Holden seem to have done well with their new v6.

[dave289]

Was reading a comparison the other day between the sv6 and xr6.The ve 2 has now bumped power up to 210 kw and are now quiker than the naturally aspirated ford 6, not only this but it is also more economical(only slightly but far from their claims). Holden have not had a quicker naturally aspirated six over fords for many years now .while I have not driven ve2 I have driven ve1 six's and they were a shocker both in harshness and also in there lack of power and smothness over the ford 6. It would appear, according to the article that the new ve is now smoother than the ford 6(something I find hard to believe after driving ve 1) but if so would be good news for holden six drivers as the ford has had this department sorted for years now .In a way I guess its well overdue that holden seem to have a decent 6 cause the last one was way below world standards or even local standards for that matter. anyoneone driven the ve2 in six cylinder and what did you think? While I,m on the ve2, apparantly the ve1 to ve2 upgrade was a multi million dollar exercise ,which is a big spend from a series 1 to a series 2 especially since the ve 1 was an expensive an also new upgrade over vz .

[Falc'man]

Wait until next April.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Wait until next April.

What is happening in April that will be so different to what we have now?

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

What is happening in April that will be so different to what we have now?

Nothing ?

[block58]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

What is happening in April that will be so different to what we have now?

Euro IV?

[prydey]

there are a number of threads already on the SIDI engines. early signs are that they can't reproduce holdens claims in the real world. yes, they are more powerful and more economical than the outgoing v6 but as far as the competition goes, they are about on par, depending on the conditions.

anyone who buys a SIDI powered commodore over a falcon, for the engine alone, have been seriously fooled by holdens marketing.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by prydey

there are a number of threads already on the SIDI engines. early signs are that they can't reproduce holdens claims in the real world. yes, they are more powerful and more economical than the outgoing v6 but as far as the competition goes, they are about on par, depending on the conditions.

anyone who buys a SIDI powered commodore over a falcon, for the engine alone, have been seriously fooled by holdens marketing.

On par with economy maybe, on a highway......

The SIDI should have been named the ENCM (Emperors new clothes model).

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

What is happening in April that will be so different to what we have now?

As mentioned FG will need to conform to Euro4. Seeing as it already is very close to Euro4 - in fact, even 5 was a walk in the park - and that there's something brewing, I can only guess next year's I6 will be very hard for consumers to look past. Look out for a bog stock smokin' I6!

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

As mentioned FG will need to conform to Euro4. Seeing as it already is very close to Euro4 - in fact, even 5 was a walk in the park - and that there's something brewing, I can only guess next year's I6 will be very hard for consumers to look past. Look out for a bog stock smokin' I6!

I know what the Euro 4 thing... It is the "Look out for a bog stock smokin' I6" part that gets my attention... This is the part I'm trying to figure out!!

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I know what the Euro 4 thing... It is the "Look out for a bog stock smokin' I6" part that gets my attention... This is the part I'm trying to figure out!!

It means in stock form it will smoke any would be competitor.

[ThePistonHead]

It's got nothing torque wise on the I6. Bit of a joke in comparison.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by ThePistonHead

It's got nothing torque wise on the I6. Bit of a joke in comparison.

The motoring public at large either don't know or don't care what the torque figures are. Just have to look on the side of the performance models and the fact that the kW figure is the only performance badge there.

[naddis01]

In the Nov issue of Wheels, the N/A XR6 is quicker than the SV6. It also won the comparison (which included a Charger). I havent read the whole article yet though, only the stats and conclusion.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by naddis01

In the Nov issue of Wheels, the N/A XR6 is quicker than the SV6. It also won the comparison (which included a Charger). I havent read the whole article yet though, only the stats and conclusion.

In the article it claims they did 0-100 in 6.46 for the sv6 auto which is not bad considering a cv8 auto does it in about the same just for comparison sake. they claim they did 0-100 in 6.8 for the xr6.

[Windsor220]

Fuel consumption seems about on par now between the 3.6 and 4.0.
10.2 l/100 vs 9.9.

The Holden seems to have a slight power/performance advantage but anyone looking to buy a Ford who wants performance would just buy an XR6T which obviously blows the SV6 out of the water.

Im waiting to drive a new SIDI Commo to compare to the older ones. Because I too cant believe after driving the older ones the engine is smoother than Fords.

[waggaclint]

Im sure FORD will fight back when the FGII comes out hopefully Direct injection for the 4.0l hey that would stuff Holden right up...But in the end it doesnt really matter the commodore is still a #*#@-box no matter what they do to it...

[naddis01]

Thats interesting. They put 7.24 for the XR6 and 7.40 for the SV6 in the table of stats.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Thats interesting. They put 7.24 for the XR6 and 7.40 for the SV6 in the table of stats.

I bought the Motor mag as it finally had some decent stuff in there.
Motor does it's times with 1 person
SV6 6.46/14.62
XR6 6.76/14.87

Those times you are quoting Naddis are the times in Wheels? Haven't bought the Wheels mag yet, just perused it. But am considering it.
Wheels do their times with 2 persons
SV6 7.40
XR6 7.24

What does this mean? Other than 1 all? Plenty. The Falcon suffers less from additional weight due to it's MASSIVE torque delivery advantage.

The Falcon 4.0L is still the real world / traffic light king!

Further to this. As the base Commondore accounts for roughly half of sales with the 3.0L, those GMH's will still get FLOGGED more often than not!!

[smoo]

Put 1.5 t trailer/load behind them then see how good the V6 is.

[prydey]

i just love how all their marketing, says S. I. D. I. Direct injection! thats right up there with lpg gas, atm machine and pin number.

what they are saying is, spark ignition direct injection direct injection :

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I bought the Motor mag as it finally had some decent stuff in there.
Motor does it's times with 1 person
SV6 6.46/14.62
XR6 6.76/14.87

Those times you are quoting Naddis are the times in Wheels? Haven't bought the Wheels mag yet, just perused it. But am considering it.
Wheels do their times with 2 persons
SV6 7.40
XR6 7.24

What does this mean? Other than 1 all? Plenty. The Falcon suffers less from additional weight due to it's MASSIVE torque delivery advantage.

The Falcon 4.0L is still the real world / traffic light king!

Further to this. As the base Commondore accounts for roughly half of sales with the 3.0L, those GMH's will still get FLOGGED more often than not!!

I think Motor stuffed up to put it nicely (or they were on the $$$$$).

Every comparison i've recently read regarding these cars and their new 6-speed auto transmissions, the jurno has said the new auto is better than the old version but still no match to the ZF.
Motor has done nothing but flogg themselves silly over this GM trans because they say it Blips whilst going down the gears and they beleive it it so much better than the ZF.

Who is correct? Why is MOTOR so different to the jurnos from Car Advice, Carpoint etc ect? Was this a Holden 'Tricked' up media car??

More questions.................

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by dave289

In the article it claims they did 0-100 in 6.46 for the sv6 auto which is not bad considering a cv8 auto does it in about the same just for comparison sake. they claim they did 0-100 in 6.8 for the xr6.

Nowhere in the Nov Wheels (current issue) article can I see a claim of 6.46 (SV6) and 6.8 (XR6). I have only skim read it and I have had a can or 2. I did however see 7.2 (XR6) and 7.4 (SV6) in the article. They also claim that the surface was damp but still grippy and that it was the best times Wheels has extracted from an FG XR6 by several tenths.

They also mention the Falcon engine sounding a tad harsh as it approaches 6100rpm. While the Holden's new six feels friskier, lighter and sexier.

Originally Posted by phillyc

Those times you are quoting Naddis are the times in Wheels? Haven't bought the Wheels mag yet, just perused it. But am considering it.
Wheels do their times with 2 persons
SV6 7.40
XR6 7.24

Yes those are the times quoted in the Nov Wheels issue with the Charger R/T E38 included.

[markof]

Trans is still a pig compared to the blue oval's gear.

[The Monty]

SIDI direct injection is really starting to annoy me.

[PoweredByCNG]

Power sells cars, torque wins races.

'Nuff said.

Regards,
Dave

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

Power sells cars, torque wins races.

'Nuff said.

Regards,
Dave

What kind of races? Tractor pulls?

[mik]

it seems the commy v6 has had a bit more compression added to get those power figures up there at 11.3.1 from 10.2.1 and it appears a little better geared than the old commodore with a numericly higher diff ratio(with the 6 speed), imo in day to day driving for general duties with a car load the henry will always be less stressed because of the torque factor, even over the qaurter it seems unlikely for the commy to have a win over the Xr6, surprisingly if what i have read is correct the xr6 is 101 kg`s lighter than the sv6 ....xr6 1728 kg`s sv6 1829, without the 6 speed i don`t think the commy would be even close to the falcon, the torque difference would be even more telling, but a better attempt from holden with the current sv6 it appears.

[Dave R]

I've driven the new SIDI SV6 and to be honest I wasn't impressed with it; perhaps because Holden's hype machine had me expecting something fantastic and it just isn't. There were 2 of us in the car and it felt a little sluggish (compared to an FG XR6.. but it would still easily beat most cars on the road). It just doesn't have the torque of the I6 and the results from Wheels' test with one passenger confirms this. The gearbox was also easily confused. I have no idea what Motor is on about when they say the new 'box is fantastic because it was hardly remarkable. The lag between sinking your right foot and the drop in gear was phenominal compared to the ZF in my daily car.

Then you have the fact that nothing else major has changed since 2006 - the interior is particularly dated (although it still feels bigger than a Falcon). Overall it isn't a bad car and I'd happily drive one over, say, an Aurion or Accord. But it is not better than an equivalent Falcon, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[svo supporter]

The question begs. Why don't Ford export their fantastic 6's or even 8's, where the crummydore does.


Now before I cop a barrage of complaints with that statement, you've got to wonder why this is the case. Has Holden bluffed a lot of overseas markets, or is there something else astray?

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

The question begs. Why don't Ford export their fantastic 6's or even 8's, where the crummydore does.


Now before I cop a barrage of complaints with that statement, you've got to wonder why this is the case. Has Holden bluffed a lot of overseas markets, or is there something else astray?

Holden didnt design the thing. Its a GM motor. Holden just got the gig of assembling it.