New Holden V6 news right now. - Page 5

ehast13 · 07-08-2009, 08:39 PM

Hang on. Only 0.6L (AS2877 ave) better per hundred k than a much torquier, quicker ford?

Even at a high 1.50 a litre, that is only 90cents more per hundred k.

At 20,000km per year that is only $180 more per year (or $3.60 per week).

Add Me (102kg) , the wife (51kg) , two kids (30kg combined) a double stroller (about a million kilos)and endless supplies of kids stuff and I reckon the 3.0 would have to work that much harder to keep up that the six speed falc would be more economical.

My old 351 xy (stocko 2v) ute used to tow our old bonwood caravan more economically than the wife's 250 2v xy fairmont. The smaller six had to be worked so much harder.

Maybe this isn't relevant but, i thought it might be of interest

z80 · 07-08-2009, 11:40 PM

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

6700 RPM......it will feel like an imminent explosion.

vztrt · 07-08-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z80

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

6700 RPM......it will feel like an imminent explosion.

Buick anchor, Ecotec Anchor or alloytec anchor @ 3500 rpm it feels like an imminent explosion.

f1tzy · 08-08-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehast13

wow! The 3.0 will be at least as confidence inspiring as the current 3.6 (if not less so). Nice to know a 4.1 xc will out torque and out tow a new commodore.

Max power at 6700rpm. Should be pretty economical to rev it that high. Wonder if it will sound any better than today's 3.6

If it can sound better than a punch in the face then it will be fine

R-Design · 10-08-2009, 08:52 PM

Appologies if this was posted elsewhere. Burela's at it again, get 'em Tiger:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarPoint

"There are many different ways for us to go out there and demonstrate and improve our fuel economy, and we're working on a number of other initiatives.

"If anyone -- particularly my colleagues at Holden -- think we're done with where we are, then they've sadly miscalculated.

"When I hear statements like 'we will out-engineer our competitors', all that does is just brings a huge level of delight to us, because I know what we're working on."

http://carpoint.com.au/news/2009/lar...ies-foul-16190

Falc'man · 13-08-2009, 01:24 AM

In the states the Seedy 3.6 is managing marginally better fuel consumption figures than it's Seedy little brother, the 3 litre. Is anyone surprised?

:

EFPWR · 13-08-2009, 01:47 AM

lol @ the people comparing a 3L to 4L for power/torque.. that's just silly.

However, having to rev so high to hit max power is gonna suck pretty badly. Should be interesting to drive one of these I reckon.

Swordsman88 · 13-08-2009, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

In the states the Seedy 3.6 is managing marginally better fuel consumption figures than it's Seedy little brother, the 3 litre. Is anyone surprised?

:

Yeah i was reading up some stuff recently from the states and they (journos, GM enthusiasts etc.) are bagging the 3.0 something chronic. One guy in a forum made the point that it is no faster than the 2.4 DI engine they have and no more efficient then the 3.6 anyway. Not turning out too great for them but i suppose all will be revieled in time RE this engine in the VE.

Funny because one theory about the alloytec (which i believed) was that smaller sizes (2.8-3.2) was the best design size for the engine. Certainly NA. Unfortunately the 3.0 DI doesn't seem to work....maybe DI is more suited to larger sizes. Or maybe its just a lemon LOL!

Falc'man · 13-08-2009, 01:31 PM

3 litre is no good cos it's too small for this size car.

Wally · 13-08-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFPWR

lol @ the people comparing a 3L to 4L for power/torque.. that's just silly.

However, having to rev so high to hit max power is gonna suck pretty badly. Should be interesting to drive one of these I reckon.

Under what conditions would the engine have to "rev so high"? Normal driving in most cars only requires part throttle. In the 6.0 that's about 6mm pedal for 100kph, but I doubt the 4.0 nor the 3.0 would require much more.

If it all important to have the car that dances off the line and holeshots, then sure the 4.0 is probably the ticket, but toll booths are becoming less and less common with free flowing in vogue.

Don't like the six myself, having hired a Calais for a few weeks, but it performed OK compared to other brands I've hired, including the Falcon.

Mr Hardware · 13-08-2009, 02:10 PM

Well said wally.

madmelon · 13-08-2009, 02:25 PM

I've been driving my nans BFIII wagon recently and stepped into my mums EL wagon briefly last night. It's amazing how easy it is to feel the difference between 383Nm @ 2500rpm and 357Nm @ 3000rpm, even though the BA is about 70kg heavier. Gearbox, diff and most other stuff is the same so it's a fair comparison. The EL just feels gutless compared to the BF and I found myself using the go pedal alot more in the EL to get any semblance of what I'd adopted as "reasonable" acceleration. Nothing wrong with the EL I might ad- runs perfectly. Just the amazing torque spread of the B series engine craps all over it.

I can't imagine how poor to drive this 3L is going to feel with numbers like 290Nm coming out of it, even if that is at 2900rpm. The bulk of the VE certainly won't be doing it any favours either. Poor Form.

Carby · 13-08-2009, 07:42 PM

Torque has it's place but horsepower still rules!

190 kw attached to a six speed auto as standard should go very nicely. If BMW can put 2.5 l 160 kw 250 nm engine in their 5 series I can't see why the Holden will be such a slug so long as they gear it correctly.

cosmo20btt · 13-08-2009, 08:11 PM

Look i gotta say when it comes down to it if you are driving a car that weighs 1600 + kilos & all you have is 290nm @ 2900 rpm then you are working it to just get to 60+ kph. Now I know that a 85 xf ute auto is no powerhouse & will be blown off at the lights by even the slightest vehicle that claims some sort of performance, But i got to say that if i was at the lights with a ve commodore (v8 excluded) I have found that I have always had a very good chance of getting to the two into one lane before them and have found that they ARE trying to get there before me as it must be a pretty good slap in the face to anyone that is driving one.

madmelon · 13-08-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carby

Torque has it's place but horsepower still rules!

190 kw attached to a six speed auto as standard should go very nicely. If BMW can put 2.5 l 160 kw 250 nm engine in their 5 series I can't see why the Holden will be such a slug so long as they gear it correctly.

Problem with that comparison is that a 525i weighs 200kg or so less than a Commodore Omega, much less anything higher spec. Even with the weight advantage, it's hard pressed besting 8 seconds for the 0-100 sprint.

It's also interesting to see that the 530i makes 200kw, 315Nm WITHOUT direct injection and at lower engine revs. It's fuel economy figures match the 3L Holden claims, though the Holden is 150kg heavier than that.

Swordsman88 · 13-08-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmelon

Problem with that comparison is that a 525i weighs 200kg or so less than a Commodore Omega, much less anything higher spec. Even with the weight advantage, it's hard pressed besting 8 seconds for the 0-100 sprint.

It's also interesting to see that the 530i makes 200kw, 315Nm WITHOUT direct injection and at lower engine revs. It's fuel economy figures match the 3L Holden claims, though the Holden is 150kg heavier than that.

Which provides further proof that something is not right with alloytec engines when compared to most other modern competitors. I would assume holden tuned the 3.0 drivetrain to save some fuel, which is fine, but you can see that is has cost them quite a bit based on raw numbers. Particularly the torque value, which while low down (for driveability improvements) is very average for a 'high tech' DI engine. Very average indeed.

Mr Hardware · 13-08-2009, 10:51 PM

yes, which probably means nothing more than they de-stroked the 3.0 rather than de-bored it. remember kids, as a rough general rule, bore = hp, stroke = torque. one of the reasons the 4.0 is a torque monster is the long stroke. everone loves a nice long stroke.

prydey · 14-08-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmelon

. Even with the weight advantage, it's hard pressed besting 8 seconds for the 0-100 sprint.

it wasn't all that long ago that mid 9 sec was acceptable for the average family car for 0-100. i think we can all get a bit carried away with these sort of figures. sure, enthusiasts may appreciate a bit extra poke from the garden variety models but the average punter who drops the kids to school, does the shopping, puts around the inner city... or whatever, won't care 2 hoots about the 0-100 times. even speaking for myself, i could count on one hand the amount of times i've nailed the throttle and held it there till i've reached 100 in the family wagon.

i also find it amusing that ford announce they will drop a 4 cyl in the falcon (albeit with not bad figures) and every one on here cheers and yet when holden decrease the size of their engines or mention 4 cyl, they are a laughing stock and 'starfire' references are made. some need to take a big step back and look at the big picture through both eyes.

Eu-GenixX · 14-08-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

i also find it amusing that ford announce they will drop a 4 cyl in the falcon (albeit with not bad figures) and every one on here cheers and yet when holden decrease the size of their engines or mention 4 cyl, they are a laughing stock and 'starfire' references are made. some need to take a big step back and look at the big picture through both eyes.

You will find people aren't laughing at the drop in size.. but the fact the 3.0 has no torque.... the T4 has more torque and spread across the entire rev range..

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.............

prydey · 14-08-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eu-GenixX

You will find people aren't laughing at the drop in size.. but the fact the 3.0 has no torque....

i still stand by my statement that the average joe won't notice. this engine will run side by side with the 3.6. those that want a bit more urge will tick that box. those that think they are buying a new more economical commodore, will tick the 3.0 box, and then drive around thinking they are right up there with prius drivers because the holden guy told them its more economical than many 4cyl cars.

Bucknaked · 14-08-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

they then mention they have just completed that in real life and achieved... wait for it... 7.5L/100km for the trip! then they commented how that was better than a lot of 4cyl cars.

I went on a trip in my XR5 Mondeo. I achieved 7.4/100 which I thought is not bad for a 2.5litre Turbo.

Swordsman88 · 14-08-2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eu-GenixX

You will find people aren't laughing at the drop in size.. but the fact the 3.0 has no torque.... the T4 has more torque and spread across the entire rev range..

Indeed, that is the point. Knowing full well the 'torque issues' (which affect driveabiliy/response moreso than being slower to 100km/h) of the alloytec i was concerned this would happen the moment the rumoured 3.0 size was being discussed. The DI 3.6 was inevitable, its the only way Holden could be competitive with Ford/Toyota into the future. But instead of using a ecotuned DI 3.6 to save some fuel, for whatever reason (probably because they have already ecotuned it just to get to 9.9) Holden went for the 3.0. It generates some fuel savings in the ADR test but depending on where you drive it, i doubt it will burn much less than the 3.6 or a falcon for that matter.

Its the inferiority of the 3.0 IN THIS APPLICATION that has alot of Ford fans throwing mud, not the fact its smaller. As pointed out by some, its possible that the I4T of FOrd might not beat the I6 by much either depending on how you drive etc. BUT, it will have more than adequate performance (certainly no slower than a EF-AU falcon and they can beat current commodores).

The experiences of the GM fans in teh states seem to reinforce the problem this 3.0 has. No pulling power and as such it never really gets to settle down...constant reving is both bad for driveability and bad for fuel burn.

Mr Hardware · 14-08-2009, 09:47 PM

Swordsman88 is on the money. Listen to him, he tells the truth.

JPFS1 · 09-09-2009, 06:19 PM

don't know if the latest discussion has covered the latest reviews of the SIDI range of commodores, but from all reports, these new engines are getting allot of praise.

Real world economy is inline and better than the ADR quoted figures at no detriment to performance, drivability etc.

Looks like Holden are on a winner if you're to believe the media.

Wally · 09-09-2009, 07:02 PM

My guess is there won't be a lot of bother with the new engines. As it stands Joe Average doesn't make a song and dance about his Holden or Ford six. Enthusiast forums might carry on about this and that, but that's small potatoes in the scheme of things.

Economy is back in vogue and Holden have positioned themselves nicely. The VE skin is still fashionable and risking a bollocking, the interior is comfortable and pleasant enough.

prydey · 09-09-2009, 09:06 PM

hopefully it translates to money for the company! as much as we bag them, we all know they need it. maybe then some of the guys who are only getting work every other week out at the factory might get some of their shifts reinstated. not a good time to have your weekly income halved.

i'm not a fan of the ve. i think its ugly, but the company's situation is not good and needs to improve.