It's official - 6.0L Holden Commodores

[RED_EL_XR8]

No boys you must remember to play nice in a community sandpit! Is it really worth the same pointless arguements?

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

Is it really worth the same pointless arguements?

Nah, not really..._

[ratter]

I think this thread needs to be locked.


Too much incorrect info and one eyed opinions

[Iphido]

6.0L puts holden right at the heavy end of the performance scale. Like it or not a Calais will most likely burn your XR8 of the lights, and a V8 statesman will keep pace with a V12 7 series and definately brings parity to a new 750 V8 7'er. Okay its a shed with chrome, but its a nice low end entry point into a exclusive club.

You think this is about SS verse XR8? No, thats a small part of the market, and most of those aren't swinging buyers. Holden will really be competitive with its 34kw advantage over Fords SOHC V8's. Thats almost the same jump Ford has going from a six cylinder to a V8!!

Private sales of Calais and Statesmans are pure gold and highly profitable. Ghia and Fairlanes are already hurting bad, we all know this. Knowing that going holden means 6.0 braging rights and untouchable performance on this side of $150 grand.

Chrysler 300C? Starts to look a little less impressive. 5.7L and 255kw? Bah!.. Which in turn makes fords 5.4L 230kw engine (simular power to a 3.5L V6 lexus or Honda legend or new us Maxima or new us Avalon) even less attractive. Start comparing fuel economy and it gets stacks up even less favourable

I think we know what needs to happen, the Ghia should be avalible with the turbo six motor to help restore driving enjoyment credability. Fairlane G8 really needs to be fitted with the BOSS motor. Or how about this, FPV optioned supercharger for those wearing Ghia badges.Ford still has options.

Other wise I predict the 300c and the new Holdens coupled with several reinvigorated japanese entries will spell the death of the Fairlane (and LWB) and heavily impact Ghia sales hard. Mean while VE is just around the corner and will seal the fate of the struggling models.

Fords choice of V8 is looking less rosey in these fun and competitive times.

[gtfpv]

talk about jumping the gun all on an announcement everyone has summed up an opinion . but it makes good reading.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

where did you get that from? the 5.4Boss is unique to australia, it consists of a 5.4 block out of the US triton motor, and the mustang cobras heads. the 5.4 tritons in the US are only single cam, 3 valve motors, the same as our 220kw 5.4 not our BOSS motors

reread my post.

Originally Posted by sourbastard

We may make a few alterations in head and manifold design "on occasion", but thats about it.

that would be one of the occasions would it not? The block is US, which means the core of the engine is US. The heads get changed and get an extra overhead cam. Take away that block, and you have a great set of heads to work on an engine we never designed.

Are you going to tell me next that the 2v closed chamber heads on a 302 cleveland suddenly make it completely australian?

[T3rminator]

FORD should take the upperhand and import the Hemi 6.1L V8 (as seen in the SRT-8s). This also has the ****y DoD, although they call it something else.
This thing pulls the 2tonne Chrysler down the 1/4 in 13sec flat stock. It's what we need....that'll force holden to go 7Ls :

What a shame the Chrysler coming here only gets the 5.7L.......if they had the 6.1L I'd work overtime, be a gigalo on weekends, and even wash car windows on hoodle st to buy one.

[Steffo]

Was this much fuss created in 1999 with VTII when Holden introduced the 5.7litre GenIII LS1 V8 accross the range, while Ford only had the 5.0litre Windsor?

Why is everybody having a fit saying 6.0litres is too much? Does everyone realise that the GenIV L76 engine is more advanced, lighter and more economical then the GenIII LS1 it's going to replace? It has variable valve timing, the LS1 didn't. It's EuroIII compliant, the LS1 wasn't/isn't. It's got Displacement on Demand, the LS1 doesn't. So what's the issue?

The VE will even up the performance ball-game a whole lot, considering it'll bring weight inline with the BF. And don't discount the SOHC 5.4 just because its got 'only' 230kW. It's got 500Nm of torque too, and there's alot more where that came from...

[SSBUB]

7litres, i draw the line on owning such a thirsty pig

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Why is everybody having a fit saying 6.0litres is too much? Does everyone realise that the GenIV L76 engine is more advanced, lighter and more economical then the GenIII LS1 it's going to replace? It has variable valve timing, the LS1 didn't. It's EuroIII compliant, the LS1 wasn't/isn't. It's got Displacement on Demand, the LS1 doesn't. So what's the issue?

The VE will even up the performance ball-game a whole lot, considering it'll bring weight inline with the BF. And don't discount the SOHC 5.4 just because its got 'only' 230kW. It's got 500Nm of torque too, and there's alot more where that came from...

Steffo, you must have some very good inside knowledge at Holden to make all those claims about fuel economy etc seeing the car/engine isn't even released yet!!!

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Steffo, you must have some very good inside knowledge at Holden to make all those claims about fuel economy etc seeing the car/engine isn't even released yet!!!

I don't know, seems logical that a lighter engine with displacement on demand will use less fuel then the older one without such technology. Plus the LS2 is already more fuel efficient (or at least, the same) as the LS1 was anyway isn't it?

Though, if L76 is released with VE... the almost definite weight gain might offset any economy gains over the old LS1 VTII-VZ's.

[GTS_300_Coupe]

I hope the new VE GTS comes with the corvette Z06 LS7.
Who cares about fuel economy, seriously people who buy these power monsters dont care about petty issues like fuel, pedestrians and the environment. :
Seriously though, a 7 litre GTS sedan would be competition for the BMW M5 and hopefully spark Ford to produce a GTHO with the Ford GT motor. (s/c 5.4)

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I don't know, seems logical that a lighter engine with displacement on demand will use less fuel then the older one without such technology. Plus the LS2 is already more fuel efficient (or at least, the same) as the LS1 was anyway isn't it?

Though, if L76 is released with VE... the almost definite weight gain might offset any economy gains over the old LS1 VTII-VZ's.

Im glad you brought the others up!
Firstly DOD is a proven **** in 99% of real day to day driving, and how does the weight of the engine have anything to do with fuel economy?
Surely its the vehicle weight not engine weight that might be relevant?

Ive been in QLD on hols last week and ran into a group of guys touring, 1 has a GTS300, another had a Clubsport 297 and the third had a BAGT, i spoke with them all for a while and surprise surprise the consensus was all 3 used the same amount of fuel, if anything the 297 was ever so slightly more thirsty than the other 2.
Im convinced in the real world that there's nothing in it between both camps and all the fuel economy claims are based on clinically sterile testing rather than practical real world use.

[slipper]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Firstly DOD is a proven **** in 99% of real day to day driving...

This statement is ridiculous. Have you considered the possibility that GM and Daimler Chrysler, having each spent millions on this technology, might know a few more things about Otto cycle engines than you?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by slipper

This statement is ridiculous. Have you considered the possibility that GM and Daimler Chrysler, having each spent millions on this technology, might know a few more things about Otto cycle engines than you?

Its been tried before...
Its a ****y Marketing gimmick that will only work in specific low throttle use situations..!!
I bet In 99% of day to day driving it won't even activate.
And yes i have inside feedback from a relative who's an Engineer with one of the worlds largest car manufacturers...

[slipper]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Its a ****y Marketing gimmick that will only work in specific low throttle use situations..!!

That is the whole idea mate! Nobody drives around at WOT all day. Idling and light loads don't need the extra displacement so why not take the opportunity to cut pumping losses and save energy?

Yes, early GM implementations can only be described as woeful. But modern electronics have made an old idea much better.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by slipper

That is the whole idea mate! Nobody drives around at WOT all day. Idling and light loads don't need the extra displacement so why not take the opportunity to cut pumping losses and save energy?

Yes, early GM implementations can only be described as woeful. But modern electronics have made an old idea much better.

Yes i understand about not driving around at WOT but DOD doesn't really work under acceleration, it requires constant speed and steady throttle position which occurs on long distance trips but is rare in normal day to day driving..
If you disable a few cylinders you actually transfer the load to the remaining cylinders which means they probably use a similar amount of fuel to achieve the same result so the theory is flawed and has been discussed and examined at length in another thread.....

[BadMac]

Here is some further info about the new Holden/GM engine.
(It is brand new).

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/p...L%209-15-05.htm

Highlights.
All Ali (Not cast as somebody speculated earlier).
264Kw and 520Nm, nothing to sneeze at.
10km/100l combined fuel economy.
Variable valve timing, from a pushrod, single cam V8 no less (world first!).
Displacement on Demand. Uses up to 7% less fuel with average driving.
6.0l but family includes 4.8, 5.3 and 6.2 motors.

Not to hard to sell, more power, less fuel, higher tech (DOD and VVT), better for the environment (emissions and economy). Hell if the VE was here, I'd probably buy one.

Whats Fords answer, build better cars? the ZF 6 speed! The BF is starting to look tired, it was good in the BA, but when you buy the new model you don't want it to look like the old model!!! The neighbours can't see that its got a new gearbox, the can only see it looks the same.

Yes Ford also have a very good engine in the straight 6 TURBOed (probably better than the classic Nissan 6 from the GTR's). Shame they don't put it in the only Ford I currently want (the SY Territory). I know there are rumors, but there have been for 2 years and I am still waiting.

By the way, it was Motor that published the rumor about Holden getting the ZF 6 speed. At the time the logic was that GM couldn't build enough of their new 6 speeds to meet their own US market so while Holden waited they were going to use the ZF. The shortage is still there so you can't discount the rumor just yet!! :1syellow1

So take your blinkers off and appreciate that Holden doing this will force Ford to do something better, which will force Holden to do something better, etc, which will benefit us all (its called competition and if we all bought the same car it would be a boring place).

[slipper]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Yes i understand about not driving around at WOT but DOD doesn't really work under acceleration, it requires constant speed and steady throttle position which occurs on long distance trips but is rare in normal day to day driving..
If you disable a few cylinders you actually transfer the load to the remaining cylinders which means they probably use a similar amount of fuel to achieve the same result so the theory is flawed and has been discussed and examined at length in another thread.....

OK mate. I can see how two companies, with a combined market capitalisation of over $US 65 billion, know less about such things than you and the "brains trust" in the other thread.

We should both abstain from this debate until the new engine is actually screwed into a Commodore and the mileage is measured to ADR 81/01.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Rollin

EF_dave covered your first line, and im sure the heads and block just bolt straight together....there wouldnt be aby engineering at all there to make it work...
windsors break their blocks if you push them hard (say...to try keep up with a turbo 6...)
Cleavelands havent been factory fitted to any ford relavant to this discussion for about 25 years.
the I6 started out as a 177ci 'thing', non crossflow, with an intake manifold cast as part of the head, all cast iron, pushrod etc.

ford aust have developed that engine over the years, to its present DOHC, VVT, alloy headed, coil on plug structural sump etc etc etc state....i think they only share the bore spacing with earlier models, and apparently there is SFA interchangable parts between AU and BA...thats pretty much as aussie designed as you can get IMHO



i dont really care - im never going to buy one no matter what they put in them. more power just equals more enjoyable test drives for me and also i can now sort out 6L HSVs rather than 5.7s, in my dirty old EB XR6



yes they were - how embarrasing to sell an engine at a premium price to people who can expect to get sh@t on at the lights by a cheaper 6 cylinder version or their own car? ford aust did an absolutely lame job with the windsor, (apart from the T3 TS50 which i absolutely love) they really should have matched holden kw for kw from EB onwards, it wouldnt have been that hard...they just didnt use their brains.

First Falcon six was 144ci in the XK.

Only the 8.2" deck height Windsors are afflicted with the block cracking @ 450hp 450ftlbs issue... and there are so many aftermarket blocks available for them that if you're really getting serious, its not really an issue at all. Destroying the turbo six with a Clevo or Windsor is no big thing (there's enough parts for both to do it with ease).

There are plenty of interchangeable parts with the AU and BA inline-six. The bottom end is almost exactly the same, the major changes are all top end (ie: DOHC head).

Ford Australia didn't really DO anything to the Windsor engine until AU days when they made the 220kW and 250kW models. The rest of the 302's they were using from EB onwards were basically direct imports from the USA with minor changes. I too agree it would not have been difficult for the 302 to do some LS1 stomping, but then, its more up to the US parent company then the Aussie subsidary isn't it? Ford USA dumped the Windsor in cars in 1996, focusing on the mod motor, so any further development would have to have been done with local money. That makes the 5.6litre engine all the more impressive.

The inline-six is definitley the most Australian engine available today, without doubt. And it is impressive that it's gone from a humble 90 odd hp 144ci thing in the original 1960 XK to today's 190kW (255hp) base engine in the BF, and as far as 270kW (362hp) in the F6 Typhoon. It leaves all of Ford USA's six-cylinder engines for dead. Gotta love it when the small outpost "beats" the large parent at something.

Arguing about what's too much, what isn't, what's going to be etc is pretty pointless. Lets just wait and see what Holden does. Though, GenIV L76 at 264kW 520Nm vs Boss 260 at 260kW 500Nm would be an interesting match up indeed.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Don't you hate it when a thread begins as pointless and goes downhill from there!

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by Rollin

EF_dave covered your first line, and im sure the heads and block just bolt straight together....there wouldnt be aby engineering at all there to make it work...
windsors break their blocks if you push them hard (say...to try keep up with a turbo 6...)
Cleavelands havent been factory fitted to any ford relavant to this discussion for about 25 years.
the I6 started out as a 177ci 'thing', non crossflow, with an intake manifold cast as part of the head, all cast iron, pushrod etc.

ford aust have developed that engine over the years, to its present DOHC, VVT, alloy headed, coil on plug structural sump etc etc etc state....i think they only share the bore spacing with earlier models, and apparently there is SFA interchangable parts between AU and BA...thats pretty much as aussie designed as you can get IMHO

You were the one ranting and raving about "aussie built ford superiority"

I cant even name a v8 that Ford have designed from scratch in this country, so maybe you should keep that in mind next time you embark on an "all aussie ford" tirade and abusing another manufacturer for using the same business practices that Ford does.

And actually EF_Dave didnt cover anything other then confirming what I said. The 5.4 block is from the states and the heads are from the cobra 4.6L, also from the states, how does putting two US components together in Australia make it all australian?

You can whine and moan about the windsor block strength which is completely irrelevent, but that doesnt stop it being from the states.

The cleveland may be old, also irrelevent, but it is from the states.

The original straight 6 is from the states and we have developed it slowly over decades. woopieedeeedooo.

1 out of 4 aint bad.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

You were the one ranting and raving about "aussie built ford superiority"

I cant even name a v8 that Ford have designed from scratch in this country, so maybe you should keep that in mind next time you embark on an "all aussie ford" tirade and abusing another manufacturer for using the same business practices that Ford does.

And actually EF_Dave didnt cover anything other then confirming what I said. The 5.4 block is from the states and the heads are from the cobra 4.6L, also from the states, how does putting two US components together in Australia make it all australian?

You can whine and moan about the windsor block strength which is completely irrelevent, but that doesnt stop it being from the states.

The cleveland may be old, also irrelevent, but it is from the states.

The original straight 6 is from the states and we have developed it slowly over decades. woopieedeeedooo.

1 out of 4 aint bad.

I dont understand your point. irralivant of who has made the motor, Australia with its tiny market have consistantly developeped our own world class, technicly advanced I6 motor. isnt that something to be proud of? iam quite surprised ford Aus still keep developing the I6 motor, they could quite easily simply import the 4.0V6 from the states, but instead we have something very unique and something to be proud of.

sure, the falcon isnt fully Australian, it would be quite stupid if ford aus diddnt use some parts form its parent companys we all know that, but the more parts we source from Australia for our motor industry, the more jobs that are kept in Australia and the better aconomy for us, and that is why I and many others care that the more Australian falcons, commodores, camrys, 360s are the better for all of us Australians.

[Bossxr8]

[QUOTE=Steffo]

There are plenty of interchangeable parts with the AU and BA inline-six. The bottom end is almost exactly the same, the major changes are all top end (ie: DOHC head).

QUOTE]
Wrong again. There are no changeover bottom end parts between them. Some parts are similar but have been redesigned. The crank is longer, the rods have oil squirters, the pistons are different, the oil pump is crank mounted, it has a windage tray, block is different. Don't just assume if you don't know any different. I'd say 95% of the parts are different with only the oil filter, injectors and a few brackets being carry over.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by slipper

What is your point?

Please describe how Ford AU designed the entire Boss engine? Yes, they design and manufacture a couple of manifolds and they do assemble the engine locally. But that is a long way from designing an entire engine as Holden had done with the locally designed 308.

Speaking of the 308, cast your meagre memory back to when Ford was just "unpacking and installing" the 302 into Falcons whilst Holden was making the 308/304 locally. Were Ford the bad guys then?

I thought the 308 was basically a modified small block Chev, similar in design. Holden just took the basic design and changed it to suit their needs. I remember reading that in a History of the Holden V8 that was in Motor mag a few years ago.

[HSE2]

Does it really matter who or where these elements were designed? They are both US based parent companies. Do we seriously think there is a large content in either product that at some point isn't utilising some aspect of offshore ownership?

I don't care where it comes from but I care very much about how it performs and how it feels. The LS2 feels like a nice improvement over the LS1 and I suspect this new L76 will prove to be an improvement over the LS1 as well. That’s all anyone can hope for but from Ford stand point it does put question to the V8 specs remaining unchanged. The SS will be only 10nm short of the Clubbie and match the best FPV have to offer.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Wrong again. There are no changeover bottom end parts between them. Some parts are similar but have been redesigned. The crank is longer, the rods have oil squirters, the pistons are different, the oil pump is crank mounted, it has a windage tray, block is different. Don't just assume if you don't know any different. I'd say 95% of the parts are different with only the oil filter, injectors and a few brackets being carry over.

Hey, I'm open to correction. That's some interesting information. I always thought most of the changes were around the DOHC head and VCT setup.

[OzJavelin]

Yeah .. who'd buy an antiqated, inferior engine which is about 1/2L bigger than it's competition for about the same power output?
6.0L Holden V8 with those nasty pushrods .. opposed to 5.4L Ford V8 with nice OHC
.. or .. 4.0L Ford I6 and 3.6L Holden V6
*NOBODY* would by such a big wasteful engine these days would they? ;)

[Abacus]

I haven't owned a Holden for 20 years, and I'm not going to think about buying one now, but I'm not so one-eyed as to ignore the facts if the darkside does a good thing. It doesn't matter if its DOHC, SOHC or pushrod - how it performs is the issue. If a 6.0L motor with pushrods can perform as well as 5.4L with overhead cam, why go for the extra cost, weight and complexity?

Whether the L76 motor achieves its objectives remains to be seen, of course. As has been said above, it hasn't been released yet. However, if it is as good as it should be, it may give Ford some grief.

Ford currently has Holden nailed on pretty much every other important issue - transmission, steering, suspension. If Holden closes the gaps in these areas with the VE then the lack of any clear performance benefit from the Ford modular motor really will be an issue.

And if the 5.4 OHC setup really is so superior, it shouldn't be too hard for Ford's massive R&D resources to give it more poke, should it? Maybe the Boss 260 should be the "base" V8, and Ford should do something really special for the higher spec versions. This would at least go some way to resolving another issue, being the lack of a clear performance gap between the V8 and the turbo 6.

[Thunder]

[QUOTE=T3ts50]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Lest face it guys, 1972 aint here any more. Ford will never make V8's with more power than Holden in factory sedans. Fords too conservative (U.S trend). Remember marketing sells cars, not history or performance, thats why they spend millions on marketing.


Is that why Ford in the US is kicking **** with sales with the Retro inspired mustang and Ford GT.

Can you picture Ford Oz bringing it in? hmmm? remember how the Mustang went? We dont hav US petrol prices (not that that stops aussies from buying V8) but we prefer our own aussie styled cars.