 100 km/h.

And herein lies the problem with people quoting fuel consumption figures.

you claim low 14's and an average speed of 43km/h then refer to it as 'peak hour driving'

To be 43km/h is not peak hour.

For example - my figures

BF mk v8 Ghia - ~18L/100km - Average speed 27km/h. That's what I consider peak hour driving.

It really is quite redundant when people quote their 'peak hour' driving without including an average speed, because as you can see from the above - there's a bloody huge difference.

[EDManual]

90% of the trip from Melbourne to Sydney is NOT road works
(I drive it all the time, there would be less than 80km where you have to do less than 100). and is 110zone al least 80% of it where 90% of drivers sit on 120. The roadworks is slower and would HELP fuel consumption when you have to do 60 or 80 for a few km here and there.

Plus they admitted that their speedo was out and you bet thats what they were driving at.

Why dont they sit on 50km/h and try for a low 8l/100?

And Wheels claim its good?!!

[DougM]

I just think it's BS that there is another Holden on the cover.........i don't bother buying Wheels or Motor because it's just not independant journalism.....Can any regular readers tell us how many covers have Holdens in the last year or so??? How many "exlusive new pics" have been released only to be their own artists impressions.....Enough already.....GIVE US THE FACTS........ONLY THE FACTS!!!!!

[snappy]

Originally Posted by Grunter

A Foolish Myth or Absolutely Fantastic Marketing, cant quite remember which one.

Hit the nail on the head .

[Smoke Pursuit]

I havent driven an AFM equiped car yet, but if they are anywhere near as bad on juice as our VE Calais 6 Litre then the Boss has nothing to worry about... My Boss 315 has only done 400 kms but the average is 11.2, thats a 50 / 50 cycle, yes im taking it easy as ive been crook in hospital!

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Gaz

And herein lies the problem with people quoting fuel consumption figures.

you claim low 14's and an average speed of 43km/h then refer to it as 'peak hour driving'

To be 43km/h is not peak hour.

For example - my figures

BF mk v8 Ghia - ~18L/100km - Average speed 27km/h. That's what I consider peak hour driving.

It really is quite redundant when people quote their 'peak hour' driving without including an average speed, because as you can see from the above - there's a bloody huge difference.

No, I didn't claim peak hour driving exclusively. I also included 2 weekend trips up/down the freeway of 80k's each, thought I was pretty clear with the info I provided. Thats what my car currently does each week.

Oh, and it's currently got 3,200k's on the clock so pretty much run in and still on the factory mineral oil and naturally being a V8, gets the odd squirt.