New Holden V6 news right now.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Just remember the story about the ecotec V6 vs alloytec V6.
305 Nm @ 3600 rpm for ecotec
320 Nm @ 2800 rpm for alloytec
yet the alloytec feels utterly torqueless.
Its got nothing to do with peak torque, it's all down to where the spread of torque is, and this can't be worked out. It's up to the characteristics of the motor.

Short gearing helped the ecotec out alot, and this is where the 3L can be made to feel quicker.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Just remember the story about the ecotec V6 vs alloytec V6.
305 Nm @ 3600 rpm for ecotec
320 Nm @ 2800 rpm for alloytec
yet the alloytec feels utterly torqueless.
Its got nothing to do with peak torque, it's all down to where the spread of torque is, and this can't be worked out. It's up to the characteristics of the motor.

Yes prediction modelling is not exact and there would be a lot of calibration engineers on the heap if it was 100% predictable, but you can get pretty close using a few variables. I agree that peak power and torque figures are pretty ho hum, but they do give two significant vectors that you can swing an arc around to get an idea of power and torque curves, a rough profile as it were. Then there's always bragging rights/rites.

[Maggot]

Not forgetting GM has used 98ron on their spec sheets for a while now.. The engine is definately going to be an improvement on the existing unit.. but it wont walk all over the I6 I dont expect.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Short gearing helped the ecotec out alot, and this is where the 3L can be made to feel quicker.

exactly, among many other tune related items.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Wally

Yes prediction modelling is not exact and there would be a lot of calibration engineers on the heap if it was 100% predictable, but you can get pretty close using a few variables. I agree that peak power and torque figures are pretty ho hum, but they do give two significant vectors that you can swing an arc around to get an idea of power and torque curves, a rough profile as it were. Then there's always bragging rights/rites.

Agree to a point, but I'd prefer to just drive the things, no assumptions after that, but I see your point.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Agree to a point, but I'd prefer to just drive the things, no assumptions after that, but I see your point.

Exactly, no one is gonna know how the car will go until your in the drivers seat.

[Swordsman88]

Quick summary of my views at this point, bearing in mind we haven't got torque curves or driven the engines yet:

3.0 DI....hope it hits that fuel burn number because i don't see it setting the timesheets on fire. Faster than the old 4sp auto omega maybe, but that is down to gearing/top end power as much as anything.

3.6 DI....disappointing torque number as usual...top end power is its only chance to match an FG I6 over the quarter...it will get murdered at low speed.

Both engines are competitive AT THE MOMENT but barely. The 3.0 can go up against medium cars (which is what it is...it can't be a large car if it isn't packing some nm....its the nature of the segment) but the 2.0 ecoboost Falcon will kill it. Totally. To the tune of 40-50 nm, and 1l/100km.

3.6....matter of time till Ford matches its power number (particularly since the ecoboost 2.0 lets the 4.0 off the base model leash) and fuel burn is no better that the I6 does now.

As usual this is not a engine lineup that has legs at all. It doesn't really future proof the commodore one little bit...the engines are either matched by current competitors already or will be within the near future. Also worth noting that alot of this advantage is probably throttle calibration/auto gearbox/aero/weight saving (not much of the last one). As usual the alloytec has hamstrung the engineers...one trick poney. You get power, but no torque. Fuel efficiency, but no mumbo.

[vztrt]

I know the released info says 91ron recommended, but is the power figure measured on 91ron, or does it need 95ron?

[PoweredByCNG]

Personally, I'd love to see how well a GM 4.0L V6 would perform against the venerable Ford 4.0L I6. That 0.4L of displacement could make all the difference...

Regards,
Dave

[madmelon]

Originally Posted by marty1000cc

3.0 sidi is half a second quicker to 100km than the outgoing 3.6....
Dont think the performance will be the issue somehow.

Well the VE Omega does 0-100 between 8.5 and 9.5 seconds so that'd make the VEII 3.0 SIDI Omega something like 8-9 seconds...which some auto falcons from early 90's can keep up with...
When you consider some testing of the A6 BF XT has achieved numbers in the low 7 or high 6 0-100 and mid 14 second quarter mile results, this is a LONG LONG way behind.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

Personally, I'd love to see how well a GM 4.0L V6 would perform against the venerable Ford 4.0L I6. That 0.4L of displacement could make all the difference...

Regards,
Dave

Yes indeed dave...i've love to see the GM's fuel burn too.....

If ford gets the so called 'free kick' of 0.4 L bigger capacity, then surely the benefits of DI, newer design alloy block, and the supposed might of GM powertrain should be sufficient compensation.

Either way, you play with what you've got. Besides, if what Holden claims is true, an alloytec can be built in 4.0 size....

[Falc'man]

We're lucky we have the 4.0, folks. Power delivery is suited to the street more than any other 6 on the market.

Originally Posted by Wally

I don't think those figures are too bad. I know straight line interpolation isn't correct, but it does serve to ballpark a comparison:-

If you look at the 4.0:

190kw @ 6000rpm = 47.5kW/l
133kW @ 3250rpm = 33.2kW/l = 391Nm = 97.75Nm/l

Straightline corrected to 2900rpm = < 391Nm = 118.7kW = 29.7kW/l = 97.75Nm/l best case.

compared to the 3.0:

190kW @ 6700 = 63kW/l
88kW@ 2900 = 29.4kW/l = 290Nm = 96.67Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 97kW = 32.5kW/l = 95.5Nm/l

compared to the 3.6

210kW@ 6400 = 58kW/l
106kW @ 2900 = 29.44kW/l = 350Nm = 97.22 Nm/l

Straight line corrected to 3250 rpm = 116.4kW = 32.3kW/l = 95Nm/l


This indicates the V6 is breathing pretty well, given it doesn't have the benefit of bore/stroke to help it at low range revs.

I have to disagree (I know, you must surprised about that).

In relative terms, for a direct injected vs port injection, there isn't much to crow about when the specific torque of the 4 litre is better.

Secondly, how well it "breathes" doesn't help much if there's not many cubes to pull 1.7t. It's a mismatch.

[PoweredByCNG]

If Holden are getting 350Nm out of a 3.6L V6, I would say that 390Nm out of a 4.0L V6 wouldn't be too far-fetched. If you do the maths, 350 / 3.6 = 97.222R, 97.222R * 4 = 388.888R.

Regards,
Dave

[f1tzy]

Originally Posted by spvd02

I actually think Holden has delivered way above expectations with the 3.0L engine. We were all thinking it would produce 290 odd Nm @ 5200rpm, but it's now been revealed it has 290Nm available at 2900rpm.

I don't think this car will be as bad to drive as some of you predict it will be. Real world fuel economy should be good also, because of the lower-end torque. It might not be such a great figure, but at least you won't need to rev too far to achieve it. It looks like the engine will be relatively unstressed.

I'm interested to see how the real-world fuel efficiency of this car will compare with the Falcon. If it's significantly better, Holden are onto a winner, but if consumption is similar, they've failed, since all they've delivered is less power than the previous model.

We'll see what the comparisons have to say. BTW, what is the combined fuel consumption of the Omega with the standard 5spd?

The 290nm @ 2900 is inline the the existing 3.6 175kw motor which had 320 at 3400 or something like that. Funnily enough that is less torque than a vn commodore but pushing a car some 400 odd kgs heavier.

[sprint347dave]

And The Game Of Leap Frog Continues,,well Done Holden,,your Turn Now Ford

[snappy]

http://www.drive.com.au/Know/
Dont know if its been posted allready

[Windsor220]

removed.

[Green X]

Omega / Berlina
3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190 @ 6700
290 @ 2900

No torque and you need to Rev the chit out of it to get any Power....... Did they pull this V6 out of a Camry? Like to see it pulling a 9.3 L/Ph out on the Hwy with a 5 passengers and Luggage wile maintaining 110km/h!!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

If Holden are getting 350Nm out of a 3.6L V6, I would say that 390Nm out of a 4.0L V6 wouldn't be too far-fetched. If you do the maths, 350 / 3.6 = 97.222R, 97.222R * 4 = 388.888R.

Regards,
Dave

You may very well be right dave. Here comes the problem though. You can't apply such simplistic reasoning to such things. Sure it is good enough for a rough guide (completely ignoring torque/power curves, driveability, nvh, fuel economy etc.) but it falls down because as was much discussed on a recent (closed) aloytec thread, different engines are designed for different size ranges.

The alloytec is probably maxed out a 3.6 size. I doubt it would maintain its (somewhat average) torque/litre values once pushed to that larger size. If it did, who knows what would happen to fuel burn and driveability.

Fact is, as alluded to by Falc'man, the alloytec is not very good at producing torque. The numbers you have used are for a DI 3.6 alloytec, versus a port injection 4.0 I6. Yes the I6 is undersquare, but this helps 'low down' torque prodution more than just the raw torque value. DI should provide much better results for the alloytec, but it just doesn't. Whatever the reason holden has struggled to provide much in the way of torque improvmeent at all (10nm gain in 3.6, and the 3.0 didin't even crack 100nm/l).

As i say, we will have to at least wait for some more info plus drive reviews before we can say much more.

[FERG_51]

Wouldnt matter what GM put under the skin, ther,e marketing will sell it anyway. They do the propper gander thing very well.

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/37419/ho...nes-same-look/

hmmm, the two comparisons are a bit misleading. Last time I checked the Xt produced only 236g/km and 9.9l/100. Even with the 5 speed its 239g/km and 10.1l/100.

[GT69]

"A little over a week after Ford confirmed it would fit a turbocharged four-cylinder engine to the rival Falcon large car from 2011.

Ford is expecting the four-cylinder Falcon to be up to 20 per cent more efficient than the existing – and ageing – six-cylinder, which means fuel economy could be more akin to some small cars, at around 8.0L/100km"

you'd swear Holden invented the wheel the way journo's jerk off over the slightest 'Holden' thing. :

Sorry yeah, thats a quote at the bottom of the story.

[I6DOHC]

I think Ford's I6 has some life left in it yet. If nothing else we can only hope that todays marketing carnival by Holden provides some prodding to the Ford boys to up the ante on the I6 and let it live to it's real potential.

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

You may very well be right dave. Here comes the problem though. You can't apply such simplistic reasoning to such things. Sure it is good enough for a rough guide (completely ignoring torque/power curves, driveability, nvh, fuel economy etc.) but it falls down because as was much discussed on a recent (closed) aloytec thread, different engines are designed for different size ranges.

And my estimates were only ever meant to be a guide. Apparently the GM LY7 engine was designed to be expandable to 4.0L. With regards to torque output, if they derated the engine (i.e. lower power rating), they could achieve a flatter torque curve to aid driveability. One would think that a 200kW direct injected 4.0L V6 would provide a hell of a punch.

The numbers you have used are for a DI 3.6 alloytec, versus a port injection 4.0 I6. Yes the I6 is undersquare, but this helps 'low down' torque prodution more than just the raw torque value. DI should provide much better results for the alloytec, but it just doesn't. Whatever the reason holden has struggled to provide much in the way of torque improvmeent at all (10nm gain in 3.6, and the 3.0 didin't even crack 100nm/l).

Actually, the US version of the same 3.6L direct injected V6 engine has a power/torque rating of up to 225kW/370Nm. I would think that an extra 0.4Nm of displacement (longer stroke perhaps) would easily push this engine over a possible 400Nm - and that's on 91RON (American 87 octane) petrol (GAS!!!).

Regards,
Dave

[f1tzy]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

It all depends where the torque is and how early you reach 90% torque at how long it lasts for.
I mean just remember they went from the ecotec motor which had a similar torque figure (295-odd) which was a punchy, responsive albeit rough motor, to the smooth but utterly gutless alloytec which had 5% greater torque, just all in the wrong places, so it actually felt gutless.

If its anything like the outgoing 3.6 torque is bloody high in the rev range, not fun with a bit of weight on board with a manual, waiting until the torque came on was a long long long wait

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

If Holden are getting 350Nm out of a 3.6L V6, I would say that 390Nm out of a 4.0L V6 wouldn't be too far-fetched. If you do the maths, 350 / 3.6 = 97.222R, 97.222R * 4 = 388.888R.

Regards,
Dave

Yeah, you can't do that dave. How are they going to increase the size of the engine, bore or stroke? If bore, expect very minimal torque gains. If stroke, expect torque gains. The I6 wins cos of it's long stroke.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by vztrt

hmmm, the two comparisons are a bit misleading. Last time I checked the Xt produced only 236g/km and 9.9l/100. Even with the 5 speed its 239g/km and 10.1l/100.

And they ask "why the Holden bashing?". They can't do much without tactics like this; and I'm confident they'll have dirt kicked in their face after this 9.3 is laughed off the by journos.

The difference is, the actual claims for the Falcon can be replicated. (The BF with ZF didn't have problems getting below 10s)

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by f1tzy

If its anything like the outgoing 3.6 torque is bloody high in the rev range, not fun with a bit of weight on board with a manual, waiting until the torque came on was a long long long wait

Quite right old son. I have had a VY and VZ work cars, and i tell you, i had absolute overtaking confidence in the VY (ecotec) but had zero overtaking confidence in the VZ (alloytec). Anything before 3900rpm and you ain't moving. Where as by the time i hit 3900rpm in the ecotec, the competition was just seeing a pair of taillights off in the distance!

[Bent8]

Here's another shocking comparison that the car mags will never show...

FG Falcon 4.0L I6 - 230Nm/tonne
VE Commodore 3.0L V6 - 170Nm/tonne

You can't make a big family sedan, then stick an underpowered motor in it and expect fuel savings...looks like Holden will learn this the hard way after all the media hype settles..

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Bent8

You can't make a big family sedan, then stick an underpowered motor in it and expect fuel savings...looks like Holden will learn this the hard way after all the media hype settles..

^^ WIth a manual you could.. they would be pretty good on fuel .. but the autos will be very ordinary... and I would hate to have to overtake something.

Does anyone know if their quoted power figures are on 98 fuel.. they certainly used to quote them that way... and Ford should start doing the same. (or at least quoting 91 AND 98)