Holden V8 Sales Sizeable Increase

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by fte50

Harsh - Good point. You ever tried revving a Holden V6?
Believe as you like, but when your local management are simply not management material, what hope is there for quality. Secondly, they have tried too run so many variants (export etc) on the 1 ***. line, they have continually mixed components etc, not forgetting that for many of the proccess workers (no disrespect to them) they dont know the difference from an intake valve to a ball valve. There simply isnt any ownership.
As for the machines tolerances, lets just say that they WERE/ARE the cheapest machine tooling option available at the time for that particular purpose and tolerances are now somewhat of a dismal memory. Im sure you would also love to know that the machines had error proofing stations to reduce scrap rates and improve quality etc, but guess what - m.e. (manufacturing engineering) removed them.
Finally, if you dont get what i mean about bore/stroke ratio, do some learning and grow a moustache first before you pass judgement and decide somethings baloney. Simple as that.

Interesting you mention this point. Recently Holden announced an export deal for the HFV6 to south america where they build a chevy small suv (can't remember name). I checked out the specs on that car on a US site and it is basically the 190kw HFV6 we have now (or is that 195??). At the same time holden has people spinning the fact that a DI 3.0 and DI 3.6 V6 will be coming down the line very soon, and to my knowledge they still do the 3.2 and 2.8 (with turbo) for SAAB. Open also uses the 2.8 T V6 on the new insignia VXR. How many different types can you get down one line before confusion results. If that chinese deal goes through (plus the south american deal) that means you are building 2.8T, 3.0DI, 3.2 (Di??), 3.6, 3.6DI all one one line. Surely some rationalisation woudl be good....too bad HOlden is GMs beatch and have to build whatever each division wants.

Much was made when Ford decided to build just one atmo I6, and the XR6 lost its bespoke engine. Ford excuse was to quote the I6T as the new six performance king but i was a bit miffed myself tobe honest. BUT at least ford got the benefit of simplifying the production line even more. When territory goes over to the FG engines that will make it even easier. No such luck for HOlden.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Wally

I must admit. I was wondering what the bore to stroke ratio had to do with the engine being a dud.

I may be wrong but the Alloytec's design was based on it being 2.8-3.2L, for the European market. Having it displace 3.6 litres meant it was compromised. Not sure how true this is, but I heard it from a Holden/Alfa Romeo fanatic.

Originally Posted by SSbaby

I've definitely revved the Alloytec all the way to its near 7000rpm redline... around Sandown raceway using the paddle gears. Seamless, smooth and powerful (for a V6) once on song are the thoughts that spring to mind.

For the 3 week period I had one I found it to be very uninspiring when revved. Harsh, course and gutless, sorry to say. Very bad on fuel too when driving for economy.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Interesting you mention this point. Recently Holden announced an export deal for the HFV6 to south america where they build a chevy small suv (can't remember name). I checked out the specs on that car on a US site and it is basically the 190kw HFV6 we have now (or is that 195??). At the same time holden has people spinning the fact that a DI 3.0 and DI 3.6 V6 will be coming down the line very soon, and to my knowledge they still do the 3.2 and 2.8 (with turbo) for SAAB. Open also uses the 2.8 T V6 on the new insignia VXR. How many different types can you get down one line before confusion results. If that chinese deal goes through (plus the south american deal) that means you are building 2.8T, 3.0DI, 3.2 (Di??), 3.6, 3.6DI all one one line. Surely some rationalisation woudl be good....too bad HOlden is GMs beatch and have to build whatever each division wants.

Much was made when Ford decided to build just one atmo I6, and the XR6 lost its bespoke engine. Ford excuse was to quote the I6T as the new six performance king but i was a bit miffed myself tobe honest. BUT at least ford got the benefit of simplifying the production line even more. When territory goes over to the FG engines that will make it even easier. No such luck for HOlden.

Good post mate.
I wasn't aware of the problems of the V6 except its lack of torque and noise. But for production problems it's a bit of a disaster

[fte50]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I may be wrong but the Alloytec's design was based on it being 2.8-3.2L, for the European market. Having it displace 3.6 litres meant it was compromised. Not sure how true this is, but I heard it from a Holden/Alfa Romeo fanatic.



For the 3 week period I had one I found it to be very uninspiring when revved. Harsh, course and gutless, sorry to say. Very bad on fuel too when driving for economy.

Too true. Which is why Alfas initial order forecast continued to downward spiral until it was no more. Hence, why their choosing another supplier - not to mention the quality issues that they have been unimpressed with.

At the end of the day, people like SSBABY have a right to their opinion and he might have loved the V6 experience. I wonder if he has driven an alternative competitors product to compare. The 2.5/3.0 engine of Alfa old put it to shame, and they were 80s. As for Nissan, you would be a fool to consider them in the same league, not forgetting the Nissan aint hauling close to 1800 kg.
But it goes to say, for a product which was all new, future, leading edge technology its fair to say GM failed. For christ sake, they didnt even consider LPG in its development, hence the rush job last year engaging HSV to do its conversions.
Clearly not acceptable for a recently designed / developed product with an expected shelf life of 10 - 15 yrs.
An ex collegue of mine was achieving better fuel economy and driving pleasure in his 280k el fairmont 4.0ltr driving to Pearcedale each day than he was in the ve v6 - enough said, but each 2 their own.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Wally

I must admit. I was wondering what the bore to stroke ratio had to do with the engine being a dud.

It's the standard statement I'm hearing. If it's GM it's crap!

I never knew Holden built the 3.0L version, though I knew they exported 2.8L and 3.2L capacities.

As far as the tooling equipment, I'm led to believe the machines came from Japan.

I'd take the negative remarks with a grain of salt.

Btw, the GM V6 engine was designed to be built in a range of capacities from 2.8L all the way to 4L! The most common application is the 3.6L as found in NA and Aus.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by fte50

At the end of the day, people like SSBABY have a right to their opinion and he might have loved the V6 experience. I wonder if he has driven an alternative competitors product to compare. The 2.5/3.0 engine of Alfa old put it to shame, and they were 80s. As for Nissan, you would be a fool to consider them in the same league, not forgetting the Nissan aint hauling close to 1800 kg.

What about the 3.2L Alfa engine? That's essentially the same engine as the Alloytec you dismiss. It's also built at the same place you claim build 'faulty' engines.

V6 engines are not inherently smooth. The Toyota V6 is grunty and torquey but not exactly as smooth as a V8. I haven't driven the Nissan 3.5/3.7L V6 but there is no doubt the engines are among the best in their class. As you say, the engine applications don't have 1800kg to haul around (~1450kg). That might partly explain the performance gap and fuel consumption penalty to the Alloytec.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

It's the standard statement I'm hearing. If it's GM it's crap!

I never knew Holden built the 3.0L version, though I knew they exported 2.8L and 3.2L capacities.

As far as the tooling equipment, I'm led to believe the machines came from Japan.

I'd take the negative remarks with a grain of salt.

Btw, the GM V6 engine was designed to be built in a range of capacities from 2.8L all the way to 4L! The most common application is the 3.6L as found in NA and Aus.

Its not crap because it is GM. Its just crap. GM has/had some great engines. Despite the digs about the pushrods their V8s are very competitive, and although rough the ecotec V6 got the job done well past its use by date frankly. But the alloytec is a lemon. I don't know why everyone tries to sugar coat it!!!! As for the 'designed to be built in a range of capacities', well dont' fall for that old chestnut. Ford used a similar mantra with the duratec yet eveyrone knows there is bumpkis chance of any duratec V6 ever leaving a Ford engine plant bigger than the current 3.7 litre.

Its more about what you design your engine to do, and its tunability/flexibility than any debate about size. I'm no expert, but based on waht i've read about engines, you can't just add .2 of al litre and get the same % increase in power/torque. Engines are designed as a unit, with a set size range. that range is not anywhere near 1 whole litre, its probably + or - 0.2 litres (0.4 range).

The alloytec was originally designed for FWD/AWD applications in the 2.8-3.2 range...this is fact as stated by GM. The 3.6 RWD version was developed off this original architecture. Holden was intially told to take the 3.2...but they refused to put that ina commodore and along with their friends at cadilac they convinced the suits to allocate the funds for the 3.6 size. This is just my understanding based on what i've read.

If you compare that development history to Ford with the duratec 35/37 (cyclone engine) you will find that Ford developed that engine from start for two purposes:

1. large FWD/AWD medium/large cars, 1.6-1.9 tonne. high power 3.5 size. Fusion etc.
2. RWD F series trucks/suvs, high torque 3.7 size. F series, falcon etc.

The first engien makes 195 kw. The Second 205kw. Not much for 0.2 litres more. BUT, the first engine makes 338 nm, the second 366nm. Now see what i mean....

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Its not crap because it is GM. Its just crap. GM has/had some great engines.

Engines are designed as a unit, with a set size range. that range is not anywhere near 1 whole litre, its probably + or - 0.2 litres (0.4 range).

The alloytec was originally designed for FWD/AWD applications in the 2.8-3.2 range...this is fact as stated by GM. The 3.6 RWD version was developed off this original architecture. Holden was intially told to take the 3.2...

From most reports the smaller capacity units are reasonably smooth (although not class leading) and revvy. I think a big issue with the 3.6 is exactly as you've said Swordsman. It wasn't meant to exist. So, because of that, I wonder if that means the stroke length / piston throw is not really compatible with the block's deck height. Essentially, pushing the design too far.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by phillyc

From most reports the smaller capacity units are reasonably smooth (although not class leading) and revvy. I think a big issue with the 3.6 is exactly as you've said Swordsman. It wasn't meant to exist. So, because of that, I wonder if that means the stroke length / piston throw is not really compatible with the block's deck height. Essentially, pushing the design too far.

That's exactly what fte50 has confirmed above. The 3.6 is very compromised.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Ibrox90

Thats BS how can shutting down half the engines capacity not do sumthing.

The only commodores i see now in adelaide are all SS packs

While i understand its a FORD Forum, its getting pretty ricdiculous and rather Juvenile. Everytime a Holden comes up even if it is the "Dogs bollocks" AKA Top . its sledged regardless of how good it is.

First of all, it only works at constant speeds on the highway, and it might stop sending fuel to 4 cylinders but those 4 pistons are still working creating friction, hence the claimed economy difference is 1 litre per 100 km, which is bugger all in the grand scheme of things, and it can't be used in manual versions because the torque convertor is used to absorb vibrations of the engine only running on 4 cylinders, and since manuals don't have a torque convertor they are rough as guts, so GM doesn't do it in manual versions.

To get in running on auto versions Holden had to reduce power and torque, essentially de tuning the engine, which alone would have gone some way to reducing the economy by itself, so the AFM doesn't even contribute the whole 1 litre. Around town and in the suburbs AFM does nothing.

It is a near useless idea that does bugger all unless you spend all your time on the highway where it might save you a tiny amount.

Its more valuable as a marketing tool, but that goes for most of the crap Holden do. If they spent half as much time engineering their cars properly instead of telling the world how great they are their cars might actually be worth driving.

I would praise it as a good idea if it actually made a significant fuel reduction, but it doesn't.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

First of all, it only works at constant speeds on the highway, and it might stop sending fuel to 4 cylinders but those 4 pistons are still working creating friction, hence the claimed economy difference is 1 litre per 100 km, which is bugger all in the grand scheme of things, and it can't be used in manual versions because the torque convertor is used to absorb vibrations of the engine only running on 4 cylinders, and since manuals don't have a torque convertor they are rough as guts, so GM doesn't do it in manual versions.

To get in running on auto versions Holden had to reduce power and torque, essentially de tuning the engine, which alone would have gone some way to reducing the economy by itself, so the AFM doesn't even contribute the whole 1 litre. Around town and in the suburbs AFM does nothing.

It is a near useless idea that does bugger all unless you spend all your time on the highway where it might save you a tiny amount.

Its more valuable as a marketing tool, but that goes for most of the crap Holden do. If they spent half as much time engineering their cars properly instead of telling the world how great they are their cars might actually be worth driving.

I would praise it as a good idea if it actually made a significant fuel reduction, but it doesn't.

I think is because of the lack of VCT. The pushrod setup of the engine, while it has advantages, is not really suited to this sort of fiddling that AFM causes. If you are going to 'shut down' half your cylinders you are going to have to get the engine to run well (even at cruising speed with an auto) on just 4. Otherwise it would be so inefficient it wouldn't be worth it. I reckon the cam profile they put in it for the AFM engines is very compromised RE full power and torque when operating as a V8 compared to the non AFM (manual) cars. Just my theory. Apparenlty at full throttle on a dyno the AFM engine is a pig compared to the non-AFM version...worse even then the on paper figures from holden suggest.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

What about the 3.2L Alfa engine? That's essentially the same engine as the Alloytec you dismiss. It's also built at the same place you claim build 'faulty' engines.

V6 engines are not inherently smooth. The Toyota V6 is grunty and torquey but not exactly as smooth as a V8. I haven't driven the Nissan 3.5/3.7L V6 but there is no doubt the engines are among the best in their class. As you say, the engine applications don't have 1800kg to haul around (~1450kg). That might partly explain the performance gap and fuel consumption penalty to the Alloytec.

You are correct in saying the 3.2 Alfa is essentially the alloytec engine, bar the Alfa only unique heads, manifold and direct injection etc. But it to was not up to the standard which is why they are no longer going to be Alfas preffered supplier.
I think you have confused my intention when i remarked of Alfas past V6 engines, namely the 2.5/3.0ltr. These were an 80s developed original Alfa product which EASILY had many feats on our local alloytec V6, and should have been used as 'a benchmark'. This engine actually was classed in the top 10 automotive engineering achievements over the last century.
Comparing the alloytec to the old Buick derived V6, there is not much of aleap forward in overall efficiency, and that is the saddest part.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

You should probably check some bore/stroke ratios on other V6s before you decide to harshly criticise GM's V6 engine design. Toyota and Nissan 3.5 V6s have a similar bore/stroke ratio... and similar power/torque too!

I've definitely revved the Alloytec all the way to its near 7000rpm redline... around Sandown raceway using the paddle gears. Seamless, smooth and powerful (for a V6) once on song are the thoughts that spring to mind.

It's not worth my time and effort discussing this topic further as you're clearly very familiar with the problems on the production line. What I will say is that it's not exactly easy to keep a lid on engine problems such as those you describe, particularly for a common car like the VE with the V6. And I haven't heard of any major dramas with that engine, neither here or abroad.

Seemless smooth and powerful? Get ur hand off it.. The V6 commodore is the biggest bucket of ive ever had the displeasure of driving.. even in the High Output model they are garbish! Give me a V6 Aurion or Mitsubishi 380 any day..

[ltd]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

Seemless smooth and powerful? Get ur hand off it.. The V6 commodore is the biggest bucket of ive ever had the displeasure of driving.. even in the High Output model they are garbish! Give me a V6 Aurion or Mitsubishi 380 any day..

Agreed. I think even the Holden guys aren't a fan of it, and getting extra power out of it requires lots of dollars. No, I can see why the V8's are a big seller with Holden, because their V6's are terrible.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

I've definitely revved the Alloytec all the way to its near 7000rpm redline... around Sandown raceway using the paddle gears. Seamless, smooth and powerful (for a V6) once on song are the thoughts that spring to mind.

Sounds like an extract from Wheels or Motor magazine, the only problem being your trying to talk up a product rougher than 40 grit sandpaper.

Unless your music tastes include thrash i doubt it could ever "come on song".
Only 1 description can summarise this engine :

[Fordman1]

I hired a car from Hertz at Canberra Airport a while back.

When I asked for an upgrade and was offered and Aurion or Commodore, I asked the guy about the Holden, he said:

"Its a guttless, noisy barge"

I took the Toyota :hihi:

[paul84]

I won't comment on the engine performance itself, however just backing up some comments made about assembly.

Engine assembly tooling is by Sanyo Machine Works, was constructed and fitted out in Japan, then sent over to GMH in Port Melbourne. The tender process went through, I believe 3 (don't qoute me on that) budget cuts until they decided to go with the Sanyo setup.

Quality Control is spot on most of the time, however there quality control measures and quarantine effects are another thing. There scrap rate for cylinder heads and blocks is woeful. This is before, and even after machining. I've seen rusty bearing caps going in, surface rust on camshaft mains, just to metion a few things. I could go on, but I don't want to look like a GM basher.

But it's been atleast 1.5-2 years since I've been down there, so things could have changed, but from word of mouth its pretty much the same.

[irish2]

There have been threads on AFF before about certain types of engines and design characteristics. Bassically from the research that was posted in the links they general idea was that V6 and V8 engines are a compromised design to achieve size and weight savings. The articles also stated that a V12 or I6 were the best designed engines for smooth opperation. Flat 4 was also rated highly. It seems to be that these engine types turn some of the best power figures in real world cars.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by fte50

Sounds like an extract from Wheels or Motor magazine, the only problem being your trying to talk up a product rougher than 40 grit sandpaper.

Unless your music tastes include thrash i doubt it could ever "come on song".
Only 1 description can summarise this engine :

It's amazing how different people could have completely different views. The car I drove was a VZ SV6. If you are comparing my comments to the poverty pack 4-spd VE Omega version, don't, as they are different drivetrain combinations and we know how primitive the 4-spd auto is. However, the 5 spd auto is a good unit in the SV6 and the engine in the SV6 sings all the way to 7000rpm, no sweat.

And not many could do the 170km/h like I did at Sandown and give the car a good workout. It was a lot of fun with the paddle shift gears even behind an auto.

I'm telling it as I see it and no amount of bickering is going to sway my thoughts of the hi-po version of the Alloytec. By the same token, the natives here have already made up their minds and far be it for me to try to change their mindset. In any case, I love the V8s and would not contemplate the V6 or any six unless it's the turbo in the Ford.

fte50, I didn't believe a word of your post as I found it a bit hard to comprehend some of your comments (like bore/stroke ratio). However, the way Paul84 described his experience, essentially backing your statement, it definitely sounds more plausible than your version. I knew Holden brought machines over from Japan and I had a hard time believing your comments that the tools were below par (as quality is usually a Japanese strong point) but as far as the scrap rates are concerned, it's definitely alarming.

To end on this point, it definitely sounds like GM quality is variable at best as even the LSX engines had their share of problems with distorted blocks/bores... but the engines were generally quite good in the main. Perhaps there's too many engines below par hitting the streets that's giving Holden the underwhelming reputation for its V6?

[fte50]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

fte50, I didn't believe a word of your post as I found it a bit hard to comprehend some of your comments (like bore/stroke ratio). However, the way Paul84 described his experience, essentially backing your statement, it definitely sounds more plausible than your version.

Mate, believe what you like, i truly dont care. I say it how it is for 'general knowledge only' based on what i know, and not to prove some point and 'force' my views on others. As i stated earlier, each 2 their own.

What really does amaze me though is the fact that Paul84 merely walked through the joint and you qoute his statement as plausable, yet ive totalled 22yrs service and seen/been involved in alot of things and various commissioning programs and you have the audacity to discredit my post and imply im a liar.
You are a fool

[Kaan]

Holden's V6 engines are totally crap, worthless . But v8 are really good engines.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

However, the 5 spd auto is a good unit in the SV6 and the engine in the SV6 sings all the way to 7000rpm, no sweat.

I didn't know "A Bucket of Bolts in a Blender" was a song.

I want to ask you and believe me, this isn't a loaded question but, do you own a commodore by chance?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

It's amazing how different people could have completely different views. The car I drove was a VZ SV6. If you are comparing my comments to the poverty pack 4-spd VE Omega version, don't, as they are different drivetrain combinations and we know how primitive the 4-spd auto is. However, the 5 spd auto is a good unit in the SV6 and the engine in the SV6 sings all the way to 7000rpm, no sweat.

And not many could do the 170km/h like I did at Sandown and give the car a good workout. It was a lot of fun with the paddle shift gears even behind an auto.

I'm telling it as I see it and no amount of bickering is going to sway my thoughts of the hi-po version of the Alloytec. By the same token, the natives here have already made up their minds and far be it for me to try to change their mindset.

So everyone on here has made up theri minds.....and that is bad. But you can stay fast on your view and 'no amount of bickering' is going to convince you otherwise. Nice double standard there.

Getting back on the topic if i may, the piont being made was RE poor V6 = higher V8 sales. While you might be perfectly correct inso far as a HFV6 with 5sp auto is much better then a 4sp auto omega,, the point is really about whether these engines are any good comparable to the competition. If they aren't, then holden fanboys asre goign to favour the V8, or so the theory goes. And here is where your argument falls down. Better than a ve omega or not, a VZ SV6 has an inferior drivetrain to a BF XR6 (with 6speed), let alone an FG. Hell a BA with 4sp auto is just as satisfying. I don't see how the fact you took one to 170km/h helps matters in this debate given that is highly illegal on any road in this country and most driving is down at lower surburban speeds and/or cruising on the highway with revs barely ever going above 4000rpm. not to mention the fact, as mentioned previously, unless you have revved an FG I6 out to its cut out (some 6200rpm during shift changes) how can you say an alloytec does a better job. I've given both motors some stick (BA versus VZ) and to be honest i don't much see the point of revving either that high in their rev ranges. And for the record i didn't think the alloytec sounded sweet at all at anything above 4500rpm....sounded pretty rough in fact.

[greenfoam]

How fast down the 1/4 mile is the quickest bolt on mods only BA/F FG NA 6 at this time?, is it as "fast" as the SV6's?. I wouldn't think there's much in it despite the Ford being a bigger engine

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

It's amazing how different people could have completely different views. The car I drove was a VZ SV6. If you are comparing my comments to the poverty pack 4-spd VE Omega version, don't, as they are different drivetrain combinations and we know how primitive the 4-spd auto is. However, the 5 spd auto is a good unit in the SV6 and the engine in the SV6 sings all the way to 7000rpm, no sweat.

And not many could do the 170km/h like I did at Sandown and give the car a good workout. It was a lot of fun with the paddle shift gears even behind an auto.

I'm telling it as I see it and no amount of bickering is going to sway my thoughts of the hi-po version of the Alloytec. By the same token, the natives here have already made up their minds and far be it for me to try to change their mindset. In any case, I love the V8s and would not contemplate the V6 or any six unless it's the turbo in the Ford.

fte50, I didn't believe a word of your post as I found it a bit hard to comprehend some of your comments (like bore/stroke ratio). However, the way Paul84 described his experience, essentially backing your statement, it definitely sounds more plausible than your version. I knew Holden brought machines over from Japan and I had a hard time believing your comments that the tools were below par (as quality is usually a Japanese strong point) but as far as the scrap rates are concerned, it's definitely alarming.

To end on this point, it definitely sounds like GM quality is variable at best as even the LSX engines had their share of problems with distorted blocks/bores... but the engines were generally quite good in the main. Perhaps there's too many engines below par hitting the streets that's giving Holden the underwhelming reputation for its V6?

The fact that you try and defend that harsh abomination of an engine puts any credibility you might have built right out the window. On paper it looks okay, in practice it is a of epic proportions.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by mcnews

The fact that you try and defend that harsh abomination of an engine puts any credibility you might have built right out the window. On paper it looks okay, in practice it is a of epic proportions.

Read my lips. I don't care for your thoughts.

Again, it's your opinion vs mine. And I'm not a six cylinder fan so care factor zero multiplied.

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

So everyone on here has made up theri minds.....and that is bad. But you can stay fast on your view and 'no amount of bickering' is going to convince you otherwise. Nice double standard there.

Getting back on the topic if i may, the piont being made was RE poor V6 = higher V8 sales. While you might be perfectly correct inso far as a HFV6 with 5sp auto is much better then a 4sp auto omega,, the point is really about whether these engines are any good comparable to the competition. If they aren't, then holden fanboys asre goign to favour the V8, or so the theory goes. And here is where your argument falls down. Better than a ve omega or not, a VZ SV6 has an inferior drivetrain to a BF XR6 (with 6speed), let alone an FG. Hell a BA with 4sp auto is just as satisfying. I don't see how the fact you took one to 170km/h helps matters in this debate given that is highly illegal on any road in this country and most driving is down at lower surburban speeds and/or cruising on the highway with revs barely ever going above 4000rpm. not to mention the fact, as mentioned previously, unless you have revved an FG I6 out to its cut out (some 6200rpm during shift changes) how can you say an alloytec does a better job. I've given both motors some stick (BA versus VZ) and to be honest i don't much see the point of revving either that high in their rev ranges. And for the record i didn't think the alloytec sounded sweet at all at anything above 4500rpm....sounded pretty rough in fact.

It would help if you could learn to comprehend what I wrote... I did say there appears to be a variable quality issue...

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by ltd

I didn't know "A Bucket of Bolts in a Blender" was a song.

I want to ask you and believe me, this isn't a loaded question but, do you own a commodore by chance?

Not any more. Though, I'm in the market for another car soon. Ford or Holden.

I happen to own two Toyotas atm and one of them just happens to have the 3.5L V6!!!

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by SSbaby

Credibility is not something you assign to yourself!

Interesting concept.. Maybe you need to take this on board yourself.

One of my mates has had alot of V6 Commodores as rep mobiles and we have both come to the conclusion that the old Ecotec V6 was better.. It was quicker, used less juice and even sounded better.. I dare say Holden should have stuck with it, and the supercharger :

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

Interesting concept.. Maybe you need to take this on board yourself.

One of my mates has had alot of V6 Commodores as rep mobiles and we have both come to the conclusion that the old Ecotec V6 was better.. It was quicker, used less juice and even sounded better.. I dare say Holden should have stuck with it, and the supercharger :

Well the scribes also lack credibility it would appear. It's another favourite pastime as well here is it not to slag off motoring publications?

The 190 Alloytec's upper mid-range and top end have a freer breathing, more responsive quality than the base engine. For the first time, you can drive a Commodore V6 hard and enjoy it. The 190 is smooth across the rev range and spirited from 4500rpm to 6700rpm, where the rev limiter cuts in. Holden has left the standard Commodore 5500rpm-redlined tachometer on the SV6. Ignore it.

When driven hard, the 190 Alloytec also sounds like it's working properly, as opposed to the base engine, which just huffs and puffs.

The SV6 can't match the Falcon's off-idle grunt but it pulls well from about 2000rpm, cruises easily and with great economy on the highway limit at only 1800rpm in sixth. The zero-100kmh trip takes 8.3 seconds - slower than the Falcon, but fast enough.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ArticleID=8902

What was that comment about credibility again? :