the falcon shits on them all.!!!!!!!.
Printable View
the falcon shits on them all.!!!!!!!.
In torque it does, yes.....Quote:
Originally Posted by RAVENLS1
no, the falcon is a better car
How many of you guys have actually spent more than a few hours behind the wheel of the cars you are all commenting on?
It's hard without buying one.
WHy would anyone buy the 3.0l when the SV6 is going for 36k atm!
tell me if im bring a bit radical with my thinking but would they be able to make a v8 version of the SIDI motor and would it be any good?
Perhaps your question should be how many of you guys have even driven any of the cars you are commenting on...:idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoolin
At least I can say that I've had at least a full day in an Aurion, FG 6, alloytec 175 and 190 non-sidi, 3.0 and 3.6 sidi, plus numerous other small and mid size cars.
All in the last 12 months.
And........what do you think of all these?Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdavo
I agree with Davo that the 3.0 isn't a dog, but the installation in a car as big and heavy as the Commodore is marketing wank at its worst. Pretty much every test of the 3.0 has shown that it offers very little if any economy advantage over the 3.6, which is consistent with pretty much every small engine option on cars in the past. That's why historically most buyers, fleet and private, upgrade to the bigger engine when there is a choice. Despite Davo's comments about the smaller engine option being popular, there is no real basis to judge because Holden hasn't made the larger engine an option in the lower models and haven't made the smaller engine available in the higher models. So buyers don't have a direct choice. I would guess that if Holden did allow people to option the bigger engine on the Omega and Berlina, most would go with the bigger motor. The really sad part of all of this is that the smaller engine is not cheaper to make, not lighter or more compact, doesn't offer any real economy advantages and is less pleasant to drive. At least the 4 cylinder Camry is cheap to make and therefore is reflected in the price of the car.
The main point to remember Pete, and the basis of my posting all along, is that 3.6 SIDI powered SV6 is by far the main 6 cyl model to private buyers, whom often have different priorities to the fleet buyers that usually buy Omega and Berlina.
These are, of course, the two models powered by the smaller 3.0 motor, with their lower listed fuel average and greenhouse gas emissions.
Since private buyers rarely ever buy new Omega's or Berlina's, and large fleets favour lower fuel usage, what's the real point of offering this motor, other than adding undesirable complexity to the whole production and sale process?
Ford have a 4 cyl Falcon coming. The world has changed.
Aurion: Generally polished drivetrain, but not sewing machine smooth like some claim, with some shimmies and dud gear choices at times. Good performance and economy, soggy handling, crap hvac controls on lower models, footbrake is poo, clearly a Camry otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by gmh308
Falcon: Good 6cyl motor, pretty good auto, doesn't moan like a taxi these days, front seats sit too high off the floor. Clear dash layout. Note: most don't have a 6 speed auto standard, they more often have a 5 speed, which seems to be forgotten by most for some reason.
VE 3.6 175 non sidi: crap 4 speed auto, good handling for a base model, light but feelsome steering, seating position better than Falcon (lower), still a good looking car 3 years on, dash plastic looking, but clear. Good boot shape.
VE 3.6 190 high output non sidi: (the car I'm currently driving, a Calais) good performance, sounds better than 175 base version, 5 speed auto much better, but does sometimes hunt around for gears, bigger wheels/better tyres with this motor, so better for "pressing on" a bit. Otherwise, same as above.
VE 3.0 sidi: You notice the reduced torque, but with 50% more gears than the previous base model auto, not bad at all. Quite impressive mid range and top end performance for a 3.0 in a heavy car. Sometimes hunts for gears, but it's quite smooth doing so, not thumping around like 4 speed did. Sounds sweet too. Otherwise, same as earlier VE.
VE 3.6 sidi: Impressive "V8 10 years ago" performance, with good economy. Fitted to cars with better tyres/bigger wheels/firmer suspension (usually), so more impressive for people that like to drive. Auto does it's business with minimal fuss, bit less hunting for gears than 3.0 (having more torque). Sounds good revving it out. Otherwise, same as earlier VE.
VE doesn't have the 190kw engine, thats the VZ SV6, try 195 :1peek:
Just go to Avis and Hertz etc. Even they don't buy Omegas anymore. I rented an SV6 from Avis during the week and not one povo pack to be seen. All SV6 and one XR6 in the lot. Nice to be able to rent a nice car with some added style and features.
The point though Davo is that the 3.0 doesn't appear to deliver any fuel economy benefits in real life despite what the sticker on the windscreen says. It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually runs a fleet whether the smaller motor was a plus or minus in the ordering decision and whether there is any fuel economy diffenece between the 3.6 and 3.0 engines overall in a fleet.
Well I can tell you that the Queensland Government, police in particular, are now buying Holdens again now that their fuel consumption figure has dropped to the same as the Aurion etc. Holden had been off the general fleet buying scheme because of its poor fuel economy.....relatively of course.
gh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party Pete
Sounds very familiar. Plenty of examples fo smaller engines being duds in real life including:
- VC Commodore Starfire
- EA Falcon 3.2 (died a quiet death even for the taxis!!!)
Same goes for trucks. Seen examples where a C12 CAT costs more to run than a C15 at 500/1850 in part because the drivers thrash/rev them and you have to run a shorter diff like 4.3s vs 4.1.
This is typical of a government dept - they're just doing it for their compliance to carbon emissions etc - they will use kms x advertisied anyhow which in essence is why Holden have been very smart. Ford will likely do very well when the Econetic 4 pot Falcon comes along.Quote:
Originally Posted by GHZ28
Your post continues to make the "assumption" that the 3.0 is a "dud".Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Pete
It isn't. It is a slightly smaller V6 from the same HFV6 engine family, with slightly less power, correspondingly less torque, and slightly better economy.
Pretty much what most people would expect really!
Comparisons to a starfire or a throttle body injected 3.2 EA are faintly ridiculous mate. 3.0 has all the tech and sidi efficiency of the bigger version. It is not de-specced to inefficient TBI like the EA motor, or missing 33% of it's cylinders like a starfire (based as it was off an already low powered 6 cyl).
We sell heaps of cars to fleets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Party Pete
There is no point getting into arguments over what cars "are getting" out on the roads. Everyone knows that different people drive cars in different ways. Asking a hard driver will give a car a bad rap, whereas an easy driver will give a car a good rap. Plus, sidi has only been out a fairly short period of time.
They usually work off the adr figures, as it's the only way to have a true comparative figure. Whether it translates to the real world is more down to the boof pressing the go pedal...:yup:
This is done for resale reasons, as SV6 is the best selling private buyer model. Makes them more popular used too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Pete
More and more fleets do this now. It's exactly why police fleets have all these SS pursuit cars now, rather than special build base models.
Worth more later on.
Im not sure that the 3.0L is a dog its just not as enthusastic as the marketing gurus made the engine out to be.
While the gearbox does hunt around a bit overall the car is about the same as the model it replaced with a little more refinement (and only a little)
At the end of the day Holden gives us 3 choices of engine, buy the car that suits your driving and financial needs.
Hype does often fail to meet expectations, especially to "enthusiusts"...:hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno
For the various negative posters, we could have had the non sidi 2.8 they've been fitting to some overseas Statesman's for a while...:teach:
lets be honest. Many on here say the 3.0 commodore is not meant to be compared to the aurion or falcon. But its priced the same so it should be compared.
The last decent 6 made by holden is the old supercharged v6. It might have only 170kw but 380nm at 3000rpm = goodbye sidi.
Doesnt really surprise me.
I didnt think the old 195 alloytech was that underpowered anyway?:confused:
Even the 175 seemed pretty decent.
Maybe you lot need to grow up a bit and stop looking at them like they are sports cars :stick:
I agree with you Michael. For a everyday driver/cruiser the 175-195/SIDI are perfect! plenty of go and still a lot of fun to drive. If you are after every pony out of an engine just buy a V8 as simple as that. Never understood the argument about a V6 vs V8. At the end of the day the sixes will never achieve all that much power that most people are hunting for. Yet They still have enough power to get up and go and lose your license 3x over. IMO the SIDI would have me satisfied until i grow up and can get behind the wheel of a V8 (i want to be atleast 25 years old.)Quote:
Originally Posted by michaels1v8
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by HULK_BA
haha, you just gave yourself away... again! Piss off back to the ford forums.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. :flip2:
For starters the SIDI is an NA engine, so uses MUCH less fuel, whilst still being able to flog the super six in its DOWNTUNED state!!
It's better then the 4.0l na ford barra in terms of performance and fuel also. Best Holden V6
This threads useless anyway so I may as well go a little o/t, on my way to my car after returning from the UAE at the end of Jan I spotted several XR6's in the Melb airport Avis carpark amongst all the SV6's. No Omega's were obvious so the fleet is definately up specced now as you pointed Davo, bear in mind I landed at 11.30pm after 14 hrs although it was 1st class (very, very lucky) I could have sworn that they were purely Holden in Vic in the large class since I ever began hiring cars in 1983. I think the bigger issue for Holden is whether the export markets can pick-up so money can be spent on the next major upgrades. I think Lutz has lost his influence completely and having come back from the UAE that area isn't going to pick-up for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdavo
Update: he recently took it to Calder - as far as I know he'd never had any car at the drags before. He just drove it in off the street on 20s.
His comments follow: First run didn’t warm the tires for the take off, wasn’t keen on smoking 20’s, so just drove straight through the wet patch they put down and took off at the green light, wheel span 1st and 2nd gear massively (flippen wet tires) and ran a 15.41 at 148km/h, crossed the line almost hitting rev limiter in 3rd.
Second run i dropped the tire pressures, smoked the tires at the start line, and just before the light turned green i thought it might be a good idea to turn traction control on (it was a bad idea)! Car carried on like an old woman off the line, bogged down and felt like was gonna stall, and when i grabbed second gear the traction kicked in again and bogged down on the gear change. Still that run it did a 14.98 at 156km/h crossing the line in 4th.
Lining up for the 3rd run a car decided to blow up half track in a big ball of fire and oil all over the track so didn’t get to run again.
Not a bad time for a novice running on 20s with a stock V6 - obviously room for improvement. :)
thats damn good, considering he has no experience, what size tyres on the back? 245/35/20?
When he gets abit of practice, a 14.5 wouldn't be too hard I imagine.
Not bad for a v6 considering the low torque they output and having to pull a fat ve around.
As powerfull as these 6's are these days. Torque and power to weight always prevail. Moral of the story 200 odd kw today doesn't get you as far as it used to as my old vn ss was quicker with only 180kw
I think so, will check next time I see him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuzman89
Similar performance from a family friendly V6 motor whilst using around two thirds the fuel, perhaps even less. The V8's will sh!t all over a VN V8 now, whilst using no more fuel than the VN, often less.Quote:
Originally Posted by macca_779
That's where the progress is.
Stock tune's in both and its actually pretty close Davo. When my Senator was stock it used more than my VN did. Approx 1.0L more per 100km on the highway.. Thats weight for ya. But I agree on progress. The fact that a heavy VE can get similar economy is astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdavo