Ve Fuel Economy Released

[PETE_XR6]

The full range of Commodore models are their related fuel economy figure is in the table below

Omega V6 4sp auto 10.9 (-0.1)
Berlina V6 4sp auto 10.9 (-0.1)
Berlina V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)
SV6 V6 6sp man 11.0 (-0.4)
SV6 V6 5sp auto 11.3 (-0.1)
SS V8 6sp man 14.4 (-0.2)
SS V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)
SS V V8 6sp man 14.4 (-0.2)
SS V V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)
Calais V6 5sp auto 11.3 (-0.1)
Calais V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)
Calais V V6 5sp auto 11.6 (+0.2)
Calais V V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)

* All figures were achieved with air conditioning equipped and running 95RON unleaded petrol.

TAKEN FROM DRIVE.COM.AU

[Iphido]

Jesus, Fords going to have a solid fuel economy advantage, on the six's and the eights.

Over a 1L per 100 advantage on the top of the line six cylinders. Falcon I6 is looking better and better all the time.

[Scott]

A 4sp, 5sp & 6sp auto? Wonder how economical it is to make/supply/install/warranty & stock so many of the same thing?

Overall looks like pretty good economy though.

[charles_wif_xf]

Those figures aren't too bad, but I'll reserve my comment until they get the full shakedown from the motor mags.

[Iphido]

They are all GM's transmissions. The 6 speed is used on V8's only and the 5 speed on V6's. No diffrent to the six speed auto, one for the V8's and one for the NA I6.

Xr6 6 speed/Fairmont Ghia is looking awefully attractive. Nearly 1.5L ahead of equivlent commodore. Hopefully Ford can match them on equipment and power.

DOD can't come soon enough for Holden.The figures aren't terrible (simular to E-Class merc), its just the falcons are so good.

[merlin]

Just as a comparison (figures from Ford website).

Omega V6 4sp auto 10.9 (-0.1).....I6 equipped XT with 4 spd auto 10.9
Berlina V6 4sp auto 10.9 (-0.1).....other I6 equipped with 6 spd auto 10.2
Berlina V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3).....XT V8 with 6 spd auto 13.2
SS V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)..........XR8 BOSS 260 6 spd auto 13.7

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by Iphido

DOD can't come soon enough for Holden.

Well you say that but if it is as good or bad as the 300c I drove they have a lot of work to do to get it to an acceptable balance. There is a delay on activation and like all things relating to economy if you don’t drive accordingly you aren't going to get it. 300c on fewer cylinders well if it does return an advantage at the pump I am buggered if I can see how. It didn't seem like a good match to me and perhaps the reason why Holden haven't moved it into the VE.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Well you say that but if it is as good or bad as the 300c I drove they have a lot of work to do to get it to an acceptable balance. There is a delay on activation and like all things relating to economy if you don’t drive accordingly you aren't going to get it. 300c on fewer cylinders well if it does return an advantage at the pump I am buggered if I can see how. It didn't seem like a good match to me and perhaps the reason why Holden haven't moved it into the VE.

Exactly DOD simply does not work, it is a marketing exercise into thinking your V8 is as fuel ecornomical as a 4 cylender. 300c has it and still guzzles the juice more then the GENIII or Boss motors

[4Vman]

DOD is DUD... its a gimmick IMO.

[Brute6]

Yeah, not too surprised by those figures. One note I made was that figures for the GM 6 sp auto, rose, whereas the Ford 6 sp auto figures drop by a good margin..... :eclipsee_

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by merlin

Just as a comparison (figures from Ford website).

Omega V6 4sp auto 10.9 (-0.1).....I6 equipped XT with 4 spd auto 10.9
Berlina V6 4sp auto 10.9 (-0.1).....other I6 equipped with 6 spd auto 10.2
Berlina V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3).....XT V8 with 6 spd auto 13.2
SS V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)..........XR8 BOSS 260 6 spd auto 13.7

Are Fords figures quoted with 95 RON like the Holdens figures?

[blackahcdx]

Actually the Current Exec is 11.1 so if the new one is 10.9 thats actually 0.2 less :p (really, who cars about anything more/less than 0.5???)

[Phoon Hoon]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Are Fords figures quoted with 95 RON like the Holdens figures?

I believe so, yes.

[chevypower]

these days they both really need a 2.0L Common Rail 4 TDI disesel electric hybrid putting out a combined 180kw/500Nm, getting 5L per 100km

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Phoon Hoon

I believe so, yes.

Ok, cool, so the Boss 260 is more fuel efficient than the 6.0L 270...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Brute6

One note I made was that figures for the GM 6 sp auto, rose, whereas the Ford 6 sp auto figures drop by a good margin..... :eclipsee_

I don't see it in the figures, where is it?

[coolkid]

the boss 260 may be more economical than the ss but so it should be with less power and a LOT less torque and no doubt it will be quicker in every area, and what about the fuel economy of the boss 290 i remember a test where they got 27lper 100km compared with uner 20s for typhoon and maloo and the maloo floogged it in perfomance anyway. so ford still have alot of work to do for the bf2 with the v8s imo

[8pAc]

Are you blind?

SS V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)..........XR8 BOSS 260 6 spd auto 13.7

[galaxy xr8]

That's interesting that with the new 6spd auto on the performance model's the millage has gone up, I would have thought it would be the other???, like Ford's.

[csv8]

VE Diesel next year.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

That's interesting that with the new 6spd auto on the performance model's the millage has gone up, I would have thought it would be the other???, like Ford's.

Could changing the gearing to improve or maintain performance over VZ models explain this? Kerb weight must have increased as well.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Are Fords figures quoted with 95 RON like the Holdens figures?

The government regs require 95ron for all testing.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by 8pAc

Are you blind?

SS V8 6sp auto 14.3 (+0.3)..........XR8 BOSS 260 6 spd auto 13.7

No, and given that the XR8 comparison came after the post to which I referred, perhaps I was not asking that question.

I was however looking for an example of where the A6spd gave poorer economy over another choice of transmission - manual or other wise. Which it does not.

Also, given that an A6spd was not an option in a VZ, how could it deliver worse economy than previously other than in comparison to the A5spd which I now gather Brute6 was referring to?

[xbgs351]

What progress. The 48-215 gets 9.4L/100km.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

What progress. The 48-215 gets 9.4L/100km.

Who said metal was heavy lol. It's suprising to see that a hot 138 in a well sorted FX can still lap a tight track as quick as a new commie too.

[AWD Chaser]

Now the SS and SSV models all got around 14.3 or 14.4, but were tested on 95RON, but I thought the Gen4 motor was meant to use RON98 or higher? Wouldn't this alter the figures, and how?