How far forward have we come?

[Bingo BIlly]

I have a concern relating to the performance levels of our V6 commodores. Im thinking about how far we have come in the last 20 years

1. The VN commodore executive came to us with a new 3.8V6 with 127kw and 290nm with spirited performance at that time, criticised for being too quick off the mark, recognised as running low 16s down the quarter and 0-100 in around 9 seconds from stand still

2. The VS commodore executive came to us in 1995 and brought a more progressive delivery of power, 147kw 304nm, bit more up top but overall about the same performance with the VN, this motor largely powered us right through to vy

3. The VE has played with a 3.6 and 3.0 V6, more kw than the old motors but less torque? Has the omega offered any more performance than the vn to vs and upto vy? Has it offerred any better fuel economy either??

Have we gone forward?

[steve_t]

Yeah, isn't the story for V8s even more impressive?

[ratter]

Outright power is not normally what the 6 cylinder passenger range of cars is about.
Have we gone forward, yes we have try getting an earlier car to meet todays emission standards and see how far we have advanced.

You may not appreciate it but your grandkids may.

[XLR8 V8]

9 off topics posts deleted so far. :mad:
While some people may not like this thread, and believe we shouldn't be talking about anything without 8 spark pugs in it, I would like to remind you that this is the Australian LS1 and HOLDEN forums. Discussions about V6's are still welcome here, and is a damn sight better than reading yet another "What phone should I buy?" thread.
If you don't have anything constructive to add to this discussion, then do not post in this thread.

[feistl]

Its pretty straight forward...

The V6 versions are not performance based, therefore the power level isnt that important.

The VN was quick because it was bloody light, but wasnt very safe (even when it came out).

Todays VEs are heavier and much much safer. The engines are much more economical, nicer to drive and although the torque isnt great the gearboxes get the most out of them.

My mother doesnt need to do 0-100km in 5 seconds, she needs to do 0 - the shops economically.

Just a quick look shows the Buick V6 had 125kw in a 1335kg car. The new 3L V6 has 190kw in 1685KG. So the cars got ~300kg heavier yet is more economical. It has better power to weight and very good reliability.

As for the whole "torque" arguement... The VN had 288nm where as the 3/3.6L has 290/350nm.

[Phizzle]

My mother doesnt need to do 0-100km in 5 seconds, she needs to do 0 - the shops economically.

That just about sums it up right there!

[SAMCRO]

After owning a VY V6 Supercharged a must say it was a clever move from holden to move onto engines that are more economical and still produces more power. The supercharged engine was 170 kw, from memory, but it was very thirsty, 15-16L around town and when I compare it to the stock VE SS that I had the difference is rather amazingly surprising.. My VE SS averaged 12L. Never went above 14L, pretty good stuff for a heavy 6.0L V8 ain't it??? So.... we have come pretty far I reckon... :goodjob:

[Holden Nut]

To answer the question have we gone foward in terms of performance? Not overly IMO, although the high performance version of the 3.6L motors are quite good compared to what they replaced. In saying that as everyone else has said straight line performance isn't the main focus with these motors, and aside from straight line performance the newer motos are a vast improvement in every other way possible IMO.

[planetdavo]

What we currently have are much, much better cars for similar money to 15 years ago.
Safety standards dictate heavier, stronger structures now, cars are physically bigger to suit fatter buyers, equipment levels on even Omega spec cars are pretty high and fuel economy has improved. Yes it takes more power to move more metal, but doing so whilst reducing fuel use?
To have a more reliable, higher equipped, better made, similar performing car for similar money to 15 years ago, that's more economical indicates the progress that has really occured.
So, we all know you love your traffic light warrior scenario's billy, but the real progress is in what was described above.

[commodorenut]

Whether or not they have a better or worse power (or torque) to weight ratio compared to the VN of 20 years ago, the engine is only one part of an overall vehicle (and a part that many buyers couldn't care less about) but there are many, many more other improvements that have taken place which are actually noticed by the Joe Average buyer/driver.

Compare a VE Omega to a VN Exec - both dead stock.

The VE can actually go around corners at a decent speed.
The VE can brake more than twice down a hill without terrible fade.
The VE rides better.
The VE aircon is a vast improvement.
The VE steering is far better.
The VE switchgear & controls are far better - both in quality, and ease of use.

And not to mention the improvements in safety - passive and active - the VN did not have ESP, ABS or SRS.


Once you get used to the way the Alloytec delivers it's power, and learn how to make it perform, it's not a bad engine, and is quite capable in the VE.
The economy you can get out of the base motor, lugging all that weight around, is simply staggering compared to 20 years ago.

Make it 26 years & compare it to a carby VK 3.3L and you'll really appreciate it.

[VYBerlinaV8]

In real terms, cars are far better than 20 years ago. They are far cheaper (in terms of average income to cost), far better equipped, more reliable, handle better, and are more economical.

That said, there is one thing I don't like, being less choice of engine/gearbox/body/trim level. I can't option a V8 into a base model any more. Years ago I could order a base model wagon with a V8 manual if I wanted to. One of the reasons I bought my Berlina is that I DIDN'T want to turn heads. I want to be left alone to enjoy my car.

We need to remember that the vast majority of cars are owned by people that couldn't tell you the engine capacity and power/torque outputs of their car. These people care more about whether it's comfortable, looks good, and has enough buttons to press.

[Bingo BIlly]

One of the good points is how the price has stayed the same.

A vs exec drive away was around $30k, ve omega isnt much more. I can almost forgive the stagnate performance with all the other features

[701let]

One of the good points is how the price has stayed the same.

A vs exec drive away was around $30k, ve omega isnt much more. I can almost forgive the stagnate performance with all the other features

Did you read anything they said? The 'performance' increase on these vehicles is due to emissions and drivability... People that buy these cars don't buy them to race people at traffic lights...

[Bingo BIlly]

Looking at your rationale...

If we compare the vs ecotec v6 against the vk 3.3, how come we get markedly increased performance, emissions, drivability, economy.

It seems that from vs to ve, we have not made the same inroads, yes some increase in economy and emissions but no extra
Performance.

Just consider the movement from vk 3.3 to vs 3.8v6 and then look at movement to ve?? Have a look at how the ford i6 has moved over the same period, they didnt forget about performance.

Then you will see my point.

[Steve-LS2]

Looking at your rationale...

If we compare the vs ecotec v6 against the vk 3.3, how come we get markedly increased performance, emissions, drivability, economy.

It seems that from vs to ve, we have not made the same inroads, yes some increase in economy and emissions but no extra
Performance.

Just consider the movement from vk 3.3 to vs 3.8v6 and then look at movement to ve?? Have a look at how the ford i6 has moved over the same period, they didnt forget about performance.

Then you will see my point.

What are you acutally trying to say??

The 3.3 was an evolution of a 30 year old design, it eventually had EFI slapped on the top and was still average, I know, I have owned both in a VK, Holden didn't want to spend millions on the good ole 202 so they went with the Nissan motor.

Then they adopted the Buick 3.6 which had already been dumped in the states and IMO was originally a terrible motor. A boat anchor correctly describes it.

You seem to continue talking about performance, if you want a performance 6, go and get a Skyline or a Supra.

Holden 6's (except for GTR XU1) were never designed for performance. PERIOD.

What can't you see about that??? :confused:

VK to VS - 12 years

VS to VE - 10 years

Is the the VE, as an overall package, better than the VS? Absolutely.

Do people who buy a VE Omega buy it to be a traffic light warrior? Absolutely NOT!

[ADAM 26]

the early commodores are a good car, as long as they are serviced, they seem to go for ever! the old buick 6 seem to go forever! they are not a bad motor by any means!

my first car was a vn. it was a great car, coped a floggin and it still lives today!

but they are not a performance car. but if you want to complain about the v6 commodores, have a drive of a stock ve with a v8 auto. they are VERY disopointing really, when you think your getting into a 6.0L v8 you would expect performance.

[brentonsav]

also, the asking prices for each havent moved any faster than inflation so in my eyes we have definately gone forward.

the vn-vr v6 was a good motor though, but used as much fuel as my vx ss which is around what my ve gts uses so i've gone from 100rwkw to 220rwkw to 300rwkw without much change in fuel economy.

[peter b]

To be fair if you are looking at buying a V6 commodore main concerns wouldn't be power but fuel consumption etc.
Saying that we haven't come very far well you will actually need to look at and understand each motor. The buick V6 was a cast iron single cam labelled oddfire V6 due to originally starting life as a V8 which they decided to chop off two cylinders. Was good for its day but used a lot of fuel and has a fairly rough idle, noisey and given time leaks from every seal.
Then they went to the Ecotec in the VS-VY making minor changes as they went. Had different head design and better inlet manifold and injection setup however while it used less fuel than the VN-VR V6 it was still quite thirsty and still has a rough idle. (When I say rough idle not meaning rough like cammed V8 just not exactly what I would call smooth)
Move onto the Alloytec whilst may make less torque. It uses less fuel, is very responsive where you want it to be low-mid range (being fair if you want top end don't buy a 6 cylinder) idles really smooth (can balance a 50 cent piece on top of the engine whilst running), has its own form of variable cam timing so if they wanted to they could have tuned it to make more power but with sacrifice to the smooth idle. (You wouldn't believe how many complaints I had when working at Holden in regards to the idle of the older V6).
Now in todays market the V6 commodore is aimed as a family car meaning good on fuel for trips around town and the long trips. Big enough to hold luggage, equip etc, big enough back seat for kids and kid seats. Also a big factor now is safety. If you look at car for car they have improved quite dramatically and as far as engine and engine operating systems no comparison.
Sorry for the long story but to compare with the ford 6 the engine is essentially a 250 cross flow with decades of development. Yes they do have power increases but it is also a Big 6 cylinder so might make more torque etc it doesn't quite match the fuel consumption of the Alloytec. And from personal experience found them to be a little doughy down low.

[csv rulz]

I had a VT V6 which i put on dual fuel at 180,000km. I sold it 3 years later with 330,000km. While it went well enough for a base car, it was very coarse when you got stuck into it. However it was absolutly bullet proof. I use to get 7L/100km on the highway and 9L/100km around town. The guy who bought it, is still driving it around (close to 400,000km) and he loves it. Those who say the 3.8L ecotec are a boat anchor are wrong in my opinion. While it wasnt fast or as smooth as the new engines, it was bloody reliable and had more than enough grunt for a base car. My partner use to love driving it, and missed it when we sold it.
The VE havnt moved along in fuel economy or performance due to one reason in my opinion - weight. They are so big and heavy now. But i guess that is the trade off for a safer car.

[feistl]

Looking at your rationale...

If we compare the vs ecotec v6 against the vk 3.3, how come we get markedly increased performance, emissions, drivability, economy.

It seems that from vs to ve, we have not made the same inroads, yes some increase in economy and emissions but no extra
Performance.

Because there is a point in time where technology evolves very quickly, but there are also times where more improvements get harder and harder.

Yes, jumping from the old carby 3.3L motors to the 3.8 EFI was a big jump forward. Once you get to a certain level of power you dont really need anymore (For the average buyer).

So the focus was moved from power (which once we got EFI was enough) to safety and economy. There isn't much market demand for a 300kw V6 commodore... We have the V8 for that.

Most people are more than happy with about 75kw/ton as it gets them around, so if there is no customer demand why spend all your reseach budget on better engines?

However many "mum and dad" buyers do demand better economy (as they are suffering budget pressures) and better safety (As their childrens life is much more important than 0-100km/h times).

Looking forward 20 years i dont see power figures going up too much more. I mean how much power does a family car really require? I see economy levels being the primary focus.

[fishla]

but they are not a performance car. but if you want to complain about the v6 commodores, have a drive of a stock ve with a v8 auto. they are VERY disopointing really, when you think your getting into a 6.0L v8 you would expect performance.

My Auto VE V8 ran 13.7 (stock with catback) @ Calder park (L76 AFM motor too)

Must've been built on a Tuesday?!! :confused:

[mac06]

As has basically already been said, 15-20 years ago more power was regarded as the aim. Nowadays it's all about fuel economy. Those chasing power go for a V8. The 3.0L V6 is more than adequate for most people.

I just wonder if in the future Holden will look at making slightly smaller Commodores in an effort to reduce weight. As long as the interior room is not markedly smaller that would perhaps be acceptable. Not going to happen short term, but perhaps long term. That would improve the power and fuel ecomony at the same time.

[fishla]

As has basically already been said, 15-20 years ago more power was regarded as the aim. Nowadays it's all about fuel economy. Those chasing power go for a V8. The 3.0L V6 is more than adequate for most people.

I just wonder if in the future Holden will look at making slightly smaller Commodores in an effort to reduce weight. As long as the interior room is not markedly smaller that would perhaps be acceptable. Not going to happen short term, but perhaps long term. That would improve the power and fuel ecomony at the same time.

But that would take away from them making money!
Hey look, we have 325kw GTS now, but don't worry, we've added more weight too :smilesandbanana:

So give it a few years and the 3.6l V6 will be a rocketship in a VL or something :jester::eyes:

[Marco]

I think the answer is more that Holden has gone for a two-prong V6 strategy: the 3.0 for people who want very good fuel economy and good-enough performance, and the 3.6 for people who want good-enough economy and very good performance.

Look at it this way - the 3.0 VE is about as fast as the VN or VS ever were, but uses a lot less fuel while carrying around a much stronger, safer bodyshell. To most non-enthusiast car buyers, this is exactly what they want. I've never heard my wife say anything about wanting more performance - not even when she owned a 3 cylinder Charade! - but I know she cares about the environment and about our family's safety.

[Bingo BIlly]

but they are not a performance car. but if you want to complain about the v6 commodores, have a drive of a stock ve with a v8 auto. they are VERY disopointing really, when you think your getting into a 6.0L v8 you would expect performance.

Please elaborate on how you form that conclusion? I have a auto 5.7 and when you nail it, it dont hang around.

Performance in the v8 has changed the whole game in the same time period. Old 165kw V8s are lucky to run with a stock ford i6 these days. But the new generation of v8s ls1/ls2/ls3 really hammer with regard to performance.

But the 6s havent moved (the holden 6s)

[Steve-LS2]

Please elaborate on how you form that conclusion? I have a auto 5.7 and when you nail it, it dont hang around.

Performance in the v8 has changed the whole game in the same time period. Old 165kw V8s are lucky to run with a stock ford i6 these days. But the new generation of v8s ls1/ls2/ls3 really hammer with regard to performance.

But the 6s havent moved (the holden 6s)

So going from a 125kW, thirsty, sluggish engine to a 195kW revvy, fairly economical engine is not progress??

The Holden V8 and old Chev SB V8 engines were limited by design.

The new range of LS engines had EFI, Individual Coils, better heads, and a different firing sequence, all to maximise power and economy.

The V6 in Holdens case has dropped in cubic capacity while maintaining all the traits that customers require.

Just because it isn't as Torquey as Fords 4 litre motor which is essentially the same as it was 40 years ago, just with EFI added is not what is being debated here.

[feistl]

Please elaborate on how you form that conclusion? I have a auto 5.7 and when you nail it, it dont hang around.

Performance in the v8 has changed the whole game in the same time period. Old 165kw V8s are lucky to run with a stock ford i6 these days. But the new generation of v8s ls1/ls2/ls3 really hammer with regard to performance.

But the 6s havent moved (the holden 6s)

Actually billy using your logic, The VT Series I V8s had 195kw (220kw for the stroked version) yet the VT Series II GTS had 300kw. So that was a massive jump, yet 12 years later and were only making 325kw?

So a 80kw jump in 6 months vs a 25kw in 12 years. Wheres the progress?/?

[csv rulz]

Sorry if im out of line but Bingo billy i can't but help get the feeling you come onto this forum purely to bag holdens and stir people.

The reason the holden v6 hasnt got any quicker is weight of the car which is due to safety and size.

[SLugg]

and yet again he provokes a response , If you think BB is being a pita dont respond to his threads there endeth the lesson....

[peter b]

To put it nicely when the alloytec came out a guy in the us strapped two turbos onto it as a standard motor and ran low 9's now for a stock engine with boost sorry but I would love to see a stock ecotec handle that.

[Wonky]

Sorry if im out of line but Bingo billy i can't but help get the feeling you come onto this forum purely to bag holdens and stir people.

My thoughts too when the inevitable happened - he just had to find a way to mention the I6....... :(

[Carby]

It's funny seeing all the different memories of the old Holden 6's and I for one have in the main quite fond memories of them.

The old 202 was a strong unspohisticated motor that could be easily tarted up to go quite decently - problem was, that in any form it drank too much fuel.

The VL's motor to me was just not right for a Holden. It was beautifully smooth and refined and enjoyed a rev compared to the 202 's but it's torque was woeful. With the family of five onboard on a long trip it was just gutless down low and not really Holden like!

When the VN motor came along I thought it was great, great torque from just about idle and surprisingly good fuel economy - to my mind much better than the NA Nissan 3.0 L despite it being noted as a rattly (noisy ) motor.

The 3.8 litres that followed were much the same with just modest performance upgrades until the Alloytech motor came. Holden should have won an award with this motor for enduing it with all the bad things from the 3.8 buick motor. For a motor that had impressive spec's it sounded no better than the old Buick mill!

The latest six's are OK but I wish Holden would have stuck with a straight 6 - they are inherently a better design, and probably why the Falcon six is a better motor.

[VYBerlinaV8]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think the old 3.8 litre v6 was actually pretty good. It didn't sound great, but it produced good torque with great fuel economy. It was also reliable.

Sure, it'll never go down as one of the greats, but for daily driving, it was pretty good I reckon.

[Steele304VS]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think the old 3.8 litre v6 was actually pretty good. It didn't sound great, but it produced good torque with great fuel economy. It was also reliable.

Sure, it'll never go down as one of the greats, but for daily driving, it was pretty good I reckon.

What 3.8L, the Buick or the GM 3.8L ecotec? I'm so confused reading through this thread.

Can someone please help me with these questions.
1. Is the 3.8L buick ie vn-vr an Australian owned/made motor? and did it have a cast iron block?

2. Is the old 5L built/owned in Aus?

3. When did they introduce the alloytech? was that the VY alloy blocks?

thanks a lot

[BLACKVE]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think the old 3.8 litre v6 was actually pretty good. It didn't sound great, but it produced good torque with great fuel economy. It was also reliable.

Sure, it'll never go down as one of the greats, but for daily driving, it was pretty good I reckon.

Yep 2 valves per cyl pushrod design but did the job well with reliablity, the torque less 3.6 with a 4sp auto is terrible considering the technology in it:spew:

[triumph]

Without adding more fuel to the fire, ALL average road cars generally need the power and torque available low down in the rev range. That is most every day drivers are going to the shops etc or towing a trailer etc. So the stated values by manufactures at high rpm are generally useless (what is available in the 2-3000rpm range is what is important). Manufacturers (both ford and holden) are starting to develop motors that meet the needs of the average daily driver with the values of both power and torque in the rpm range that is used more frequnecy by the driver than those stated by manufacturers with a peak value at high rpm that are useless to the daily driver.

[commodorenut]

What 3.8L, the Buick or the GM 3.8L ecotec? I'm so confused reading through this thread.

Can someone please help me with these questions.
1. Is the 3.8L buick ie vn-vr an Australian owned/made motor? and did it have a cast iron block?

2. Is the old 5L built/owned in Aus?

3. When did they introduce the alloytech? was that the VY alloy blocks?

thanks a lot
Answers:
1. The original VN 3.8L was almost a direct lift out of the USA, with local tuning & adaptation to rear drive. It was manufactured in Fisherman's bend.
The first physical upgrade was wholly Aussie designed - altering the manifold to move the thermostat to the front, among other improvements the Aussies made.

All VN-VY V6s were cast iron blocks & cast iron heads.

2. The Holden 5L (and the 253/304/308 predecessors) are all Australian - the design was influenced by the small block Chev of the 60s, but with our own local improvements, and it was entirely Australian cast, machined & assembled. It ran from 1969 to 1999 as an all-Aussie motor.

3. The alloytec debuted in the VZ.

[The-V8-Power]

Wasn't the Buick V6 originally an 8 with two cylinders chopped off?
Obviously a bit more work involved than just removing two cylinders like that with the block having to be made a different size and all.
But I did hear once or twice that it was originally an 8 that was made to be a V6 for more uses.
I am happy to be proven wrong since I am not sure if this is fact or fiction.

[commodorenut]

Wasn't the Buick V6 originally an 8 with two cylinders chopped off?
Yes it was - which is one of the key reasons for the balance shaft.
The original design dated back into the '50s.

[vyls1wa]

Wasn't the Buick V6 originally an 8 with two cylinders chopped off?
Obviously a bit more work involved than just removing two cylinders like that with the block having to be made a different size and all.
But I did hear once or twice that it was originally an 8 that was made to be a V6 for more uses.
I am happy to be proven wrong since I am not sure if this is fact or fiction.



ahhhh goooooogle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V6_engine

[Bingo BIlly]

I thought the buick v6 was a torquey motor. More than a match for the ford i6 of that vintage.

It seems holden backed off the performance of the alloytec and ford kept its foot right down.

I was part of the advertising program for the alloytec v6, i made my views known at the time, they were trying to market it as a performance 6, i told them real performance buyers will get the v8, they didnt listen.

[macca_779]

I thought the buick v6 was a torquey motor. More than a match for the ford i6 of that vintage.

It seems holden backed off the performance of the alloytec and ford kept its foot right down.

I was part of the advertising program for the alloytec v6, i made my views known at the time, they were trying to market it as a performance 6, i told them real performance buyers will get the v8, they didnt listen.

The V6 was never really a match for the I6 when it came down to low speed torque tractability.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

[Bingo BIlly]

I did a bit of homework and it seems the fords i6 are a little slow to about 80km/h but then on the owners harp on how it will kill the v6 holden from there.

If the holden v6 is better in the sprints to 60km/h and 80km/h isnt that the road speed we travel 99% of the time?

[feistl]

If the holden v6 is better in the sprints to 60km/h and 80km/h isnt that the road speed we travel 99% of the time?

Yes, but most people arnt interested in drag racing. The only time they want/need power is overtaking on the freeway or towing a trailer. So the torque on the I6 is much better for overtaking, therefore a better package.

I used to have a manual VR wagon, and that buick V6 went pretty well. With an exhaust, intake and tune matched with the manual it was pretty quick off the line and fuel economy was around 10L/100km. It wasnt a bad engine for the time, reliable as hell.

[HYMEY]

To put it nicely when the alloytec came out a guy in the us strapped two turbos onto it as a standard motor and ran low 9's now for a stock engine with boost sorry but I would love to see a stock ecotec handle that.

Somethin that I would like to try! The V6 is certainly very smooth, probably the smoothest power delivery u would get of the majority of cars sold here in Aus. I was thinking a twin turbo kit would be nice. They still are a little thirsty though around town and open road I drove one for a week of mixed driving and got 12.5L/100km.

[Phizzle]

Somethin that I would like to try! The V6 is certainly very smooth, probably the smoothest power delivery u would get of the majority of cars sold here in Aus. I was thinking a twin turbo kit would be nice. They still are a little thirsty though around town and open road I drove one for a week of mixed driving and got 12.5L/100km.

YouTube - Twin turbo V6

I think I remember this one having 600 odd hp at the fly. Was awhile ago so the memory is a bit sketchy on it, but it was fully built, big twins and all the good stuff. To get 9's they must've been leaning on it HARD. But then again, I guess it only had to last one pass down the strip to do a 9. The one above was a daily, full weight.

Edit: Here's the article http://autospeed.com/cms/title_NOSd-TTd-VS/A_2461/article.html
298rwkw, 378rwkw with NoS. And the turbos are baby T28's!!

[HYMEY]

I remember Vince Rigoli built it

[Steele304VS]

Answers:
1. The original VN 3.8L was almost a direct lift out of the USA, with local tuning & adaptation to rear drive. It was manufactured in Fisherman's bend.
The first physical upgrade was wholly Aussie designed - altering the manifold to move the thermostat to the front, among other improvements the Aussies made.

All VN-VY V6s were cast iron blocks & cast iron heads.

2. The Holden 5L (and the 253/304/308 predecessors) are all Australian - the design was influenced by the small block Chev of the 60s, but with our own local improvements, and it was entirely Australian cast, machined & assembled. It ran from 1969 to 1999 as an all-Aussie motor.

3. The alloytec debuted in the VZ.

thanks heaps for that... i was confused for ages. :) i wish we still made our own V8's

[planetdavo]

Most Holden's ran 3.08 diff gears 20 years ago, but many model are now running taller 2.xx ratio's.
This is the one and only reason we have not gone forward over this period.

[SS Enforcer]

The cars are getting heavier with each model yet still they improve in performance and fuel economy which is a good effort IMHO.

Compare the fat and overweight VE with a VC for example.

cheers

[SLugg]

heres a good test hop in a vc and have ahead on with a ve , then the ve driver can phone for an ambulance to take the vc driver to the morgue , its not just about economy and performance but saving lives.

[1BEAST2NV]

They got plenty more to go yet, well they better.....

Plenty of engine options out there now so there's no excuses..

But ffs, design a new body :)

there's only so many series we can take!!!!!

[wikky]

there's only so many series we can take!!!!!

:confused: The series 2 has only just been released.....

[HSVREDSLED]

heres a good test hop in a vc and have ahead on with a ve , then the ve driver can phone for an ambulance to take the vc driver to the morgue , its not just about economy and performance but saving lives.

I have a little different theory on things.

Driving the VC, losing control (in the wet) was not an automatic thing. You did get some warning, generally at low speed, and time enough to adjust your driving. (ie) slow down. Therefore most accidents were at a lower speed.

Modern cars hang on waaaay better, but when they let go, they really let go, and there is next to no time to react due to the increased speed resulting in greater impacts.

I cant believe the speeds that people do in modern cars these days in torrential rain.

[feistl]

Modern cars hang on waaaay better, but when they let go, they really let go, and there is next to no time to react due to the increased speed resulting in greater impacts.

I cant believe the speeds that people do in modern cars these days in torrential rain.

There is some truth to that. If your driving an older/crap car doing 120kp/h feels bloody fast and you get that "rush" However in a more modern car you hardly notice your doing that speed... To get the same rush you really need to be moving

[SS Enforcer]

heres a good test hop in a vc and have ahead on with a ve , then the ve driver can phone for an ambulance to take the vc driver to the morgue , its not just about economy and performance but saving lives.

Im talking about the weight difference the VE is quicker whilst heavier which is a big achievement IMHO.

cheers