New V6 for Commodore?

[GTSBoy]

Funny how everyone bags out the more powerful I4T Falcon and not this though...

I dunno - seems like we're all baging the 3L Commode motor here, aren't we?

The point with the Ford motor though, specifically, is that at 2L + turbo, there is no way that it was going to pull a lardy Foulcan around whilst simulatneously using much less fuel than the big 6 does. I mean, the 6 really does use not a lot, given how big it is.

[Road_Terrorist]

I wonder why they dont offer the 2.8 turbo version of the engine, it's made in Melbourne with all the other V6 versions and makes much better torque from lower revs (2.8TT 209kW and 400Nm @ 2000rpm vs 3.6 DI at 210kW and 350Nm @ 2900rpm), and would be a much better foil to the XR6 Turbo in higher output versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High...gine#LP9_Turbo

[TonyJZX]

probably because the labcoats and beancounters have done numerous white papers on turbo longevity vs. cost vs. insurance?

[RESON8]

I wonder why they dont offer the 2.8 turbo version of the engine, it's made in Melbourne with all the other V6 versions and makes much better torque from lower revs (2.8TT 209kW and 400Nm @ 2000rpm vs 3.6 DI at 210kW and 350Nm @ 2900rpm), and would be a much better foil to the XR6 Turbo in higher output versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High...gine#LP9_Turbo

I would say it would cause too much of a mass up and build complexity. They are trying to cut weight out of these things and drop fuel usage.

[rj_astra]

I wonder why they dont offer the 2.8 turbo version of the engine, it's made in Melbourne with all the other V6 versions and makes much better torque from lower revs (2.8TT 209kW and 400Nm @ 2000rpm vs 3.6 DI at 210kW and 350Nm @ 2900rpm), and would be a much better foil to the XR6 Turbo in higher output versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High...gine#LP9_Turbo

The change is about fuel economy... not performance.
Saab fitted with that engine is in the 10.6-11.1 L/100km

[muttaburra]

I dunno - seems like we're all baging the 3L Commode motor here, aren't we?

The point with the Ford motor though, specifically, is that at 2L + turbo, there is no way that it was going to pull a lardy Foulcan around whilst simulatneously using much less fuel than the big 6 does. I mean, the 6 really does use not a lot, given how big it is.

i love how everyone says that lardy falcon. once you put a 4cyl in it it will have to weigh at least 100kgs less and more. the six in them is fucking heavy. if the 4cyl is alloy its going to weigh probably half what the big six does. same i would imagine goes for the gearbox.

toyota's 3.5 makes 200kw @ 6200 and 333nm @4700 and feels very torque. especially in our rather heavy RAV4 (1650kg) still gets good fuel economy even thou its not very areodynamic about 10.9 last tank and was getting 9/100 on the highway on the way home cruising at 120

for the commy to be direct injection and not make that much more power or torque than the toyota is a bit of a disapointment. alloy block falcoon FTW!!!

[GTSBoy]

1700kg is still lardy. Gearbox size/weight has as much to do with the mass of vehicle as it does the torque of the engine driving it. Vehicle mass is changing ~7% (based on your guess), so gearbox mass would not change by much more than 10% (which is piss all as a fraction of the car).

Face it - That particular argument was about the likelihood of a small turbo 4 banger drinking juice pulling a big heavy sedan around. I'd still say that's almost 100% likely.

[wiggah]

Was interested to read today the supercharged V6 in the Audi S5 (the update model - the S4 has it too) has a combined cycle rating of 8.0L/100km.

Mighty impressive for a performance engine in a heavy car.

[Sturmovik]

Base Falcon is 1700kg now with the Auto and 6cyl.
6cyl is a good 200kg, reducing it by a 3rd youve got it down to 135kg, then theres the fact it will be alloy...
Falcon Auto is 50kg+
Latest dual clutch gearbox would be a bit lighter again, hell theres probably just 10kg saved in less trans fluid.

[08ESE]

so these might be the engines that the alloytech was supposed to be in the first place. the current 3.6 is the beta release?

[Captiva Fan]

The change is about fuel economy... not performance.

No, it's about marketing of fuel economy. It doesn't matter that a Falcon with a 2.0L turbo engine is going to be better to drive than a Commdore with a 48kW@47000rpm 18Nm engine; what matters is what the respective car companies thought would offer the best R&D-cost-vs-marketing-value payoff.

Face it - That particular argument was about the likelihood of a small turbo 4 banger drinking juice pulling a big heavy sedan around. I'd still say that's almost 100% likely.

I agree, but only because the focus will be on the marketing not the fuel economy. VW seems to pull it off with 1.4L pulling around 1400kg.

[08ESE]

looks like they threw AFM out the window...

considering the SS with afm is slower than an xr8, and saves .2L per 100kms when compared to the non afm xr8.


im pretty sure holdens marketing will be on the money as allways.... ford surely could learn from the holden team marketing wise!

[rj_astra]

looks like they threw AFM out the window...

considering the SS with afm is slower than an xr8, and saves .2L per 100kms when compared to the non afm xr8.


im pretty sure holdens marketing will be on the money as allways.... ford surely could learn from the holden team marketing wise!

Where do you get your info? GM have used direct injection on this V6 range to reduce fuel consumption rather than AFM.

As for the XR8.... combined fuel economy is 14.0L/100km versus 12.9L/100km for the SS. Not bad for a car with a 10% larger engine and old fashioned OHV

[Captain_Slow]

considering the SS with afm is slower than an xr8, and saves .2L per 100kms when compared to the non afm xr8.

Source? I thought the XR8 was considerably slower than the SS (and XR6T for that matter).

[Sturmovik]

One of the online sites did a comparo a few months ago.