Surprising Power From VE SIDI

[Wonky]

Guy I know took his fairly new SV6 with SIDI motor to a dyno evening in Hallam last Friday night. I'm sure it's still stock engine wise except has V8 mufflers on the rear (twin pipes each side).

I've seen an early VE SV6 run high 120s at Chev's, so was amazed when this one ran 174.0 rwkw!! :eek: I suspected a happy dyno until he told me his mate's VZ SS A4 only ran 188rwkw on the same dyno, same night!

Looks like :goodjob: SIDI!!

[JezzaB]

Ran one the other day, 160rwkw. Good bit of gear.

Tuned a Alloytech VE Speedway car that had some headwork and mild cams that ran 207rwkw. That was fun :lol: Obviously there wasnt much of an exhaust.

[CLUBRED]

Be interesting to overlay the 2 graphs.

[JezzaB]

Be interesting to overlay the 2 graphs.

Wouldnt look real pretty. Speedway cars top out around 120-140km/h. Sever gearing. This had a 2 speed box.

[CLUBRED]

Sorry, refering to the SV6 and VZ SS...

[Wonky]

I now have a dyno sheet for the V6 which I'm aiming to get up shortly, but not for the SS.

[ATOMICSS]

Would be interesting to hire one of these things for a day and take it to the track for a bit of a lark. You'd think a very very high 14 second run wouldnt be out of the question.

[Wonky]

The dyno sheet. Ignore torque figures as they'ree obviously incorrect.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o274/gcovo/Misc/V6SIDI.jpg

[iloveholden]

Geez thats good stock power from a V6...i wouldnt mind driving one to see what they are like.

[GHZ28]

What I find most surprising is the torque figure on the dyno sheet. Holden spec sheet says 290 nm at the engine for the SIDI, but this dyno manages to measure an average of around 650 nm at the wheels.
As dynos can only measure torque, and derive HP/KW from that via a formula, surely that throws some doubt on the dyno KW figures. The torque figure shown is simply impossible for this engine to produce without at least 1 BAR of boost without any losses.

Where is the flaw in my thinking?

gh

[feistl]

Where is the flaw in my thinking?

No, your logic is correct. You attention to detail let you down a little though...


Ignore torque figures as they'ree obviously incorrect.

[VTSS350]

What I find most surprising is the torque figure on the dyno sheet. Holden spec sheet says 290 nm at the engine for the SIDI,

gh

That is for the 3.0L SIDI motor.

Its an SV6 that was put on the dyno and holden claim 350nm

[GHZ28]

OK, given both the above explanations, if a dyno can only measure torque, and from that derive HP/KW, how can you say the torque numbers are wrong and accept the KW figures.

HP/KW are only derived figures, not measured figures.

gh

ps it was a bit late when I made the first post.......

[BOOGER]

Pity the 3.0 SIDI isn't as impressive. An absolute dog to drive.

[SHANESVZSS]

Pity the 3.0 SIDI isn't as impressive. An absolute dog to drive.

yep 110% agree , i went along with my brother to test drive a my10 sv6 a6 and fg a6 , and ( i hate to admit it lol) the fg went alot better and had more down low torque and just seemed to do things easier.

[gmh308]

What I find most surprising is the torque figure on the dyno sheet. Holden spec sheet says 290 nm at the engine for the SIDI, but this dyno manages to measure an average of around 650 nm at the wheels.
As dynos can only measure torque, and derive HP/KW from that via a formula, surely that throws some doubt on the dyno KW figures. The torque figure shown is simply impossible for this engine to produce without at least 1 BAR of boost without any losses.

Where is the flaw in my thinking?

gh

:) Well apart from Wonky's comment re ".....ignore the torque.....", unless the dyno was measuring torque at 1:1 gear ratio over all and roller rpm = engine rpm, it will be different unless a correction is applied.

For example 200Nm at flywheel, trans + diff multiplication 4:1 = 800Nm.

As power is derived from torque and rpm, the roller torque is higher, but the rpm is lower. So if engine was at 6000rpm, 4:1 ratio overall = 1500rpm wheel, assume roller diameter = wheel diameter, roller rpm = 1500 too.

(Nm x rpm) / 9550 = kw.

Simple example. Not meant to be accurate. :)

[Wonky]

I'm far from an expert on dynos but judging by the rwkw figure for the VZ SS A4 (5.7) which has given about the right reading I'd say whoever runs the dyno has got it somehow set up so that even though the torque figures are crap the power figures are about right............... :weirdo:

[Tecca]

That's amazing power for the VE V6.

[planetdavo]

Pity the 3.0 SIDI isn't as impressive. An absolute dog to drive.

Really! A dog you say...:confused:
Perhaps when you compare it to a 6.0 V8 you can come to this conclusion, but when compared to the market Holden is aiming it at, they get along surprisingly well. The 6 speed auto gives it plenty of gears to make use of what it has, which would be only a p!ssant less torque than a 3.8 Ecotec used up to VY, and more power than even the supercharged version had...:teach:

[Kuzman89]

Wonky, thats impressive results! Just a tune on its own would make it close to 200rwkw I reckon, considering its downtuned. Very excited to see any extra work on this. Only thing that sucks about the SIDI is it would suck for boost. Also, anyone confirm if the 3.6l has exhaust ports or manifolds? I know the 3.0l has two exhaust ports, one either side.

[planetdavo]

Wonky, thats impressive results! Just a tune on its own would make it close to 200rwkw I reckon, considering its downtuned. Very excited to see any extra work on this. Only thing that sucks about the SIDI is it would suck for boost. Also, anyone confirm if the 3.6l has exhaust ports or manifolds? I know the 3.0l has two exhaust ports, one either side.

3.6 version uses normal manifolds.

[BOOGER]

Really! A dog you say...:confused:
Perhaps when you compare it to a 6.0 V8 you can come to this conclusion, but when compared to the market Holden is aiming it at, they get along surprisingly well. The 6 speed auto gives it plenty of gears to make use of what it has, which would be only a p!ssant less torque than a 3.8 Ecotec used up to VY, and more power than even the supercharged version had...:teach:

Yes a dog I say.

We have 4 of them at work as well as 3.6 VE's. It hunts for gears and revs its tits off for little gain. The holden spin doctors such as yourself may try and say it produces more power and torque but in fact it takes more revs to achieve only slightly more power and makes much less torque with more revs also.

What exactly is the market it's aimed at?

The 6 speed would have been nice in the 3.6 Omega, pitty Holden couldn't have thought of that. On a positive note though I do like the twin exit exhaust. Good work Doc, keep the spin going:goodjob:

[planetdavo]

You can say whatever turns you on booger, but the fact remains they get along quite well for a 3.0 V6. Most people are saying they didn't expect what they found once they have driven them, and I'm talking real world people, not hard driving "enthusiusts"...:teach:
The market they are aimed at has been so well covered I'm not going into it all again. You can do a search. :idea:

[sjhugh]

You can say whatever turns you on booger, but the fact remains they get along quite well for a 3.0 V6. Most people are saying they didn't expect what they found once they have driven them, and I'm talking real world people, not hard driving "enthusiusts"...:teach:
The market they are aimed at has been so well covered I'm not going into it all again. You can do a search. :idea:


I guess you mean the Fleet Market as they’re not doing well in private sales.

[GODSMACK]

but the fact remains they get along quite well for a 3.0 V6. Most people are saying they didn't expect what they found once they have driven them


And who might these 'people' be? No doubt a figment of your imagination, or are you the CEO of Holdens Survey Dept??

Ive driven the new 3.0 & 3.6 SIDI, and was quite impressed with the 3.6L, but the 3.0L is a piece of shit. I drove both for a good 45 minutes each, both around town and on a major 100km/h highway!!

Im mates with one of the guys at the local Holden dealership, he stated that the 3.0L is a POS as well. He always recommends a couple extra $$$ for the 3.6L to potential buyers.

But ur right, the 3.0L does get along well, compared to a push bike... :teach:

Crap on about the 3.0L all you like, we expect nothing less from you.. ITS A DOG, nothing less!!

[GODSMACK]

I guess you mean the Fleet Market as they’re not doing well in private sales.

Not even mate, guy i mentioned above said fleet sales have dropped by no less than 30% since their release, lost most of his business to the FG and Camry, as well as some smaller cars such as the Corolla's and i30's.

[andyman]

haha see these 3 things in that statement





1. "Im mates with one of the guys at the local Holden dealership",
2. "he stated that the 3.0L is a POS as well".
3. "He always recommends a couple extra $$$ for the 3.6L to potential buyers. "



thats just typical salesman technique there

[GODSMACK]

haha see these 3 things in that statement




thats just typical salesman technique there

LOL, just picked up on it myself... Having said that, his referrals to the 3.6 over the 3.0L are few and far between. Anyone who took both for a drive could notice the difference quite easily..

Cheers

[Kuzman89]

well of course the 3.6l is going to be better, for performance, the 3.0l never claimed to have better performance. It's meant to be better on fuel really, which is it from all reports.

However, the 3.6l port injected motor with the 6 speed would probably be much better on fuel then the 3.0l. Less power, but better torque.

[planetdavo]

LOL, just picked up on it myself... Having said that, his referrals to the 3.6 over the 3.0L are few and far between. Anyone who took both for a drive could notice the difference quite easily..

Cheers

of course you can, but compare 3.0 to a Camry, and it all starts to make a lot more sense. There's your clue. :teach:

[seldo]

And who might these 'people' be? No doubt a figment of your imagination, or are you the CEO of Holdens Survey Dept??

Ive driven the new 3.0 & 3.6 SIDI, and was quite impressed with the 3.6L, but the 3.0L is a piece of shit. I drove both for a good 45 minutes each, both around town and on a major 100km/h highway!!

Im mates with one of the guys at the local Holden dealership, he stated that the 3.0L is a POS as well. He always recommends a couple extra $$$ for the 3.6L to potential buyers.

But ur right, the 3.0L does get along well, compared to a push bike... :teach:

Crap on about the 3.0L all you like, we expect nothing less from you.. ITS A DOG, nothing less!! Of course anyone who evaluates it as a performance car will be disappointed, but its inteneded market of cardigan-wearing non-car people will find it just dandy.
Anyone who bags it for not being a performance car is just away with the pixies...

[BOOGER]

I don't think anyone would expect it to be a performance car but one could at least expect it to be able to match the previous model. Regardless of what Holden says on paper, out on the road it's a dog to drive.

And planetdavo, if we're going to compare it to a Toyota at least go for the V6, the Aurion. 200kw at 6200rpm and 336nm at 4700rpm. Better than Holdens outgoing V6.

As far as target market is concered I would have thought fleet not mums and dads. That being the case and with many fleet buyers needing to cart heavy loads the SIDI 3.0 is not good enough. I had 5 guys 80kg plus in the car yesterday plus a load in the boot and no it wasn't fun. A 4 cylinder Camry probably would have beaten us in this case. So what's next for Holden and Commodore? Will it eventually reach the point where they put a 4 cylinder in it to appease the fuel police?

[nudenut]

And planetdavo, if we're going to compare it to a Toyota at least go for the V6, the Aurion. 200kw at 6200rpm and 336nm at 4700rpm. Better than Holdens outgoing V6.
That's the whole point - an Aurion is basically a Camry with a bigger/better motor, which in a Commodore means a 3.6 or 6.0. Compare the smallest "economy" engine in each, ie Camry vs Commodore 3.0 and see which you like better. By all means compare the 3.6 to an Aurion.

I would imagine that there are plenty of Camrys being sold to fleets, and quite a few to "mums and dads" too. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole but there's obviously a market there, which I'm happy for Holden to exploit if it improves the bottom line, and keeps the deleopment money coming in for the versions that I'm interested in.

[BOOGER]

That's the whole point - an Aurion is basically a Camry with a bigger/better motor, which in a Commodore means a 3.6 or 6.0. Compare the smallest "economy" engine in each, ie Camry vs Commodore 3.0 and see which you like better. By all means compare the 3.6 to an Aurion.

I would imagine that there are plenty of Camrys being sold to fleets, and quite a few to "mums and dads" too. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole but there's obviously a market there, which I'm happy for Holden to exploit if it improves the bottom line, and keeps the deleopment money coming in for the versions that I'm interested in.

Yep I follow what you're saying but if Holden are following that type of logic then the Epica should have been made the smaller capacity, less powered option and left the Commodore with the larger capacity.

Traditionally it has been Commodore V Falcon but it seems now Holden are dropping into the territory of the front drive small capacity V6 manufacturers.

[mac06]

Yep I follow what you're saying but if Holden are following that type of logic then the Epica should have been made the smaller capacity, less powered option and left the Commodore with the larger capacity.

Traditionally it has been Commodore V Falcon but it seems now Holden are dropping into the territory of the front drive small capacity V6 manufacturers.

True, but Holden aren't exactly selling plenty of Epica's. Plus the bread and butter for Holden is local production, not imports. If they can have a bet each way against both the Falcon and Aurion/ Camry market then that's not a bad thing IMO. Most private buyers would be edging towards the 3.6 or 6.0 as their choice of vehicle. The 3.0 would be geared toward the fleet market where the drivers don't get much of a choice. As long as fleet managers feel there is money to be saved on fuel costs they wouldn't care how it drives.

[TheRealMadMax]

Traditionally it has been Commodore V Falcon but it seems now Holden are dropping into the territory of the front drive small capacity V6 manufacturers.

True...just be glad the Commodore is not going the way of the Falcon! E.g. the way of the Dodo.

Truth be told, holden sell far worse cars than the 3.0 Commodore.

[nudenut]

Yep I follow what you're saying but if Holden are following that type of logic then the Epica should have been made the smaller capacity, less powered option and left the Commodore with the larger capacity.
Epica isn't nearly as big as a Commodore though ... whereas no matter what bullshit Toyota sprout about Camry being midsized and Aurion being large, they're the same size.

(The 3.0 is moot for me anyway, if I was buying a new Commodore it'd be a SV6, SS or SS-V Sportwagon. Actually not sure if they make manual SV6 wagons so it'd be an 8 - regardless, if the 3.0 works for enough fleets/people for it to be a sales success, I reckon it's all good.)

[exwrx]

As I understand it, those who have driven a 3.0 VE are saying it is an unrefined turd that needs to have the tits thrashed off it,which negates any potential fuel savings anyway. :)

Hope I got it right.

I have driven it, as well as the falcon 6 and Aurion. I would rank the commodore last in that little comparison, not as a performance car, but as a commuter. IMHO of course. :jester:

[Kuzman89]

I

And planetdavo, if we're going to compare it to a Toyota at least go for the V6, the Aurion. 200kw at 6200rpm and 336nm at 4700rpm. Better than Holdens outgoing V6

Nope, 3.6l SIDI shits all over it, 215kw and 350nm at 2900rpm. Plus it uses less fuel, looks better, handles better. Who wants a fwd piece of shit anyway? The 3.0l wasn't made to compete with the high powered aurion.

[BOOGER]

Nope, 3.6l SIDI shits all over it, 215kw and 350nm at 2900rpm. Plus it uses less fuel, looks better, handles better. Who wants a fwd piece of shit anyway? The 3.0l wasn't made to compete with the high powered aurion.

I was refering to the outgoing V6, the non SIDI one. But you're right, who wants to drive a FWD POS!!

[RAVENLS1]

the falcon shits on them all.!!!!!!!.

[cashie]

the falcon shits on them all.!!!!!!!.

In torque it does, yes.....

[RAVENLS1]

no, the falcon is a better car

[Spoolin]

How many of you guys have actually spent more than a few hours behind the wheel of the cars you are all commenting on?

[Deco28]

It's hard without buying one.

WHy would anyone buy the 3.0l when the SV6 is going for 36k atm!

[CHEECH86]

tell me if im bring a bit radical with my thinking but would they be able to make a v8 version of the SIDI motor and would it be any good?

[planetdavo]

How many of you guys have actually spent more than a few hours behind the wheel of the cars you are all commenting on?

Perhaps your question should be how many of you guys have even driven any of the cars you are commenting on...:idea:
At least I can say that I've had at least a full day in an Aurion, FG 6, alloytec 175 and 190 non-sidi, 3.0 and 3.6 sidi, plus numerous other small and mid size cars.
All in the last 12 months.

[gmh308]

Perhaps your question should be how many of you guys have even driven any of the cars you are commenting on...:idea:
At least I can say that I've had at least a full day in an Aurion, FG 6, alloytec 175 and 190 non-sidi, 3.0 and 3.6 sidi, plus numerous other small and mid size cars.
All in the last 12 months.

And........what do you think of all these?

[Party Pete]

I agree with Davo that the 3.0 isn't a dog, but the installation in a car as big and heavy as the Commodore is marketing wank at its worst. Pretty much every test of the 3.0 has shown that it offers very little if any economy advantage over the 3.6, which is consistent with pretty much every small engine option on cars in the past. That's why historically most buyers, fleet and private, upgrade to the bigger engine when there is a choice. Despite Davo's comments about the smaller engine option being popular, there is no real basis to judge because Holden hasn't made the larger engine an option in the lower models and haven't made the smaller engine available in the higher models. So buyers don't have a direct choice. I would guess that if Holden did allow people to option the bigger engine on the Omega and Berlina, most would go with the bigger motor. The really sad part of all of this is that the smaller engine is not cheaper to make, not lighter or more compact, doesn't offer any real economy advantages and is less pleasant to drive. At least the 4 cylinder Camry is cheap to make and therefore is reflected in the price of the car.

[planetdavo]

The main point to remember Pete, and the basis of my posting all along, is that 3.6 SIDI powered SV6 is by far the main 6 cyl model to private buyers, whom often have different priorities to the fleet buyers that usually buy Omega and Berlina.
These are, of course, the two models powered by the smaller 3.0 motor, with their lower listed fuel average and greenhouse gas emissions.
Since private buyers rarely ever buy new Omega's or Berlina's, and large fleets favour lower fuel usage, what's the real point of offering this motor, other than adding undesirable complexity to the whole production and sale process?
Ford have a 4 cyl Falcon coming. The world has changed.

[planetdavo]

And........what do you think of all these?

Aurion: Generally polished drivetrain, but not sewing machine smooth like some claim, with some shimmies and dud gear choices at times. Good performance and economy, soggy handling, crap hvac controls on lower models, footbrake is poo, clearly a Camry otherwise.
Falcon: Good 6cyl motor, pretty good auto, doesn't moan like a taxi these days, front seats sit too high off the floor. Clear dash layout. Note: most don't have a 6 speed auto standard, they more often have a 5 speed, which seems to be forgotten by most for some reason.
VE 3.6 175 non sidi: crap 4 speed auto, good handling for a base model, light but feelsome steering, seating position better than Falcon (lower), still a good looking car 3 years on, dash plastic looking, but clear. Good boot shape.
VE 3.6 190 high output non sidi: (the car I'm currently driving, a Calais) good performance, sounds better than 175 base version, 5 speed auto much better, but does sometimes hunt around for gears, bigger wheels/better tyres with this motor, so better for "pressing on" a bit. Otherwise, same as above.
VE 3.0 sidi: You notice the reduced torque, but with 50% more gears than the previous base model auto, not bad at all. Quite impressive mid range and top end performance for a 3.0 in a heavy car. Sometimes hunts for gears, but it's quite smooth doing so, not thumping around like 4 speed did. Sounds sweet too. Otherwise, same as earlier VE.
VE 3.6 sidi: Impressive "V8 10 years ago" performance, with good economy. Fitted to cars with better tyres/bigger wheels/firmer suspension (usually), so more impressive for people that like to drive. Auto does it's business with minimal fuss, bit less hunting for gears than 3.0 (having more torque). Sounds good revving it out. Otherwise, same as earlier VE.

[Kuzman89]

VE doesn't have the 190kw engine, thats the VZ SV6, try 195 :1peek:

[Aussie Pete]

Just go to Avis and Hertz etc. Even they don't buy Omegas anymore. I rented an SV6 from Avis during the week and not one povo pack to be seen. All SV6 and one XR6 in the lot. Nice to be able to rent a nice car with some added style and features.

[Party Pete]

The point though Davo is that the 3.0 doesn't appear to deliver any fuel economy benefits in real life despite what the sticker on the windscreen says. It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually runs a fleet whether the smaller motor was a plus or minus in the ordering decision and whether there is any fuel economy diffenece between the 3.6 and 3.0 engines overall in a fleet.

[GHZ28]

Well I can tell you that the Queensland Government, police in particular, are now buying Holdens again now that their fuel consumption figure has dropped to the same as the Aurion etc. Holden had been off the general fleet buying scheme because of its poor fuel economy.....relatively of course.

gh




It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually runs a fleet whether the smaller motor was a plus or minus in the ordering decision and whether there is any fuel economy diffenece between the 3.6 and 3.0 engines overall in a fleet.

[Aussie Pete]

Sounds very familiar. Plenty of examples fo smaller engines being duds in real life including:

- VC Commodore Starfire
- EA Falcon 3.2 (died a quiet death even for the taxis!!!)

Same goes for trucks. Seen examples where a C12 CAT costs more to run than a C15 at 500/1850 in part because the drivers thrash/rev them and you have to run a shorter diff like 4.3s vs 4.1.

[Aussie Pete]

Well I can tell you that the Queensland Government, police in particular, are now buying Holdens again now that their fuel consumption figure has dropped to the same as the Aurion etc. Holden had been off the general fleet buying scheme because of its poor fuel economy.....relatively of course.

gh

This is typical of a government dept - they're just doing it for their compliance to carbon emissions etc - they will use kms x advertisied anyhow which in essence is why Holden have been very smart. Ford will likely do very well when the Econetic 4 pot Falcon comes along.

[planetdavo]

Sounds very familiar. Plenty of examples fo smaller engines being duds in real life including:

- VC Commodore Starfire
- EA Falcon 3.2 (died a quiet death even for the taxis!!!)



Your post continues to make the "assumption" that the 3.0 is a "dud".
It isn't. It is a slightly smaller V6 from the same HFV6 engine family, with slightly less power, correspondingly less torque, and slightly better economy.
Pretty much what most people would expect really!
Comparisons to a starfire or a throttle body injected 3.2 EA are faintly ridiculous mate. 3.0 has all the tech and sidi efficiency of the bigger version. It is not de-specced to inefficient TBI like the EA motor, or missing 33% of it's cylinders like a starfire (based as it was off an already low powered 6 cyl).

[planetdavo]

The point though Davo is that the 3.0 doesn't appear to deliver any fuel economy benefits in real life despite what the sticker on the windscreen says. It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually runs a fleet whether the smaller motor was a plus or minus in the ordering decision and whether there is any fuel economy diffenece between the 3.6 and 3.0 engines overall in a fleet.

We sell heaps of cars to fleets.
There is no point getting into arguments over what cars "are getting" out on the roads. Everyone knows that different people drive cars in different ways. Asking a hard driver will give a car a bad rap, whereas an easy driver will give a car a good rap. Plus, sidi has only been out a fairly short period of time.
They usually work off the adr figures, as it's the only way to have a true comparative figure. Whether it translates to the real world is more down to the boof pressing the go pedal...:yup:

[planetdavo]

Just go to Avis and Hertz etc. Even they don't buy Omegas anymore. I rented an SV6 from Avis during the week and not one povo pack to be seen. All SV6 and one XR6 in the lot. Nice to be able to rent a nice car with some added style and features.

This is done for resale reasons, as SV6 is the best selling private buyer model. Makes them more popular used too.
More and more fleets do this now. It's exactly why police fleets have all these SS pursuit cars now, rather than special build base models.
Worth more later on.

[ryno]

Im not sure that the 3.0L is a dog its just not as enthusastic as the marketing gurus made the engine out to be.

While the gearbox does hunt around a bit overall the car is about the same as the model it replaced with a little more refinement (and only a little)

At the end of the day Holden gives us 3 choices of engine, buy the car that suits your driving and financial needs.

[planetdavo]

Im not sure that the 3.0L is a dog its just not as enthusastic as the marketing gurus made the engine out to be.

While the gearbox does hunt around a bit overall the car is about the same as the model it replaced with a little more refinement (and only a little)

At the end of the day Holden gives us 3 choices of engine, buy the car that suits your driving and financial needs.

Hype does often fail to meet expectations, especially to "enthusiusts"...:hide:
For the various negative posters, we could have had the non sidi 2.8 they've been fitting to some overseas Statesman's for a while...:teach:

[HULK_BA]

lets be honest. Many on here say the 3.0 commodore is not meant to be compared to the aurion or falcon. But its priced the same so it should be compared.

The last decent 6 made by holden is the old supercharged v6. It might have only 170kw but 380nm at 3000rpm = goodbye sidi.

[michaels1v8]

Doesnt really surprise me.

I didnt think the old 195 alloytech was that underpowered anyway?:confused:

Even the 175 seemed pretty decent.

Maybe you lot need to grow up a bit and stop looking at them like they are sports cars :stick:

[Tecca]

Doesnt really surprise me.

I didnt think the old 195 alloytech was that underpowered anyway?:confused:

Even the 175 seemed pretty decent.

Maybe you lot need to grow up a bit and stop looking at them like they are sports cars :stick:

I agree with you Michael. For a everyday driver/cruiser the 175-195/SIDI are perfect! plenty of go and still a lot of fun to drive. If you are after every pony out of an engine just buy a V8 as simple as that. Never understood the argument about a V6 vs V8. At the end of the day the sixes will never achieve all that much power that most people are hunting for. Yet They still have enough power to get up and go and lose your license 3x over. IMO the SIDI would have me satisfied until i grow up and can get behind the wheel of a V8 (i want to be atleast 25 years old.)

[Kuzman89]

The last decent 6 made by holden is the old supercharged v6. It might have only 170kw but 380nm at 3000rpm = goodbye sidi.

:rofl:

haha, you just gave yourself away... again! Piss off back to the ford forums.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. :flip2:

For starters the SIDI is an NA engine, so uses MUCH less fuel, whilst still being able to flog the super six in its DOWNTUNED state!!

It's better then the 4.0l na ford barra in terms of performance and fuel also. Best Holden V6

[Ghia351]

This is done for resale reasons, as SV6 is the best selling private buyer model. Makes them more popular used too.
More and more fleets do this now. It's exactly why police fleets have all these SS pursuit cars now, rather than special build base models.
Worth more later on.This threads useless anyway so I may as well go a little o/t, on my way to my car after returning from the UAE at the end of Jan I spotted several XR6's in the Melb airport Avis carpark amongst all the SV6's. No Omega's were obvious so the fleet is definately up specced now as you pointed Davo, bear in mind I landed at 11.30pm after 14 hrs although it was 1st class (very, very lucky) I could have sworn that they were purely Holden in Vic in the large class since I ever began hiring cars in 1983. I think the bigger issue for Holden is whether the export markets can pick-up so money can be spent on the next major upgrades. I think Lutz has lost his influence completely and having come back from the UAE that area isn't going to pick-up for a while.

[Wonky]

Update: he recently took it to Calder - as far as I know he'd never had any car at the drags before. He just drove it in off the street on 20s.

His comments follow: First run didn’t warm the tires for the take off, wasn’t keen on smoking 20’s, so just drove straight through the wet patch they put down and took off at the green light, wheel span 1st and 2nd gear massively (flippen wet tires) and ran a 15.41 at 148km/h, crossed the line almost hitting rev limiter in 3rd.

Second run i dropped the tire pressures, smoked the tires at the start line, and just before the light turned green i thought it might be a good idea to turn traction control on (it was a bad idea)! Car carried on like an old woman off the line, bogged down and felt like was gonna stall, and when i grabbed second gear the traction kicked in again and bogged down on the gear change. Still that run it did a 14.98 at 156km/h crossing the line in 4th.

Lining up for the 3rd run a car decided to blow up half track in a big ball of fire and oil all over the track so didn’t get to run again.

Not a bad time for a novice running on 20s with a stock V6 - obviously room for improvement. :)

[Kuzman89]

thats damn good, considering he has no experience, what size tyres on the back? 245/35/20?

When he gets abit of practice, a 14.5 wouldn't be too hard I imagine.

[macca_779]

Not bad for a v6 considering the low torque they output and having to pull a fat ve around.
As powerfull as these 6's are these days. Torque and power to weight always prevail. Moral of the story 200 odd kw today doesn't get you as far as it used to as my old vn ss was quicker with only 180kw

[Wonky]

thats damn good, considering he has no experience, what size tyres on the back? 245/35/20?

I think so, will check next time I see him.

[planetdavo]

Not bad for a v6 considering the low torque they output and having to pull a fat ve around.
As powerfull as these 6's are these days. Torque and power to weight always prevail. Moral of the story 200 odd kw today doesn't get you as far as it used to as my old vn ss was quicker with only 180kw

Similar performance from a family friendly V6 motor whilst using around two thirds the fuel, perhaps even less. The V8's will sh!t all over a VN V8 now, whilst using no more fuel than the VN, often less.
That's where the progress is.

[macca_779]

Similar performance from a family friendly V6 motor whilst using around two thirds the fuel, perhaps even less. The V8's will sh!t all over a VN V8 now, whilst using no more fuel than the VN, often less.
That's where the progress is.

Stock tune's in both and its actually pretty close Davo. When my Senator was stock it used more than my VN did. Approx 1.0L more per 100km on the highway.. Thats weight for ya. But I agree on progress. The fact that a heavy VE can get similar economy is astounding.