GTS LS3 vs FPV GT

[vlcalais8]

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg47/vlcalais8/GTvGTS.jpg

Dyno figures from June wheels, GT has more power and torque yet LS3 is still faster. Have a look and share your thoughts

[FlatfootV8]

I take dynometer results with a grain of salt, dyno's are a great tool for tuning and diagnostics. But the real way to test performance is via a legal track drag race.

Rear wheel power does count but track and quarter mile times is the real way of finding out the cars performance.

[F6Mauz]

I think you will see that it comes down to the rear tyres. 245 Vs 275's. The GT has a higher mph on the 1/4 so it definitely has more power and also is 40kg heavier.

[*VYSuper6*]

power and torque isnt everything, i saw in an episode of top gear, Porsche 911 vs BMW M6 vs Merc V8. 911 had about 40-50hp less than the v10 M6 and merc, still smashed it around the course. comes down to the overall car, not just the engine and how it can handle the power.

[emg]

Interesting comments about heak soak with the LS3, Ford motor went strong and consistent with all 4 runs.

[sh|tbmxrider]

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg47/vlcalais8/GTvGTS.jpg

Dyno figures from June wheels, GT has more power and torque yet LS3 is still faster. Have a look and share your thoughts



Whats the verdict, overall?

[vyc4b]

I'd like to see some more comparisons, though it does look like a big upset.....lol
the poor ls3 :bawl:

[WOMBIE]

I'm not all that fussed as i like both cars.....i almost bought an xr8 before settling on my sv8 in 04'.

Put em' side by side at the track and it'll come down to which driver is better....it never really ends does it.

So Ford had a win.....all good imo!

[HSVDKB]

It does make you wonder why HSV detuned the LS3 from the base corvette level of power

[Ghosn]

If you want to put a scan up, at least make it big enough to read. :confused:

[macca_779]

It does make you wonder why HSV detuned the LS3 from the base corvette level of power

They've got to keep some evolution left in the LS3 for the future models.. I quite like that HSV detunes them.. Gives me an opportunity to tune them back up.

[Logie]

mmmm very interesting there, though ford hay have the figures hooked upto a machine, its good to see that the hsv is getting the power down onto the track!
hsv ftw!

[stig]

I wonder what the odometers read on both cars? The alloy block seems to loosen up significantly over the first couple of 1000 km's.

Still very convincing acceleration differences between them even with ford out doing the HSV in the Dyno results. Makes you wonder what's contributing to the near 1 sec slower trip to 100.

[iloveholden]

HSV ftw :lol:

Fords problem still is weight i think, if they shedded some kgs it may be closer. HSV/Holden beat them when they were really slow and now they are apparently more powerful HSV still has the edge.

I wonder if the new gearbox coming for HSV will give them any increase as well and if HSV dont push up the power later this year anyway :confused:

[Alex(AUS)]

Funny how it makes less power but is significantly faster from 80-120 in every gear 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th EVEN THOUGH THE HSV GEARS ARE ALL TALLER! Grip does not play a part at all!

Conclusive proof dynos are crap!

Alex

[Uncle Tone]

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg47/vlcalais8/GTvGTS.jpg

That dyno bay looks vaguely familiar...... :up2sum:

[Ahyeah]

Awesome work by HSV and Ford this time round, both properly powerful cars:bow:

Is it a traction issue the ford has because am I right in saying that the HSV is quicker in a rolling acceleration test also?:confused: (cant quite read the print)

[BadMac]

That dyno bay looks vaguely familiar...... :up2sum:


If you mean ST's place. He has the thread about it, where he hints he had a special client and all would be revealed soon. Perhaps he can shed some light on the result which seems counter intuative, given the in gears, 0-100 and 1/4 times.

GT = 1886Kg.
GTS = 1843Kg.

So weight doesn't explain it.

[macca_779]

Aren't the gears of the Falcon 3.23 compared to the HSV's 3.73. That would explain a bit.

[The-V8-Power]

If it was on the track im sure the GTS would win but it wouldnt be by a lot. Since the HSV doesnt have a nose heavy engine like the FPV does.
Was the auto or manuals tested i tried to zoom in but it became blurry?

[Ahyeah]

If it was on the track im sure the GTS would win but it wouldnt be by a lot. Since the HSV doesnt have a nose heavy engine like the FPV does.
Was the auto or manuals tested i tried to zoom in but it became blurry?

Thats a thought! if the HSV was auto and the ford manual that would explain a fair bit:1peek:

[Road Warrior]

Wouldn't read too much into it guys. They're both great cars but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - i.e., at the drags (in the hands of decent drivers what's more).

The iron block BOSS needs a few thousand klm under it's belt for it to loosen up properly and the LS3 (as the article said) is being interfered with by it's abuse management system - let's revisit this in say 6 months with the same cars and see what sort of result we get.

[mustanger]

Wouldn't read too much into it guys. They're both great cars but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - i.e., at the drags (in the hands of decent drivers what's more).

The iron block BOSS needs a few thousand klm under it's belt for it to loosen up properly and the LS3 (as the article said) is being interfered with by it's abuse management system - let's revisit this in say 6 months with the same cars and see what sort of result we get.

Good post there RW, Lets give it a few months to see how things pan out :yep:

[BadMac]

Heres all the numbers retyped.

Ok from my reading here are the real numbers (somebody with the mag can confirm please).

-------------------FPV-------------HSV
Weight----------1886KG----------1843KG
Power-----------315KW-----------317KW
Claimed------167KW/Tonne----172KW/Tonne
Dyno--------133KW/Tonne----129KW/Tonne

1st-----------70KPH--------------74KPH
2nd----------115KPH------------117KPH
3rd----------152KPH-------------175KPH
4th----------200KPH-------------238KPH
5th----------250KPH-------------250KPH
5th--------250KPH@4350-----250KPH@4100

0-60----------3.6-----------------2.8
0-80----------5.0-----------------4.1
0-100---------6.4-----------------5.5
0-120---------8.4-----------------7.6
0-140--------10.4-----------------9.7

0-400-------14.4@169KPH------13.7@167KPH

80-120-3rd----3.9----------------3.6
80-120-4th----6.0----------------5.6
80-120-5th----10.1---------------7.4 (this makes a lier of the Torque graph, 2.5SEC's!!!!!!!!!!!)
80-120-6th----15.3--------------13.8

The GTS makes less Power/Torque but is faster from 80-120 in EVERY gear. This has nothing to do with Grip, so the wheelspin theory is really just spin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Also note the GTS has taller gearing in all gears, which should make it worse as well.

Lots of things don't stack up in this test, yes the 0-400 KPH shows more power being made. Which the Dyno graph also shows, but nothing else adds up.

Also note the hard to launch (wheelspin) theory is probably debunked in the 0-xx times, 0-60 would show that, but the GT is falling futher behind in the 0-80. It does start to peg it back in the higher speeds which would suggest a power advantage.

[lux_06]

LOL!! this is funny, who here has read the latest motor mag??? they test a new fg FPV GT against a BF GT, and while the FG is quicker round the lap because its got more power the tester - Steve Pizzati or something said he would prefer the BF!!!! and the Fg is harder to to drive hard basicly.... this car cant do much right atm....

also the ford is on 19s while the hsv is on 20s so couldn't that effect the power comparrisons on the dyno?

[flappist]

So what this is saying is that HSVs highest performance model is slightly quicker than FPVs lowest performance model???

Is that something to celebrate???

[mustanger]

So what this is saying is that HSVs highest performance model is slightly quicker than FPVs lowest performance model???

Is that something to celebrate???

Yep Absolutley, because the GT/GTP is its main rival .:yup: ( No turbos here):hide:

[Ghosn]

So what this is saying is that HSVs highest performance model is slightly quicker than FPVs lowest performance model???

Is that something to celebrate???

That's a pretty dumb way of looking at things, I would have expected more from you but I guess it can't always be the case.

[Acer]

Simple - peak power/torque figures at a particular rpm don't mean much:). It is the spread of torque over the entire rpm range from idle to redline that will determine how fast a car is over the 400m mark or in the real World on the road. What should be actually compared is the energy the engine can deliver over it's entire RPM range (integral under Torque vs RPM curve).

Boss engine is still peaky with poor torque at lower RPM's (good for brag rights & boosting sales on power rating number) whilst LS3 has wide torque spread hence faster even with taller gearing.

Cheers,

Acer

[macloft]

So half you guys need glasses as the print is quite readable :confused:and secondly this is only the interlude until the LS7 arrives and then how is HSV going to get the power to the ground as the current VE struggles with wheel hop of the line.:headbang:

[flappist]

That's a pretty dumb way of looking at things, I would have expected more from you but I guess it can't always be the case.

Why is that dumb? The FPV GT has been playing catch up in the accelleration stakes since day 1, I know, I used to own one (well a GT-P anyway). To dismiss the F6 because it is shy 2 cylinders is very miopic. I am a PERFORMANCE enthusiest, I don't care have many cylinders and what induction systems are used.

The W427 will be here soon to take its place at the top of the red food chain and the F6 will soon take its place in team blue.
THAT is the contest I am waiting to see........

[HSE2]

Lots of things don't stack up in this test, yes the 0-400 KPH shows more power being made. Which the Dyno graph also shows, but nothing else adds up.

Also note the hard to launch (wheelspin) theory is probably debunked in the 0-xx times, 0-60 would show that, but the GT is falling futher behind in the 0-80. It does start to peg it back in the higher speeds which would suggest a power advantage.

Not necessarily is the hard to launch due to wheel spin.

It’s obvious that the GT is coming home the better of these two particular cars recovering from whatever issue the torque management has decided to throw up on launch.

If the test car is a ZF I can explain what has occurred in the rolling. If it’s not I can't save to say that a 10 second 80 to 100 in fifth is extremely unlikely. In fact I will try this one out myself tomorrow. My car would do better than that and clearly the FG BOSS is superior in every way to the 290.

You can’t give away nearly a second, close to .7 of a second over the quarter and not be making good numbers in the engine department. I would have thought a 14.4 is a slow time with that terminal speed and perhaps a 13.7 rather good for just 2 kph slower.

While it might be making better numbers than this particular version of the LS3, it is certainly a long way from attractive in the pictures.

[BadMac]

Boss engine is still peaky with poor torque at lower RPM's (good for brag rights & boosting sales on power rating number) whilst LS3 has wide torque spread hence faster even with taller gearing.

Cheers,

Acer


Um, no not according to the published Dyno graph, the Boss makes more Torque right across the rev range, no holes, dips or peaks, just starts higher than LS3 and stays on top throughout the rev range, which doesn't compare to the real world experience of the testers, but the Dyno doesn't lie [/sarcasim]

[Alex(AUS)]

By the gear ratios, both are definitely manuals ...

Alex

[payaya]

If you mean ST's place. He has the thread about it, where he hints he had a special client and all would be revealed soon. Perhaps he can shed some light on the result which seems counter intuative, given the in gears, 0-100 and 1/4 times.

GT = 1886Kg.
GTS = 1843Kg.

So weight doesn't explain it.

Well think of the Xr6T its rated at 270KW and 530NW. Never will the engine will get close to the line of the dyno graph but still be quicker.

[throttlehappy]

i found it interesting that the boss picks up twin trottle bodies
wonder how many people will be fitting them to the older boss motors?

[Excellent]

I think you will see that it comes down to the rear tyres. 245 Vs 275's. The GT has a higher mph on the 1/4 so it definitely has more power and also is 40kg heavier.


Interesting comments about heak soak with the LS3, Ford motor went strong and consistent with all 4 runs.

These two posts I agree with. :)

The article specifically states the GTS pulls timing as a result of the coolant temp increase. I'm sure with dynamic airflow, the engine wouldn't get as hot so performance doesn't suffer.

The GTSs rear tyres do not help dyno numbers. Different story at the strip.

Would have been more interesting to see F6 vs GTS article.

[payaya]

These two posts I agree with. :)

The article specifically states the GTS pulls timing as a result of the coolant temp increase. I'm sure with dynamic airflow, the engine wouldn't get as hot so performance doesn't suffer.

The GTSs rear tyres do not help dyno numbers. Different story at the strip.

Would have been more interesting to see F6 vs GTS article.

Agreed. No one thought the GT will have a hope in hell of comparing to the HSV.

F6 V GTS will be good.

[Pickles]

I'm surprised at the results of this comparison.
I've always thought the Ford "GT" engine was a bit of a "boat anchor", (& still do, to some extent, I suppose!), but here we are, with the Ford engine giving away almost a litre in capacity, & it's pretty well up there with the LS3.
So, either Ford engineers have done a great job to get their 315kw, or the LS3 was a bit off song.
As others have said, we'll have to wait for a few more "comparisons", down the track.
Anyway, to say the least, it appears that this engine is a substantial improvement over is predecessor, & has gone some way to closing the "gap" between FPV & HSV.
With respect to the Turbo 6. I'll go back to 1986-Brock/HDT produced a very nice vehicle, the LE turbo. A VERY nice car, quicker than the V8 at the time, & excellent to drive with less weight over the front axle-the engine also had MASSIVE modification potential--BUT it was never held in the same esteem as the V8. Same situation here -- whilst the Turbo's quick etc , & can do this & that,---it ain't a V8.
I recognize Ford's turbo as an excellent engine, but it's V8s I'm intereste in.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Vulture]

What is the final drive ratio on the FPV? Gear ratios can only be compared with this taken into account. Still it seems odd that the FPV is so slow. I doubt it has all that much to do with grip - would interesting to see the 60 foot times. The HSV still destroys the FPV for acceleration and 0-400 so who gives a rats what is on the dyno printout.

[Uwish]

If you put 3.9:1 Gears in the GT it will own the GTS/R8.

Ford always have longer ratios. Very bad for accelleration.
HSV have shorter ratios.

Boys it is that simple.

[Three]

Boss powered cars are quite hard to launch, this is evident even in my humble 260. When it comes to drag racing, the race is won or lost in the first 60ft. The GT's 0-60km/h time of 3.6 seconds is indicative of a poor launch when you conisder that the FG XR8 managed 2.8 seconds in wheels' test.

[sandmanls1]

be interesting to see how the f6 would go on that dyno and then against the gts.....

[Alister]

So half you guys need glasses as the print is quite readable :confused:and secondly this is only the interlude until the LS7 arrives and then how is HSV going to get the power to the ground as the current VE struggles with wheel hop of the line.:headbang:

Depends on the display resolution you're running mate. Hard to read at 1440x900 but easy at 1024x768.

[Penko]

be interesting to see how the f6 would go on that dyno and then against the gts.....

Yeah i think it will be a lot closer. how about the F6's 80-120kmh time of 2.7 thats quick.

[Three]

What is the final drive ratio on the FPV? Gear ratios can only be compared with this taken into account. Still it seems odd that the FPV is so slow. I doubt it has all that much to do with grip - would interesting to see the 60 foot times. The HSV still destroys the FPV for acceleration and 0-400 so who gives a rats what is on the dyno printout.

A car which runs a slow time isn't neccesarily slow if terminal velocity is healthy. The dyno print outs are reflected by the cars' mph at the end of the quarter mile. Good mph indicates a good time when the driver gets the launch right.


Yeah i think it will be a lot closer. how about the F6's 80-120kmh time of 2.7 thats quick.

It won't be close at all, at least for rolling acceleration. 80-120km/h in 2.7 is C63, W427 territory.

[Holden Man]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Supercharged Aurion





!:jester:

[Ahyeah]

Those boss engines must be very hard for ford to get right, its making power but its just not translating into speed, too peaky maybe i dont know.

Ford was going faster back in 1971 than it is now over the quater (only the V8 fpv/ford I mean) ;)

Stupid engine if you ask me, although it does sound good :rofl:

The turbo would give the HSV a decent scare id say..


Id still buy a V8 ford over a turbo ford, the feeling of a V8 is all that matters, turbo (when driven slowly, ie off boost) is a plain jane 6 cyl ford:spew:

[GODSMACK]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Supercharged Aurion





!:jester: Thats because you would have to compare that particular piece of machinery with the likes of a Lambo or Ferrari!!! :rofl:

[SchrgdVSV6]

-------------------FPV-------------HSV
Weight----------1886KG----------1843KG
Power-----------315KW-----------317KW
Claimed------167KW/Tonne----172KW/Tonne
Dyno--------133KW/Tonne----129KW/Tonne

1st-----------70KPH--------------74KPH
2nd----------115KPH------------117KPH
3rd----------152KPH-------------175KPH
4th----------200KPH-------------238KPH
5th----------250KPH-------------250KPH
5th--------250KPH@4350-----250KPH@4100

0-60----------3.6-----------------2.8
0-80----------5.0-----------------4.1
0-100---------6.4-----------------5.5
0-120---------8.4-----------------7.6
0-140--------10.4-----------------9.7

0-400-------14.4@169KPH------13.7@167KPH

80-120-3rd----3.9----------------3.6
80-120-4th----6.0----------------5.6
80-120-5th----10.1---------------7.4 (this makes a lier of the Torque graph, 2.5SEC's!!!!!!!!!!!)
80-120-6th----15.3--------------13.8

Is it me or does the XR8 seems to have shorter gears in the box (1st = 70, 2nd = 115)? Its higher power figure correctly represents the higher MPH as expected, but the driver obviously stuffed the launch big time (0-60 in 3.6)and had to play catchup.
The same driver probably stuffed in the in-gear acceleration, or something was amiss with the car at the time, given the straight line acceleration figures proving the XR8 has the MPH advantage, thus should also have the in-gear advantage.
Even if you ignore the dyno graph, something doesnt add up. Although we are talking about Wheels magazine though...

[CSP]

If you put 3.9:1 Gears in the GT it will own the GTS/R8.

Ford always have longer ratios. Very bad for accelleration.
HSV have shorter ratios.

Boys it is that simple.

I wouldn't exactly call 3.73 short... I'm extremely happy with mine. It's a good compromise between acceleration and economy.

[BLACKSSV]

I read the mag last night and the track was wet during the quarter run. Both cars were manual.
The boss engine is a great engine technologically speaking but suffers from the weight and high centre of gravity.

[youngstar]

Yeah i think it will be a lot closer. how about the F6's 80-120kmh time of 2.7 thats quick.

What about the Porsche GT2's time of 1.8 for 80-120km/h in 3rd !!! :eyes: :cool:

Would love to seee what the time in 2nd would be as I am pretty sure 2nd was good for 130 km/h ! :eek:

[MGR]

Looks to me in Wheel magazine scan that the 2nd gear speed for the HSV is actually 107km/h - and not 117km/h as previous posted in this thread. That ratio would give the Holden a marginal advantage for the 0 - 100 sprint.

So basically the lighter car, with wider tyres and better 0-100 ratios is faster to 100 clicks, but then starts to get reeled in by the car with narrower rear tyres and slightly more power post 100 clicks?

[Ghosn]

Depends on the display resolution you're running mate. Hard to read at 1440x900 but easy at 1024x768.

Try reading it at 1920 x 1200 :(


The HSV still destroys the FPV for acceleration and 0-400 so who gives a rats what is on the dyno printout.

The Ford fanboys, the dyno printout is all they got for bragging rights for this comparo. It's funny how they still have the nerve to bag the HSV(from reading FF), they keep forgetting it's about the total package that counts not a dyno sheet.


Is anyone able to shed some light in terms of if the BOSS is at it's limit in terms of tuning? As we all know the LS3 comes out of the factory 'detuned'.

[Dacious]

The other factor in acceleration is reciprocating weight and it's effect on engine acceleration. Power is a constant read from instant to instant. You'd have to measure power/rpm increase against a load to know how it will translate to acceleration. The rate of acceleration of the crank, cams and their drives is also a factor in how fast the car will speed up, one reason for lightening flywheels and internals on drag/racecars. You need flywheel to launch your shlepmobile when loaded or towing and to maintain momentum on hills. You want your race motor making as much power and spinning as quickly as possible.

The Boss is a longstroke or undersquare motor, which means not only are all it's heavy bigends and rod ends spinning through a bigger arc relatively than the LS3, but it's pistons actually travel further up and down the bore: have to be accelerated from near standstill at top and bottom DC and to a higher speed midstroke. There're two factors: one is crank reversion (slowing down due to friction and compression) the other is the resistance to speed change (kinetic intertia). These are simply harder to counter the longer the stroke.

A bike raceteam boss once told me, any capacity you can get is good capacity, but the best first option for outright power in a race motor is a bigger bore than stroke (oversquare), which is not an option for the Boss due to the bore spacings. The bore-stroke ratio is important, because it governs not only mean piston speed and therefore max rpm (and hp is torque X rpm), but together with rod length the important issues of how far the rods overcentre, and resultant drag on the journals and forces on the big ends.

Optimum bore:conrod length is about 1.6:1 or 1.7:1 IIRC. Longer gives better low rpm torque, shorter gives high rpm Hp. The Boss is probably closer to 2:1.

Bigger stroke, more crank inertia, harder to spin quicker. Despite the 4 valves and DOHC with better valve control and therefore probably better control over lift, the narrower bore and longer stroke also usually hurts either highrpm or lowspeed cylinder filling (volumetric efficiency), probably made worse by dual thottle bodies unless they open like a two-stage system (I bet they're actually a space-limitation solution).

Cammy longstroke motors? Often peakiness is a result according to Vincent and others.

[stig]

Wow nice explanation ^^^^

I followed...... parts of it.

[Vulture]

If you put 3.9:1 Gears in the GT it will own the GTS/R8.


...and then you could put 3.9:1 in the HSVs as well (they have 3.7s). :) Why didn't FPV do that? My guess is fuel economy.

[lowriding]

what is unusual or different from anytime in the last 5 years here . ie the XR8 has always had more power on paper than the SS , the GT similarly .Again the latest GT puts out 20rwkw more - and gets smashed in a straight line drag ,again. Anyone who has spent any time at the drags knows how a 300rwkw XR6t will do similar et's as a 250rwkw LS1 . This has been put to weight but its always been much more than that as is proven now the weights are similar ,the Fords just cant get out of the hole well nor do they put they're power down as well through corners,been the biggest obvious problem for several years .It's was the same old story when the 235kw VYSS was faster than the BA 260kw XR8 in a straight line and around any piece of racetrack tested, the magazines journos couldn't work that one out either ,only came up with the lame story of the SS using it's tyres to corner :confused:!?

[Three]

It was the same old story when the 235kw VYSS was faster than the BA 260kw XR8 in a straight line and around any piece of racetrack tested, the magazines journos couldn't work that one out either ,only came up with the lame story of the SS using it's tyres to corner :confused:!?

The LS1 powered SSs were not faster than the 260kw XR8 in a straight line! Both cars offered similar straight line performance. Around a track, you're probably right about the VY being faster.

[DVS VT Clubby]

To get the most out of the boss motor and the driveline they need a diff ratio change to 3.9's or even 4'11's. As for the power out put i have seen and been in a BF FPV ute with the boss 290 tuned to over 270 RWKW with exhaust and intake. Its best time over the qaurter was 12.2 at Calder not sure on the MPH so that proved with the right combo they can be awsomely quick FPV just have to get there act together. The biggest thing that the tuner said changed it was the diff ratio, he said the standard ratio with the six speed auto was 2:73 which explains the crap take off. As for an over all package though the GTS has it hands down.

[lowriding]

The LS1 powered SSs were not faster than the 260kw XR8 in a straight line!

they weren' t :confused: the SS's had comfortably more pace,and notably quicker .


regards

[ratter]

The Ford has been lacking as an overall package in stock form due to being too heavy, but not making excuses it's just what us ford guys have to deal with.

The Boss motor although feeling lazy at low revs is not a slug at all and most holden guys have no idea about the power levels can can be gained from the motor.
My unopened Boss 290 was making 280 rwkw on the same forum sponsers dyno that was seeing unopened LS1's making approx 240 rwkw. Several customers could not beleive the power coming from the Boss.

I had to change diff ratios to make the car perform to how I want it to, but it's plenty quick enough for street useage.

Sorry this has gone off topic a bit, but just wanted to let a few know that the Boss is not that weak

[Three]

they weren' t :confused: the SS's had comfortably more pace,and notably quicker .


regards

Motor magazine's best time for a M6 XR8 was 13.9 and their best time for a VYII SS was also 13.9. Going beyond questionable magazine testing...

There are plenty of stock XR8s on fordforums running high 13s down the 1/4 mile. The best I've heard from an auto is 13.7, completely stock and in genuine full street trim. About par with a stock LS1 SS in full street trim? Full street trim = full weight including spare and jack, everyday street tyre pressures.

In my experience, I've raced about 4 untuned LS1 SSs at the drags. The results were pretty close but my untuned XR8 has proved to be the faster car each time.

Not trying to turn this into a LS1 v Boss debate but there is a common misconception that the XR8 has always been slower in a stragiht line. In fact, it was only when the 6.0L was introduced that the SS gained the clear ascendancy over the XR8.

Cheers.

[lowriding]

I dont think the Boss engines are weak at all either and never have been - look at the kw figures ,and as i noted it's not a new thing .the criticism was mainly dished out by simple simon journos who failed to compute facts . They do have many inherent disadvantages to the LSxx series engines imo but its the chassis they're planted into which restricts them the most .


Motor magazine's best time for a M6 XR8 was 13.9 and their best time for a VYII SS was also 13.9. Going beyond questionable magazine testing...



Cheers.

stock BA XR8s ran mid 14's as tested by Motor and wheels and whoever else you can dig up ,it was constant - even the FPV GT BA ran consistant low 14's many times by all the local press .I trimmed all your anecdotal forum times for obvious reasons

regards

[Three]

stock BA XR8s ran mid 14's as tested by Motor and wheels and whoever else you can dig up ,it was constant - even the FPV GT BA ran consistant low 14's many times by all the local press .I trimmed all your anecdotal forum times for obvious reasons

Motor ran a best of 13.9X in a BA M6 XR8 and they also ran a 13.9X in a VY SS. Those are the best recorded magazine times for the SS and XR8. It is true that other tests show that the XR8 ran mid-low 14s. However, the same can be said about the VY SS. In the XR6T vs VY SS comparison the SS was running 14.5s. I remember wheels tested an auto 225kw Calais which ran 15.2s.

I don't give much weight to magazine tests like I used to. They often prove to be well off what can be achieved at the track by private owners.

Those forum times I refered to were posted by reputatable members and I have personally seen some of those cars race at the drags. Like I said before, I've come up against a number of stock-ish LS1s at the drags and my A4 XR8 has proven to be faster. Now that's some first hand experience for you.

[BadMac]

Is anyone able to shed some light in terms of if the BOSS is at it's limit in terms of tuning? As we all know the LS3 comes out of the factory 'detuned'.


I know a guy who worked at FPV until last year. The target for FG was 320KW's, it was not able to be acheived reliably (in a 3 year warrenty sense). Also the engine started to do other unwanted thngs, like becoming more peaky. So yes the Boss is at about the end of its current potential, if it had some money spent it could be improved, but why waste money on a Truck engine with heads bolted on locally when a purpose designed engine (which by all reports will give LS3,4,5 a run for its money) is on its way from Ford US.

[Three]

I trimmed all your anecdotal forum times for obvious reasons

regards

Hmm... let's see

1) Auto XR8: 13.71 stock as rock. Timeslip.

2) Auto XR8: 13.73, only mod is SS reductions CAI which probably does more harm than good. Set by PhantomXR8 a reputable donating member.

3) Manual XR8: 13.8 stock as rock. Set by ORSMXR, reputable member

4) Manual XR8: 13.6, stock except for an extra snorkel CAI (similar to the two hole mod). Set by XA-Coupe who is a very well respected member with 5,000 over posts. I could go on but I think I've made my point.

Lots and lots of others in the high 13s.

At the end of the day the 260kw XR8 is just as fast if not faster than any stock LS1 powered SS. The real world times that people have achieved is testament to this.

[lowriding]

look bud getting off topic and the last but the point of omitting those times is a/ they are meaningless as a comparison i.e how do you know a stock VY couldnt run a low 13 on that day with that driver ? b / they are modified !
Love it or hate it magazine times serve the purpose of comparing 2 cars in identical situations as well as identical drivers as well as stock standard form .The fact of those Wheels /Motor comparisons showed a consistently of the XR8 to be half a second slower ,generally despite its higher output .It wasnt intended to be a pissing competition .The overall idea was to show how lower powered LS1 cars have run over the top of the higher on paper powered Ford variants before,relating to this thread on the FG v VE @ 254kw v 239 kw dyno figures .

regards

[Three]

look bud getting off topic and the last but the point of omitting those times is a/ they are meaningless as a comparison i.e how do you know a stock VY couldnt run a low 13 on that day with that driver ? b / they are modified !

Does that also mean we should disregard all the times in the drag racing section posted by well respected LS1 members? I'm yet to see a stock auto/manual VY SS run a low 13 in full street trim (full weight, street tyre pressures etc.).



Love it or hate it magazine times serve the purpose of comparing 2 cars in identical situations as well as identical drivers as well as stock standard form .The fact of those Wheels /Motor comparisons showed a consistently of the XR8 to be half a second slower ,generally despite its higher output .It wasnt intended to be a pissing competition.

The drivers may be identical but they have only limited time to get used to launching the cars. One car could be more tricky to launch properly. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that the Boss engine is very tight when new and needs 10,000km-20,000km to loosen up. I would give more weight to times that have been achieved by private owners who know how to drive their cars.

If you insist on magazine comparision times:

wheels/motor magazine

VZ SS man vs BA MkII XR8 man: SS ran a 14.1 and XR8 ran a 14.4

VZ SS auto vs BF XR8 auto: SS ran a 14.8 and XR8 ran a 14.4

VYII SS ute auto vs BA XR8 ute auto: SS ran a 14.7 and XR8 ran a 14.9

VZ SS man vs BA MkII XR8 man vs some other cars: XR8 ran a 13.9. I can't remember what the SS ran but it was noticeably slower than the XR8 in that particular comparision.

This is not a pissing competition, I'm merely stating the facts and highlighting the common misconception that the LS1 SS is faster than the 260kw XR8.


look bud getting off topic and the last but the point of omitting those times is b) they are modified !

3 out of the 4 times I listed were done by unmodified cars. PhantomXR8 actually ran 13.73 stock. The SS indcutions intake was actually only added after he ran that time (my mistake). Only XA Coupe's time was done with a modded car - even then, the only mod was a $40 air intake snorkel.

[lowriding]

mate i can see your just out of your teens and i know can easily get stuck on semantics at that age ,such as justifying a purchase ;) i could argue with you on a number of things here but i wont as its digressing too far in this thread. you've missed my points and i'll move on .

regards

[vlcalais8]

I read the mag last night and the track was wet during the quarter run. Both cars were manual.
The boss engine is a great engine technologically speaking but suffers from the weight and high centre of gravity.

Can anyone else confirm this? If this is the case all times down the strip should be thrown out the window. I have to say though I could only imagine what the replies would be like if GM had a 5.4ltr equalling a Ford 6.0ltr, things ouwld turn pretty nasty towards Ford in general

[lowriding]

Can anyone else confirm this? If this is the case all times down the strip should be thrown out the window. I have to say though I could only imagine what the replies would be like if GM had a 5.4ltr equalling a Ford 6.0ltr, things ouwld turn pretty nasty towards Ford in general

the 5.4l v 6.0l is a completely moot point unless the 5.4 gives 20% better economy , which it certainly does not .

[vlcalais8]

the 5.4l v 6.0l is a completely moot point unless the 5.4 gives 20% better economy , which it certainly does not .

your missing my point

[sszute]

yeah good point i dont see why ford didnt put the 6.0l in the fg

[lowriding]

your missing my point

hehe which was what again ?
How is that VL calais going anyway ? ;)

:)

[Three]

mate i can see your just out of your teens and i know can easily get stuck on semantics at that age ,such as justifying a purchase ;) i could argue with you on a number of things here but i wont as its digressing too far in this thread. you've missed my points and i'll move on .

regards

My age has nothing to do with it. I've made a much better argument than you have. The only real point that you seem to be making is that the SS is faster than the XR8 simply because of a few inconclusive magazine tests. Open your eyes mate.

If you were in Perth we could settle this at the track :). Even though I am a crap driver, I'll still show you who's BOSS. lol

[mpears]

0-100, 400m, who cares so long as you enjoy your ride. I own an xr6 turbo with custom tunes, go's hard an i like it. FPV or HSV , better than drivin a bloody vovo eh!

[SHANESVZSS]

Yeah i just read the mag and it says the quater mile times WHERE done ona wet track , pritty good times by both imo ona damp track.

[flappist]

My age has nothing to do with it. I've made a much better argument than you have. The only real point that you seem to be making is that the SS is faster than the XR8 simply because of a few inconclusive magazine tests. Open your eyes mate.

If you were in Perth we could settle this at the track :). Even though I am a crap driver, I'll still show you who's BOSS. lol

I see you post here in a similar manner to how you did before you were banned from AFF.

I wonder how long you will last?

[GODSMACK]

0-100, 400m, who cares so long as you enjoy your ride. I own an xr6 turbo with custom tunes, go's hard an i like it. FPV or HSV , better than drivin a bloody vovo eh! Yeah, them biscuits handle like a POS!!!

[ssdamo]

every ba/bf xr8 i have run i have beaten by a car lenth to 100 and thats when i put out 167 rwkw:confused: maybe the holdens do get the power to the ground better? my mate in his vx v6 calais smoked a ba xr8 ute one arvo .... they are my REAL world experiences :) still the xr8's do sound tough

[Redhot_57]

They've got to keep some evolution left in the LS3 for the future models.. I quite like that HSV detunes them.. Gives me an opportunity to tune them back up.

Prob true although I also recall hearing somewhere that 550nm is close to the
limit for the 6L80 slusher.

[vlcalais8]

every ba/bf xr8 i have run i have beaten by a car lenth to 100 and thats when i put out 167 rwkw:confused: maybe the holdens do get the power to the ground better? my mate in his vx v6 calais smoked a ba xr8 ute one arvo .... they are my REAL world experiences :) still the xr8's do sound tough

Doesnt sound right especially the VX calais run I think that guy in the ute was either drunk or thought cars accelerate best in 5th gear

[Souljah]

every ba/bf xr8 i have run i have beaten by a car lenth to 100 and thats when i put out 167 rwkw:confused: maybe the holdens do get the power to the ground better? my mate in his vx v6 calais smoked a ba xr8 ute one arvo .... they are my REAL world experiences :) still the xr8's do sound tough

:rofl: That made my night. Thank you.

[701let]

regardless of power figures etc etc a 14.4 is VERY ordinary... Werent VS GTS-R running that?

Id feel a bit silly if my 'top of the range' Gt or GTP could be cleaned up by any bog standard SS (or wrx etc etc). that is a poor ET.

[matt'sVS]

Yeah the weigth of the fords is a big factor! Do they account for this on the dyno?

[ssdamo]

do ford and holden measure their power using the same method now or do they still use different ways (ie din vs the other)??????

[Ghosn]

Yeah the weigth of the fords is a big factor! Do they account for this on the dyno?

I wouldn't call being 40kgs heavier being a BIG factor, it's fvck all really.

[VYR8HSV]

Prob true although I also recall hearing somewhere that 550nm is close to the
limit for the 6L80 slusher.

I find it very strange that the 6 speed auto is a fairly new gearbox.
Not just new in the VE's but as a newish design.
And that it was designed to go behind the GM V8's.
550nm is not alot of torque from a 6lt V8.. Def not much from the LS3 6.2lt
So how have they future proofed the on going development of the V8's???
So for the next few years that all the V8s will be restricted to 550nm for the autos?...

Pete

[M&Ms]

do ford and holden measure their power using the same method now or do they still use different ways (ie din vs the other)??????

Same method. Both use the DIN standard. HSV switched over when it went from VZ to VE. 297 in their old measure was 305 in their current measure. And seeing that their VZ motor was actually rated at 298 (but HSV thought a 297 badge looked better...True story!!!), then in effect the VE gained one killer-watt. Yes, 10 x 100 Watt lightglobes!!!. Sorry to go off on a tangent, but to answer your question...just read the first 2 words of my extended response.:smilesandbanana:

On a side note though, power figures (especially something made in the USA) will vary from one unit to the next anyway, you could have a Friday avo special, or you could have a good one...The difference can be upto 30kW!! And I know I'll probably get shot down for saying this, but I think the hand built Boss motors will have less variance between them, compared to a higher number production output US motor

[vecommo]

Yeah the weigth of the fords is a big factor! Do they account for this on the dyno?

This may have been a valid argument when it was VZ vs BF, but the VE is pretty much on par with the FG in terms of weight.... IIRC the FG is only about 30-40kg heavier than the VE, which I don't think is anywhere near enough to make any sort of diffference.

[mitchtj]

How are people saying the Ford had any kind of win?

The HSV was faster in anyway.

The ford had a few irelevent KW numbers on a obviously bias dyno. Big deal.

[BA$TAD]

The ford had a few irelevent KW numbers on a obviously bias dyno. Big deal.

Funny how its always irrelevant data when it doesn't support your brand ;)

Biased dyno huh...guess they'll all biased. The GT seems to be able to show the numbers on the dyno consistently run after run and beat the HSV equivalent. Unfortunately it can't translate it on the 1/4 mile.

[Souljah]

Funny how its always irrelevant data when it doesn't support your brand ;)

Ease up. The doctors are confident the vision in his other eye will return eventually. :1peek:

[CROME SS]

not much was said about the cubes 5.4 vs 6.0 if apples became apples i think we holden drivers would be bitterly disapointed.

[CLUB_819]

not much was said about the cubes 5.4 vs 6.0 if apples became apples i think we holden drivers would be bitterly disapointed.

true but they are DOHC. fark they're a big engine.

Cheers
Scotty

I reacon it's great aussie manufactures are getting better and better.

[ssdamo]

was the 5.6 stroker windsor quicker than the boss v8's ??? always wondered that .....

[JimmyXR6T04]

every ba/bf xr8 i have run i have beaten by a car lenth to 100 and thats when i put out 167 rwkw:confused: maybe the holdens do get the power to the ground better? my mate in his vx v6 calais smoked a ba xr8 ute one arvo .... they are my REAL world experiences :) still the xr8's do sound tough

i love the street race comments.. who's to say if the other driver is trying. i had plenty of 6cyl cars smoke my 300rwkw XR6T... why? because i wasn't revving past 3000rpm or half throttle :confused: it's such an invalid point, probably the most pointless type of comment/argument when talking about a cars power and it's ability to get it to the ground.

I'm sure everyone would agree that a stock V6 calais would have no chance against an XR8 if both were driven properly. At the end of the day, a 2L lancer can get the jump on a V6 car to 100km/h. Doesn't prove anything really.

As for the whole GT vs HSV thing... it's all getting a bit long in the tooth really (like the F6 vs HSV). They're two great cars, both deliver great power and offer rewarding driving! So what if one has a few KW more, or goes a few tenths quicker down the quarter mile. There's sweet F all between them really, and at the end of the day it's a personal preference. For me, when it's time to buy another performance car i can assure you i won't give a rats ass about which one has 2kw more, or goes a few tenths quicker. It's going to come down to the package i like, and i want.

All i know is, we're friggin lucky to have the HSVs, GTs, F6s, XR6Ts and SS's at reasonable prices for the performance they deliver!

[Torxteer]

was the 5.6 stroker windsor quicker than the boss v8's ??? always wondered that .....

Almost but nah. About a 14 flat for the Windsor with the occasional 13 done by an owner.

Every Boss has done a 13.

[quantanemo]

bosses get quicker as they get more ks on the clock...

[SS Enforcer]

bosses get quicker as they get more ks on the clock...

So do ls motors. :smilesandbanana:


cheers

[csv rulz]

This happened a while back in a motor test. The than 290kw GT was put on the dyno and had 242kw at the wheels. I cant remember which model HSV it was prob VY2 with 285kw could only manage 220-230kw at the wheels.

[mitchtj]

not much was said about the cubes 5.4 vs 6.0 if apples became apples i think we holden drivers would be bitterly disapointed.

how is cubes relevant unless they affect things like fuel economy or weight distribution?


Almost but nah. About a 14 flat for the Windsor with the occasional 13 done by an owner.

Every Boss has done a 13.

this one didn't....

[Vulture]

All i know is, we're friggin lucky to have the HSVs, GTs, F6s, XR6Ts and SS's at reasonable prices for the performance they deliver!

Yep, we sure are. Better enjoy them before they are legislated off the road.

[payaya]

how is cubes relevant unless they affect things like fuel economy or weight distribution?



this one didn't....

Well fuel usage has gone up for the bigger cubed engine and if cubes were not important than why did GM go from 5.7L to 6.2L??

Everyone knows the more cubes the better. Look at the deficit between the 3.6L V6 Holden unit and Fords 4.0L I6. Its less than the difference between the V8s and the difference in performance is huge.

[mitchtj]

Well fuel usage has gone up for the bigger cubed engine and if cubes were not important than why did GM go from 5.7L to 6.2L??

Everyone knows the more cubes the better. Look at the deficit between the 3.6L V6 Holden unit and Fords 4.0L I6. Its less than the difference between the V8s and the difference in performance is huge.

technology is as important as pure cubes. Using your logic the Ford engine would use proportionately more fuel because of that. Which simply isn't true

When Holden introduces the Direct Injection 3.6 in the VE2 it will have a good 20kw lead on the falcon, with significantly less fuel consumption.

[payaya]

technology is as important as pure cubes. Using your logic the Ford engine would use proportionately more fuel because of that. Which simply isn't true

When Holden introduces the Direct Injection 3.6 in the VE2 it will have a good 20kw lead on the falcon, with significantly less fuel consumption.

Im just trying to state the fact that when you line up competitors you will be more comfortable with more cubes even when the power output is similar. The Ford will use more fuel if the engine was bigger. There was an increase of fuel consumption from the 6.0L to the 6.2L.

I appreciate that Holden is releasing direct injection, because they are behind the game with their V6 like Ford is behind the game with the V8. 220KW from a 3.6L is a good figure but you got to understand the HSV have the better V8 and no doubt the extra capacity helps a lot. But when Ford switch to the 3.7L it will be a match for the Holden direct injection unit but torque will not be as high on both units. Imagine if the I6 was further developed with direct injection that will be increadible.

[mitchtj]

Im just trying to state the fact that when you line up competitors you will be more comfortable with more cubes even when the power output is similar. The Ford will use more fuel if the engine was bigger. There was an increase of fuel consumption from the 6.0L to the 6.2L.

I appreciate that Holden is releasing direct injection, because they are behind the game with their V6 like Ford is behind the game with the V8. 220KW from a 3.6L is a good figure but you got to understand the HSV have the better V8 and no doubt the extra capacity helps a lot. But when Ford switch to the 3.7L it will be a match for the Holden direct injection unit but torque will not be as high on both units. Imagine if the I6 was further developed with direct injection that will be increadible.

Ford is running a 3.5L unit, not a 3.7.

And i still don't agree that capacity is the be all and end all. If the Holden can produce fuel economy comparable will the smaller Ford engine, while weighing less and reving harder than let it have its capacity. If it can achieve all these things, you can't talk about capacity as a bad thing.

Capacity really only becomes an issue when there is a downside, such as increased weight in the front of the engine, or bad fuel economy. I say Ford should up the capacity if the Holden engine can perform that well with 6.2L's. They do have the more 'technologically advanced' dohc's and all

[payaya]

Ford is running a 3.5L unit, not a 3.7.

And i still don't agree that capacity is the be all and end all. If the Holden can produce fuel economy comparable will the smaller Ford engine, while weighing less and reving harder than let it have its capacity. If it can achieve all these things, you can't talk about capacity as a bad thing.

Capacity really only becomes an issue when there is a downside, such as increased weight in the front of the engine, or bad fuel economy. I say Ford should up the capacity if the Holden engine can perform that well with 6.2L's. They do have the more 'technologically advanced' dohc's and all

3.5 or 3.7 it has not confirmed. The 3.7 is poping up everywhere at the moment and by the time the next series of Falcons are released it should be main stream. Either way the 3.5L got in the top 10 engines in 2007 so its a good unit.

When you compare two car that are physically the same size which engines almost a litre difference then obviously it deserves to be brought up. Then you commented stating capacity should not matter if the vehicle does not weigh more or use more petrol which the 6.2L does. I can except capacity means a lot more in my eyes then obviously what you think. I can admit the 3.6L from Holden is lacking in capacity and requireds a refinements with ignition etc to boost its power levels. Im not saying "what does cubes have to do with anything" as the Falcon I6 more fuel efficient than the Holden.

Im not saying capacity is "the be all end all" but when your comparing two cars that are so similar the obvious differences is the V8 from Henry is shit, its been like that for a while now.

Ford is rumoured to be switching to a 5.0L so it should be interesting what happens. Seriously Fords V8 is a dud when compared to the I6 Turbo and LS motors. The GT has bascially been overpowered by the HSV everyone expected that.

[mitchtj]

Thats a fair point aswell...

I remember when the Boss V8 came out, everyone ranted it was so "technologically advanced" compared to the LS1 with its DOHC's. That it was almost unfair to compare it to the 'dinosaur' ls1. That is why i'll never feel sorry for it for giving away 0.4-0.8 of a liter to the Holdens.

And yes, we should be getting the v8 from the Mustang. Hopefully, rumours are that of a 400hp varient. Still, it sounds like its going to be giving the edge to the LS engines too. Not surprisingly considering the mustang is a smaller car than its competition.

What is the actual difference in fuel economy with the 5.4 and the ls2/ls3?

[payaya]

The problem lied with the 5.4 being bascially a truck motor so even if it does produce some good its never going to be able to compare to a LS which was always designed for performance.

You gotta think if it was not for DOHC the 5.4L would suck even more.

[grafpak]

hi guy's , i own a ba pursuit 290kw ute and yesterday i test drove a brand new ve ss ute with the 327kw walkinshaw pack..
the 6.0l 327kw chev puts out 245kw's @ the rear wheels and in my opinion the chev is a much easier motor to drive fast! i hardly ever broke traction in the commodore and i gave it a decent test run..with a slight ride of the clutch and plenty off throttle it did lite up the wheels but bit in well and has a very even spread of power from 2000-6000 with a redline/restrictor @ 6500rpm....on the down side it doesn't hit the rev limiter very hard and gained nothing after 6200rpm.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my ba has run 29000klm's so agree it has lossened up a bit, does not have as even a spread off torque and is slower to 4000rpm but from 4000-6000 rpm it shits on the commodore!!
the boss motor is much more explosive but really needs to be driven to make it go..the chev motor is very forgiving and almost anyone could drive it fast!!!!!!!!!!
in my opinion the boss is more fun but after a 1 hour test drive i can see why they generally beat the fpv's..diff ratio's in both auto's are shit both around 2.9....manuals not bad @ around 3.4..
if you give the fpv more revs to take off you go nowhere and the race is over.
both cars a great!!i'd own either!!!
and yes i'm going to put the twin throttle body on my 290..cheers guy's hope this helps ..:jester:

[bwhinnen]

Thats a fair point aswell...

I remember when the Boss V8 came out, everyone ranted it was so "technologically advanced" compared to the LS1 with its DOHC's. That it was almost unfair to compare it to the 'dinosaur' ls1. That is why i'll never feel sorry for it for giving away 0.4-0.8 of a liter to the Holdens.

And yes, we should be getting the v8 from the Mustang. Hopefully, rumours are that of a 400hp varient. Still, it sounds like its going to be giving the edge to the LS engines too. Not surprisingly considering the mustang is a smaller car than its competition.

What is the actual difference in fuel economy with the 5.4 and the ls2/ls3?

Same driving style, same fuel (caltex 95RON), both 6MT.

2006 BF XR8 (260 BOSS) - 14L / 100km
2008 HSV R8 (307 LS2) - 13L / 100km

This is a mixed cycle.

On a pure highway cycle the following, trip from Brisbane to Toowoomba and back.

2006 BF XR8 (260 BOSS) - 12L / 100km
2008 HSV R8 (307 LS2) - 10L / 100km

In traffic both are fairly comparable, with the slight advantage to the LS2, but on the highway there is no contest, the LS2 wins hands down. In reality the LS2 is sitting at 1500 odd RPM for 100km where the BOSS is sitting at about 1750 - 1800rpm for the 100km. This doesn't help the BOSS at all.

Both cars were un-modified for these tests, I keep records of every tank of fuel and know what my normal weekly cycle is.

Now note that this is the BOSS 260, not the 290, 302 or 315! My understanding from people I know with the 290 and 302 is that the economy was similar to the 260 if not a little worse... (oh and the BOSS was well and truly run in with 49,000km on it when I traded it on the LS2, which now has almost 15,000km).

Can't comment on the 315 as not enough of the FG FPV's have been sold yet.

[grafpak]

my boss 290 gets about 670-690k's hwy to a tank (without running out!)i think thats great! but if you really care about economy why buy a v-8 !!

[tanka5.7]

lol who cares, ill smoke both of them

[bwhinnen]

my boss 290 gets about 670-690k's hwy to a tank (without running out!)i think thats great! but if you really care about economy why buy a v-8 !!

Could never get that out of my BOSS, never understood how others did... Not that I cared, just enjoyed driving it, never cared about the fuel before, not going to start now...

[Luke_]

lol who cares, ill smoke both of them


What in, bloke ?

[tanka5.7]

mums taxi...

[Vulture]

lol who cares, ill smoke both of them

In the VQ?

[tanka5.7]

in short yes

[mickeyVX350]

I can admit the 3.6L from Holden is lacking in capacity and requireds a refinements with ignition etc to boost its power levels. Im not saying "what does cubes have to do with anything" as the Falcon I6 more fuel efficient than the Holden.

Are you on crack man!!!!

I had both cars, the I6 is Sh!tloads heavier on fuel, and in my opinin wasn't the roaring taxi engine of the BA!

My ex and I took what the Gov't provided for her job, and the VZ we felt was better, and we never had to pay for fuel. On a trip the VZ could return 7.1-7.6 L per hundred, and felt better down low. The I6 was better from about 70K. Still neither felt like the 3.8 which had torque from the weeds.

To then go further - my parents own a BAII I6... my LS untuned was better on the highway (and still is) My dad prefers to drive my sisters VX 3.8!

[VYII_R8]

Are you on crack man!!!!

I had both cars, the I6 is Sh!tloads heavier on fuel, and in my opinin wasn't the roaring taxi engine of the BA!

My ex and I took what the Gov't provided for her job, and the VZ we felt was better, and we never had to pay for fuel. On a trip the VZ could return 7.1-7.6 L per hundred, and felt better down low. The I6 was better from about 70K. Still neither felt like the 3.8 which had torque from the weeds.

To then go further - my parents own a BAII I6... my LS untuned was better on the highway (and still is) My dad prefers to drive my sisters VX 3.8!

We have both VE's and BFII (both 6 cylinder models) company cars here at work, and the BFs are returning about 0.5L/100km better than the VEs. These vehicles would do about 40/60 highway/city respectively.

[smokey777]

We have both VE's and BFII (both 6 cylinder models) company cars here at work, and the BFs are returning about 0.5L/100km better than the VEs. These vehicles would do about 40/60 highway/city respectively.

see to me half a litre??? is it really worth anything?

[macca_779]

see to me half a litre??? is it really worth anything?

hell yeah it is when the I6 rapes the Alloyanchor for torque delivery yet still returns better economy.

[smokey777]

nothing new theyve always raped the holden sixes for torque? holdens have usually better economy lol

[FlatfootV8]

Bag the alloytec all you like because when Ford loses its I6 for a V6 it would be an even match....

The I6 was is a great engine when it worked....