V8 Engine Sales 2005

[BA_BOSS]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Holden 6's are crap, its no wonder they sell so many V8's.

What a stupid statement. In what way are they "crap". There are probably more Holen 6's on the road than Ford 6's or at minimun, equal numbers. How does that make them "crap"?

Qualify the statement with facts.

Intersesting stats as I see far more V8 SS's on the road than BA-BF V8's. I generalise with these models as sales figures are stating 2005 facts. I also suspect that the I6T detracts from Fords V8 numbers and that makes sense as the I6T is popular and very good.

[BA_BOSS]

Originally Posted by zetec

Just to clear it up guys, that's 15% of Commodores are V8's, 49% of Statesmans are V8's etc. Statesmans do not form 49% of all Holden V8 sales...

Clear as mud !!

[zetec]

[QUOTE=I also see plenty of them on the road everyday so they can't be that bad if so many people are choosing them.[/QUOTE]

So THAT must be why they sell to many Toyota Corollas. Must be a good car if so many people are buying them.

There goes that argument... :ymca:

[galaxy xr8]

[QUOTE=zetec]

Originally Posted by I also see plenty of them on the road everyday so they can't be that bad if so many people are choosing them.[/QUOTE

So THAT must be why they sell to many Toyota Corollas. Must be a good car if so many people are buying them.

There goes that argument... :ymca:

Nothing wrong with the Corolla mate, they are a great car.

[zetec]

They're rubbish for anyone who appreciates a decent driving, good looking, non-cheap feeling car. I'd take one over any Pulsar/Lancer/Korean Cheapie but would cut off my arms before buying one over an Astra/Focus/Golf/etc. Honestly, they're overpriced for what you get, considering they fill the middle ground between the well optioned Korean bargain cars and the much better safer and classier premium hatches. Corolla is comparatively either an overpriced Cheapie or an under-specced and badly engineered premium competitor. Nothing more than an honest car. Boring.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by BA_BOSS

What a stupid statement. In what way are they "crap". There are probably more Holen 6's on the road than Ford 6's or at minimun, equal numbers. How does that make them "crap"?

Qualify the statement with facts.

Intersesting stats as I see far more V8 SS's on the road than BA-BF V8's. I generalise with these models as sales figures are stating 2005 facts. I also suspect that the I6T detracts from Fords V8 numbers and that makes sense as the I6T is popular and very good.

Because they were critisized by every journo for being rough and extremely harsh sounding engines, that added technology over the old 3.8 V8 yet it didn't make them any better than the old ones. Fuel economy was the same, NVH levels were about the same and performance was about the same. Whats the point of quad cams, multi valves, alloy construction etc when it doesn't make the engine a huge advance over the old version. Plus the new engine is about 1 to 2k more expensive to make and build than the old Ecotec. In my opinion that makes them crap, with that sort of technology it should be light years ahead of the Ecotec, but it isn't, and i'm not the only one who thinks the same.

[Big Mike]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[gmhdriver]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Because they were critisized by every journo for being rough and extremely harsh sounding engines

Judging by your comments I doubt you have even been a passenger in an Alloytec powered vehicle let alone driven one. If you did you would realise that journalists like to exaggerate these sort of things sometimes. A journalist's opinion is not the be all and end all to everything. To say that an Alloytec is "extremely harsh" is absolutely laughable.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Fuel economy was the same, NVH levels were about the same and performance was about the same.

Alloytec 175 have been recorded around the 15.7 - 15.8 mark, while SV6's with the 190 version have recorded 15.3. An improvement over the Ecotec's average times of 16.4. Fuel economy has improved marginally, but an improvement nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Whats the point of quad cams, multi valves, alloy construction etc when it doesn't make the engine a huge advance over the old version..

I could say exactly the same thing about the Boss V8's. Their performance and fuel consumption is only a marginal improvement over the last Windsor V8's.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

with that sort of technology it should be light years ahead of the Ecotec, but it isn't, and i'm not the only one who thinks the same.

You are forgetting that this is the very first version of this engine and it has years of development and potential left in it. Look at the way the Ecotec evolved from the original Buick in the VN.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by gmhdriver

Judging by your comments I doubt you have even been a passenger in an Alloytec powered vehicle let alone driven one. If you did you would realise that journalists like to exaggerate these sort of things sometimes. A journalist's opinion is not the be all and end all to everything. To say that an Alloytec is "extremely harsh" is absolutely laughable.

Alloytec 175 have been recorded around the 15.7 - 15.8 mark, while SV6's with the 190 version have recorded 15.3. An improvement over the Ecotec's average times of 16.4. Fuel economy has improved marginally, but an improvement nonetheless.

I could say exactly the same thing about the Boss V8's. Their performance and fuel consumption is only a marginal improvement over the last Windsor V8's.

You are forgetting that this is the very first version of this engine and it has years of development and potential left in it. Look at the way the Ecotec evolved from the original Buick in the VN.

Can't help yourself can you.
I'd say considering the BA is a lot heavier than the AU its a pretty impressive effort for the 5.4 to be quicker than the old Windsor.