Holden V8 Sales Sizeable Increase

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

It would help if you could learn to comprehend what I wrote... I did say there appears to be a variable quality issue...

That's mighty convenient for you. It would appear we have all driven dud alloytecs and yours was a beauty....if you believe that well.....

Of course as Falc'man pointed out, maybe you drove one of those warmed over beauties from Holden. You know the ones that pulled low 7 second to 100km/h times in launch reviews, and then none of the other cars for the next three years could get under 8 seconds to save themselves.

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Well the scribes also lack credibility it would appear. It's another favourite pastime as well here is it not to slag off motoring publications?

Searching for credibility by quoting Drive.com.au...LMFAO!!! That proves you don't have credibility, not that you have any.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

That's mighty convenient for you. It would appear we have all driven dud alloytecs and yours was a beauty....if you believe that well.....

Of course as Falc'man pointed out, maybe you drove one of those warmed over beauties from Holden. You know the ones that pulled low 7 second to 100km/h times in launch reviews, and then none of the other cars for the next three years could get under 8 seconds to save themselves.



Searching for credibility by quoting Drive.com.au...LMFAO!!! That proves you don't have credibility, not that you have any.

Said the guy with the white car in his avatar! :hihi:

What was that about head gaskets I hear?

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by fte50

Mate, believe what you like, i truly dont care. I say it how it is for 'general knowledge only' based on what i know, and not to prove some point and 'force' my views on others. As i stated earlier, each 2 their own.

What really does amaze me though is the fact that Paul84 merely walked through the joint and you qoute his statement as plausable, yet ive totalled 22yrs service and seen/been involved in alot of things and various commissioning programs and you have the audacity to discredit my post and imply im a liar.
You are a fool

Trust me, I'm no fool... but you still haven't answered the query around the bore/stroke ratio and why it's such a wrong a design.

Paul didn't make any outrageous comments, nor did he attack me personally like you've done, oh great one!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Said the guy with the white car in his avatar! :hihi:

What was that about head gaskets I hear?

Low blow my friend....low blow LOL!

Even so, on its worst day (funny enough, never had a headgasket go on my watch....must have something to do with following the manufacturers instructions....) i'd take my EF I6 over an alloytec. It may not rev, but the fact a 14 year old SOHC, non VCT motor out torques and burns less than GMHs finest, world class V6 is enough for me.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Trust me, I'm no fool...

Believing the alloytec is a good engine goes against the above statement. :dr_Evil:

[ltd]

As I said before I think some of the Holden guys actually call the Alloytech a piece of rubbish. Sort of like the guys who rubbish the 5.4L Boss motors here.

As for the Alloytech, I think that as long as boat builders make boats over 15 metres long there will be a demand for the finest boat anchor that Australians ever produced. Like the Monaro ad with the Au2 V8 engine sound; Game Over.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Low blow my friend....low blow LOL!

Even so, on its worst day (funny enough, never had a headgasket go on my watch....must have something to do with following the manufacturers instructions....) i'd take my EF I6 over an alloytec. It may not rev, but the fact a 14 year old SOHC, non VCT motor out torques and burns less than GMHs finest, world class V6 is enough for me.

Yeh id hate to have my 190kw High Performance V6 beaten by a 14 year old 164 kw XR6 LOL LOL!!

I nearly bought an SV6 back in 2004 when I really had no idea about cars, so glad I didn't :sm_headba

[DIFFWA]

The one thing i have noticed with so called "Creditible" car reviewers is that the cars are lent from the manufacturer, i have owned two ecotec's in the past, and found them to be quite a good and resonsive motor, my brother in law owned a VZ SV6 with the alloytec and SSbaby i dont know what drugs you where snorting at the time but it didnt seem to "pull" as hard as the ecotec.

But of course with holden and there ways they scrap a good refined motor for something that is crap.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by DIFFWA

The one thing i have noticed with so called "Creditible" car reviewers is that the cars are lent from the manufacturer, i have owned two ecotec's in the past, and found them to be quite a good and resonsive motor, my brother in law owned a VZ SV6 with the alloytec and SSbaby i dont know what drugs you where snorting at the time but it didnt seem to "pull" as hard as the ecotec.

But of course with holden and there ways they scrap a good refined motor for something that is crap.

Gawd blimey! :hihi:

With the amount of ribbing I'm copping from E-series owners, it's not actually me who's on the drugs!

Have you guys taken a look outside your windows, lately? Some of those E-series cars were once unloved taxis... it:

Btw, the word is 'credible' not "creditible".

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

Yeh id hate to have my 190kw High Performance V6 beaten by a 14 year old 164 kw XR6 LOL LOL!!

I nearly bought an SV6 back in 2004 when I really had no idea about cars, so glad I didn't :sm_headba

If it wasnt' for the last comment, you'd think you were making fun of my post....i trust you weren't. I remember making this point to a holden fan at work....he agreed with me to a degree, then pointed out my car was substantially lighter.

True, but here is the rub. I have 2v, SOHC, old school engine. No VCT, in fact aside from a two stage intake manifold, i have no advanced features of any kind as present in an alloytec. I have the same 4sps in my auto, in fact my gearing is pretty much identical. So yes the commodore is heavier, by about 150kg. So basically Holden couldn't overcome that weight penalty over some 15 years..thats only 10kg a year...how hard can it be LOL!

Oh and of course Ford has had no problem over this same period more than blowing away my car's performance, fuel economy and NVH and they did while putting on at least as much, if not more, weight. In fact a FG XR6T prety much burns what i burn in fuel....only goes to a 100km/h about oh 2.5 seconds faster!!!!

[Skotty]

Originally Posted by csv8

Holden V6 is a 3l from September......

Point?...

we had a 97 TE magna with the 3ltr V6... sadly enough it would happily chomp the same age commodores and falcons for its time (and still does...)...

I'm not a ford fanboy either tho, if I had the choice of a AUIII XR or a TJ Magna VRX I know what I'd pick... becuase the TJ VRX has more style, and was also the quickest aus 6cyl family car of the time...

talk about off topic :

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Skotty

Point?...

we had a 97 TE magna with the 3ltr V6... sadly enough it would happily chomp the same age commodores and falcons for its time (and still does...)...

I'm not a ford fanboy either tho, if I had the choice of a AUIII XR or a TJ Magna VRX I know what I'd pick... becuase the TJ VRX has more style, and was also the quickest aus 6cyl family car of the time...

talk about off topic :

Had a green one in New Zealand in 2003, fantastic car to drive around the south island, cornered brilliantly too.

[Crazed]

[QUOTE=Skotty]

we had a 97 TE magna with the 3ltr V6... sadly enough it would happily chomp the same age commodores and falcons for its time (and still does...)...

[QUOTE]


My old folks have a 3L Magna, does everything, tows their horses, caravan. Drive it on the roughest corrugated dirt roads in and out of their farm, crosses swollen creeks in winter. Amazing build quality: hardly any squeaks or rattles, every dash light still works and my old man just changes the oil himself whenever he feels like it needs it. Its left outside in the elements and has a very tough life. Great car considering its 11 years old with 240,000km on the clock. Apart from the usual consumables, the only things not original on the car is the alternator, battery and a power steeing hose.

The V6 in these old Magnas still suprises me with their power and fuel economy, its funny how little weve come especially when you compare them to a base VE V6

[Windsor220]

While the Mitsi V6s were good they did only weigh around 1400kg so thats why performance is quite reasonable.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Trust me, I'm no fool... but you still haven't answered the query around the bore/stroke ratio and why it's such a wrong a design.

Paul didn't make any outrageous comments, nor did he attack me personally like you've done, oh great one!

Firstly, i dont say fool with intended mallice to create personal attack, more so just a figure of speech even if you have implied im lying.

All engines whose cylinders have a greater bore (width, diameter) than stroke (length of piston travel) are considered to be oversquare. This is a good design which has benefits of less crank loads, wear, friction etc, therefore increasing reliability.
Naturally the oppossite to this is to have an undersquare engine, which ofcourse, isnt as efficient.
The GM Alloytec engine was conceived by cadillac and designed to be an oversquare 2.8ltr. At this capacity, the engine has approx 34% allowance in its design before it begins to verge on being an undersquare design, whereas the 3.6ltr has an allowance of only 19%. Ideal design effciency is achieved at midpoint.
What this means is that whilst its still oversquare in design, its at last legs of being efficient, meaning that in correct tune the 2.8ltr will perform more "efficiently/harmonious" as opposed to the 3.6 counterpart.
So, to top it off, whilst the 3.6 makes more power due to its capacity increase, it has traded smoothness and "overall efficiency" to make that gain.
In simple terms, no matter which way you look at it, the Alloytec 190 weather in commodore or anything else is a flawed and compromised product.
Naturally, imagining you to be a guru, you will know how to work out the above to once again try mock me.

At the end of the day, like Paul84, i also dont want to sound like a GM basher and do admit there is worse around. Sadly though as mentioned before, for all its research and development and all the cash thrown its way, the product should have been better.

Im looking forward to your review on the Toyota V6. Taking that around Sanddown should sound like an opera, if you talk of alloytec coming on song.
:eclipsee_

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

If it wasnt' for the last comment, you'd think you were making fun of my post....i trust you weren't. I remember making this point to a holden fan at work....he agreed with me to a degree, then pointed out my car was substantially lighter.

True, but here is the rub. I have 2v, SOHC, old school engine. No VCT, in fact aside from a two stage intake manifold, i have no advanced features of any kind as present in an alloytec. I have the same 4sps in my auto, in fact my gearing is pretty much identical. So yes the commodore is heavier, by about 150kg. So basically Holden couldn't overcome that weight penalty over some 15 years..thats only 10kg a year...how hard can it be LOL!

Oh and of course Ford has had no problem over this same period more than blowing away my car's performance, fuel economy and NVH and they did while putting on at least as much, if not more, weight. In fact a FG XR6T prety much burns what i burn in fuel....only goes to a 100km/h about oh 2.5 seconds faster!!!!

How is my post making fun of yours.. Im saying a 164 kw XR6 can beat a 190 kw Holden, doesnt that mean im paying out the holden?? Well im sorry bud if i offended you but i was actually trying to offend SSbaby, and his wonderful V6 boat anchor... :

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

How is my post making fun of yours.. Im saying a 164 kw XR6 can beat a 190 kw Holden, doesnt that mean im paying out the holden?? Well im sorry bud if i offended you but i was actually trying to offend SSbaby, and his wonderful V6 boat anchor... :

He is actually driving v6 toyotas, so he has faith in the alloytec.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

Well im sorry bud if i offended you but i was actually trying to offend SSbaby, and his wonderful V6 boat anchor... :

Well that just shows your level of maturity. Your antagonism is against the forum rules innit? Why did I even bother dignifying your posts by responding, I wonder? :yeees:

fte50,

The Toyota V6 is a good engine with great economy. Heaps of torque but alas too much torque steer being a FWD layout. It's so easy to get wheelspin even on light throttle. IMO, the throttle tune is a little oversensitive meaning it requires a bit too much concentration to drive smoothly in traffic... you virtually have to drive it like your pressing your foot against egg shells.

It's not the smoothest engine around but being a big capacity V6, it's never going to be as smooth as a smaller capacity V6. Your comments regarding bore/stroke design isn't quite right. It's more to do with the laws of physics as smaller engines are always generally smoother than larger engines. Case in point: 2.0L 4 cyl is smoother than a 2.4L 4 cyl engine (which generally needs balance shafts to attenuate the bad harmonics). Similarly, a 60* V6 isn't the smoothest design around but a 2.5L V6 is always going to be smoother than a 3.5L V6 for the similar reasons.

If you still think I'm full of it, have a squiz at the Honda V6 and take note of its undersquare proportions. To use your argument, it's bore/stroke ratio shouldn't exactly lend itself to smoothness but the Honda V6 is definitely a smoother powerplant than the Camry V6. Therefore, your argument regarding the relationship between smoothness and bore/stroke ratio is flawed.

Anyway, it's amusing to read about power wars between the bread 'n' butter sixes when it's the V8s that are the real heavy hitters.

Hey, who took away my rep power? :party3:

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

How is my post making fun of yours.. Im saying a 164 kw XR6 can beat a 190 kw Holden, doesnt that mean im paying out the holden?? Well im sorry bud if i offended you but i was actually trying to offend SSbaby, and his wonderful V6 boat anchor... :

LOL....we seem to have got ourselves confused (or my likely, i confused the issue with my musings). Yes i got your post...you were not making fun of mine at all. What i meant is that the first line alone, given it is never completely clear in the written form when sarcasm is being used, seems to good to be true. If you read that you'd struggle to understand how a 190kw engine loses to one some 25+kw worse on paper. We know better in real life.

Of course you clearly intended it to be a joke....on the holden.

So no, i fully understand you meant to offend SSbaby...who isn't LOL!

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Well that just shows your level of maturity. Your antagonism is against the forum rules innit? Why did I even bother dignifying your posts by responding, I wonder? :yeees:

fte50,

The Toyota V6 is a good engine with great economy. Heaps of torque but alas too much torque steer being a FWD layout. It's so easy to get wheelspin even on light throttle. IMO, the throttle tune is a little oversensitive meaning it requires a bit too much concentration to drive smoothly in traffic... you virtually have to drive it like your pressing your foot against egg shells.

It's not the smoothest engine around but being a big capacity V6, it's never going to be as smooth as a smaller capacity V6. Your comments regarding bore/stroke design isn't quite right. It's more to do with the laws of physics as smaller engines are always generally smoother than larger engines. Case in point: 2.0L 4 cyl is smoother than a 2.4L 4 cyl engine (which generally needs balance shafts to attenuate the bad harmonics). Similarly, a 60* V6 isn't the smoothest design around but a 2.5L V6 is always going to be smoother than a 3.5L V6 for the similar reasons.

If you still think I'm full of it, have a squiz at the Honda V6 and take note of its undersquare proportions. To use your argument, it's bore/stroke ratio shouldn't exactly lend itself to smoothness but the Honda V6 is definitely a smoother powerplant than the Camry V6. Therefore, your argument regarding the relationship between smoothness and bore/stroke ratio is flawed.

Anyway, it's amusing to read about power wars between the bread 'n' butter sixes when it's the V8s that are the real heavy hitters.

Hey, who took away my rep power? :party3:

Are you still trying to convince AFF that the Alloytec is decent?? Mate, I don't think you'll find much success with that even on a holden forum.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Are you still trying to convince AFF that the Alloytec is decent?? Mate, I don't think you'll find much success with that even on a holden forum.

I'm still perplexed that my Rep Power has dropped to zero. Can you help me get my points back Falc'man? You da man! :the_finge

[fte50]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

fte50,

It's not the smoothest engine around but being a big capacity V6, it's never going to be as smooth as a smaller capacity V6. Your comments regarding bore/stroke design isn't quite right. It's more to do with the laws of physics as smaller engines are always generally smoother than larger engines. Case in point: 2.0L 4 cyl is smoother than a 2.4L 4 cyl engine (which generally needs balance shafts to attenuate the bad harmonics). Similarly, a 60* V6 isn't the smoothest design around but a 2.5L V6 is always going to be smoother than a 3.5L V6 for the similar reasons.

SSBABY, Really mate read between the lines. What do you think i was saying. Which is why good design respects the laws of physics. Your eg of 2.4 vs 2.0ltr again exemplifies the fact that in essence the 2.4 is pushing its own design boundaries IF it was originally derived from the same 2.0ltr.
You have repeated what ive said.

Im at odds with this mate, if you still dont get me, i will translate in arabic or something.

Anyhow, on another note, my dads got a toyota Avalon (yeh, boring styling) however truly is a great drive and a pleasurable engine.
GM constantly run this hype of trying to build 'Worlds Best Engine' and at meetings constantly talk of benchmarking BMW.
I think thats their biggest downfall. They should 1st look at Toyota and once achieving the same standard, look at doing the un-achievable!

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by fte50

SSBABY, Really mate read between the lines. What do you think i was saying. Which is why good design respects the laws of physics. Your eg of 2.4 vs 2.0ltr again exemplifies the fact that in essence the 2.4 is pushing its own design boundaries IF it was originally derived from the same 2.0ltr.
You have repeated what ive said.

Im at odds with this mate, if you still dont get me, i will translate in arabic or something.

You still misunderstand fte50. I'm not referring to 2.4L engines derived from 2.0L engines. I'm talking clean sheet designs vs clean sheet designs. A 2.4L will not be as smooth as a 2.0L, engine for engine.

If you still fail to understand that, here it is in Arabic...

أنت لا تزال تسيء فهم المتراوحة 50. اننى لا تشير إلى 2.4 لتر محرك 2.0 لتر المستمدة من المحركات. فأنا أتحدث النقي النظيف Sheet كشف مخططات وتصاميم الحيوية. ولن يكون 2.4 لترات سلسا كما يشكل 2.0 لتر, محرك محرك.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

You still misunderstand fte50. I'm not referring to 2.4L engines derived from 2.0L engines. I'm talking clean sheet designs vs clean sheet designs. A 2.4L will not be as smooth as a 2.0L, engine for engine.

If you still fail to understand that, here it is in Arabic...

أنت لا تزال تسيء فهم المتراوحة 50. اننى لا تشير إلى 2.4 لتر محرك 2.0 لتر المستمدة من المحركات. فأنا أتحدث النقي النظيف Sheet كشف مخططات وتصاميم الحيوية. ولن يكون 2.4 لترات سلسا كما يشكل 2.0 لتر, محرك محرك.

HAHAHA

Funny you never mentioned clean sheet designs earlier. Well then, clean sheet is a totally irrelevant argument to what we have debated so far, COZ OUR CURRENT TOPIC WAS CENTERED AROUND THE FACT THE ALLOYTEC 3.6 IS NOT A CLEAN SHEET DESIGN AND IS COMPROMISED AS A RESULT. So i take it you agree with the facts that Alloytec V6 is compromised.
(ps: i know you wont admit to that - shhh)

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by fte50

HAHAHA

Funny you never mentioned clean sheet designs earlier. Well then, clean sheet is a totally irrelevant argument to what we have debated so far, COZ OUR CURRENT TOPIC WAS CENTERED AROUND THE FACT THE ALLOYTEC 3.6 IS NOT A CLEAN SHEET DESIGN AND IS COMPROMISED AS A RESULT. So i take it you agree with the facts that Alloytec V6 is compromised.
(ps: i know you wont admit to that - shhh)

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

It wasn't me who explained away the notion that the 3.6L Alloytec was a 'derivative' engine. You said that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 3.6L design was the "original" design but the overall design requirements mandated varying capacities of between 2.8L (for SAAB) and 4.0L (in case Holden needed it).

The 3.6L capacity is the largest capacity engine but it's also the most common engine sold around the world. It's the first time EVER I've read here that the 3.6L Alloytec is a 'compromised' engine as I thought it was the first HFV6 application introduced?

But what do I know? I mean, 50,000 AFF members can't be wrong, surely? :hihi:

[fte50]

Cmon SSbaby,
Where are ya. The suspence is killing me - Whats brewing in the cauldrons den? :Up_to_som :Up_to_som

[fte50]

:

Originally Posted by SSbaby

But what do I know? I mean, 50,000 AFF members can't be wrong, surely? :hihi:

Are you impling that there is ANOTHER 50,000 air heads who :

"revved the Alloytec all the way to its near 7000rpm redline... around Sandown raceway using the paddle gears. Seamless, smooth and powerful (for a V6) once on song are the thoughts that sprung to mind".

Was this part of a Masey Ferguson Tractor forum? Im curious

God almighty, ive heard enough. :
Bring on ARMMEGEDDON.

[naddis01]

Dont insult Masseys like that mate.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Dont insult Masseys like that mate.

Tell you what though, the best sounding Diesels I have ever heard are the GM Detroit Diesels. Good old 2 stroke Diesels where even a 4 cylinder sounds like an 8. Can't believe that the same company that made such powerful engines could produce such a dog as the alloytech.

[Skotty]

Originally Posted by ltd

Had a green one in New Zealand in 2003, fantastic car to drive around the south island, cornered brilliantly too.

How did it park with a 12 metre gutter to gutter turning circle :1syellow1

I don't get why people say "the VE will only be a 3L" then the proof is there that the 3.5L Magna V6 owned the 4ltr falcon 6...