VP commos they r quickish!?!? y?

Beetus · 16-05-2006, 10:21 PM

i dragged my mates vp commodore 5spd manual ute against ,my ed v8. Ive got extractors hi flow cats and filter, hes just changed the mufflers and air filter. I had a very hard time beating him. he ate me off the start and i only reeled him in very slowly but once the quarter was done his front end was at my boot still. Now i looked up the specs on them, and it says the vp commo standard was 0-100 in 8 secs!!!! thats quicker than any other commo till 2004!!! whats the deal with that. is it because they are so light??? btw mines auto.........

AUIIIXR8 · 16-05-2006, 10:25 PM

Yeah they are quick off the line for what they are. The e series Windsor is a fairly asthmatic version of a great engine. That and your Auto ratios against his Manual puts things well and truly in his favour.

Good news is it doesn't take much to get yours going fast enough to well and truly hand his Commo Ar$e to him.

Beetus · 16-05-2006, 10:30 PM

i still beat him but, we kept longer than the quarter, i left him at 140. but yeh so are they quicker than new ones like the specs say?

Ryan · 16-05-2006, 10:32 PM

I think its because, VPs have a fair bit of low down torque, so ive heard anyway.

VNs are the same too.

Still doesnt change the fact, that the old 3800 is a rattle box full of clangs and sound like a bogan slapping his thongs together.

EF302 · 16-05-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Still doesnt change the fact, that the old 3800 is a rattle box full of clangs and sound like a bogan slapping his thongs together.

thats awsome, well said, lol

DDXR6T · 19-05-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Still doesnt change the fact, that the old 3800 is a rattle box full of clangs and sound like a bogan slapping his thongs together.

Awesome ... Sig material!

Beetus · 16-05-2006, 10:41 PM

but that rattle box ate my v8, then agen i get did get alot of wheelspin but yeh, it almost had me...........

Ryan · 16-05-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beetus

but that rattle box ate my v8, then agen i get did get alot of wheelspin but yeh, it almost had me...........

That could explain it.

Also the VNs/VPs are quicker then every V6 up until the VY, I think.

I dont like the V6s though, the only V Configuration engine I would get in a Holden, is one with 8 Cylinders. ;)

Beetus · 16-05-2006, 10:52 PM

whats the difference between them and the vr's, are they as quick, i just wanna know what im gonna be up against, how much slower r vr's???

EF302 · 16-05-2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beetus

whats the difference between them and the vr's, are they as quick, i just wanna know what im gonna be up against, how much slower r vr's???

dont think your gonna be up against much at all dude. there all prety slow.

BENT_8 · 16-05-2006, 11:11 PM

From what i can remember the VR's were the best motors but were heavy on fuel as the injection system was more of a flood the intakes set up and didn't change to seqential injection until VS.
Apparently the 95 VS was the worst as the new injection had a lot of problems

Kenster · 16-05-2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

From what i can remember the VR's were the best motors but were heavy on fuel as the injection system was more of a flood the intakes set up and didn't change to seqential injection until VS.
Apparently the 95 VS was the worst as the new injection had a lot of problems

just to correct you its the VL has the best engine basic in the classic other than that dont think the other commodore range ever came near the build quality and speed the car produce

BENT_8 · 16-05-2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenter

just to correct you its the VL has the best engine basic in the classic other than that dont think the other commodore range ever came near the build quality and speed the car produce

Sorry mate i thought we were comparing the early Holden renditions of the 63 Buick V6 not an engine slipped in because they had closed their engine plant.
My appologies

Beetus · 16-05-2006, 11:20 PM

so did the vr's eat the vn and vp's or did they get left behind like the rest?

BENT_8 · 16-05-2006, 11:26 PM

Without having a book to quote from i would say the weight would have been a factor to slow the VR as i "think" they were heavier.
Chances are they gear ratios would have been toned down to get some sort of comparable fuel consumption stats to combat rising fuel costs and earn corporate dollars in fleet sales.

**Falcon Coupe** · 16-05-2006, 11:24 PM

A few years ago my wife had a stock Vr wagon and i had stock XH (EL) panel van, both auto 6 cylinder, we lined them up, a mate driving the commo, they were equal in 1st gear, the van pulled half a length soon as it hit second gear and kept pulling away, i was surprised as the VR "felt" faster off the mark.

Full Spectrum · 16-05-2006, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

That could explain it.

Also the VNs/VPs are quicker then every V6 up until the VY, I think.

I dont like the V6s though, the only V Configuration engine I would get in a Holden, is one with 8 Cylinders. ;)

VZ SV6 is the fastest N/A V6 so the times say, Even the Alloytech 175 hasn't done the VN-VP times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beetus

whats the difference between them and the vr's, are they as quick, i just wanna know what im gonna be up against, how much slower r vr's???

About .08 .09 slower same engine it's just the Electronic Auto from VR onwards was more at restricting the cars from doing wheel spin as they took off. Many people had massive complaints about the VN Series 1 being to aggressive off the mark very snappy and worse in the rain.
But many people have said the Auto VP is quicker then the Manual VP just because you need to get so many things right on take off. Remove the bell mouth behind the Throttle body of the VP and it's got even more take off power. The engines from VS to VY the ecotec V6 was better at higher speeds.
The VP weight is 1350kg i think, Power 127kw and 293Nm. They have a good mid range power and very good low down, They build the revs very fast and easy.

ClassicAU · 20-05-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

VZ SV6 is the fastest N/A V6 so the times say, Even the Alloytech 175 hasn't done the VN-VP times.

i have taken one of those in my stock AU auto on more than one occasion, jumped me from the line till half way through 1st, then its all me right through to 100km/h. havent tryed anything beyond that. i dont think the SV6 is all that special.

SSBUB · 20-05-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClassicAU

i have taken one of those in my stock AU auto on more than one occasion, jumped me from the line till half way through 1st, then its all me right through to 100km/h. havent tryed anything beyond that. i dont think the SV6 is all that special.

the sv6's have rediculously tall gearing - they arent too hard to beat in stock form i have been told. I dont know, i have never raced one but dont think i would have probs either. Im not a huge fan of any holden 6

$AUDude · 16-05-2006, 11:31 PM

I thought VS Exec's were the quickest with the upgraded 147kw engine and still less weight? Not sure though...

Beetus · 16-05-2006, 11:34 PM

yeh from the same site i got 8.0 secs for vp it says 8.9 for vs..........

Full Spectrum · 17-05-2006, 12:00 AM

VS had more power and Torque slightly more weight, But again it's all in the Transmission to limit it's speed off the mark to hold back wheel-spin. by the time they build the speed up they are already a good 3-4 car lengths behind a VP or VN.

FGX-351 · 17-05-2006, 12:00 AM

vn was the quickest because it had the most low down torque, less weight, short first gear, so much that it was prone to wheelspin and they were supposedly dangerous in rain especially with elderly and other non enthusiasts "lighting them up" by accident and having accident since then holden has decreased the pick up with each model(v6) vr had more power but was alot heavier car compared to vp and vn aswell as having less low down torque to further correct the wheelspin problem, the vs was the same, but supposedly has more torque higher in the rev range(couldve fooled me!) with even slower take off and acceleration times but having more engine kw and then the vt onward cars are just fat ***'s:p

**edit**someone like steffo would most likely have all the figures available for each car to give further insight**edit**

17-05-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

vn was the quickest because it had the most low down torque, less weight, short first gear, so much that it was prone to wheelspin and they were supposedly dangerous in rain especially with elderly and other non enthusiasts "lighting them up" by accident ...

It was funny in year 12, almost everyone had FWDs and the one person who had a VN commodore was a very shy timid Asian guy. He would normally leave the carpark fairly slowly and carefully. Once in the rain the VN by itself started lighting it up sideways out of the carpark and fishtailed down the driveway. He must of absolutly shat himself while driving through the passenger window. Was a ****a!

**Polyal** · 17-05-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

**edit**someone like steffo would most likely have all the figures available for each car to give further insight**edit**

Steffo has standards I hope you know.....

FGX-351 · 17-05-2006, 12:01 AM

damn slick you beat me to it:P

Full Spectrum · 17-05-2006, 12:08 AM

Sorry

There was a story on the VN vs VP, they would take off down the 1/4 and the VN would get the jump by about a bonnet, As they built up speeds to get near the end the VP would start to real it in, By the Finnish it's anyones guess.
My car with new tranny is faster then it was before, But i feel it's faster because it shifts

The old one was toast it wouldn't shift anywhere near as good sometimes it wouldn't kick-down:( Now it's all spot on.

I had a VS Executive in 96 brand-new hired car for about 2 weeks. I loved it but slug *** slow very frustrating it was no confidence in pulling out on traffic at all.
One day i did a u-turn and floored it by the time i turned straight it finally hit power:P Finally i was saying finally some power. The VYII i was in not long ago wasn't as bad feeling it was funny it felt sharper if thats possible with a heavier car?.
I wouldnt trust my life on the take off's of the VS at all.

FGX-351 · 17-05-2006, 12:31 AM

the supercharged wh i tried today was quicker then what i expected but once it got upto 70km/h it didnt wanna keep creeping up like it was(all driven normally and not hard with salesman in car) and one thing that really got annoying was that it really didnt wanna hold its speed, i was constantly on the accelerator just like in my pintara and thats the reason why i never take that thing on highway drives or long trips anymore

Full Spectrum · 17-05-2006, 12:42 AM

Same with me if I'm on the freeway @ 100 next thing i could be doing 95 or even 105 it's the biggest pain in the ring

.

macca_779 · 17-05-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beetus

i dragged my mates vp commodore 5spd manual ute against ,my ed v8. Ive got extractors hi flow cats and filter, hes just changed the mufflers and air filter. I had a very hard time beating him. he ate me off the start and i only reeled him in very slowly but once the quarter was done his front end was at my boot still. Now i looked up the specs on them, and it says the vp commo standard was 0-100 in 8 secs!!!! thats quicker than any other commo till 2004!!! whats the deal with that. is it because they are so light??? btw mines auto.........

Don't go picking any fights against any VN-VP 5 litres especially VN's will you. If you think the 6's are quick the 8's pull mid 6 seccond 0-100's quite consistantly with decent tyres that is, otherwise they're a smoke fest and dont appear that quick on paper.