New Holden V6 news right now.

[EDManual]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/37379/ho...ates-revealed/


Live conference is here :

http://www.webtronwebcast.com/holden/video/


Although the conference has just begun we can bring you news already as follows:

* The new 3.0-litre SIDI V6 will produce 190kW and manage a consumption figure of 9.3L/100km (combined). This engine will be available in Omega and Berlina models.
* The exisiting 3.6-litre V6 will be available in the rest of the VE range – as well as WM models – but will see a power increase to 210kW. This engine will be mated exclusively to a six-speed automatic transmission.
* LPG powered units now achieve a fuel economy figure of 13.4L/100km (combined) as well as being the most CO2 emissions friendly car in its class.
* Most VE and WM models will not see any increase over the current recommended retail price.
* Next year an E85 fuelled alternative will also be made available with this engine to be exported globally. Export vehicles to be powered by the Aussie V6 include SAAB’s new 9-5 model.

[Road_Warrior]

The 3.6 will be SIDI as well

[EDManual]

pretty cool being able to watch the conference... that Royce bloke says Um a lot!!

[EDManual]

thats interesting the moulded alloy exhaust manifold made into the head.

They said the engine is 10kg lighter than the current v6.

[Ghiadude]

notice that torque figures arnt quoted?

[EDManual]

From another thread....

Road_Warrior


Bumping this thread

A moot discussion topic now that Holden's V6 engine plans are public knowledge, with the following figures:

Omega / Berlina
3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190 @ 6700
290 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
9.3L/100

SV6/Calais/Statesmen/Caprice
3.6L SIDI V6 (LLT)
VE, WM MY10
210 @ 6400
350 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
10.1 - 10.3L/100

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

[Ghiadude]

better torque and similar fuel consumption out of an engine 33% larger. Not too far behind but behind none the less. 6 speed ZF across the range now FTW!

[Mr Hardware]

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

As the only motor you can do 1 million kays in?

[Smoke Pursuit]

Whats omega / berlina going to be like with that torque? I reckon it will be a mutt of a car!

[Smoke Pursuit]

4.0 I6
195kw @ 6000rpm
391nm @ 3250rpm

3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190kw @ 6700rpm
290nm @ 2900rpm

Over 100 nm of extra torque.. woah Holden have done it again!

[Mr Hardware]

It all depends where the torque is and how early you reach 90% torque at how long it lasts for.
I mean just remember they went from the ecotec motor which had a similar torque figure (295-odd) which was a punchy, responsive albeit rough motor, to the smooth but utterly gutless alloytec which had 5% greater torque, just all in the wrong places, so it actually felt gutless.

[barra240t]

Vs. 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm 9.9L/100km.

I think Ford can still hold their head high.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

better torque and similar fuel consumption out of an engine 33% larger. Not too far behind but behind none the less. 6 speed ZF across the range now FTW!

ZF? I don't think so, the 6L50E is a GM transmission

[barra240t]

Originally Posted by barra240t

Vs. 195kW @ 6000rpm, 391Nm @ 3250rpm 9.9L/100km.

I think Ford can still hold their head high.

Sorry BF! You said the same thing!

[Mr Hardware]

I think you'll find he's comparing the 3.0L V6 to the 4L I6. 3+33.3%=4.

[ED Classic]

I said back at the last model launch and Territory update that Ford should have just stuck the 6 Auto on everything and thats it. Many here said but marketing etc..Those days are gone..It was always going to happen so why waste money on a 5 auto? Didnt Ford think Holden would do it? They will have to do it now.

The new 4cyl T for Falcon is rumoured to be somewhere between 180-205kw and 350-380nm and a heck of a lot lighter with 8 lites per 100km overall so theres seem pretty average economy and power wise.

The I6 is good enough ATM but why can For Direct inject it etc? Any reason?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by ED Classic

I said back at the last model launch and Territory update that Ford should have just stuck the 6 Auto on everything and thats it. Many here said but marketing etc..Those days are gone..It was always going to happen so why waste money on a 5 auto? Didnt Ford think Holden would do it? They will have to do it now.

Cost perhaps? The ZF is a very expensive piece of German kit whereas the R5 isn't. Holden are able to dip into the global GM parts bin for their 6 speed, which is, according to motoring journos, well and truly inferior to the ZF.

Start banging out ZF-equipped Falcons as standard and the base cost will have to increase, bad move in a price sensitive market.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

It all depends where the torque is and how early you reach 90% torque at how long it lasts for.
I mean just remember they went from the ecotec motor which had a similar torque figure (295-odd) which was a punchy, responsive albeit rough motor, to the smooth but utterly gutless alloytec which had 5% greater torque, just all in the wrong places, so it actually felt gutless.

Mr Hardware has nailed it - it's not peak torque, it's where it arrives. The Ecotec was a rough old bugger, but it developed heaps of torque just off idle, which made it feel punchy.

However, the alloytec seems to be pretty poor in the low down torque department. The I6 is still superior to both the 3.0 and 3.6, it'll last forever, makes good power and torque across the rev range.

[sgt_doofey]

I have to laugh as my 2.0L HDi (Turbo Diesel) engine would feel better to drive than that 3.0L V6 as it delivers 320Nm from 1750rpm up to about 4000rpm. Combined with fuel consumption figures of approx 6L/100km, I'll stick with the diesel 307 thanks.
That car will be a slug to drive really. Any idea what the towing capacity will be with the new motor as well? Wouldn't be that great will it?

[ea90gl]

Have a look at the numbers for the 3.0, if this isnt the next boat anchor I wouldn't know what is. 290Nm at 2900? 190KW at 6700? What will this thing be making at 2000-2500RPM where the "fuel efficient" driving style spins the motor at? Peanuts is my guess which means more throttle just to get moving so people can waive goodbye to your beloved fuel consumption decrease. It will probably return great numbers on the highway but how many times are we travelling those long distances

[Rob]

"Familiees are not getting any smaller. This country is not getting any smaller. Peopel want the comfort to travel", said Holden chairman and managing director Mark Reuss, who recently announced he was leaving the top post at Holden to take up a position as the global head of engineering for General Motors.

"Now they can have both - the size and the operating costs."

Key changes to the new MY10 Commodore:

Annual fuel savings of $325
600kg less CO2 per year
Sydney to Melbourne on one tank of fuel
Fuel economy as low as 9.3L/100km
190kW direct injection 3.0-litre V6 for Commodore Omega, Berlina
210kW direct injection 3.6-litre V6 for Calais, Commodore SV6
Low rolling resistence tyres to reduce fuel use
Updated LPG engine
E85 ethanol technology for 2010
Prices held for most models

Does anyone proof read this crap?

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Cost perhaps? The ZF is a very expensive piece of German kit whereas the R5 isn't. Holden are able to dip into the global GM parts bin for their 6 speed, which is, according to motoring journos, well and truly inferior to the ZF.

Start banging out ZF-equipped Falcons as standard and the base cost will have to increase, bad move in a price sensitive market.

I thought the ZF for non turbo models was a lot cheaper than the big bugger for our Turbos and V8's?... And If Ford started buying say 5000 instead of 1000 per month they would have to get them cheaper than they are currently.

[whales]

Mr and Mrs average buyer wont care about torque and when it comes in or anything like that, they will only look at fuel economy and if the car is comfortable and safe

my 2cents worth

[mcnamg]

Originally Posted by whales

Mr and Mrs average buyer wont care about torque and when it comes in or anything like that, they will only look at fuel economy and if the car is comfortable and safe

my 2cents worth

Fuel economy that they wont be able to replicate in the real world

[whales]

Originally Posted by mcnamg

Fuel economy that they wont be able to replicate in the real world

May be so but can anybody replicate what Ford or for that matter any other car company claim.........probably not

[GT69]

IF people test drive both cars, they'll buy the falcon. Simple.

[Carby]

Whales is right - it's not about performance at the moment it's about economy!

[vfast]

Originally Posted by whales

Mr and Mrs average buyer wont care about torque and when it comes in or anything like that, they will only look at fuel economy and if the car is comfortable and safe

my 2cents worth

But the motor mags will beat up the performance difference, as well they should. I think they are making a mistake with offering an obviously underpowered engine in a large car.

At least the Ecoboost will achieve near the same output on boost as the higer spec holden motor with less cylinders and better econmody off boost.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by bfiipursuit

4.0 I6
195kw @ 6000rpm
391nm @ 3250rpm

3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190kw @ 6700rpm
290nm @ 2900rpm

I wonder whether Toyota will have any reaction by unleashing the direct injection version of it's 3.5L into the Aurion.

Currently the Toyota Aurion 3.5L 2GR-FE has:
200kw@6200rpm
336nm@4700rpm.

However the direct injection version of this engine that's in some JSpec and Lexus ranges (3.5L 2GR-FSE) has:
232kw@6400rpm
377nm@4800rpm

[spvd02]

I actually think Holden has delivered way above expectations with the 3.0L engine. We were all thinking it would produce 290 odd Nm @ 5200rpm, but it's now been revealed it has 290Nm available at 2900rpm.

I don't think this car will be as bad to drive as some of you predict it will be. Real world fuel economy should be good also, because of the lower-end torque. It might not be such a great figure, but at least you won't need to rev too far to achieve it. It looks like the engine will be relatively unstressed.

I'm interested to see how the real-world fuel efficiency of this car will compare with the Falcon. If it's significantly better, Holden are onto a winner, but if consumption is similar, they've failed, since all they've delivered is less power than the previous model.

We'll see what the comparisons have to say. BTW, what is the combined fuel consumption of the Omega with the standard 5spd?