Power loss for Alloytec

[Bossxr8]

Reading the Carsguide today and noticed the Alloytec V6 has dropped to 172 kw, down from 175 with the switch to Euro III compliance. Holden did a good job of keeping that quite. Not much difference but quite suprising considereing how high tech the Alloytec was supposed to be for it to drop power due to new emissions regs. Has been a bit of a letdown after all the hype. Will they get it right for VE. The delay for VE must have really stuffed up their plans as it should have been bought out in Euro III spec to start with in VE. Will the VE live up to the hype.

[EL_futuraistic]

yeah i also read that today. I find it somewhat confusing as the new Alloytech was suppoed to be the "new generation" of holden 6cyl engines. Surely when they brought it into the VZ series EURO III was on their minds, and if so being the 1st generation of this engine why wasnt it made compliant from the start, would have made more sense considering it was replacing a motor thats some 10 years old now. :

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

yeah i also read that today. I find it somewhat confusing as the new Alloytech was suppoed to be the "new generation" of holden 6cyl engines. Surely when they brought it into the VZ series EURO III was on their minds, and if so being the 1st generation of this engine why wasnt it made compliant from the start, would have made more sense considering it was replacing a motor thats some 10 years old now. :

Would have made more sense to bring it out in Euro III spec from the start. Surely that would have reduced development dollars.

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by EL_futuraistic

yeah i also read that today. I find it somewhat confusing as the new Alloytech was suppoed to be the "new generation" of holden 6cyl engines. Surely when they brought it into the VZ series EURO III was on their minds, and if so being the 1st generation of this engine why wasnt it made compliant from the start, would have made more sense considering it was replacing a motor thats some 10 years old now. :

TEN years old ??? That shiyt box motor goes way back older than that!!!
Buick did away with it years ago...
In Aussie yes...

[buickman]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

TEN years old ??? That shiyt box motor goes way back older than that!!!
Buick did away with it years ago...
In Aussie yes...

You sure about that. The alloy tech is a modern cadillac mtr.

The alloy Buick mtrs were sold to Leyland to power the Rover's in th 60's & 70's the 3.5 ltr alloy mtr.

The 3.8 even fire mtr that was used in the VN-VY Holdens was a 2 cyl cut down of the Buick 350cu V8( not good rev type mtr but very torquey ) which showed up in 74 models to save fuel from the OPEC oil embargo of that period.

The best 6cyl mtr Holden ever had was the RB30 in the VL's

[Lawsy]

Originally Posted by buickman

You sure about that. The alloy tech is a modern cadillac mtr.

The alloy Buick mtrs were sold to Leyland to power the Rover's in th 60's & 70's the 3.5 ltr alloy mtr.

The 3.8 even fire mtr that was used in the VN-VY Holdens was a 2 cyl cut down of the Buick 350cu V8( not good rev type mtr but very torquey ) which showed up in 74 models to save fuel from the OPEC oil embargo of that period.

The best 6cyl mtr Holden ever had was the RB30 in the VL's

Please don't type like this is an sms message, you have plenty of space to type things out in full so people can more easily comprehend what the meaning is.

The RB30 is a nissan engine, not a holden one, and that old holden v6 is decades old, finding origins in its bore spacing as far back as some engines produced in the 60's (possibly earlier)...

The current Holden v6 sounds no better than that old engine, seems to be just as harsh up top and performs little better as well. Pretty sad if you ask me...
Especially considering that the car it has to pull around is roughly 100kg's lighter (in the base model, even lighter still in other models), compared to the Falcon.

My 2c.

[82XD393.3v]

[QUOTE=Lawsy]Please don't type like this is an sms message, you have plenty of space to type things out in full so people can more easily comprehend what the meaning is.

The RB30 is a nissan engine, not a holden one
The only word i can see in buicks post thats not in full is motor (mtr) and if you carn't work that out you should be ashamed of yourself
also he didn't say the RB30 was a holden engine he said it was the best engine holden had out:

[buickman]

[QUOTE=Lawsy]
The RB30 is a nissan engine, not a holden one, and that old holden v6 is decades old, finding origins in its bore spacing as far back as some engines produced in the 60's (possibly earlier)...


QUOTE]

It might be a Nissian sourced mtr but its still the best 6cyl mtr they have ever fitted to their cars.
The odd & even fire Buick V6 mtrs appeared in 1974 that went on to power the VN-VY. But they are of the same family as the Rover V8's used first in the 1962 Skylarks .

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by buickman

You sure about that. The alloy tech is a modern cadillac mtr.

The alloy Buick mtrs were sold to Leyland to power the Rover's in th 60's & 70's the 3.5 ltr alloy mtr.

The 3.8 even fire mtr that was used in the VN-VY Holdens was a 2 cyl cut down of the Buick 350cu V8( not good rev type mtr but very torquey ) which showed up in 74 models to save fuel from the OPEC oil embargo of that period.

The best 6cyl mtr Holden ever had was the RB30 in the VL's

I was talking about the IRON block PUSHROD IRON head-ed V6 ...That came out in the VN..Being from Buick...Old as in externally ballanced and pushrod..
Yes the Nissan motor was a good one...Strange it was really only for Aust...

[LUXO_8]

*/me signs up to thread out of interest*

[TheSneakiness]

*Subscribed*

[bruster]

I also was suprised at the news and checked the Holden website and on the specification section of the commodore range i notice in small print:

All power figures rated were based on Premium Unleaded Fuel also making it more confusing is they advertise 190 Kw and 175 Kw (now 172Kw) on normal unleaded.

I always thought of Holden as very tricky in their advertising campaigns.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by bruster

I also was suprised at the news and checked the Holden website and on the specification section of the commodore range i notice in small print:

All power figures rated were based on Premium Unleaded Fuel also making it more confusing is they advertise 190 Kw and 175 Kw (now 172Kw) on normal unleaded.

I always thought of Holden as very tricky in their advertising campaigns.

Ah yes but they are 172 "Holden" kw not Ford ones.....

Remember 297 Hkw = 305 Fkw.........

[bruster]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ah yes but they are 172 "Holden" kw not Ford ones.....

Remember 297 Hkw = 305 Fkw.........

So which one is which, would FPV 290 vs HSV 297

Which type of kw should we be looking at, this is getting more confusing.

[jmc-007]

Those ECE and DIN readings are rubbish anyway. The ford engines have more power even.


This has been proven in Motor Mag. they did a comparative test.

[micksta]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ah yes but they are 172 "Holden" kw not Ford ones.....

Remember 297 Hkw = 305 Fkw.........

what the hell ??? :

[flappist]

Originally Posted by micksta

what the hell ??? :

Read the HSV brochure...............

[YOOT]

Originally Posted by micksta

what the hell ??? :

Holden quote their power figures in ECE format which is with all ancillaries connected to the engine, or something like that. It results in a lower fiqure that is published in the specs. Ford quote their outputs of just the engine with minimal ancillaries which produces a more optimistic output, which then drops slightly once all the belts are on and ancillaries are being driven.

What that translates to is that when Holden states that the LS2 is 297kw in the Ford equivalent it would be 305kw. Which also means that if Ford quote 290kw then in reality its closer to 282kw.

But... just to confuse matters, the Holdens have tended to read much lower rwkws on the dyno for their respective engine outputs and the Fords tend to read higher.

Motor compared a GT Falcon with a LS2 Clubby and the GT made over 240rwkw (which indicates closer to 310kw engine power) and the Clubby made 225rwkw which was bang on what it should have made. Someone may correct me. :

What I have found in my travels is that the standard V8 and I6 make less power than what they are supposed to (which is why they usually feel flat), and the XR and FPV motors tend to make more than they are supposed to. This is certainly the case with the FPVs and me thinks the XR6T has always a little torque happy around 3500rpm and is making closer to 470nm mid range and is not as flat as it should be. Hence why it makes similar numbers on the dyno to the XR8 and is always much quicker on the road.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by YOOT

Holden quote their power figures in ECE format which is with all ancillaries connected to the engine, or something like that. It results in a lower fiqure that is published in the specs. Ford quote their outputs of just the engine with minimal ancillaries which produces a more optimistic output, which then drops slightly once all the belts are on and ancillaries are being driven.

What that translates to is that when Holden states that the LS2 is 297kw in the Ford equivalent it would be 305kw. Which also means that if Ford quote 290kw then in reality its closer to 282kw.

But... just to confuse matters, the Holdens have tended to read much lower rwkws on the dyno for their respective engine outputs and the Fords tend to read higher.

Motor compared a GT Falcon with a LS2 Clubby and the GT made over 240rwkw (which indicates closer to 310kw engine power) and the Clubby made 225rwkw which was bang on what it should have made. Someone may correct me. :

What I have found in my travels is that the standard V8 and I6 make less power than what they are supposed to (which is why they usually feel flat), and the XR and FPV motors tend to make more than they are supposed to. This is certainly the case with the FPVs and me thinks the XR6T has always a little torque happy around 3500rpm and is making closer to 470nm mid range and is not as flat as it should be. Hence why it makes similar numbers on the dyno to the XR8 and is always much quicker on the road.

Both standards require full ancillaries to be connected, they just use different measuring formulas to get to the end power reading. It is nothing more than a simple difference in maths. The thing that annoys me about Holden claiming Fords figures are wrong is that the DIN standard Ford uses is the more acceptable and more highly used standard, and if Holden want to use the lower standard then deal with it and don't critisize everyone else because you want to be different to the majority who use DIN. Holdens marketing team sure know how to spin crap.

[Casper]

Cool, its as powerful as my SOHC 1998 VCT motor.. when its got a bad factory tune.
Yay for Holden!

[M&Ms]

Yeh i noticed it a few months back when Holden did that VZ2 press release thingy before xmas. The higher tune 3.6 V6 is still at 190 KW although it has dropped from 340 Nm to 335 Nm. Makes you really commend Ford on their efforts to not only hold the same power levels, but to increase them slightly too (182 -> 190 KW).

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by M&Ms

Yeh i noticed it a few months back when Holden did that VZ2 press release thingy before xmas. The higher tune 3.6 V6 is still at 190 KW although it has dropped from 340 Nm to 335 Nm. Makes you really commend Ford on their efforts to not only hold the same power levels, but to increase them slightly too (182 -> 190 KW).

Does anyone know what the torque of the EUROIII compliant Commo is??

[sphell]

The VZ hire car we got for the Springnats was a torque-less piece of crap.

[EFFalcon]

Originally Posted by sphell

The VZ hire car we got for the Springnats was a torque-less piece of crap.

until there was no one in it, then it moved ;)

[YOOT]

Originally Posted by sphell

The VZ hire car we got for the Springnats was a torque-less piece of crap.

The BA I6 feels no better below 2500rpm with the ION 4-speed, you don't start moving untill over 60kmh! Most races are over by then! the 6-pseed would be a different matter... :evilking:

[Redrum]

The bog stock V6 comedydore engine lacks one thing needed in a large Aussie 6 and that is torque. Makes a lot of noise though.......

[Eithor]

Originally Posted by Redrum

The bog stock V6 comedydore engine lacks one thing needed in a large Aussie 6 and that is torque. Makes a lot of noise though.......

100% agree with that i owned vy commy v6 ( just sold it ) and it had no torque what so ever and slow as all fook. and also blow the gearbox at 45,000kms and holden are fags and wouldnt replace it i had to get it reconditoned out of warrenty..

Lost all respect for holden and would never buy 1 ever again.. i drive perents deawoo atm till i finish getting finance for my house i will be going a xr6t :

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Eithor

100% agree with that i owned vy commy v6 ( just sold it ) and it had no torque what so ever and slow as all fook. and also blow the gearbox at 45,000kms and holden are fags and wouldnt replace it i had to get it reconditoned out of warrenty..

Lost all respect for holden and would never buy 1 ever again.. i drive perents deawoo atm till i finish getting finance for my house i will be going a xr6t :

I drive the T and and swear by it. Bang for buck it has no equal in its class!!

[AUXRVIII]

Umm here are some power figures from the BF workshop manual some of you might find interesting.

General Specifications

Description Specification
Displacement 3984cc
Number of cylinders In line 6
Compression Ratio
DOHC VCT 10.3:1
Turbo 8.7:1
Power at specified rpm(DIN)
DOHC VCT 187 kW @ 5000
LPG 156 kW @ 4750
Turbo 245 kW @5250
Torque at specified rpm (DIN)
DOHC VCT 390 Nm @ 3250
LPG 372 Nm @ 3000
Turbo 480 Nm @ 2000-4500
Bore/Stroke 92.25mm / 99.31mm
Firing Order 1-5-3-6-2-4
Oil Pressure - 2000 rpm @ 80 °C
(normal operating temperature)
Oil Pressure - 700 rpm (idle) @ 80 °C
(normal operating temperature)
300 kPa minimum
120 kPa minimum
Spark Plug - I6
DOHC VCT AGSP 22YE13
LPG AGSP 22YE07
Turbo AGSP 22YE09
Compression Pressure at Maximum cranking speed
DOHC VCT 1010 Kpa
LPG 1110 Kpa
Turbo TBA
Idle Speed
Manual Trans (A/C off)
DOHC VCT 700 ± 50 rpm
LPG 700 ± 50 rpm
Turbo 700 ± 50 rpm
Auto trans in Neutral
DOHC VCT 700 ± 50 rpm
LPG 700 ± 50 rpm
Turbo 660 ± 50 rpm
Auto Trans in Drive
DOHC VCT 530 ± 50 rpm

BF00006 en 01/2006 2006.0 BF Falcon

[tex]

When i drove my mates alloytec we both named it "Mary". He tried, and failed to light her up, then I tried with the same result.

If this motor produces 170 odd killerwatts Ill stand rooted. It may very well on an engine stand, but there's NO way the ECU was letting it make that power (or rather torque) as publicised on the engines spec sheets.

It will not turn a tyre in the dry, sure it's an auto, but it's got an open wheeler diff and skinny dross rubber !!! Jesus, my old XF would thrash one wheel, and I'm guessing it made all of 100 KW !

I wonder what the ECU lets MARY really produce when it detects WOT and foot on brake ? It is not 170 watts, yet alone the bigger ones ! This is not a criticism of mine, I couldn't care less, but there you go !

He HATES this car, paid mid 30's for it OTR, had consisdered a XR6, and would dearly love to offload MARY for ANY car that consistantly makes what the manufacturer quotes.

How aggressive is the ECU on Ford IL6 engines ??