New Holden V6 news right now.

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by Rob

Mr Hardware has nailed it - it's not peak torque, it's where it arrives. The Ecotec was a rough old bugger, but it developed heaps of torque just off idle, which made it feel punchy.

However, the alloytec seems to be pretty poor in the low down torque department. The I6 is still superior to both the 3.0 and 3.6, it'll last forever, makes good power and torque across the rev range.

Quite right.

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.

Seconded.

[Bent8]

Honestly, I won't be surprised when real world tests return similar fuel economy figures between the 3.0L and 3.6L engines...

[whales]

I was lucky enough to go for a spin in a new Camaro (as a passenger) with the new 3.6 litre engine on Saturday and I thought it drove well and seem to have plenty of power, far better than whats powering the Commodore at the moment

[wz344w]

All the common man wants is fuel economy, they dont care about torque or peak power. Only a small minority of people who like to validate their purchases get caught up in facts and figures that dont mean anything in the real world.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by spvd02

BTW, what is the combined fuel consumption of the Omega with the standard 5spd?

Omega never came with a 5speed auto, it was the 4speed and it delivered 10.6L/100 ADR.

[whales]

Originally Posted by wz344w

All the common man wants is fuel economy, they dont care about torque or peak power. Only a small minority of people who like to validate their purchases get caught up in facts and figures that dont mean anything in the real world.

Exactly

[barra240t]

The 5spd is an awesome gearbox. There is no need to put the 6 speed in everything. I think they would be saving money and not wasting it. Go and drive a 5spd.

[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.

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by barra240t

The 5spd is an awesome gearbox. There is no need to put the 6 speed in everything. I think they would be saving money and not wasting it. Go and drive a 5spd.

I have driven everything from an XT to an FG F6 to a M3, CLS55, AMG E63. Its not about driving it its about that economy sticker on the window for buyers in that catergory these days..and for that the 6 speed is ahead. Get Ford to cut .5 litre per 100km from the engine without sacrificing anything and see how many millions they have to spend as opposed to A) putting in the 6 speed already there and developed B) Leaving things as they are and watching the sales gap between Falcon and Commodore widen because they can outmarket Ford.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ED Classic

I have driven everything from an XT to an FG F6 to a M3, CLS55, AMG E63. Its not about driving it its about that economy sticker on the window for buyers in that catergory these days..and for that the 6 speed is ahead. Get Ford to cut .5 litre per 100km from the engine without sacrificing anything and see how many millions they have to spend as opposed to A) putting in the 6 speed already there and developed B) Leaving things as they are and watching the sales gap between Falcon and Commodore widen because they can outmarket Ford.

In all seriousness the base models will go to fleets. When you start looking at the higher models with the 3.6L engine the fuel economy is 0.2/.3L/100 difference.

[Wretched]

I am curious to see how this engine will perform in real testing.
I think it is a good step they have taken and can only force Ford to further improve their I6. As mentioned in other threads, I would love to see the I6 with DI + ZF auto + a little weight reduction =

[Wally]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

4.0 I6
195kw @ 6000rpm
391nm @ 3250rpm

3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190kw @ 6700rpm
290nm @ 2900rpm

Over 100 nm of extra torque.. woah Holden have done it again!

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.

[Fairlane]

290nm at 2900rpm in a VE
EPIC FAIL

The 3.6 is OK, lets just hope people have a brain in their heads because a FG XT or FG G6 with 6 speed Auto is gonna walk all over Omega and Berlina

[Road_Warrior]

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 = 93.61Nm/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.

Huh?

And what's the 190kw all about?

[greenfoam]

Don't forget you can stil buy the 6 litre and go faster that just about anything on the road (if you want to go fast)

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Huh?

And what's the 190kw all about?

Exactly. The I6 puts out 195kw, so your comparison Wally is null and void (unless we are comparing BF Falcons with VE Commodores).

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Don't forget you can stil buy the 6 litre and go faster that just about anything on the road (if you want to go fast)

Yeh right...

6 Litre wont beat an I6T

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Huh?

And what's the 190kw all about?

My apologies should have been:

If you look at the 4.0:

195kw @ 6000rpm = 48.75kW/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

I would suspect the actual value of torque @ 2900 for the 4.0 would be about 350Nm = 87.5Nm/l

[Mr Hardware]

I would suspect the actual value of torque @ 2900 for the 4.0 would be about 350Nm = 87.5Nm/l

Quite possibly, but a torque curve is not something you can work out mathematically. Each engine has its own characteristics, ref my original post.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Paxton

Exactly. The I6 puts out 195kw, so your comparison Wally is null and void (unless we are comparing BF Falcons with VE Commodores).

Not so, it effects very little and is thus quite valid.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

Yeh right...

6 Litre wont beat an I6T

lol, talk about setting yourself up!!

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Quite possibly, but a torque curve is not something you can work out mathematically. Each engine has its own characteristics, ref my original post.

Which is why I included a caveat. however when we are talking small rpm band adjustments the error is not so significant i.e 2900 to 3250 rpm. I could just as easily square root extract or apply sine theta, but my gut feel is the results would show a similar pattern.

And yes you can work out the torque exactly with mathematics, because torque is merely a cross product of power and time vectors.

[Mr Hardware]

affects

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Wally

Not so, it effects very little and is thus quite valid.

...yet you've quoted the exact power figures of the Holden HFV6's but deliberately misquoted the I6's power.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

affects

Potato/potato

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

...yet you've quoted the exact power figures of the Holden HFV6's but deliberately misquoted the I6's power.

No I actually made a typo. The 195 was referenced in the quote. If you actually have a good look, you will see I actually biased the 2900 rpm figure in favour of the I6. So even when I use a rubbery figure to the advantage of the I6 you are prepared to tell me off. LOL

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Wally

No I actually made a typo. The 195 was referenced in the quote. If you actually have a good look, you will see I actually biased the 2900 rpm figure in favour of the I6. So even when I use a rubbery figure to the advantage of the I6 you are prepared to tell me off. LOL

Sorry Wally, I didn't see your follow-up post.

Move along people, nothing to see here. Head for the mountains.

[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.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

affects

Yes but the noun (effect) becomes a verb when relating to a change doesn't it?

[JPFS1]

Agree with Mr Hardware. It's a pointless set of numbers and comparison.

It matters very little, unless you want to brag about an engine' numbers somewhere along a line.

The real world experience can be vastly different simply because of many other important factors.