VT SS V8 or Supercharged V6?
Ivan Tolj
I am looking at getting into a new car, I currently drive a '97 Ford Fairmont
which is ok but am looking at switching to the VT Commodore.
Initally I was looking at an S pack but I've heard many bad things about the
current V6, so I turned my intentions to the SS which to me looked a bit nicer
and meaner than the S. I took the SS V8 out for a test drive and fell in love
with it but the problem of fuel consumption niggles at me, I then thought about
possibly a Supercharged V6 which seem to be rarer than hens teeth.
I was wondering if anyone had any information, experience or opinions on either
the V8 or the Supercharged V6 SS. Or should I just wait for the new Falcon
that's taken far too damn long to come out?
Any information would be greatly appreciated!! :o)
Aardwolf
Ivan Tolj wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had any information, experience or opinions on either
> the V8 or the Supercharged V6 SS. Or should I just wait for the new Falcon
> that's taken far too damn long to come out?
>
> Any information would be greatly appreciated!! :o)
Over here Stateside the supercharged V6 seems to be the engine of choice
for Pontiacs Buicks and even some Oldsmobiles. Evidently the reliability
(and power output) has been much improved over the earlier versions
(which you never got over there). FWIW.
Aardwolf.
Pete!
In article <6j9qdq$h0u$1...@newsreader.omen.com.au>,
iv...@telematrix.com.au (Ivan Tolj) wrote:
>I am looking at getting into a new car, I currently drive a '97 Ford Fairmont
>which is ok but am looking at switching to the VT Commodore.
>
>Initally I was looking at an S pack but I've heard many bad things about the
>current V6, so I turned my intentions to the SS which to me looked a bit
nicer
>and meaner than the S. I took the SS V8 out for a test drive and fell in love
>with it but the problem of fuel consumption niggles at me, I then thought
about
>possibly a Supercharged V6 which seem to be rarer than hens teeth.
>
either
>the V8 or the Supercharged V6 SS. Or should I just wait for the new Falcon
>that's taken far too damn long to come out?
>
>Any information would be greatly appreciated!! :o)
Recently, I got a drive in a brand spankers "VS" Statesman, Supercharged V6.
Now being a heavy old luxo boat I expected the drive to be a little ho hum
given the weight - WRONG - the thing just went and really well - _VERY_
different engine to the early V6 in terms of performance and just feel.
BTW the owner reckons it would eat his old EF XR6 for brekkie.
Hang a little longer for the Series II VT (which will apparently address
a few problems including weight!) simply because the Falcon will probably
(like any new model) suffer similar teething problems as the early VTs.
This Community Service Announcement by
Pete! -=DUH#1=- (FM)
"More fuel doesn't neccesarily mean more Flame"
"Stoichiometric correct Air/Flame ratio"
Disgruntled Postal Workers of Australia
**** By Order of the Large Black Dog ***
Forg
Ivan Tolj wrote:
>
> I am looking at getting into a new car, I currently drive a '97 Ford Fairmont
> which is ok but am looking at switching to the VT Commodore.
>
> Initally I was looking at an S pack but I've heard many bad things about the
> current V6, so I turned my intentions to the SS which to me looked a bit nicer
> and meaner than the S. I took the SS V8 out for a test drive and fell in love
> with it but the problem of fuel consumption niggles at me, I then thought about
> possibly a Supercharged V6 which seem to be rarer than hens teeth.
I personally doubt you'll be saving too much money on fuel in the
supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
mind, being not Australian, probably isn't as good ;-). The supercharger
doesn't disengage itself like some modern Japanese ones, so you're
running the equivalent of a bigger engine all the time.
While I'd be more interested in the supercharger thing, I reckon resale
would be safer on the V8, insurance should be more on the V8 (insurance
companies seem to have no idea), and you can't get the supercharged
engine with a manual!
As Pete! said, it'd probably be smart to wait for the Falcon-challenging
VT II, which will probably be improved, and might have the good tranny
available on the boosted V6!
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)
"...
And he eats your head.
And then you're in the man from Mars.
You go out at night eating cars. You eat Cadillacs,
Lincolns Too. Mercuries and
Subaru.
And you can't stop..."
("Rapture", Blondie, Nineteen seventy-something)
"A closed mouth catches no flame."
Dale Jones
Forg wrote:
>
> Ivan Tolj wrote:
<snip>
> > Initally I was looking at an S pack but I've heard many bad things about the
> > current V6, so I turned my intentions to the SS which to me looked a bit nicer
> > and meaner than the S. I took the SS V8 out for a test drive and fell in love
> > with it but the problem of fuel consumption niggles at me, I then thought about
> > possibly a Supercharged V6 which seem to be rarer than hens teeth.
> ...
>
> I personally doubt you'll be saving too much money on fuel in the
> supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
> similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
> mind, being not Australian, probably isn't as good ;-). The supercharger
> doesn't disengage itself like some modern Japanese ones, so you're
> running the equivalent of a bigger engine all the time.
I think that they supercharged V6 is supposed to have good economy, but
I think that I would check that out.
If I had the choice, and was worried about fuel economy, I would check
out
the option of running LPG on the SS. This would probably give you good
economy around town and great economy on the highway. This should still
leave you with plenty of power, and the nice sound of an eight as a
bonus.
>
> While I'd be more interested in the supercharger thing, I reckon resale
> would be safer on the V8, insurance should be more on the V8 (insurance
> companies seem to have no idea), and you can't get the supercharged
> engine with a manual!
When I looked at the rating for a supercharged commodore versus a V8
commodore, they were both 24 points, so there is no advantage there.
I agree that the resale value would be good on the V8, but it will be
interesting to see where the supercharged V6 resale gets to.
Manual? Why would you want a manual? ;) (If you have to drive through
the middle of Sydney every day, a manual aint much fun!)
>
> As Pete! said, it'd probably be smart to wait for the Falcon-challenging
> VT II, which will probably be improved, and might have the good tranny
> available on the boosted V6!
Probably a good idea. The weight loss program should make the next model
a better option. Hmmm must be time to trade in the VS SS then.......
> Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)
Dale.
--
* To respond, take the SPAM out of the reply address.
Kieron Murphy
iv...@telematrix.com.au (Ivan Tolj) wrote:
>I am looking at getting into a new car, I currently drive a '97 Ford Fairmont
>which is ok but am looking at switching to the VT Commodore.
>Initally I was looking at an S pack but I've heard many bad things about the
>current V6, so I turned my intentions to the SS which to me looked a bit nicer
>and meaner than the S. I took the SS V8 out for a test drive and fell in love
>with it but the problem of fuel consumption niggles at me, I then thought about
>possibly a Supercharged V6 which seem to be rarer than hens teeth.
>I was wondering if anyone had any information, experience or opinions on either
>the V8 or the Supercharged V6 SS. Or should I just wait for the new Falcon
>that's taken far too damn long to come out?
Wait for the new Falcon if your happy with your current one, then test
drive them both, i'd have to worry about that VT IRS though as it sure
looks like its running a reasonable amount of negative camber.
Kieron
Tony Rae
>If I had the choice, and was worried about fuel economy, I would check
>out
>the option of running LPG on the SS. This would probably give you good
>economy around town and great economy on the highway. This should still
>leave you with plenty of power, and the nice sound of an eight as a
>bonus.
I Read in a recent "Performance Streetcar" mag where they tested both
the current S and SS models they said that the S is actually louder
than the SS. Here's the direct quote...
"The first difference picked up when the driving the V6 VT is that the
engine is noisier than the V8. Not that it's offensively noisy but the
V8 is so quiet and the 6 has a more mechanical/gear sound to it".
Still, I'm sure the SS would have a nicer note coming from the
exhaust.
They also mentioned the obvious, the S is more nimble due to weight
differences.
In the end they said the smoothness and power of the SS made it a
clear winner and seeing it's a rev-head (their own description) mag
they weren't concerned about fuel economy :)
Tony
Paul Lancaster
Dale Jones wrote:
> If I had the choice, and was worried about fuel economy, I would check
>
> out the option of running LPG on the SS.
I'm not sure if this is true for earlier models (this could be an IRS
thing), but you cant get a VT with FE2 suspension on LPG (factory
fitted) as the added weight of the gas tank makes the car to low to pass
the relevant ADR's.
Cheers,
Paul.
--
===========================================================
-||-----||- Paul Lancaster [Paul.La...@dsto.defence.gov.au]
\o/
|
< > Maribyrnong Victoria Australia
===========================================================
"The only way to stop this suicide wave is to make
it a capital offense, punishable by death."
Richard Fay
Forg wrote:
>
> I personally doubt you'll be saving too much money on fuel in the
> supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
> similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
> mind, being not Australian, probably isn't as good ;-)
Actually the V6 SC uses less fuel than the slower XR6.
Richard
Arnie
Forg <"forg please spam me"@zip.com.au> > wrote :
[snip]
>I personally doubt you'll be saving too much money on fuel in the
>supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
>similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
>doesn't disengage itself like some modern Japanese ones, so you're
>running the equivalent of a bigger engine all the time.
Not quite. The SC V6 is a suck through system (throttle, blower, then inlet
manifold) with an electronically controlled bypass valve from the blower
output back into its inlet, thus the ECU is actually able to control boost
levels. The Yanks have had a lot of experience with suck through blowers on
road cars and this kind of system is far better than the on-off switch type
Jap supercharging systems like that on the Toyota 4AGZE.
Actually, the SC V6 is slightly more fuel efficient than the atmo V6
(according to Buick fuel consumption figures), and definitely more fuel
efficient than the Holden V8.
Arnie
Matt Cremer
Richard Fay wrote:
> Forg wrote:
>
> >
> > I personally doubt you'll be saving too much money on fuel in the
> > supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
> > similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
> > mind, being not Australian, probably isn't as good ;-)
>
> Actually the V6 SC uses less fuel than the slower XR6.
>
...
And my car uses less fuel than a 351 XB Fairmont, and a Rolls Royce Silver
Spirit.
ie. Huh?
-Forg (Elsewhere)
Pete!
In article <6jcgi6$kjo$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>,
>>supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
>>similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
>>doesn't disengage itself like some modern Japanese ones, so you're
>>running the equivalent of a bigger engine all the time.
>
>Not quite. The SC V6 is a suck through system (throttle, blower, then inlet
>manifold) with an electronically controlled bypass valve from the blower
>output back into its inlet, thus the ECU is actually able to control boost
>levels. The Yanks have had a lot of experience with suck through blowers on
>road cars and this kind of system is far better than the on-off switch type
>Jap supercharging systems like that on the Toyota 4AGZE.
>Actually, the SC V6 is slightly more fuel efficient than the atmo V6
>(according to Buick fuel consumption figures), and definitely more fuel
>efficient than the Holden V8.
>
>Arnie
Arnie,
Would you know if the S/C 6 use a PWM output boost control from the ECU (ala
US Turbo models) or is it a dumb pop-off tye valve?
Glenn R. Corey
Richard Fay wrote in message <355A49...@ozemail.com.au>...
>Forg wrote:
>
>>
>> I personally doubt you'll be saving too much money on fuel in the
>> supercharged V6, it's producing similar power, pushing around a car of
>> similar size, and the engine design itself is just as old (and to my
>> mind, being not Australian, probably isn't as good ;-)
>
>Actually the V6 SC uses less fuel than the slower XR6.
>
>
>Richard
As an owner of a Supercharged VT "S", having travelled 6,500 km to date
since late Feb. '98, I am averaging 13.3 l/100km or 21.1 mpg on city cycle.
Highway has averaged 7.9 l/100 km or 35.8 mpg on two country trips so far.
I am more than happy with the performance/economy compromise compared to my
previous VS "SS" V8 which averaged 15.9 l/100 km city cycle and could do no
better than 10.2 l/100 km on the highway. Performance is almost identical.
In terms of general refinement the VT Supercharged V6 is far superior. You
have to drive one to believe how smooth and instantaneous the power comes on
stream which is largely to do with the near flat torque curve from 1500 rpm
to 5000 rpm. It is truly an excellent powertrain.
Glenn R. Corey
co...@aardvark.apana.org.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Scott Villiers
Glenn R. Corey wrote:
I also am an owner of a Supercharged VT "S" with 2,500 km since 6 April.
I can also say that I am extremely happy with my choice of vehicle and can vouch
for the performance and refinement of this vehicle.
When I was comparing the "SS" V8 and the Supercharged V6 "S" I used the average
cost difference of 5c/l between ULP and PULP and the quoted fuel consumption
figures from GMH. (Premium Unleaded Fuel Consumption: Auto Sedan, City cycle
13.5lt / 100km Auto Sedan, Highway cycle 7.8lt / 100km)
Assuming a ratio of 75% city driving to 25% highway (includes Sydney freeways.
eg M4 and M2), and travelling 25000 Km/year, I worked out that I would be better
off with the V6 over the V8.
Supercharged V6 PULP
25000Km/year - 18750Km City - 13.5l/100Km + 6250Km Highway - 7.8l/100Km
3018.75l total - 2531.25l City + 487.5l Highway.
Assumed 73.9c/l for PULP gives cost of $2230.86
V8
25000Km/year - 18750Km City - 15l/100Km + 6250Km Highway - 9l/100Km
3375l total - 2812.5l City + 562.5l Highway.
Assumed 68.9c/l for ULP gives cost of $2325.38
This shows the V8 costs $94.52 / year more to run than the Supercharged V6.
Obviously the V6 uses less fuel but this is partly offset by the increased cost
of PULP.
However if one was very concerned about the running costs of the vehicle then
these numbers show the V6 to be better, although not by much.
The fuel consumption figures are from http://www.holden.com.au/commodore
As for performance trade off I don't believe there is one, considering the "S"
is lighter and the excellent torque curve of the powerplant. The vehicle feels
very solid when pulling away from a standstill and the barely audible whine of
the supercharger adds to the experience.
Have a look in the Sydney papers and you will see that there are quite a few VT
V8 "SS" vehicles available for immediate delivery and I am yet to see a
Supercharged V6 "S" available for immediate delivery. Maybe this says something
about the popularity of the V8 compared to the Supercharged V6.
If I had to make the choice again, considering all of the above and also the
purchase cost differential, I would chose the Supercharged V6 "S" over the V8
"SS" again.
Anyone else got any thoughts?
Regards
Scott Villiers
Brad
The V6 supercharged has 9 Kw in power and 10N in tourque difference between
standard V8 commodore (unsure about the SS)
Scott Villiers wrote in message
<355BB2C1...@nospam.stgeorge.com.au>...
Arnie
Pete! wrote :
>Would you know if the S/C 6 use a PWM output boost control from the ECU
(ala
>US Turbo models) or is it a dumb pop-off tye valve?
Not sure (must check).
Arnie
Anthony Vanderbyl
No comparison if you compare the 195KW VT with the SC 6. I have just taken
delivery of the new 195KW VT (previously I had the 185KW VS) and the
experience is still as exciting as ever. Anything over 4000rpm is exciting,
the torque translates to brute urgency, the V8 translates to absolute music
from the extractors.
And of course when going to the touring cars/Bathurst, tell the boys that
you have SC 6, and not a V8.... and then run for cover!
Anthony