Printable View
Guy I know took his fairly new SV6 with SIDI motor to a dyno evening in Hallam last Friday night. I'm sure it's still stock engine wise except has V8 mufflers on the rear (twin pipes each side).
I've seen an early VE SV6 run high 120s at Chev's, so was amazed when this one ran 174.0 rwkw!! :eek: I suspected a happy dyno until he told me his mate's VZ SS A4 only ran 188rwkw on the same dyno, same night!
Looks like :goodjob: SIDI!!
Ran one the other day, 160rwkw. Good bit of gear.
Tuned a Alloytech VE Speedway car that had some headwork and mild cams that ran 207rwkw. That was fun :lol: Obviously there wasnt much of an exhaust.
Be interesting to overlay the 2 graphs.
Wouldnt look real pretty. Speedway cars top out around 120-140km/h. Sever gearing. This had a 2 speed box.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLUBRED
Sorry, refering to the SV6 and VZ SS...
I now have a dyno sheet for the V6 which I'm aiming to get up shortly, but not for the SS.
Would be interesting to hire one of these things for a day and take it to the track for a bit of a lark. You'd think a very very high 14 second run wouldnt be out of the question.
The dyno sheet. Ignore torque figures as they'ree obviously incorrect.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o...isc/V6SIDI.jpg
Geez thats good stock power from a V6...i wouldnt mind driving one to see what they are like.
What I find most surprising is the torque figure on the dyno sheet. Holden spec sheet says 290 nm at the engine for the SIDI, but this dyno manages to measure an average of around 650 nm at the wheels.
As dynos can only measure torque, and derive HP/KW from that via a formula, surely that throws some doubt on the dyno KW figures. The torque figure shown is simply impossible for this engine to produce without at least 1 BAR of boost without any losses.
Where is the flaw in my thinking?
gh
No, your logic is correct. You attention to detail let you down a little though...Quote:
Originally Posted by GHZ28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonky
That is for the 3.0L SIDI motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by GHZ28
Its an SV6 that was put on the dyno and holden claim 350nm
OK, given both the above explanations, if a dyno can only measure torque, and from that derive HP/KW, how can you say the torque numbers are wrong and accept the KW figures.
HP/KW are only derived figures, not measured figures.
gh
ps it was a bit late when I made the first post.......
Pity the 3.0 SIDI isn't as impressive. An absolute dog to drive.
yep 110% agree , i went along with my brother to test drive a my10 sv6 a6 and fg a6 , and ( i hate to admit it lol) the fg went alot better and had more down low torque and just seemed to do things easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
:) Well apart from Wonky's comment re ".....ignore the torque.....", unless the dyno was measuring torque at 1:1 gear ratio over all and roller rpm = engine rpm, it will be different unless a correction is applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by GHZ28
For example 200Nm at flywheel, trans + diff multiplication 4:1 = 800Nm.
As power is derived from torque and rpm, the roller torque is higher, but the rpm is lower. So if engine was at 6000rpm, 4:1 ratio overall = 1500rpm wheel, assume roller diameter = wheel diameter, roller rpm = 1500 too.
(Nm x rpm) / 9550 = kw.
Simple example. Not meant to be accurate. :)
I'm far from an expert on dynos but judging by the rwkw figure for the VZ SS A4 (5.7) which has given about the right reading I'd say whoever runs the dyno has got it somehow set up so that even though the torque figures are crap the power figures are about right............... :weirdo:
That's amazing power for the VE V6.
Really! A dog you say...:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
Perhaps when you compare it to a 6.0 V8 you can come to this conclusion, but when compared to the market Holden is aiming it at, they get along surprisingly well. The 6 speed auto gives it plenty of gears to make use of what it has, which would be only a p!ssant less torque than a 3.8 Ecotec used up to VY, and more power than even the supercharged version had...:teach:
Wonky, thats impressive results! Just a tune on its own would make it close to 200rwkw I reckon, considering its downtuned. Very excited to see any extra work on this. Only thing that sucks about the SIDI is it would suck for boost. Also, anyone confirm if the 3.6l has exhaust ports or manifolds? I know the 3.0l has two exhaust ports, one either side.
3.6 version uses normal manifolds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuzman89
Yes a dog I say.Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdavo
We have 4 of them at work as well as 3.6 VE's. It hunts for gears and revs its tits off for little gain. The holden spin doctors such as yourself may try and say it produces more power and torque but in fact it takes more revs to achieve only slightly more power and makes much less torque with more revs also.
What exactly is the market it's aimed at?
The 6 speed would have been nice in the 3.6 Omega, pitty Holden couldn't have thought of that. On a positive note though I do like the twin exit exhaust. Good work Doc, keep the spin going:goodjob:
You can say whatever turns you on booger, but the fact remains they get along quite well for a 3.0 V6. Most people are saying they didn't expect what they found once they have driven them, and I'm talking real world people, not hard driving "enthusiusts"...:teach:
The market they are aimed at has been so well covered I'm not going into it all again. You can do a search. :idea:
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdavo
I guess you mean the Fleet Market as they’re not doing well in private sales.
And who might these 'people' be? No doubt a figment of your imagination, or are you the CEO of Holdens Survey Dept??Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdavo
Ive driven the new 3.0 & 3.6 SIDI, and was quite impressed with the 3.6L, but the 3.0L is a piece of shit. I drove both for a good 45 minutes each, both around town and on a major 100km/h highway!!
Im mates with one of the guys at the local Holden dealership, he stated that the 3.0L is a POS as well. He always recommends a couple extra $$$ for the 3.6L to potential buyers.
But ur right, the 3.0L does get along well, compared to a push bike... :teach:
Crap on about the 3.0L all you like, we expect nothing less from you.. ITS A DOG, nothing less!!
Not even mate, guy i mentioned above said fleet sales have dropped by no less than 30% since their release, lost most of his business to the FG and Camry, as well as some smaller cars such as the Corolla's and i30's.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjhugh
haha see these 3 things in that statement
thats just typical salesman technique thereQuote:
Originally Posted by GODSMACK
LOL, just picked up on it myself... Having said that, his referrals to the 3.6 over the 3.0L are few and far between. Anyone who took both for a drive could notice the difference quite easily..Quote:
Originally Posted by andyman
Cheers
well of course the 3.6l is going to be better, for performance, the 3.0l never claimed to have better performance. It's meant to be better on fuel really, which is it from all reports.
However, the 3.6l port injected motor with the 6 speed would probably be much better on fuel then the 3.0l. Less power, but better torque.
of course you can, but compare 3.0 to a Camry, and it all starts to make a lot more sense. There's your clue. :teach:Quote:
Originally Posted by GODSMACK
Of course anyone who evaluates it as a performance car will be disappointed, but its inteneded market of cardigan-wearing non-car people will find it just dandy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GODSMACK
Anyone who bags it for not being a performance car is just away with the pixies...
I don't think anyone would expect it to be a performance car but one could at least expect it to be able to match the previous model. Regardless of what Holden says on paper, out on the road it's a dog to drive.
And planetdavo, if we're going to compare it to a Toyota at least go for the V6, the Aurion. 200kw at 6200rpm and 336nm at 4700rpm. Better than Holdens outgoing V6.
As far as target market is concered I would have thought fleet not mums and dads. That being the case and with many fleet buyers needing to cart heavy loads the SIDI 3.0 is not good enough. I had 5 guys 80kg plus in the car yesterday plus a load in the boot and no it wasn't fun. A 4 cylinder Camry probably would have beaten us in this case. So what's next for Holden and Commodore? Will it eventually reach the point where they put a 4 cylinder in it to appease the fuel police?
That's the whole point - an Aurion is basically a Camry with a bigger/better motor, which in a Commodore means a 3.6 or 6.0. Compare the smallest "economy" engine in each, ie Camry vs Commodore 3.0 and see which you like better. By all means compare the 3.6 to an Aurion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
I would imagine that there are plenty of Camrys being sold to fleets, and quite a few to "mums and dads" too. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole but there's obviously a market there, which I'm happy for Holden to exploit if it improves the bottom line, and keeps the deleopment money coming in for the versions that I'm interested in.
Yep I follow what you're saying but if Holden are following that type of logic then the Epica should have been made the smaller capacity, less powered option and left the Commodore with the larger capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by nudenut
Traditionally it has been Commodore V Falcon but it seems now Holden are dropping into the territory of the front drive small capacity V6 manufacturers.
True, but Holden aren't exactly selling plenty of Epica's. Plus the bread and butter for Holden is local production, not imports. If they can have a bet each way against both the Falcon and Aurion/ Camry market then that's not a bad thing IMO. Most private buyers would be edging towards the 3.6 or 6.0 as their choice of vehicle. The 3.0 would be geared toward the fleet market where the drivers don't get much of a choice. As long as fleet managers feel there is money to be saved on fuel costs they wouldn't care how it drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
True...just be glad the Commodore is not going the way of the Falcon! E.g. the way of the Dodo.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
Truth be told, holden sell far worse cars than the 3.0 Commodore.
Epica isn't nearly as big as a Commodore though ... whereas no matter what bullshit Toyota sprout about Camry being midsized and Aurion being large, they're the same size.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
(The 3.0 is moot for me anyway, if I was buying a new Commodore it'd be a SV6, SS or SS-V Sportwagon. Actually not sure if they make manual SV6 wagons so it'd be an 8 - regardless, if the 3.0 works for enough fleets/people for it to be a sales success, I reckon it's all good.)
As I understand it, those who have driven a 3.0 VE are saying it is an unrefined turd that needs to have the tits thrashed off it,which negates any potential fuel savings anyway. :)
Hope I got it right.
I have driven it, as well as the falcon 6 and Aurion. I would rank the commodore last in that little comparison, not as a performance car, but as a commuter. IMHO of course. :jester:
Nope, 3.6l SIDI shits all over it, 215kw and 350nm at 2900rpm. Plus it uses less fuel, looks better, handles better. Who wants a fwd piece of shit anyway? The 3.0l wasn't made to compete with the high powered aurion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOOGER
I was refering to the outgoing V6, the non SIDI one. But you're right, who wants to drive a FWD POS!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuzman89