Another bad rap for SIDI

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Wally

Yes, without getting into a protracted debate, I think it damaged Ford's image in that it appeared like a cheap shot. To the brand fanatics it would have been seen as a victory on one side of the fence and conspiracy on the other. To the vast majority it would have ranged from "whatever" to just more evidence of a sibling rivalry.

Here's a thought, maybe Ford and Holden should promote the great ozzie rwd sedan. You know, a bit of national pride in our manufacturing, even if it is based on American know how.

Certainly there is always a risk with that sort of marketing. It has been seen as a rare bit of good marketing by most on here, but a cheap shot by yourself. My question (not sure how you tell this without doing a survey or something) is how was it viewed by the mass populace (esp those that are not car buffs or into the whole red vs blue.....but were in the market for that sort of car).

My experience has been laregly positive, the people i have spoken to all viewed it with a degree of skepticism of both sides, but more so Holden....esp when you throw in that alot of the older generation are very skeptical of the smaller engine burning less idea (something Ford will have to deal with when they are on the other side of the fence with I4T...). I think Ford had got to a point (as a brand) where they were ignored by alot of the general marketplace...it was assumed they still built EB Futura's or something.... The 'Ford of course' ads combined with the Drive bathurst test debacle for holden has really put Ford back into the picture in terms of consideration by alot of new car buyers. This can only help ford as the Ford Aus lineup is very competitive these days. So on balance i still support the Ford's new marketing position, even if it does border on being a bit nasty here and there. After all, Ford is probably last to the 'cheap shot' style marketing you refer to. Toyota is one of the biggest users of this and its sales look quite good to me....

Getting back on topic, i'd like to see a city based back to back test between the 4.0 I6, 3.0 and 3.6 SIDI engines (and in future, the 2.0 DI I4T). Get the drivers to swap around and all cars follow each other over a 40k urban route nose to tail basically. Perhaps some FG owners can shed some light on what the FG will do in a fully urban cycle?? I think such a test would be quite revealing....and i'd be willing to bet the 3.0 would struggle the most versus not only ADR figures but overall....

[Nikked]

the SIDI 3.0 seems just like a 3.2 CFI...

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Not sure what you are saying there wally. Should ford have refrained from using the drive test at all? Effectively give up that very rich (and pretty damn cheap from their perspective) bit of evidence (which is proving incresingly true) of the failure of SIDI both as a piece of engineering tech AND marketable advantage??

Given the current situation it is in GM needs to start building products that deliver IN THE REAL WORLD and soon.....

I applauded Ford's move. It was absolutely the right move. Having GMHolden having to issue 'training notes' to dealers and a rebuttal to Drive showed that it hurt them.

That article and Ford's reception to it, has meant that there are plenty of fleet managers who just aren't sure. It has given some, serious doubt. Put it this way, my work has 5000 odd employees and about 2000 vehicles. The 3.0L Commodore isn't an option. But an Aurion now is.

When you have a dominant player who is offering inferior products / drivetrains, then it was absolutely the right move to steal their new engine thunder. I could only dread their VE sales had this terrible hoax not been effectively underscored.

The Alloytech/SIDI is a sub-optimal design at best. It is as simple as that.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Wally

Yes, without getting into a protracted debate, I think it damaged Ford's image in that it appeared like a cheap shot. To the brand fanatics it would have been seen as a victory on one side of the fence and conspiracy on the other. To the vast majority it would have ranged from "whatever" to just more evidence of a sibling rivalry.

Here's a thought, maybe Ford and Holden should promote the great ozzie rwd sedan. You know, a bit of national pride in our manufacturing, even if it is based on American know how.

Are you suggesting that its ok then to misrepresent you product and just get a "free kick" from the media? While im not a fan of throwing mud i think Ford used the article to PROMOTE its product in a better light, Holden use BS smoke and mirrors type acronyms to create the impression the car can achieve things in reality it cant possibly achieve.... in reality in the past Ford has let this stuff slip, but now its fighting back and the sooks at GM don't like it..
If you're going to "talk the talk" you better be able to "walk the walk"...
Maybe next time they'll work a bit harder to bring us a product that does what it claims... maybe next time they better let the engineering dept develop the acronyms rather than the marketing dept, in other words keep them honest.

[JC807]

i see that the new direct injection commodores even have a fancy "SIDI" badge on them too. woooooo!!! wow must be some new technology shiyet.
reminds me of the VR commie having an "ABS" sticker. they must be so proud to be advertising being finally able to use technology which has been around for ages.

yes, i know my BF doesn't have direct injection but at least the fords aren't stupid enough to spout DOHC, VCT or IRS badges.

[TUF_302]

My brothers old R31 Skyline gets better fuel economy from its 3ltr strait 6, and its 18 years old lol! , wonder how long there will be a 3ltr commy around lol!

[eb2fairmont]

The SIDI motor is only a 3.0 with 290Nm of torque pulling an 1800 kg car. There's just not enough pulling power to move it without using a greater proportion of the motors power to move it.

If the commodore was around 1500 kg then 290Nm would pull it well.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

Yes, without getting into a protracted debate, I think it damaged Ford's image in that it appeared like a cheap shot. To the brand fanatics it would have been seen as a victory on one side of the fence and conspiracy on the other. To the vast majority it would have ranged from "whatever" to just more evidence of a sibling rivalry.

Here's a thought, maybe Ford and Holden should promote the great ozzie rwd sedan. You know, a bit of national pride in our manufacturing, even if it is based on American know how.

May be not a cheap shot but restate the facts, that will be enough to put Holden in it's place.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by JC807

i see that the new direct injection commodores even have a fancy "SIDI" badge on them too. woooooo!!! wow must be some new technology shiyet.
reminds me of the VR commie having an "ABS" sticker. they must be so proud to be advertising being finally able to use technology which has been around for ages.

yes, i know my BF doesn't have direct injection but at least the fords aren't stupid enough to spout DOHC, VCT or IRS badges.

AU had VCT, and OHC badges on them.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Certainly there is always a risk with that sort of marketing. It has been seen as a rare bit of good marketing by most on here, but a cheap shot by yourself. My question (not sure how you tell this without doing a survey or something) is how was it viewed by the mass populace (esp those that are not car buffs or into the whole red vs blue.....but were in the market for that sort of car).

My experience has been laregly positive, the people i have spoken to all viewed it with a degree of skepticism of both sides, but more so Holden....esp when you throw in that alot of the older generation are very skeptical of the smaller engine burning less idea (something Ford will have to deal with when they are on the other side of the fence with I4T...). I think Ford had got to a point (as a brand) where they were ignored by alot of the general marketplace...it was assumed they still built EB Futura's or something.... The 'Ford of course' ads combined with the Drive bathurst test debacle for holden has really put Ford back into the picture in terms of consideration by alot of new car buyers. This can only help ford as the Ford Aus lineup is very competitive these days. So on balance i still support the Ford's new marketing position, even if it does border on being a bit nasty here and there. After all, Ford is probably last to the 'cheap shot' style marketing you refer to. Toyota is one of the biggest users of this and its sales look quite good to me....

Getting back on topic, i'd like to see a city based back to back test between the 4.0 I6, 3.0 and 3.6 SIDI engines (and in future, the 2.0 DI I4T). Get the drivers to swap around and all cars follow each other over a 40k urban route nose to tail basically. Perhaps some FG owners can shed some light on what the FG will do in a fully urban cycle?? I think such a test would be quite revealing....and i'd be willing to bet the 3.0 would struggle the most versus not only ADR figures but overall....

We could to and fro about straw polls and come out with substantiation on both opinions, but in one thing you are correct:- I do see it as a cheap shot, just as I would if GM did it to Ford in a reverse situation. In this instance I am basing it on primarily on gut feel, no appreciable spike in Ford Falcon sales and yarns around the bbq, but I am very much aware how marketing campaigns can backfire when using polarisation as the tool, especially with a limited and diminishing customer base.

Garnering data from members to support or repudiate the comparitive efficiencies will go nowhere. No matter the intent, the input will be skewed. There will be rambling posts dissecting, reconfiguring and repackaging it into something more palatable for the true believers. I am quite happy to accept there is something wrong with the ADR figures. It doesn't affect me, because I have always been critical of the Alloytec and I don't buy cars for economy, preferring a phallic V8 without all the boyracer stuff.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

While im not a fan of throwing mud i think Ford used the article to PROMOTE its product in a better light,

Which is how it was done. "No way to sugar coat it. The 3.0L SIDI Commodore used 17% more fuel than it's ADR figure, and used 10% more fuel than Falcon." Simple. Honest. No BS.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

in reality in the past Ford has let this stuff slip, but now its fighting back and the sooks at GM don't like it..

Exactly. Ford have let GMHolden do this kind of crap for years and the Holden loving sheep and media have lapped it up. Ford are now showing that the milk is homogenised pig fat masquerading as a thickshake.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

If you're going to "talk the talk" you better be able to "walk the walk"....

GMHolden are the automotive equivalent of the NSW Labor party. Spin. Spin. Spin. After 14 years, people are starting to realise what a shambles NSW is now in.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Wally

In this instance I am basing it on primarily on gut feel, no appreciable spike in Ford Falcon sales and yarns around the bbq, but I am very much aware how marketing campaigns can backfire when using polarisation as the tool, especially with a limited and diminishing customer base.

The have been production constrained since April 2009. The SIDI and Drive test was conducted in October, the week before Bathurst. The real test was therefore not that the Falcon sales didn't rise, it was that they weren't lowered by the all-singing-all-dancing-hoopla.

Bit of background to the story too. The original intention by Toby Hagen (self confessed - even in the article - GM / Red fan) - was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the SIDI 3.0L. The 4.0L FG not only quickly established itself as the better car, but to their utter astonishment, was right on it's ADR. The VE was 17% worse.

Originally Posted by Wally

I have always been critical of the Alloytec and I don't buy cars for economy, preferring a phallic V8 without all the boyracer stuff.

I just liked that, because i thought it was a quotable quote!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by eb2fairmont

The SIDI motor is only a 3.0 with 290Nm of torque pulling an 1800 kg car. There's just not enough pulling power to move it without using a greater proportion of the motors power to move it.

If the commodore was around 1500 kg then 290Nm would pull it well.

But would it pull it any better than a 357nm EF I6 falcon in a.....ding ding ding approx 1500kg car??

This is the issue. Sure the Ve would burn less than the EF, but how much of that is the general advancement of the engine tech over time, aero, gearbox ratios and tuning (6sp auto versus 4sp auto), low rolling resistance tyre etc. etc.

Ford will have a 350nm I4T with a 6sp dsg or 6sp auto. That is in a 1700tonne car topps. Holden is trying to haul the same weight with 40nm less and it is not turbo (hence no low down torque...).

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by TUF_302

My brothers old R31 Skyline gets better fuel economy from its 3ltr strait 6, and its 18 years old lol!

Haha, 500 odd kilograms might have something to do with that.

[Outback]

My trusty old 304 VQ Statesman gets me from Sydney to Surfers 1 tank 80L,i get 8.3/100 cruising on the highway.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by dave289

Well Will Ford Capiltalise On This Or Sit On There ***** Like Usual.

When Holden Bought Out There Craptiva Korean Shitebox They Went On About How Fuel Effeicient It Was Against The Ford Teritory( And Yes It Was But Is An Absolute Piece Of Crap Compared To A Territorry ,which Was Said To Ride Better Than The Bmw 4wd Upon Launch). So Will Ford Pump Out And Add To State That There 6, Be It Turbo Or Not Is More Economical Than Both The 3.0 And Also There 3.6 Litre Engine. You Would Have To Be A Tool To But A Holden Six Cylinder Commodore. So Will Ford Capitalise On This Or What?

It appears you have already capitalised on this.

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by eb2fairmont

The SIDI motor is only a 3.0 with 290Nm of torque pulling an 1800 kg car. There's just not enough pulling power to move it without using a greater proportion of the motors power to move it.

If the commodore was around 1500 kg then 290Nm would pull it well.

Interesting .. that a 1969 Dodge Phoenix hardtop weighs about 3520 pounds - 1596kg .. about 200kg less than a Commodore / Falcon which is probably about a foot shorter and a foot narrower. Good to see that all that plastic has helped cut weight.

[The Monty]

Its not the plastics that have increased the weight of the car, how many 1969 Dodge Pheonix's do you know with a 5 star crash rating, ABS, power windows, climate control, 6 airbags, 19 inch rims, comfortable seats, central locking....see where Im heading with this? Old Mustangs used to weigh 1140kg as well, Id rather be driving a falcon or commode when I crash instead of something old.

[1TUFFUTE]

yes i vote for a CLEAR CUT STRAIGHT UP ADD showing the falcon v the sidi commi. Why not..is there something wrong with the sidi commi holden...bwahaha. ( the only good thing holden has in aus is the engines they import made for a CORVETE for crying out loud.....piggback anyone)

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Its not the plastics that have increased the weight of the car, how many 1969 Dodge Pheonix's do you know with a 5 star crash rating, ABS, power windows, climate control, 6 airbags, 19 inch rims, comfortable seats, central locking....see where Im heading with this? Old Mustangs used to weigh 1140kg as well, Id rather be driving a falcon or commode when I crash instead of something old.

Agreed .. but a lot of things would be a lot easier if modern cars were smaller and lighter. Our increases in engine technology - power and economy - are being negated by bigger and heavier cars. I find it ironic that what was for a lot of years considered a LARGE car is now dwarfed in weight by an average family sedan.

[bingoTE50]

I do not know why Holden went down this track . I had a VZ 3.6 Wagon as a company car and it mixed driving was getting 9.0 l/100 . I actually thought it was not a bad car .This SIDI seems to be more marketing than actually real world benefits.
And Ford should not go ahead with a turbo four ,there is no way known that current falcon drivers would even entertain the idea of buying one....

[ChemicalHorizon]

Originally Posted by bingoTE50

And Ford should not go ahead with a turbo four ,there is no way known that current falcon drivers would even entertain the idea of buying one....

Thats not a bad thing, if it encourages people who only look at the four cylinder family car market (camry / accord etc) to look at a falcon as well. I4T is not a replacement, it will be an option and likely more expensive than the NA I6.

[TP351]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

From what they're saying a BA wagon with four speed auto is a better option, more economical, smoother drive and carries more load.
230 klm range with 3/4 of a tank !

Just a side comment, I've been driving a BF3 wagon 4 spd auto, which is only a couple of months old, on a commute from Geelong to Campbelfield, getting an average of 8.7l/100km. It is predominately highway, but the western ring road section is usually stop start at that time. I'm very impressed with it actually!

[JutroXR8]

Going back to the article, they stated the commodore had a ZF gearbox.....since when???????

[g220ba]

I think you might have misread the article.

It actually says "The automatic’s shifts won’t ever compete with ZF’s brilliant six-speed, though."

[JutroXR8]

Ah thats what happens when ya reading whilst on the phone talking about another topic....lol

[Kamshaaft]

reserved.

[g220ba]

You may just find that infact they're not ZF transmissions and infact GM6L50 automatic transmissions. Which is produced by the GM Powertrain plant in Strasbourg, France.

[SVD]

Originally Posted by ChemicalHorizon

Thats not a bad thing, if it encourages people who only look at the four cylinder family car market (camry / accord etc) to look at a falcon as well. I4T is not a replacement, it will be an option and likely more expensive than the NA I6.

persoanally id prefer to see the 5cyl out of the XR5, it wouldn't be too bad of a change for a falcon... of course with a re-work for some more torque and what not, but it could be a good thing for the falcon, so then it isn't just seen as one of those BIG family cars that drink fuel (which they dont....)

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

reserved.

But you said they have a ZF 6 speed didnt you?