New Holden V6 news right now.

EDManual · 04-08-2009, 12:42 PM

http://www.caradvice.com.au/37379/ho...ates-revealed/

Live conference is here :

http://www.webtronwebcast.com/holden/video/

Although the conference has just begun we can bring you news already as follows:

* The new 3.0-litre SIDI V6 will produce 190kW and manage a consumption figure of 9.3L/100km (combined). This engine will be available in Omega and Berlina models.
* The exisiting 3.6-litre V6 will be available in the rest of the VE range – as well as WM models – but will see a power increase to 210kW. This engine will be mated exclusively to a six-speed automatic transmission.
* LPG powered units now achieve a fuel economy figure of 13.4L/100km (combined) as well as being the most CO2 emissions friendly car in its class.
* Most VE and WM models will not see any increase over the current recommended retail price.
* Next year an E85 fuelled alternative will also be made available with this engine to be exported globally. Export vehicles to be powered by the Aussie V6 include SAAB’s new 9-5 model.

Road_Warrior · 04-08-2009, 12:51 PM

The 3.6 will be SIDI as well

EDManual · 04-08-2009, 12:53 PM

pretty cool being able to watch the conference... that Royce bloke says Um a lot!!

EDManual · 04-08-2009, 12:56 PM

thats interesting the moulded alloy exhaust manifold made into the head.

They said the engine is 10kg lighter than the current v6.

Ghiadude · 04-08-2009, 01:07 PM

notice that torque figures arnt quoted?

EDManual · 04-08-2009, 01:10 PM

From another thread....

Road_Warrior

Bumping this thread

A moot discussion topic now that Holden's V6 engine plans are public knowledge, with the following figures:

Omega / Berlina
3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190 @ 6700
290 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
9.3L/100

SV6/Calais/Statesmen/Caprice
3.6L SIDI V6 (LLT)
VE, WM MY10
210 @ 6400
350 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
10.1 - 10.3L/100

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

Conrad · 14-08-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDManual

From another thread....

Road_Warrior

Bumping this thread

A moot discussion topic now that Holden's V6 engine plans are public knowledge, with the following figures:

Omega / Berlina
3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190 @ 6700
290 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
9.3L/100

SV6/Calais/Statesmen/Caprice
3.6L SIDI V6 (LLT)
VE, WM MY10
210 @ 6400
350 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
10.1 - 10.3L/100

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

i dont know how legit those figures will be when the diesel engines running ULP

**Fordman1** · 14-08-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conrad

i dont know how legit those figures will be when the diesel engines running ULP

Diesel ?

Am I missing something here ?

They are Direct Injection ULP NOT Diesel.............

Ghiadude · 04-08-2009, 01:14 PM

better torque and similar fuel consumption out of an engine 33% larger. Not too far behind but behind none the less. 6 speed ZF across the range now FTW!

Road_Warrior · 04-08-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

better torque and similar fuel consumption out of an engine 33% larger. Not too far behind but behind none the less. 6 speed ZF across the range now FTW!

ZF? I don't think so, the 6L50E is a GM transmission

Mr Hardware · 04-08-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

As the only motor you can do 1 million kays in?

Smoke Pursuit · 04-08-2009, 01:21 PM

Whats omega / berlina going to be like with that torque? I reckon it will be a mutt of a car!

Smoke Pursuit · 04-08-2009, 01:23 PM

4.0 I6
195kw @ 6000rpm
391nm @ 3250rpm

3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190kw @ 6700rpm
290nm @ 2900rpm

Over 100 nm of extra torque.. woah Holden have done it again!

Dave_au · 04-08-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

4.0 I6
195kw @ 6000rpm
391nm @ 3250rpm

3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190kw @ 6700rpm
290nm @ 2900rpm

I wonder whether Toyota will have any reaction by unleashing the direct injection version of it's 3.5L into the Aurion.

Currently the Toyota Aurion 3.5L 2GR-FE has:
200kw@6200rpm
336nm@4700rpm.

However the direct injection version of this engine that's in some JSpec and Lexus ranges (3.5L 2GR-FSE) has:
232kw@6400rpm
377nm@4800rpm

Wally · 04-08-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

4.0 I6
195kw @ 6000rpm
391nm @ 3250rpm

3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190kw @ 6700rpm
290nm @ 2900rpm

Over 100 nm of extra torque.. woah Holden have done it again!

I don't think those figures are too bad. I know straight line interpolation isn't correct, but it does serve to ballpark a comparison:-

If you look at the 4.0:

190kw @ 6000rpm = 47.5kW/l
133kW @ 3250rpm = 33.2kW/l = 391Nm = 97.75Nm/l

Straightline corrected to 2900rpm = < 391Nm = 118.7kW = 29.7kW/l = 97.75Nm/l best case.

compared to the 3.0:

190kW @ 6700 = 63kW/l
88kW@ 2900 = 29.4kW/l = 290Nm = 96.67Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 97kW = 32.5kW/l = 95.5Nm/l

compared to the 3.6

210kW@ 6400 = 58kW/l
106kW @ 2900 = 29.44kW/l = 350Nm = 97.22 Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 116.4kW = 32.3kW/l = 95Nm/l

This indicates the V6 is breathing pretty well, given it doesn't have the benefit of bore/stroke to help it at low range revs.

Road_Warrior · 04-08-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

I don't think those figures are too bad. I know straight line interpolation isn't correct, but it does serve to ballpark a comparison:-

If you look at the 4.0:

190kw @ 6000rpm = 47.5kW/l
133kW @ 3250rpm = 33.2kW/l = 391Nm = 97.75Nm/l

Straightline corrected to 2900rpm = < 391Nm = 118.7kW = 29.7kW/l = 97.75Nm/l best case.

compared to the 3.0:

190kW @ 6700 = 63kW/l
88kW@ 2900 = 29.4kW/l = 290Nm = 96.67Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 97kW = 32.5kW/l = 95.5Nm/l

compared to the 3.6

210kW@ 6400 = 58kW/l
106kW @ 2900 = 29.44kW/l = 350Nm = 97.22 Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 116.4kW = 32.3kW/l = 93.61Nm/l

This indicates the V6 is breathing pretty well, given it doesn't have the benefit of bore/stroke to help it at low range revs.

Huh?

And what's the 190kw all about?

Paxton · 04-08-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Huh?

And what's the 190kw all about?

Exactly. The I6 puts out 195kw, so your comparison Wally is null and void (unless we are comparing BF Falcons with VE Commodores).

Wally · 04-08-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

Exactly. The I6 puts out 195kw, so your comparison Wally is null and void (unless we are comparing BF Falcons with VE Commodores).

Not so, it effects very little and is thus quite valid.

Wally · 04-08-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Huh?

And what's the 190kw all about?

My apologies should have been:

Quote:

If you look at the 4.0:

195kw @ 6000rpm = 48.75kW/l
133kW @ 3250rpm = 33.2kW/l = 391Nm = 97.75Nm/l

Straightline corrected to 2900rpm = < 391Nm = 118.7kW = 29.7kW/l = 97.75Nm/l best case

I would suspect the actual value of torque @ 2900 for the 4.0 would be about 350Nm = 87.5Nm/l

Falc'man · 04-08-2009, 08:04 PM

We're lucky we have the 4.0, folks. Power delivery is suited to the street more than any other 6 on the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

I don't think those figures are too bad. I know straight line interpolation isn't correct, but it does serve to ballpark a comparison:-

If you look at the 4.0:

190kw @ 6000rpm = 47.5kW/l
133kW @ 3250rpm = 33.2kW/l = 391Nm = 97.75Nm/l

Straightline corrected to 2900rpm = < 391Nm = 118.7kW = 29.7kW/l = 97.75Nm/l best case.

compared to the 3.0:

190kW @ 6700 = 63kW/l
88kW@ 2900 = 29.4kW/l = 290Nm = 96.67Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 97kW = 32.5kW/l = 95.5Nm/l

compared to the 3.6

210kW@ 6400 = 58kW/l
106kW @ 2900 = 29.44kW/l = 350Nm = 97.22 Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 116.4kW = 32.3kW/l = 95Nm/l

This indicates the V6 is breathing pretty well, given it doesn't have the benefit of bore/stroke to help it at low range revs.

I have to disagree (I know, you must surprised about that).

In relative terms, for a direct injected vs port injection, there isn't much to crow about when the specific torque of the 4 litre is better.

Secondly, how well it "breathes" doesn't help much if there's not many cubes to pull 1.7t. It's a mismatch.

PoweredByCNG · 04-08-2009, 08:13 PM

If Holden are getting 350Nm out of a 3.6L V6, I would say that 390Nm out of a 4.0L V6 wouldn't be too far-fetched. If you do the maths, 350 / 3.6 = 97.222R, 97.222R * 4 = 388.888R.

Regards,
Dave

Swordsman88 · 04-08-2009, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

If Holden are getting 350Nm out of a 3.6L V6, I would say that 390Nm out of a 4.0L V6 wouldn't be too far-fetched. If you do the maths, 350 / 3.6 = 97.222R, 97.222R * 4 = 388.888R.

Regards,
Dave

You may very well be right dave. Here comes the problem though. You can't apply such simplistic reasoning to such things. Sure it is good enough for a rough guide (completely ignoring torque/power curves, driveability, nvh, fuel economy etc.) but it falls down because as was much discussed on a recent (closed) aloytec thread, different engines are designed for different size ranges.

The alloytec is probably maxed out a 3.6 size. I doubt it would maintain its (somewhat average) torque/litre values once pushed to that larger size. If it did, who knows what would happen to fuel burn and driveability.

Fact is, as alluded to by Falc'man, the alloytec is not very good at producing torque. The numbers you have used are for a DI 3.6 alloytec, versus a port injection 4.0 I6. Yes the I6 is undersquare, but this helps 'low down' torque prodution more than just the raw torque value. DI should provide much better results for the alloytec, but it just doesn't. Whatever the reason holden has struggled to provide much in the way of torque improvmeent at all (10nm gain in 3.6, and the 3.0 didin't even crack 100nm/l).

As i say, we will have to at least wait for some more info plus drive reviews before we can say much more.

Mr Hardware · 04-08-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

If Holden are getting 350Nm out of a 3.6L V6, I would say that 390Nm out of a 4.0L V6 wouldn't be too far-fetched. If you do the maths, 350 / 3.6 = 97.222R, 97.222R * 4 = 388.888R.

Regards,
Dave

Yeah, you can't do that dave. How are they going to increase the size of the engine, bore or stroke? If bore, expect very minimal torque gains. If stroke, expect torque gains. The I6 wins cos of it's long stroke.

Mr Hardware · 04-08-2009, 01:23 PM

It all depends where the torque is and how early you reach 90% torque at how long it lasts for.
I mean just remember they went from the ecotec motor which had a similar torque figure (295-odd) which was a punchy, responsive albeit rough motor, to the smooth but utterly gutless alloytec which had 5% greater torque, just all in the wrong places, so it actually felt gutless.

Rob · 04-08-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

It all depends where the torque is and how early you reach 90% torque at how long it lasts for.
I mean just remember they went from the ecotec motor which had a similar torque figure (295-odd) which was a punchy, responsive albeit rough motor, to the smooth but utterly gutless alloytec which had 5% greater torque, just all in the wrong places, so it actually felt gutless.

Mr Hardware has nailed it - it's not peak torque, it's where it arrives. The Ecotec was a rough old bugger, but it developed heaps of torque just off idle, which made it feel punchy.

However, the alloytec seems to be pretty poor in the low down torque department. The I6 is still superior to both the 3.0 and 3.6, it'll last forever, makes good power and torque across the rev range.

sgt_doofey · 04-08-2009, 02:07 PM

I have to laugh as my 2.0L HDi (Turbo Diesel) engine would feel better to drive than that 3.0L V6 as it delivers 320Nm from 1750rpm up to about 4000rpm. Combined with fuel consumption figures of approx 6L/100km, I'll stick with the diesel 307 thanks.
That car will be a slug to drive really. Any idea what the towing capacity will be with the new motor as well? Wouldn't be that great will it?

ea90gl · 04-08-2009, 02:07 PM

Have a look at the numbers for the 3.0, if this isnt the next boat anchor I wouldn't know what is. 290Nm at 2900? 190KW at 6700? What will this thing be making at 2000-2500RPM where the "fuel efficient" driving style spins the motor at? Peanuts is my guess which means more throttle just to get moving so people can waive goodbye to your beloved fuel consumption decrease. It will probably return great numbers on the highway but how many times are we travelling those long distances

Mr Hardware · 04-08-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Mr Hardware has nailed it - it's not peak torque, it's where it arrives. The Ecotec was a rough old bugger, but it developed heaps of torque just off idle, which made it feel punchy.

However, the alloytec seems to be pretty poor in the low down torque department. The I6 is still superior to both the 3.0 and 3.6, it'll last forever, makes good power and torque across the rev range.

Quite right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spvd02

I actually think Holden has delivered way above expectations with the 3.0L engine. We were all thinking it would produce 290 odd Nm @ 5200rpm, but it's now been revealed it has 290Nm available at 2900rpm.

Seconded.

whales · 04-08-2009, 03:05 PM

I was lucky enough to go for a spin in a new Camaro (as a passenger) with the new 3.6 litre engine on Saturday and I thought it drove well and seem to have plenty of power, far better than whats powering the Commodore at the moment

f1tzy · 04-08-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

It all depends where the torque is and how early you reach 90% torque at how long it lasts for.
I mean just remember they went from the ecotec motor which had a similar torque figure (295-odd) which was a punchy, responsive albeit rough motor, to the smooth but utterly gutless alloytec which had 5% greater torque, just all in the wrong places, so it actually felt gutless.

If its anything like the outgoing 3.6 torque is bloody high in the rev range, not fun with a bit of weight on board with a manual, waiting until the torque came on was a long long long wait