New V6 for Commodore?

[RB30-POWER]

a small ceramic turbo on the 3l engine would make the world of difference to boost bottom end torque in a heavy arse car.

i used a standard ceramic vg30det turbo on an rb30det i built, has incredible bottom end torque off idle, makes most v8's feel stupid. i have driven the thing around for a week proving that it can be driven without going over 2 grand but keeping up with all traffic and big hills. it can generate positive pressure at 1200rpm, can drive up hills in 5th gear like this.

only thing is to get maximum economy, you need a 6th or 7th gear to keep revs under 2k on the freeway, currently in a 5 speed and revving it high on the freeway is simply not needed at all, pisses me off actually, but no 6 or 7 speed manuals to go in it. changing final drive ratio, would make the awesome response down low go a little dull, so i don't see that as an option either.

[Captain_Slow]

I reckon it makes sense. Most Alloytec owners - especially fleet buyers - wouldn't come close to using the power and torque of the current engine most of the time. At the same time, plenty of buyers would be scared off by the fact that the engine is 3.6 litres.

A 3.0 litre might not use much less fuel in reality, but the headline figure will be lower (esp. with a 6sp auito) and 3.0 is less scary than 3.6 to the uninformed punter.

[TonyJZX]

i'm guessing a this car will weigh 1,700kg?

with 200kW and 320Nm it shouldn't be too bad

an Accord Euro weighs 1,600kg and it has stuff all power and stuff all torque

i'd still take a Falcon and perhaps LPG it if you wanted to save

[omac]

it'll sell a few more units, and will no doubt have an upgraded V6 for anyone who cares not for fuel usage

[TonyJZX]

in the past offering a 'small' engine in Falcodores hasn't really worked out all the well

the Falcon 3.2 litre?

[Jay_G]

I for one welcome our engine overlords.

sif this will go ahead with the GFC and bankruptcy and holden will find a way to adapt a 4 spd auto to it.

in all honesty i think more different engines in the marketplace will improve the situtaion for us when johnny p plater gets hold of his folks falcadore and bins it sideways into a pole, enabling engine swaps.

[Captiva Fan]

in the past offering a 'small' engine in Falcodores hasn't really worked out all the well
the Falcon 3.2 litre?

To be fair, they did sell a lot of 3.3L pre-EA's, probably to gumbyment departments or in utes/panno's. They probably sold as many 3.2's as the old 3.3's initially.
A lot of stuff has changed in gumbyment vehicle purchasement since then, though.

[rj_astra]

To be fair, they did sell a lot of 3.3L pre-EA's, probably to gumbyment departments or in utes/panno's. They probably sold as many 3.2's as the old 3.3's initially.
A lot of stuff has changed in gumbyment vehicle purchasement since then, though.

If the base model Commodore undercuts all the large domestic sedans on the market (aurion, Falcon) which do you think Governments and fleets will buy?

9.5L/100km for a base spec Omega vs 10.5L/100km (XT, 5 speed auto 4L) for a Falcon. Surely the fleets will pick the Commodore.

[Sturmovik]

To be fair, they did sell a lot of 3.3L pre-EA's, probably to gumbyment departments or in utes/panno's. They probably sold as many 3.2's as the old 3.3's initially.
A lot of stuff has changed in gumbyment vehicle purchasement since then, though.

Nah they sold fuck all 3.2s. I think the number was 600 and it was dropped after 6 months.

[rj_astra]

Nah they sold fuck all 3.2s. I think the number was 600 and it was dropped after 6 months.

I still remember working for a company that got quite a few EA 3.2L as fleet cars. Oh my were they dogs (and the company stopped getting EAs after that)

You can imagine the anger of these guys who got EA 3.2s when people started getting 3.8L 4 speed auto VNs (a rocketship in comparison)

[oioioioioi]

Quoted off another website.

blah blah blah "if the buyer is interesting in fuel economy, the 3.0L will be great. If the buyer is looking for power, the CTS's 3.6L DI V6 will please very well with it's 304 HP. Currently the difference between the base model and 3.6L DI model is one mile per-gallon: 18/26 to 17/26. That means it all comes down to rather the customer wants more power or not as there is basically no incentive to buy the base engine except price."

How in the hell did they fail to improve economy after taking 17% of the capacity out of the engine? The only improvement is on a highway cycle (figures are highway/city) where your at constant throttle. And even then the reduction in fuel consumption is 5.5%. Where did the other 11% of the engine go?

This is EXACLTY what they did with the ecotech>alloytech "upgrade" right? Can't they grow a fucking brain and build/tune the motors for torque torque and more torque. Ignore power figures, its a run about, not a race car. I reckon they just want to be able to say they have 200kW. Fucking dyno fags.

On RB30s, my Rb30 in a 1400kg car gets around 9L/100 in normal driving. Drops to 8.5ish on the freeway. Having the areodynamics of a brick doesn't really help.

[RB30-POWER]

they should make the engine square also, if it's oversquare they are most likely giving away low down torque.

capacity never tells the full story alone.

anyone know the bore/stroke of the yank engine?

[smellytofu]

If the base model Commodore undercuts all the large domestic sedans on the market (aurion, Falcon) which do you think Governments and fleets will buy?

9.5L/100km for a base spec Omega vs 10.5L/100km (XT, 5 speed auto 4L) for a Falcon. Surely the fleets will pick the Commodore.

Fuel is only a small portion of the cost. There's purchase price which Commodore is already too expensive and also the resale value at the end which is the worse (from history to date) so no, the Commodore won't be the automatic choice on fuel consumption alone unless some fleet manager wants to go out on a limb for the sake of buying Commodores wants to risk blowing their fleet budget out of the waters based on gut feel.

[oioioioioi]

Ok, after looking up specs on wikipedia it appears I've taken that quote out of context. It seems to refer to the base model CTS 3.6L and the high power 3.6L. You actually end up with about 40hp extra with no impact on economy.

Yank motor is apparently a direct injection alloytec, with 11.4:1 compression. The bore is 3.70 in (94.0 mm) and the stroke is 3.37 in (85.6 mm). A perfect square bore/stroke of 94mm would give 3.9L motor. And almostr certainly be a lot more drvieable. The smallest variant produced is a 2.8 with 89mm bore, 74.8mm stroke. So if they were able to square that out they;d end up with 3.3L. Probably a good compromise with my minimal understanding of this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine#LY7

[Captiva Fan]

On RB30s, my Rb30 in a 1400kg car gets around 9L/100 in normal driving. Drops to 8.5ish on the freeway.

Don't forget that the heavier VN was faster, felt faster, and used less fuel both 'round town & on the highway. The only Badness with the GM3800 was NVH (admittedly a pretty big percentage drop, though; those first VN's felt like they were shaking themselves to pieces, and in fact I remember a few actually doing that with balance-shafts cracking).
Your normal driving must involve a lot of highway driving? Admittedly they were autotragics, but the VL's a mate drove as company cars were considerably more thirsty than that driving 'round Sydney. I don't recall them having any Skylines; but they had the same gear & diff ratios didn't they?