PDA

View Full Version : VZ Commodore: Fuel economy doubt for V6



SSbaby
23-07-2004, 02:46 PM
Article courtesy of GoAuto (http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/2C73E371BED2D289CA256EDA000932FD)
A load off: The Alloytec engine's weight has been confirmed at 168kg – around 10kg less than the current Ecotec V6.

Holden's new Alloytec engine may chew as much fuel as the engine it replaces

By MARTON PETTENDY 23 July 2004

HOLDEN has conceded the all-new $400 million Global V6 that will power Commodore from next month’s facelifted VZ is unlikely to be any more fuel efficient than the Buick-based 3.8-litre cast-iron pushrod V6 employed by Commodore since 1988.

Officially, the Global V6 press blurb states that "Alloytec produces significant increases in torque and power with a lower capacity engine that delivers fuel efficiency on par with the outgoing 3800 engine – historically recognised as a very efficient V6 powerplant".

Specific fuel consumption figures for the new all-alloy DOHC V6 – in either 175kW/320Nm Alloytec or 190kW/340Nm Alloytec 190 guise – will not be released until all VZ Commodore variants are weighed and compared with their 3.8-litre predecessors.

However it seems the new 3.6-litre engine is unlikely to be more efficient than its forebear, with Holden executives refusing to confirm whether the new engine, which features four valves per cylinder compared to just two in the current engine, would be more economical.

The outgoing Ecotec 3.8 delivers ADR81/01 combined fuel consumption of 11.3 litres per 100km in base Commodore form. Its closest rival, Ford’s Falcon, consumes fuel at 11.5L/100km – just 200ml more per 100km – and was roundly criticised at launch for its excessive fuel consumption.

Meantime, Alloytec’s weight has been confirmed at 168kg – around 10kg less than the current Ecotec V6 – which Holden claims is "fairly competitive" with other new V6s. It is believed the weight savings realised by aluminium construction are largely offset by the extra weight of Alloytec’s more complex 12-valve cylinder heads and three more camshafts.

Holden also confirmed at the Global V6 launch that a turbocharged version of the engine would be produced "within the next 12 months", but it is unlikely to power any Commodore variants in the short term.

And while Holden is confident the reduction in displacement over the previous engine will not be perceived by consumers as a retrograde step, it has been quick to point out that capacities of up to 3.8 litres are possible with Alloytec.

It also admits that 3.6 litres is the "safe range" and that developments with linerless cylinder blocks would need to occur before Alloytec grew any larger.

Holden is currently ramping down assembly of Ecotec V6 while it ramps up production of Alloytec V6, shipments of which are already heading to Mexico for fitment in Buick models.

Built at the rate of 586 per day as of last week, Alloytec will be built in numbers of 960 per day by the third quarter of 2005, with a total of 2500 VZ Commodore engines being 18 ahead of target.

Available to manufacturers in 2.8, 3.2 and 3.6-litre displacements via a combination of two cylinder stroke lengths and two cylinder bore widths, Global V6 will power models as diverse as Saab, Alfa Romeo and Cadillac.

According to one Holden insider, it has also attracted interest from many non-General Motors car-makers – including "some that might surprise" – and that by the end of the decade it will power vehicles from a "surprising number" of manufacturers globally.


Holden plans hybrid
By BRUCE NEWTON

HOLDEN boss Denny Mooney has confirmed the new Alloytec V6 engine will form part of a petrol-electric hybrid powertrain that could be on sale in Australia in five years.

Speaking at last week’s Alloytec launch in Melbourne, Mr Mooney also confirmed that a V8 hybrid was on the cards, no doubt based on the forthcoming LS2 6.0-litre unit which has only just been launched in the US in the C6 Corvette.

"We’re working on some alternatives," Mr Mooney said. "I really hope that ultimately we have a hybrid Holden product.

"It would be one that we would develop. I’m sure it would use General Motors technology – we can’t afford to develop that ourselves, but we’re working on enough different V6, V8 alternatives that we could package ourselves."

Mr Mooney’s comments are in contrast to his predecessor Peter Hanenberger, who was a fan of fuel cells rather than hybrids, although he recognised the latter would have to be employed as a bridging technology.

"As time goes on it looks like there are a lot of infrastructure issues with fuel cell," Mr Mooney said.

"I mean, I think that fuel cell may be the ultimate solution to get over this oil dependency, but the reality is that things are looking further and further out."

Whichever alternate powertrain comes in vogue, it should not affect Holden's co-operation with the CSIRO on super-capacitor technology, as it is applicable to both hybrid and fuel cells.

SSbaby
23-07-2004, 02:53 PM
I like this quote...


According to one Holden insider, it has also attracted interest from many non-General Motors car-makers – including "some that might surprise" – and that by the end of the decade it will power vehicles from a "surprising number" of manufacturers globally.

News flash... Ford to use GM HFV6!!! :lol:

Not wanting to bag DOHCs but OHVs certainly have their advantages.

Danv8
23-07-2004, 02:59 PM
If the new wizzbang V6 is not as efficient over the OHV 3800 donk thats pretty dissapointing.

Although when I had me VP wagon the V6 was very frugal on fuel.

SSbaby
23-07-2004, 03:00 PM
To put the new Alloytec into some perspective, BMW 6s have long been the benchmark ...

NEW BMW ENGINE
BMW has revealed its new generation 3.0-litre
petrol engine, which it claims is the world’s
lightest six-cylinder engine.
Weighing 161kg, or 10kg lighter than the current
M54 inline six, the high-tech R6 Valvetronic
2977cc engine features a composite magnesiumaluminium
crankcase and, producing 190kW
(258bhp), is further claimed to have the highest
specific power output per litre and the lowest
weight per horsepower in its class.
The maximum power output, achieved at
6650rpm, represents a 12 per cent increase on
the current engine, while fuel consumption is
claimed to be down 12 per cent. Maximum
torque is 300Nm, available between 2500rpm
and 4000rpm.
It is expected to make its first Australian
appeareance in the new generation E90 3 Series
due in the second half of 2005.

fatovich
23-07-2004, 03:02 PM
If it makes more power and torque for around the same fuel burn then it is more efficient.

For what its worth I never found the V6 all that efficient anyway, I have a VS V6 auto ute and VS SS V8 manual and around town there is sfa difference in economy, both around 12l/100km.

98Club
23-07-2004, 03:06 PM
Well if it puts out more power, and only uses the same fuel, doesn't that make it more efficient (but not more economical)?

Either way, I think it will be a nice step forward.

SSbaby
23-07-2004, 03:14 PM
Yeah, I think the press interchange the words efficient and economical, which is WRONG. Although some of you are assuming that the V6 will use fuel at around the same rate, which hasn't yet been proven.

Phido
23-07-2004, 04:07 PM
Interesting to see the alloy tec is only ~8 kg heavier than the super lightweight BMW donk..

I don't think Ford will use the engine, but, Alfa, Saab, Buick, Chevy, Daewoo, will, at this stage there could be some other wild cards like Mistsubishi, several smaller manufacturers will also source the engine.

Ford I'm sure has its own powerplant designs.. Either using a imported Ford V6 engine, or again updating the Falcon donk, perhaps with a magnesium alloy block (2007-8), which should shift ~40+kg from the block.

It doesn't suprise me its not going to be much if any more fuel efficent than the old Eco V6... Efficency was about the only thing that old nail had going for it.

For that we will need diesels..

Dacious
23-07-2004, 04:31 PM
I thought SSBaby was going to say it used as much as a Ford 6....! :lol:

Kirium
23-07-2004, 04:54 PM
I noticed while watching the fancy flash presentation on holden.com that very little was mentioned regarding better economy... They plugged the more torque and power a hell of a lot tho...

emotive
23-07-2004, 05:21 PM
Well if it puts out more power, and only uses the same fuel, doesn't that make it more efficient (but not more economical)?

Either way, I think it will be a nice step forward.

More power = more fuel
More gears = less fuel

If the Alloytec190 uses about the same as a 152kw ecotec, they've done well. I think people have not considered the substantial performance improvement we will see from the same amount of fuel:

More power = better straight line performance.
More gears = better straight line performance.

Should be interesting to see the 0-100 times. I predict sub 8 seconds for 0-100, for the 6sp manual AND the 5sp Auto. Not fast compared to an LS1, but I expect it will be quicker than a non turbo XR6, and pull back some sales.

(Edit typo!)

Red CV8 R
23-07-2004, 05:23 PM
Damn it Holden! Bring out a turbocharged version of the 3.6 in the Commodore range!

emotive
23-07-2004, 05:26 PM
Damn it Holden! Bring out a turbocharged version of the 3.6 in the Commodore range!

Plenty of discussion regarding the twin turbo rumors last week:

Have a look at http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=26963

Red CV8 R
23-07-2004, 05:28 PM
Yeah but this quote in the above article doesnt look promising :(



Holden also confirmed at the Global V6 launch that a turbocharged version of the engine would be produced "within the next 12 months", but it is unlikely to power any Commodore variants in the short term.

emotive
23-07-2004, 05:40 PM
Yeah but this quote in the above article doesnt look promising :(

Peter from APS mentioned the TT6 on the XR6 forum a few months ago. Something about early 2005. Sounds reasonably close to what that article is saying.

Phido
23-07-2004, 05:55 PM
Will be interesting to see how quick they are compared to the falcons...

5 speed six cylinders are pretty dam quick, motor got mid 7's to 100 for a XT as I recall.

Nobby
24-07-2004, 12:01 AM
This article is really nothing we didn't already know (or at least suspect strongly).

Everyone has sunk the slipper into the BA I6, but can you imagine how good the economy would be if it was stuck in the AU? Yeah, that's right, its 200+kgs lighter, so it's a no contest. The new Commodore will have the same problem (perhaps not VZ, but VE will be a fat bastard, relatively speaking), so we'll just have to accept it.

It's the price of progress.

Nobby
24-07-2004, 12:03 AM
Will be interesting to see how quick they are compared to the falcons...

5 speed six cylinders are pretty dam quick, motor got mid 7's to 100 for a XT as I recall.

That's pretty fair for a XT. Must of taken the spare wheel out! (and taken off all the body panels!)

SSbaby
24-07-2004, 09:58 AM
Yeah but this quote in the above article doesnt look promising :(

Hang in there buddy. :)

I'm sure this quote from an article in the Cars section of the HeraldSun will put a smile to your dial...


"Holden is happy to trumpet a coming turbo V6 as well as the ultimate development of the Alloytec V6, a twin turbo drag engine in the US that thumps out 1237kW, or 1650 horsepower"

chevypower
24-07-2004, 04:25 PM
does more gears always mean better economy? So if i have a 20 speed auto, it will be super efficient? More gears means more 1000-4000rpm cycles (whatever the word for it is). I am sure it would balance out fairly well

SSbaby
24-07-2004, 04:30 PM
No, more gears allows the user to select the right gear for the given speed so that there is minimal engine load at the given rpm.

It's a compromise. The best scenario would be a CVT transmission, maintaining the same engine revs (i.e. peak torque) but there aren't too many CVT transmissions that can reliably handle high torque engines.

chevypower
24-07-2004, 04:51 PM
All of us on here think we can come up with the best configuration, we are sure we have the answer to these things, and you know what... they give us what we want, then we are disappointed... like everyone asking Ford for a DOHC V8.... is it any faster than a Gen 3? no. More economical? no
I think we dont always want the engine at the same rpm - its a great idea on some things like ATVs but not V8 cars, I think we want to sometimes let it idle, sometimes peak torque and sometimes peak power, and yes you could vary that dependant on throttle position, but i think at the end of the day, better time and money would be invested in developing alternative fuels that
1. Are unlimited
2. Are not harmful to the environment,
3. Anybody can produce and sell (unlike every supplier relying on world oil prices)
4. Is customer-friendly and not too dangerous
5. Cheap to make and sell

Then all the other things like fuel consumption, vehicle weight, etc are not as important

SSbaby
24-07-2004, 05:04 PM
Interesting point. There are alternative fuels available...it's just that there'll be a lot more negatives ($$$, jobs) to positives (environment).

Anyway, it's funny how the marketing people play with our minds. I raised this topic on another thread but unfortunately it didn't get a bite. :D


It's funny how people use kW/L to describe an engine's efficiency. I reckon we should be (also) using kW/kg of engine mass in order to give an indication of the engine's true benefit.

Don't laugh, they have this sort of criteria for engine design in F1. The McLaren F1's (road car) designer was seeking an engine source (BMW) for the car's chassis to meet a similar criteria that also included constraints in engine size.

This way, we're comparing an LS1, which, in VZ guise, develops 260kW with it's mass of 193kg which equates to roughly 1.34 kW/kg. Compare this to the new Alloytec...190kw/168kg = 1.13 kW/kg. I'd like to know the comparison for a 2.0L ricer, just out of interest.

chevypower
24-07-2004, 05:26 PM
Take in to account:
*Performance
*Towability, (including legal limited weights and performance of towing)
*Payload,
*Seating Capacity
*Comfort (room for each occupant)
*fuel consumption over distance travelled

Only when all these factors are in the equation, can a fair assessment based on efficiency can be made.

Drizt
24-07-2004, 05:36 PM
Interesting point. There are alternative fuels available...it's just that there'll be a lot more negatives ($$$, jobs) to positives (environment).

Anyway, it's funny how the marketing people play with our minds. I raised this topic on another thread but unfortunately it didn't get a bite. :D

i would also like compactness of engine comparisons as a means of measuring efficiency...

LS1 and alloytec (gay name) are both very compact engines ... :cool:

SSbaby
24-07-2004, 05:37 PM
My point was about the engine's true benefit.

Marketing folk like to talk in kW/L but this is meaningless if an auto 1.8L Corolla (like our other car) uses as much fuel as an LS1 on the freeway, for example.