Wheels August 2009

[zebby]

Hey Guy's,

just received in the mail. I think you all are not going to like the cover. Sorry, don't have a scanner, but the cover reads as such,

Hemi Hot
New-age Commodore powers up
Hottest atmo six since Charger!

Hi-tech V6 set to smoke Falcon!
Direct-injection 3.6L/225kw/6-speed auto

Haven't read the article as yet, but seems to me to be of those all hail Holden stories, they can do no wrong.

[Stefan]

Whats an atmo?

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Whats an atmo?

Naturally aspirated.


I still wouldnt believe what I read in Wheels. We all remember the GTHO last month. What a waste of a story that was.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Naturally aspirated.


I still wouldnt believe what I read in Wheels. We all remember the GTHO last month. What a waste of a story that was.

Yep and remember, the only thing separating those guys is an office partition...

[Falc'man]

Same thing will happen. The 225kW will happily run 14.0 at time of release, then a few months later it's struggling to do high 14's. By then, the spin would have cemented the idea into most people's heads that this V6 is super quick.

[naddis01]

All estimations from the article:
3.6L - 225kW @ 6400rpm, 370Nm @ 5200rpm.
3.0L - 200kW @ 7000rpm, 302Nm @ 5700rpm.

FG for comparison:
4.0L - 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm.

Pretty good effort really for the 3.6 albeit high in the rev range. Out does 100Nm per litre. Thats if they are on the money, but they are using some results from Cadillac as a benchmark.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by naddis01

All estimations from the article:
3.6L - 225kW @ 6400rpm, 370Nm @ 5200rpm.
3.0L - 200kW @ 7000rpm, 302Nm @ 5700rpm.

FG for comparison:
4.0L - 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm.

Pretty good effort really for the 3.6 albeit high in the rev range. Out does 100Nm per litre. Thats if they are on the money, but they are using some results from Cadillac as a benchmark.

Those numbers (for the 3.6 anyway) are just carbon copy cadilac numbers. For Holden's sake i hope they retune it to make some more torque/lower down than go for the full 225kw. I think this engine will be a big improvement over what they have now....will it take down Ford. On paper maybe, real life, not likely.

I think those power numbers (for the cadilac) were on premium fuel too, so that is an issue. On 95 a FG I6 makes 200+kw and 400+nm so its not like we have to be too worried. The cost of the DI engine (plust 6 sp auto) will make sure its only in top line commodores (SV6, calais). For base cars you are looking at a sizeable torque issue with only 300 odd nm from the 3.0 DI. THey might get a fuel burn advantage but it won't be much...Ford is already at 9.9l/100 for the 6sp auto base xt and they might squeeze another 0.1 or so out for FG Mk2. Holden is in mid 10s at present (for the base and heavilly econotuned engine) and low 11s for the top endine, so even if they get a full 1l/100km improvement (unlikely IMO) they will struggle to beat ford anyway.

THese numbers provide further proof that something is very wrong with the alloytec, and has been from the start. 100nm a litre was the benchmark for engines for some time, but once you add DI you should be well and truly over that. As much as 110nm is quite easilly achievable if your base engine is working well. Holden gets 102.7nm/L if they get to 370 on the 3.6, worse again on the 3.0. This is with DI!!!! They migth improve it at the expense of power (i would) but still not great. An FG I6 on 95 Ron gets 102nm/L - without DI!!!! Hell the much abused duratec V6 makes almost 370nm from its 3.7 litres....for existing versions without DI. If and when Ford brings that engine here with DI it will obliterate the alloytec too. What lemon that thing is!!!!

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by naddis01

All estimations from the article:
3.6L - 225kW @ 6400rpm, 370Nm @ 5200rpm.
3.0L - 200kW @ 7000rpm, 302Nm @ 5700rpm.

FG for comparison:
4.0L - 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm.

Pretty good effort really for the 3.6 albeit high in the rev range. Out does 100Nm per litre. Thats if they are on the money, but they are using some results from Cadillac as a benchmark.

I don't think the performance will be much different to the current 3.6L in VE. The power increase comes at the upper reaches of the power band so it's not like it's going to be felt unless the driver winds it out in each gear. I don't think the fuel economy will be much different either.

I base my comments on performance figures for some of Cadillac's V6 models. The Caddy's basically weigh too much to offer any significant performance improvement. Might be a different story if Holden slotted the engine in a lighter car (1400kg) like a Nissan 350Z.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by naddis01

All estimations from the article:
3.6L - 225kW @ 6400rpm, 370Nm @ 5200rpm.
3.0L - 200kW @ 7000rpm, 302Nm @ 5700rpm.

FG for comparison:
4.0L - 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm.

Pretty good effort really for the 3.6 albeit high in the rev range. Out does 100Nm per litre. Thats if they are on the money, but they are using some results from Cadillac as a benchmark.

OMG, the day they stick that 3.0L in a Commodore will be the day I never stop laughing!

Can you imagine how gutless it will be trying to pull a 1700kg sedan to 100kph?...even with 200kW, it's REALLY lacking in the torque dept.

The 3.6L looks promising with 300hp but again it's still got much less torque than the current Falcon.

Maybe with a lower diff ratio (ZF auto), it might just edge a 5-speed auto equipped FG Falcon.

Example of why torque is king...

The New Ferrari California has a 4.3L V8 (DI) with 338kW/485Nm weighs 1690kg.

The F430 also has a 4.3L V8 with 360kW/465Nm and weighs 1450kg....guess which is quicker?.....yep the California!

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by naddis01

All estimations from the article:
3.6L - 225kW @ 6400rpm, 370Nm @ 5200rpm.
3.0L - 200kW @ 7000rpm, 302Nm @ 5700rpm.

FG for comparison:
4.0L - 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm.

Pretty good effort really for the 3.6 albeit high in the rev range. Out does 100Nm per litre. Thats if they are on the money, but they are using some results from Cadillac as a benchmark.

Nice to see that Wheels were sooo accurate once again.

The figures are nowhere near correct...

[madmelon]

The FG out does 100Nm/L too when you run it on premium- in fact, it gets the same Nm/L figure as that,all without direct injection!
I wonder what fuel those guestimate figures are based on....and how much the Falcon has left in it for the next update...

[WASP]

Let the turbo Ford do away with it. With the power and fuel economy these FG T's are making why would you bother with a high powered N/T 6 if you are going to pay a premium for a performance sedan over the pov pack which are $40k these days anyway. RRP there's less than $5k difference between a XR6/SV6 and the T6 option. Not sure were the Hemi 6 will come in but I would imagine around the $42k + ORC like the rest of the N/A 6's sports family sedan offerings.

[barbarian]

6 cylinder power wars begins

[Hubble80]

My wife has a VZ SVZ which is the 3.6L, but not the High Output version (SV6). I have owned a swag of V6 Commodores in my time and believe the Alloytec motor is the worst of them. They make a heap of noise but no performance!!! Holden like to up the power ratings on the V6's however torque and economy normally suffer. We are lucky to get under 11L/100kms out of the wifes SVZ!!! ... Hence why I am on Ford Forum. The SVZ will probably be my last Commodore!

[GK]

Originally Posted by Hubble80

My wife has a VZ SVZ which is the 3.6L, but not the High Output version (SV6). I have owned a swag of V6 Commodores in my time and believe the Alloytec motor is the worst of them. They make a heap of noise but no performance!!! Holden like to up the power ratings on the V6's however torque and economy normally suffer. We are lucky to get under 11L/100kms out of the wifes SVZ!!! ... Hence why I am on Ford Forum. The SVZ will probably be my last Commodore!

Another one soon to be saved from the Dark Side! LOL!

At least he's being honest.

GK

[Ego T]

Originally Posted by Hubble80

My wife has a VZ SVZ which is the 3.6L, but not the High Output version (SV6). I have owned a swag of V6 Commodores in my time and believe the Alloytec motor is the worst of them. They make a heap of noise but no performance!!! Holden like to up the power ratings on the V6's however torque and economy normally suffer. We are lucky to get under 11L/100kms out of the wifes SVZ!!! ... Hence why I am on Ford Forum. The SVZ will probably be my last Commodore!

I have just gotten out of my VZ and into the FG. Driving the commodore for 4 years was truly horrible but I was stuck with it so had to put up with it. The fuel economy averaged at 13.5l/100k's which for the performance (or lack of...) was pathetic. The 4 sp auto is absolutely appalling and got much worse with age. With 90,000 k's on it there is over $2000 worth of repairs needed including timing cover oil leak and a leaking engine mount! Basically after 4 years it is stuffed.

Now I'm in a falcon for the first time in 10 years. I hope it is a better experience.

[T3ts50]

The DI V6 will probably only be in the premium Commodores like the SV6, Calais, Statesmen and Caprice. I dont think the average punter looks at power figures when buying these types of cars otherwise they would buy a V8.

I dont really see what the big deal is though, considering they will be priced pretty close to the XR6T and G6ET.

[naddis01]

I think from memory the article was talking up 9.4L/100km for the 3.0. Was wheels speculation though.

Yes the 3L will be on lower models. 3.6L on higher models. I was told a few months back that the 3.6L will be optional on the lower models.

[Windsor220]

The real scary thing is in a couple of years my XR8 will be outpowered by the base family hack :

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

The real scary thing is in a couple of years my XR8 will be outpowered by the base family hack :

Progression i guess but at least it wasnt as bad as the old VT1 GTS being 'superseeded by a VT2 Exec though :

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

The real scary thing is in a couple of years my XR8 will be outpowered by the base family hack :

: I Know what THAT felt like...

[GTENVY]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

The real scary thing is in a couple of years my XR8 will be outpowered by the base family hack :

HA HA, mine already is

[KW XRT]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

The real scary thing is in a couple of years my XR8 will be outpowered by the base family hack :

Lucky you didn't buy one of those 185I powerhouses you'd realy have something to worry about.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by KW XRT

Lucky you didn't buy one of those 185I powerhouses you'd realy have something to worry about.

Lucky he didn't buy a 220kw VT1 GTS only to have it matched by the povvo pack VT2 Executive with the Gen3 2 years later

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by naddis01

I think from memory the article was talking up 9.4L/100km for the 3.0. Was wheels speculation though.

Yes the 3L will be on lower models. 3.6L on higher models. I was told a few months back that the 3.6L will be optional on the lower models.

That sounds about right. I hope it does get close to 9.4 because with the weight of the car it will have the performance of a medium car i reckon. A mazda 6/honda accord euro pump out 230 nm for their weight (100-200kg lighter) and if they only get 300nm out of the 3.0DI they will have issues hauling the commodores weight. If they put the 5sp auto in the base cars (they couldn't keep using that 4sp surely....) they it won't be much quicker then those medium cars. They both burn around 9l/100km by the way.

[naddis01]

6 speed auto across the range apparently...

[Wretched]

It may be marketing BS but DI is a big step and I believe Ford should be looking at implementing this ASAP on the I6 or ditching the I6 for the DI Duratec V6 it will be a big mistake if they don't.

This technology is all about efficiency and economy. What they can acheive out of a smaller displacement engine with the DI is the advantage. I have the Wheels mag here haven't opened it yet but am keen to look at this.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Wretched

It may be marketing BS but DI is a big step and I believe Ford should be looking at implementing this ASAP on the I6 or ditching the I6 for the DI Duratec V6 it will be a big mistake if they don't.

This technology is all about efficiency and economy. What they can acheive out of a smaller displacement engine with the DI is the advantage. I have the Wheels mag here haven't opened it yet but am keen to look at this.

I don't doubt DI is a very big jump wretched. In fact Ford will either put it on the I6 eventually or go duratec. Most people believe the latter but there is renewed interest from Ford head office about the I6 and you never know where it might end up being used globally (hence the small chance it might get the Di treatement eventually). Probably within the next 5 years you will see one of these two things happen for sure.

The problem is that in this case, due to issues with the alloytec in base design (problems well beyond my understanding of engines frankly) DI is really only covering up problems. Whether it is the 'designed for FWD small cars' or just general cutting of corners by GM powertrain in its initial development the alloytec has issues. Some minor, some much more major. The DI version is the only one i would consider even competitive, let alone class leading. 300 nm from a 3.0 DI V6 with all the latest tech is not world class, no matter what spin Holden puts on it...even if it does burn 9.4 L/100km.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Wretched

It may be marketing BS but DI is a big step and I believe Ford should be looking at implementing this ASAP on the I6 or ditching the I6 for the DI Duratec V6 it will be a big mistake if they don't.

Why would it be a mistake if they don't?

Originally Posted by Wretched

This technology is all about efficiency and economy. What they can acheive out of a smaller displacement engine with the DI is the advantage. I have the Wheels mag here haven't opened it yet but am keen to look at this.

A smaller capacity in this case won't mean a reduction in mass of the vehicle, unless they've saved weight elsewhere. You will still have a 1700kg 3L V6 that has very poor low down power. Even when driven sedately it will still struggle to get anywhere near the Falcon's economy.

[Bossxr8]

Why would Ford care about the DI V6 having more power than the base Falcon 6 when the turbo would absolutely smash it.