Ford chief says future product will disprove Holden promise to ‘out-engineer'

[GT69]

Originally Posted by phillyc

There has been some interesting information. BUT can we get back on topic?!

Haha sorry mate. If its alright with Wally?

[Wally]

No, go and get your own topic!

Back on topic:- why is it we give bouquets and brickbats to firms like Holden and Ford for doing to engines what enthuisiasts have been doing in their backyards for generations. When it's done in the house shed it's called tinkering, when it's done in a factory it's called R&D engineering.

Big deal if Holden out "engineer" Ford, it's not as if there are poles of differences between them and very little of the engineering is anything but adapting technology and innovation that has already been done and dusted in Europe or Japan; maybe even the USA.

[Falc'man]

I've got to laugh at Holden's idea of engineering. "Alloytec" They haven't out-engineered the old 202.


Reuss- “We are going work on executing high quality today and further fuel efficiency and efficiency on this vehicle,” he said. “We are going to out-engineer the competition, and dropping cylinders would be the last resort because people still like the power, the performance, the towing, and the BULLSHT, all of those things that we get in Australia with this engine and this car.”

Can you believe this bloke? I think that's why Marin is "delighted"; Reuss calls that atrocity "engineering" when all it really is is spin, aka BULLSHT. If this is all they have to offer then unfortunately they will be needing another 1/2 Billion dollar Centrelink cheque in a few more years.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Wally

No, go and get your own topic!

Back on topic:- why is it we give bouquets and brickbats to firms like Holden and Ford for doing to engines what enthuisiasts have been doing in their backyards for generations. When it's done in the house shed it's called tinkering, when it's done in a factory it's called R&D engineering.

Big deal if Holden out "engineer" Ford, it's not as if there are poles of differences between them and very little of the engineering is anything but adapting technology and innovation that has already been done and dusted in Europe or Japan; maybe even the USA.

After many posts that i've read i've yours, you've led me to believe that you have a good understanding of things, that's why this post surprises me. I would have thought you'd know better than that and not to simply the matter as you have here.

I'm not going to explain what's involved when such changes are implemented to a product, others may do that for you... but it's allot more complicated and technical than just 'tinkering'.

[Wally]

I do have a good understanding of such things and yes I get pretty heavily into engineering and yes I was leg pulling. _2: But having said that I really do admire those guys with no formal training, who can take an engine and make it into something unique (not merely throwing in me too cams, rods and heads).

I wasn't slighting you and I think you know that. Creating a car that is safe, reliable, durable, attractive and suitable for mass production requires a lot more collaborative brain power and experience than a "tinkerer" for sure.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I've got to laugh at Holden's idea of engineering. "Alloytec" They haven't out-engineered the old 202.


Reuss- “We are going work on executing high quality today and further fuel efficiency and efficiency on this vehicle,” he said. “We are going to out-engineer the competition, and dropping cylinders would be the last resort because people still like the power, the performance, the towing, and the BULLSHT, all of those things that we get in Australia with this engine and this car.”

Can you believe this bloke? I think that's why Marin is "delighted"; Reuss calls that atrocity "engineering" when all it really is is spin, aka BULLSHT. If this is all they have to offer then unfortunately they will be needing another 1/2 Billion dollar Centrelink cheque in a few more years.

Amen to that. How can he honestly talk this engine up and deride the ford 4T when the torque and peak power it produces is so much less? I'd give him credibility if the ****o-tech produced more than 320nm in 3 litre guise but it is so underpowered, that a 2 litre is going to mop the floor with it. Whatsmore, getting more power out of such an engine will just require more fuel, as sticking with V engines makes it harder to turbocharge for serious power.
Guaranteed the next hypo V6 out of Holden will be a supercharged version of the ****o-tech as opposed to twin turbo.
"Holden, quick, stick a badge on it before they cancel your dole money"

[eb2fairmont]

3.0 SIDI and 290 Nm does not bode well for shifting 1700KG. It will be gutless.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I've got to laugh at Holden's idea of engineering. "Alloytec" They haven't out-engineered the old 202.


Reuss- “We are going work on executing high quality today and further fuel efficiency and efficiency on this vehicle,” he said. “We are going to out-engineer the competition, and dropping cylinders would be the last resort because people still like the power, the performance, the towing, and the BULLSHT, all of those things that we get in Australia with this engine and this car.”

Can you believe this bloke? I think that's why Marin is "delighted"; Reuss calls that atrocity "engineering" when all it really is is spin, aka BULLSHT. If this is all they have to offer then unfortunately they will be needing another 1/2 Billion dollar Centrelink cheque in a few more years.

Succinctly put as always Falc'man. Just reading Reuss' statements is painfull. Can this guy even talk properly?? What's with the "executing high quality today and further fuel efficiency and efficiency...." bit. Quality engrish that LOL!

You make a good point though. It smacks of spin when a guy says stuff like that when its based in such hogwash. Sure the bit about 'delivering today' is a nice PR swipe at Ford. But the reality is that the basic ENGINEERING he refers to on the 'new' alloytec range is poor. By world standards, its very poor indeed. The complaints from GM faithful in the states proves this.

Moreover, the obvious target of Reuss' comments, Ford Aus, is going to release an engine that even at this early stage they are pretty much guranteeing will wipe out this 3.0 DI base car. Hell the 3.6 'high spec' engine is not any better than what Ford has had for years (even pre FG), so yeah, does that mean ford 'out engineered' holden back in 2005 when it launched the BF. Ah...that would be a YES REUSS YOU IMBECILE!!!!

[ltd]

Spot on Swordsman, but the problem is the Holden faithful will still flock toward it, even if they stuck a rubber band in for the engine. Will be an interesting sell too with all that less power; "I want to go really slow in something that cost alot but is built of Korean parts"

[EgoFG]

Opinion from the red side (well actually GM is Blue in USA)

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...8/#post1820306

[ltd]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

Opinion from the red side (well actually GM is Blue in USA)

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...8/#post1820306

Very interesting reading, it appears that Holden hasn't out engineered anyone, and has in fact with the 3.0l SIDI entered an engineering paradox.
So much for the alleged fuel economy, especially since Holden are always so forthright with the fuel economy figures (think VE launch).

[Falc'man]

Those torque figures are interesting. How does Holden manage to do something GM can't; achieve normal torque figures at normal revs. All the HFV6s over there rev beyond 10,000rpm (exaggerated for better effect) to reach peak torque. I mean, how does Holden do it at 2900rpm? Geniuses.

There's also a very big flaw in the first post. He refers to the 3.6 thus:

One can make the argument that the 3.6L HFV6 has been a great engine.

I'll rephrase for him, "one can make the argument in a jack hammer convention that the 3.6 has been a great engine."

For the first few years of its life it was configured with port-injection, but it was overall a solid V6 that was well-respected in the industry.

Um, how?

[Mr X]

Sounds like their Aussie test fleet ie SS's faster than HSV GTS's

[Gobes32]

Holden have a poor history of test car manipulation......

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Holden have a poor history of test car manipulation......

Particularly when the BA XR8 was released. Holden found out about the 260kw's early and couldn't lose face for their SS, yet didn't know about the weight gain which meant the XR8 didn't actually have the performance jump they expected of such a power lift over the AU XR8.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I'll rephrase for him, "one can make the argument in a jack hammer convention that the 3.6 has been a great engine."

Sorry mate but that's a bit harsh.
Jack hammers have never been as noisy or vibrated as much as the 3.6.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Those torque figures are interesting. How does Holden manage to do something GM can't; achieve normal torque figures at normal revs. All the HFV6s over there rev beyond 10,000rpm (exaggerated for better effect) to reach peak torque. I mean, how does Holden do it at 2900rpm? Geniuses.

I think that is partly 'creative' measurement and a retune. I'm not sure because i can't find any concrete reference but i have been told the power/torque numbers holden quoted were on 98 RON. So that would help. Even so, i think a retune would get close to that Falc'man purely because the australian 3.0 atcually has less torque total number than the US spec. They make up to 310nm (at 5000rpm) so holden has lost 20 nm in return for making it down low. Of course these days with VCT and all the other tech there really is no excuse for torque to be sky high in the rev range for a non sports car anyway, ,regardless of where its 'peak' may come a quality modern engine should be flexible. Ford has made much during the ecoboost briefiings of comparing the low down torque of the EB engines to their competitors. A US spec 3.0 SIDI engine has a very poor torque curve to be honest. Which when combined with a heavy car results in both poor performance and fuel economy.

Basically the 3.0 SIDI engine that GM are using was the 'replace' the port injection 3.6 (which i don't think they use anymore in passenger cars over there). the 3.0 DI can match or exceed the port injection 3.6 IN POWER and so the theory was to save fuel while matching power. You then put the 3.6 DI engine in teh up spec models with its top end power.

Of course the rubbish torque production of the alloytec (which has blighed pretty much every version, save the turbo 2.8) reared it head again. Now the 3.0 is such a slug the gearing has had to be fiddled with and that has hurt fuel economy....the very thing it was suposed to excell at. I'd say GM realised quite late in the process that the 3.0 was a bit of lemon but hadn't the cash or time (given a dearth of new product) to bother. They just did the best they could gearing wise and launched the product. Sound familiar?

Holden has worked on their version a bit longer...hence the mediocre improvements ON PAPER. Holden have gone for economy by detuning the engine and trying to produce as much torque down low as possible...with comparitively tall gearing. This may make decent ADR numbers but in the real world the 3.0 won't burn any less than the 3.6. And it will be, as this GM poster noted, 'a slug' to drive.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I think that is partly 'creative' measurement and a retune. I'm not sure because i can't find any concrete reference but i have been told the power/torque numbers holden quoted were on 98 RON. ............

Direct injection allows for lower octane fuel, mainly because of the stratification. If anyone was reading the Holden homepage they would think direct injection is a local invention that hasn't been around before = good salesmanship.

The specifications on the 4 August release sheet for the MY10 cars are:

Euro IV+

LF1= 2997cc
CR 11.7:1
190kW@ 6700
290N-m @2900
91 Ron

LLT = 3564
CR 11.3:1
210kW @6400
350N-m @ 2900
91 Ron

tranny is 6L50E

4.06
2.37
1.55
1.16
0.85
0.67

FD 3.27

Given five years of strategic development, the manufacturing of global variants for markets around the world, the development of Holden's own Alloytec variant and the commissioning of a $400 million engine plant, the Global V6 engineering and manufacturing project is the most significant engine program ever undertaken by an Australian vehicle manufacturer.

[Falc'man]

The 3.27 diff with the very short 1st will ensure 14.6s in the 3.6. The press cars will get 13.9 lol.

[phillyc]

The 3.0L SIDS will rev like buggery, make lots of noise and feel quick. But it won't be.

The drivers will think they are saving the planet because of the low ADR fuel figure and the rigged trip computer settings which (display lower fuel burn and) have graced GMHoldens for years now.

Either way, the car will be a success because the media is too biased to query or announce concerns and the faithful will buy it due to it's badge.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The 3.0L SIDS will rev like buggery, make lots of noise and feel quick. But it won't be.

The drivers will think they are saving the planet because of the low ADR fuel figure and the rigged trip computer settings which (display lower fuel burn and) have graced GMHoldens for years now.

Either way, the car will be a success because the media is too biased to query or announce concerns and the faithful will buy it due to it's badge.

Too right.
It'll be praised because idiots like rollover Gover are required to praise it, or else he doesn't receive his free HSV every year (check out what he drives, or check the wheels parking lot).

[Wally]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The 3.0L SIDS will rev like buggery, make lots of noise and feel quick. But it won't be.

The drivers will think they are saving the planet because of the low ADR fuel figure and the rigged trip computer settings which (display lower fuel burn and) have graced GMHoldens for years now.

Either way, the car will be a success because the media is too biased to query or announce concerns and the faithful will buy it due to it's badge.

There's also the saving from using cheaper fuel.

My Holden is all but smack on with trip computer fuel consumption and actual. It hasn't broken down (#1), my cumulative servicing bill is about $500 ish for the three years, it goes like stink, it has no piston slap, it has original brake pads, it doesn't have any oil leaks, my average over the 79k is 12.8 l/100, which aint bad for a six litre auto, it corners better than any large car I've had and my bluetooth works well since I upgraded my phone.

Note #1. It did split it's fuel tank a day after I took possession, but Holden sent out a tilt truck, gave me a brand new loaner, no questions asked and I had a phone call from head office an hour later apologising for the inconvenience. Ford on the otherhand refused to play ball with my new car that regularly stalled going up hills, cost me hundreds every service and finally decided to roll backwards down an incline (where children regularly played) and wipe out a few trees... they too gave me a brand new loaner and picked up the repair bill, but only after things got very nasty and potentially dire for them after a few weeks.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Wally

There's also the saving from using cheaper fuel.

My Holden is all but smack on with trip computer fuel consumption and actual. It hasn't broken down (#1), my cumulative servicing bill is about $500 ish for the three years, it goes like stink, it has no piston slap, it has original brake pads, it doesn't have any oil leaks, my average over the 79k is 12.8 l/100, which aint bad for a six litre auto, it corners better than any large car I've had and my bluetooth works well since I upgraded my phone.

Note #1. It did split it's fuel tank a day after I took possession, but Holden sent out a tilt truck, gave me a brand new loaner, no questions asked and I had a phone call from head office an hour later apologising for the inconvenience. Ford on the otherhand refused to play ball with my new car that regularly stalled going up hills, cost me hundreds every service and finally decided to roll backwards down an incline (where children regularly played) and wipe out a few trees... they too gave me a brand new loaner and picked up the repair bill, but only after things got very nasty and potentially dire for them after a few weeks.

Thanks for the info wally, but if i may ask, what the hell has that got to do with this thread??? I know you were responding to another off topic post but i think it would be alot better if people could try to stay on topic in some of these threads. No wonder there are alway accusations of 'holden bashing' or 'ford bashing' etc. going on and the mods have to close it all down. I'm not saying i am never guilty of it also just a reminder.

Moving right along, as noted by others, i think we will just have to wait the month or so tops before some people that dont' work for GMH have tried this new engine/drivetrain. We can't be sure until that point. In the meantime we can only go on the frankly mediocre reports from the states and pretty underwhelming raw figures.

This thread is about holden's frankly questionable claims that it will 'out engineer't its competitors. In so far as its method of doing this relies, among other things, on this 'next generation' of V6 engines i think people have the right to compare these engines with their competition. AT THIS POINT, i'd view Ruess' comments as based in pr spin, not fact.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Thanks for the info wally, but if i may ask, what the hell has that got to do with this thread???.

Well I guess the tone of the thread is, as usual Holden bashing, and I thought I would include some fact i.e:

1 that the trip computer on my Holden has not been "graced" with a "rigged" trip computer
2. that I have not had any "concerns" and explained why
3. the contrasting experience with my Ford for punctuation

As usual if someone posts full disclosure that doesn't fit the concensus argument it's "bashing" Ford.

I think I've been quite forthright in publishing the facts regarding the errant RON figures being touted, the gear ratios, etc. I didn't publish the 12% reduction in CO2 emmissions between the SIDI and the current engine. Benchmarks for engines/engineering these days is not peak torque or power, it has swung to green issues and Holden are on that gravy train no doubt.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Wally

There's also the saving from using cheaper fuel.

My Holden is all but smack on with trip computer fuel consumption and actual. It hasn't broken down (#1), my cumulative servicing bill is about $500 ish for the three years, it goes like stink, it has no piston slap, it has original brake pads, it doesn't have any oil leaks, my average over the 79k is 12.8 l/100, which aint bad for a six litre auto, it corners better than any large car I've had and my bluetooth works well since I upgraded my phone.

Note #1. It did split it's fuel tank a day after I took possession, but Holden sent out a tilt truck, gave me a brand new loaner, no questions asked and I had a phone call from head office an hour later apologising for the inconvenience. Ford on the otherhand refused to play ball with my new car that regularly stalled going up hills, cost me hundreds every service and finally decided to roll backwards down an incline (where children regularly played) and wipe out a few trees... they too gave me a brand new loaner and picked up the repair bill, but only after things got very nasty and potentially dire for them after a few weeks.

I can't see how you claim to like Fords and Holdens when every post you make praises Holden and bags Ford. Are you sure you aren't Paul Gover. Your style is just like his.

[Wally]

Well that's just not true and you know it. I don't claim to like either car. I merely offer my opinions loosely based on fact. Being a zealot doesn't equate to right.

How about you play the topic not the man.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Wally

1 that the trip computer on my Holden has not been "graced" with a "rigged" trip computer.

Happy for you, but even Wheels and Motor have noted this on occasion. Their last update was about 4% optimistic from their own measurements.

Even Gover mentioned it a few years back when there was issues with Commodore tanks. Some people at work ran out of fuel in their VY-VZ with a reasonable DTE.

Getting back on topic, it won't be as economical as GMH predict. The reports from the US suggest as much.

GMH won't out engineer Ford with engines or other tech, because they don't engineer their motors here. Ford does the I6 and has been doing the Boss V8 for years (although that will change - maybe - depends on some rumours...).

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I can't see how you claim to like Fords and Holdens when every post you make praises Holden and bags Ford. Are you sure you aren't Paul Gover. Your style is just like his.

LMAO! :

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Even Gover mentioned it a few years back when there was issues with Commodore tanks. Some people at work ran out of fuel in their VY-VZ with a reasonable DTE.

VX had a recal on the levels (had this done on the folks VX), even then the gauge plays up. But there were quite a few issues with people running out of fuel with the gauge reading at least a quarter left in the tank.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by phillyc

....
Even Gover mentioned it a few years back when there was issues with Commodore tanks. Some people at work ran out of fuel in their VY-VZ with a reasonable DTE.

.

So when it suits you Mr Gover is an oracle?

History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's dam is the history we made today