Statesman supercharged V6

[1TUFFUTE]

95-97 statesman SC V6. Im trying to find out what these SC 6cylinder cars ran factory down the quarter.Thanks for any info....i actually want to see if it will beat my wifes Fairmont Ghia EF Ticky :evil3: taaa

[XR Martin]

Mid-low 15s is about what they run.

[KW XRT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

95-97 statesman SC V6. Im trying to find out what these SC 6cylinder cars ran factory down the quarter.Thanks for any info....i actually want to see if it will beat my wifes Fairmont Ghia EF Ticky :evil3: taaa

I remember couple of years back a mate told me they were blindingly fast and that the power was incredible {what a tosser}.Then I found out they ran about as quick as a standard Ba falcon 15 + seconds for the quarter.My old 1971 valiant charger {14.8 factory} now 14.7 with crossply razor blades for tyres, would be able to give a supercharged V6 a head start and still smack it.

Brobably why most commadores have "chrysler hemi" when they go for a supercharger.

cheers kyren

[Fairlane]

Well in early VS2 form they were pretty quick, about 170kw in a 1450kg shell. But considering its a Statey the weight should be around 1550 and would pull a mid 15 i should imagaine.

It should beat your wifes Ghia pretty soundly, not because of the power difference, but gearing and weight (50-100kg) will be against you.

[5speedeb]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

95-97 statesman SC V6. Im trying to find out what these SC 6cylinder cars ran factory down the quarter.Thanks for any info....i actually want to see if it will beat my wifes Fairmont Ghia EF Ticky :evil3: taaa

ummmmm last time i checked this was ford forums not holden forums

better of asking this question over at streetcommodores forums or just commodores buddy hehehe

[XR6TickfordBoy]

Was reading street machine that had an article on the S/C VS Holdens, I dont think its that their quick from factory but they are built with stronger engine components/internals making them much more suitable for boosted applications (turbo or supercharged) and the boost can be wound up and modified with little risk to the engine compared to standard ecotec engine! So from what I understood the main benefit from a factory S/C ecotec engine is as a basis for a boosted application not to keep as a stock S/C car! My mates got a S/C 2002 Monaro and the manual says that's only 175 odd KW from factory!

[SpoolMan]

Stock V6 Supercharged makes the same power as a stock BA i6..
The HSV XU6 Commie had 180fwkw.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

Stock V6 Supercharged makes the same power as a stock BA i6..
The HSV XU6 Commie had 180fwkw.

and HSV also dropped the XU6 as well for the simple fact that they had extracted all the power they could from it and couldnt justify trying to better it to keep up to a base model Ford BA XT 183N/A 6 cyl engine which was around 10k cheaper.

[jimmy_c]

In crate form from GM. They are rated at 180kw, either holden detune them or fiddle the figures. They are not blistering fast but go fairly well. in VS ans WH form.

[TwistedEL]

My brother has a VT XU6 and the thing goes pretty hard - are you saying a BA XT will go harder?

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by TwistedEL

My brother has a VT XU6 and the thing goes pretty hard - are you saying a BA XT will go harder?

I'd say the VT would be faster but due to weight. What is the weight difference from VT to BA? Maybe if the XU6 was turbo it would of been more of a success?

I smash them both anyways :P

[XR8-260]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I'd say the VT would be faster but due to weight. What is the weight difference from VT to BA? Maybe if the XU6 was turbo it would of been more of a success?

I smash them both anyways :P

XU6 is about 50 or so kg lighter than the BA. Also the HSV would launch faster than the BA due to a shorter 1st gear IMO.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by 30487256

XU6 is about 50 or so kg lighter than the BA. Also the HSV would launch faster than the BA due to a shorter 1st gear IMO.

50kgs difference aint too much. I was thinking it would be a about 200-300 of kgs difference. Personally I dislike short gearing though.

I can live with it as I bought a car short gearing (bloody thing revs out so quick I've hit boost cut a few times) but sometimes wish I could grab an extra gear whilst crusing.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I'd say the VT would be faster but due to weight.

I remember reading an article where the BA XR6 (n/a) was pitted against the VY supercharged S-pack. The BA was quicker :P

This was Wheels or Motor, when the BA range was new.

[Kenaz]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I'd say the VT would be faster but due to weight.

Series 1 VTs are heavy.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by TwistedEL

My brother has a VT XU6 and the thing goes pretty hard - are you saying a BA XT will go harder?

im saying from an engine statistic point of view, HSV ditched the S/C engine as it couldnt put out what the Falcon N/A engine could in a package that was at least 10k cheaper.
you can think what you like as per 1/4 mile figures.
im stating what happend and why.

[Full Spectrum]

VS V6 Supercharged engines only had 165kw. VT onwards was 171kw.
They ran around the 7 second bracket too 100. Probably the biggest hindrance for them was the Auto.
So stock 7's too 100 and 15's 1/4. If a VS Calais it might brake 15 1/4's being lighter. I don't know the weight of the stato.

Little bit i found online. about the VS stato.

In NRMA's tests the supercharged version outperformed the V8 from a standing start to 80km/h and 100km/h.

This backs up what i was told and that was this engine was embarrassing holdens 5lt's a little like the VK 3.3lt fuel injected engine did too the old 253 v8 which was given the boot.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

VS V6 Supercharged engines only had 165kw. VT onwards was 171kw.
They ran around the 7 second bracket too 100. Probably the biggest hindrance for them was the Auto.

I was seriously considering an XU6 way back in the day when I wanted another car but I couldn't live with an auto, regardless of how quick or slow it might be. A driver's car to me by definition has a clutch pedal :P

[Full Spectrum]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I was seriously considering an XU6 way back in the day when I wanted another car but I couldn't live with an auto, regardless of how quick or slow it might be. A driver's car to me by definition has a clutch pedal :P

I must admit too falling in-love with one myself, I had the pic's on the wall and i got over that years years ago. But i forgot too take the pics down lazy.
My brother was told by a holden mate that they wouldn't trust the manual with this engine they seen it too dangerous. Might be a easy cop out because a manual would have walked over the 5lt's easier:P. I miss that clutch a bit
I think there was a place in QLD that converted them too a 6 speed manual same as the holden and ford 6 speed.

I've been really shocked of late at how easy they are too gain power from.
I want that engine in my car But I'm having trouble getting help no-one seems too want too do the work even my mate at a wreckers thinks it's too hard too do.
I don't see it as impossible. Get the engine install it, See a Auto elec wire it up too the ECU with a VS engine loom few extra sensors here and there from a VS. Then have the dual cats fitted too my current Exhaust system. Then tune it. I got guys telling me i need a tranny for it i'm going too slap them there the same trannys:P Just my isn't electronically controlled which is a bonus.
It's not easy but it's no where near impossible and i'm passiont i'll let the engine sit in the shed till i have everything ready. Be worth it in the long run.

[MITCHAY]

The problem with modifications though Slick is that a lot of people see it as bang for your buck.

The way I have understood it is that with S/C car you're limited to pulley ratios (have no idea what they are BTW) but with turbos the limits of tuning are endless, hence why I reckon that if the XU6 was turbo it would of really been the new VLT.

[Full Spectrum]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

The problem with modifications though Slick is that a lot of people see it as bang for your buck.

The way I have understood it is that with S/C car you're limited to pulley ratios (have no idea what they are BTW) but with turbos the limits of tuning are endless, hence why I reckon that if the XU6 was turbo it would of really been the new VLT.

VLT has a nice ring too it too.
I think 15-20psi is about it's limit, There is one lucky guy with a VN Calais with one that pumps out about 260rwkw. Good for 11's, But that's about it really as you said there limited:(.
I love the boost of a turbo nothing feels as good.

But i would be happy with about 170-200rwkw. The more power i have the smoother i drive and i get better fuel economy.

[TwistedEL]

It does launch bloody hard

[Joes_meat]

The L67 supercharged Ecotec engines are surprisingly good. Not a huge peak power output, but lots of torque everywhere in the rev range. Makes the old 5.0litre seem pointless (except for noise).

[Xrsick]

I own both a BA xr6 and a VT Calais Supercharged and regardless of all the specs the BA is my first choice to jump in and go for a drive, but i must add the torque on the VT is huge and if had to tow definately the holden would pull a heavy load also wouldn't take much to get the VT going hard with a change of pulley and a few little mods.

[EFFalcon]

factory forced induction wins.
they may be slow from the factory, but with mods they can seriously move.
i think theres a few 12 second ones on factory superchargers.
probably quicker too.

[Full Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

I remember reading an article where the BA XR6 (n/a) was pitted against the VY supercharged S-pack. The BA was quicker :P

This was Wheels or Motor, when the BA range was new.

I remember that one VY was silver and the BA was blue. But i dont remember the XR being quicker?.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by SlickHolden

I remember that one VY was silver and the BA was blue. But i dont remember the XR being quicker?.

My bad. The 1/4 mile results actually were:

BA XR6 NA auto - 15.8 secs @ 146kph
VY SV6 supercharged auto - 15.4 secs @ 145kph

lol, the BA has more torque than the blown VY (380 vs 375nm) :P

The article reads that the SV6 gets a half second jump on the XR6 to 60kph, then the XR6 keeps with it from there on. I can see where that 0.4 second ET lag comes from, the BA's fat **** and its **** first gear ratio.

[Full Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

My bad. The 1/4 mile results actually were:

BA XR6 NA auto - 15.8 secs @ 146kph
VY SV6 supercharged auto - 15.4 secs @ 145kph

lol, the BA has more torque than the blown VY (380 vs 375nm) :P

The article reads that the SV6 gets a half second jump on the XR6 to 60kph, then the XR6 keeps with it from there on. I can see where that 0.4 second ET lag comes from, the BA's fat **** and its **** first gear ratio.

Thats ok i wasnt sure myslef and had too look it up, I remember it because of the comment of the torque converter unlocking and now having a V6 i understand that comment perfectly.

I would like too drive a XR6 over 100 and see how it goes with the better diff gears, My brothers Fairmont has some serious overtaking speed on freeways and it's stock ex detective car.

[EBFalcs]

the supercharged V6's were made for better towing, not really performance, after all it is a statesman, not a SS.

[Full Spectrum]

Originally Posted by EBFalcs

the supercharged V6's were made for better towing, not really performance, after all it is a statesman, not a SS.

That engine was also an option in the VT SS.