Should Holden make a Turbo 6 ???

[ROGRSS]

Just food for thought.... But Should Holden make a RWD Turbo 6 ? My mates got a new FG XR6T he's a ford guy but has only had 8's in the past. So we have been doing some research on what he can do and what we found was astonishing !!!

With just a tune alone...nothing else changed 280 RWKW... Then with exhaust, air intake and another tune to crank up boost a little ur seeing over 300 RWKW. Now that just not on lol And all of this with fuel consumption of no more then 12lt/100klm and thats with spirited driving and 9-10lt/100klm under normal driving conditions.

I know some people are V8 people and would never buy a turbo as long as there bum points to the ground lol But im not.. and unfortunatly thanks to my oldman i have holden pumping through my veins so a swap to the dark side is out of the question. I could go jap but i like my sedans and RWD plus need the room.

So is there a big enough market for holden to head down this path ?? If it was anything like the ford turbo's i would have my hand up no doubt.

In saying all that I love my SSV best car i have ever owned :bow:

Thats my sunday rant over ;)
Paul

[kart_racer]

A good question really, but I'm sure this has already been discussed on the forum.

Ford's XR6T has eaten into its XR8 sales (understandable...). Ford's V8 really struggles to match the 6L competition in any area.

Holden have a very good V8 program going, and the market for a turbo 6 is very similar. I did read that they tested the engine in the configuration used in the TT36 Torana concept car, but couldn't keep the temperature down.

Apparently the V6 will get direct injection soon (confirmed for the G8 so we should get it too), and that will boost power to around 220kW at the fly. This is a long way from the XR6T, but in the current climate they want to appear as fuel efficient cars, rather than powerful supercars.

Maybe I've rambled and gone around in circles, but my point is they are onto a good thing and they don't really need a turbo 6 as their V8 is selling very well and would probably lose sales to an inferior 6T.

[Big_Valven]

Put simply, Ford have a rubbish V8... wrong geometry for a fast engine, some distinct failure points, overly complex etc... and their 6 has taken the limelight because it is 12 trillionteen years old, and they have refined the heck out of it, making it easy to extract massive power relatively easy in the case of the turbo. We have seen this before of straight 6s (bmw, nissan.)

Holden have an excellent V8 that is also easy to mod, caters to an "Australian" traditional sentiment of fast cars, nice and (comparatively) simple, and their V6 is not particularly old, but unnecessarily complex for it's refinement and power output (why quad OHC for 190 odd FWKW, and sound like a wheezing constipated sheep?)

Holden originally had the 6-cylinder "wolf in sheeps clothing" with the factory supercharged V6, and IMO it was a route that could have seen Ford-level infamousy had Holden not been held back by the frail Holden 8 (great engine, was just past it's use by date.)

Love it or hate it, the supercharged V6 has great potential for power and performance and the underpinnings of a pretty good FI V6, and on scale (think mod-ability, power and torque) is in line with the ford turbo 6, given that the SCV6 came many years earlier. It could well have seen 220FWKW+ had Holden / HSV not been shackled with making it deliberately inferior to the Holden 8. Emissions are a different kettle of fish however.

Conclusions? Neither Holden nor Ford have the budget, knowledge or need to build an overly complicated engine properly, and both get good results from a simpler, better implemented engine.

Holden's SCV6 is akin to the ford Turbo 6, but was held back by time and it's bigger brother from becoming a popular engine at the time.

Holden could build an excellent FIV6 / FI6 but given their current ties to the haemorrhaging GM global, and commitment to the unexciting Alloytec, it seems more than a few years away.

[planetdavo]

The expense for the sales gain does not justify it.
The reality is that most sales would come from people that most likely would have bought the V8 anyway.
Ford knows their V8 is way behind Holden's. The lack of a V8 option in the top of the range G6E should tell you something...

[ls1vt209]

A little off topic but I find it hard to believe, well actually it is BS that the turbo does not see worse than 12l/100km as stated in the OP original post.

[iamhappy46]

Boosted Holden V8 > Ford XR6T

/thread

[pelagonia_ss]

Holden should definitely make a Turbo 6. I would buy one.

[planetdavo]

Holden should definitely make a Turbo 6. I would buy one.
But, would you buy another V8 to replace your current V8 Commodore if they don't?
That's what it's all about in manufacturers land.

[ROGRSS]

A little off topic but I find it hard to believe, well actually it is BS that the turbo does not see worse than 12l/100km as stated in the OP original post.

Have you been in a new XR6 turbo ??? I was in one all day yesterday and he wasn't shy on the gas peddle and the highest reading it showed was 12.2lt/100km.

Unless he has a freak car on juice you better believe it...

[Marco]

Nope, waste of time and money, no point. The V8 is more than good enough as it, so why go to the trouble of building a turbo V6 which would end up with similar power and torque but only serve to cannibalise V8 sales?

[ROGRSS]

But, would you buy another V8 to replace your current V8 Commodore if they don't?
That's what it's all about in manufacturers land.

yes most deffinatly... I love the 6ltr... but if someone said i could have exactly the same car just uses less fuel and is quicker then i'd be silly to say no.... Though i would miss the V8 rumble.

[planetdavo]

Have you been in a new XR6 turbo ??? I was in one all day yesterday and he wasn't shy on the gas peddle and the highest reading it showed was 12.2lt/100km.

Unless he has a freak car on juice you better believe it...
You should get a calculation based on odometer reading divided by litres added at refuel.
Trip computers are notoriously inaccurate, almost always in the :):):) direction.

[ls1vt209]

Have you been in a new XR6 turbo ??? I was in one all day yesterday and he wasn't shy on the gas peddle and the highest reading it showed was 12.2lt/100km.

Unless he has a freak car on juice you better believe it...

Yes my last work car was a XR6 turbo albeit a BF and the best I could get out of it was 17l/100km around town, mind you it was quiet spirited, hence my comment against the worst being 12l/100km.

I wouldn't make a comment like this without having something to back it with.

I also have to agree with Davo above.

[ROGRSS]

You should get a calculation based on odometer reading divided by litres added at refuel.
Trip computers are notoriously inaccurate, almost always in the :):):) direction.


I stand corrected then gentlemen....I was only going off what the display was showing us.

[ls1vt209]

Was not having a digg mate just stating what I know from spending 40000km in one.

[prodrive]

I had the FG turbo auto until recently (changed jobs) and it is very fuel efficient on the freeway. From Melbourne to Torquay return 7.8 litres per 100kms which is pretty good!

However and this is a big however - in town even with moderate throttle it is well in to the 16-18 litre per 100kms range. You really need some roads 80kph+ to bring the fuel numbers down.

So all in all it is more fuel efficient than my old VE SS (manual) but it is not as efficient as some may think around town.

[weekendwarrior]

Guy i know has a BF F6 Typhoon....it's totally nutcase, currently is making 500hp at the tyres and he hasn't really done any out of the norm mods yet. Good for a 12.2 on it's first pass in 100% street trim. Slick should see it well into the 11's.

[Nidz]

It appears that if you drive a 6 turbo with a heavy foot there's really no fuel advantage of having 2 less cylinders. I prefer my V8 over a 6 however in Fords case the 6 does go faster. I'd have to see what Holden could cook up before looking to purchase..

[flappist]

You should get a calculation based on odometer reading divided by litres added at refuel.
Trip computers are notoriously inaccurate, almost always in the :):):) direction.

Having done 110,000 km of logged driving over 32 months in a BA2 F6 demonstrating 271rwkw I found the average fuel usage to be between 11 and 12 litres per 100km.
This was calculated by dividing the fuel used from the fuel account by the km travelled from the log book.

Interestingly the onboard computer used to say 14-15l/100km and 20 DTE when it still had over 10 litres in the tank.

[Big_Valven]

It appears that if you drive a 6 turbo with a heavy foot there's really no fuel advantage of having 2 less cylinders.

I could have told you that of a bog stock ecotec :rofl: Bloody thing gets 300km from a tank if I start pushing it. For my driving style I'd be better of fuel-wise with a V8, if it weren't for the insurance :bawl:

[nang3]

Nope, waste of time and money, no point. The V8 is more than good enough as it, so why go to the trouble of building a turbo V6 which would end up with similar power and torque but only serve to cannibalise V8 sales?

I dont think its a waste of money because if built properly it would whoop the V8's like the current ford turbos do..

although cannibilisation would be a problem, but im sure all the holden diehards who went to a ford for the turbo would come back if Holdens turbo was similar performance and coin etc

I slightly prefer the looks of the VE GTS's to the FG F6's so if Holden brought out a boosted 6 that could compete with the F6 i'd definitely be considering it..

Dont forget the tuned Ford turbos use a decent amount less fuel than when untuned.. IIRC they run very very rich from factory..

[steve_t]

I could have told you that of a bog stock ecotec :rofl: Bloody thing gets 300km from a tank if I start pushing it. For my driving style I'd be better of fuel-wise with a V8, if it weren't for the insurance :bawl:

Yup... it's how you drive. You guys don't seem to like Jeremy Clarkson all that much but he did managed to make a Toyota Prius use 14L/100km around the Top Gear track ;) Quite thirsty for a 1.5L 4-cylinder ;)

[Road Warrior]

Yup... it's how you drive. You guys don't seem to like Jeremy Clarkson all that much but he did managed to make a Toyota Prius use 14L/100km around the Top Gear track ;) Quite thirsty for a 1.5L 4-cylinder ;)

Yep he raced the Pri-arse and an M3 around the track at the same time and the M3 used less :rofl:

[robbaggs920]

id like holden to have a turbo-charged 6 to go with fords. As said thier are holden fanatics that cross over to the blue oval for their F6, why shouldnt holden get in on the action? you will have the fanatics who stay true to the holden V8 so its not as though the V8 would dissappear! and besides (bracing myself) if the forced induction 6 did turn out to have better figures/results than the V8 (like @ ford) we the consumer stand to gain everything and loose nothing. i myself am on my P's and have had 2 cars since starting out (VY Spack ute & a VZ SV6) and i feel quite attatched to the 6's (like many do about V8's) and when the time came and the funds were there should i have the choice i would be proud to own a holden T6.

[CLUBRED]

I think we're dreaming, alot of murmurs out these days seem to suggest a performance deisel before anything else, yay...

[macca_779]

\

Holden originally had the 6-cylinder "wolf in sheeps clothing" with the factory supercharged V6, and IMO it was a route that could have seen Ford-level infamousy had Holden not been held back by the frail Holden 8 (great engine, was just past it's use by date.)

Love it or hate it, the supercharged V6 has great potential for power and performance and the underpinnings of a pretty good FI V6, and on scale (think mod-ability, power and torque) is in line with the ford turbo 6, given that the SCV6 came many years earlier. It could well have seen 220FWKW+ had Holden / HSV not been shackled with making it deliberately inferior to the Holden 8. Emissions are a different kettle of fish however.


The S/C V6 did go on in US models. In its last hoorah it was evolved from what we had in the L67 to become the L32. This is the engine that we should of got instead of the piece of shit Alloyanchor that we have today.
The L32 had 194kw stock but was restrained by torque management. While it was a lot better than the L67. Its no match for the Ford I6T. Comparing the two is like comparing an LS1 to a 5L.


http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/Photo%20Library/90%20Deg%20V6/07%203.8L%20V6%20L32%20SC%20LoR.jpg

[planetdavo]

The L32 had 194kw stock but was restrained by torque management. While it was a lot better than the L67. Its no match for the Ford I6T. Comparing the two is like comparing an LS1 to a 5L.

Uh oh, macca's found the bottle of red cordial again! :rofl:

[redvxr8clubby]

Having done 110,000 km of logged driving over 32 months in a BA2 F6 demonstrating 271rwkw I found the average fuel usage to be between 11 and 12 litres per 100km.
This was calculated by dividing the fuel used from the fuel account by the km travelled from the log book.

Interestingly the onboard computer used to say 14-15l/100km and 20 DTE when it still had over 10 litres in the tank.

As with Holden V8's etc, it's not hard to get decent fuel figures away from city driving, but around town - Sydney or Melbourne especially in peak traffic you won't be getting 11- 12 l/100Km. I had a BA (XT) Falcon sedan (petrol auto) for about 6 weeks and about 14l / 100Km was the norm - similar in the VY wagon I had for 3 years before it. I think in similar conditions I would expect more like 18l / 100km from a 5.7, but I don't drive my Clubby in peak traffic, 13l/ 100km is typical for it, with just a little under 10l/ 100km on a long trip. As per previous threads, one by Seedy comes to mind where he had records that clearly shows the relationship between average speed and fuel consumption.
Off the topic of turbo Falcons a bit, but years ago my son had 2 Pulsar ET turbos (1.5 litre turbo), they both used about the same fuel a a V6 Commodore. Daughter had a KB Laser (1.5) turbo - similar to the ET fuel consumption wise.

[benniemc]

I don't know about a Turbo Petrol 6, but I'd love a Commodore with Turbo Diesel 6.

Some tuning, the thing would be fantastic. :D

[pagey]

3.5 Lt Twin Turbo Deisel TDI Holden Ute would do me nicely.

[Angeldust]

it would have to be in a much smaller car, like the old model bmw 3 series

hmm. a TT v6 tory

[pagey]

Or this (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/05/gm-releases-details-on-upcoming-4-5l-duramax-turbo-diesel-v8/) would do me..love it (http://jalopnik.com/347346/2010-45l-duramax-diesel-has-shockingly-brilliant-design)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/05/x10pt_8c001_opt.jpg

Remember you heard it here first :)... well except for the author also wanting it in the Pontiac G8 Ute

"The new V-8’s compact size enables it to fit within the same space of a small-block V-8 gasoline engine and offers GM the flexibility to introduce it in a wide variety of vehicles to meet market demand.

The new 4.5L V-8 diesel is expected to deliver more than 310 horsepower (231 kW) and 520 lb-ft of torque (705 Nm), while delivering a 25-percent engine fuel efficiency improvement versus comparable gasoline engines"