VT-why the Commodore is better than the Jap Competition!
Tony Cardone
>BTW, the V6 Commodore has Grunt,.........the camry.....NOT!
You might want to check your facts first before shooting from the hip.
MOTOR Magazine quotes the following 0-100 kmh times :-
VT Commodore Executive - 8.80 Seconds (9.4 auto)
Toyota Camry V6 CSi - 7.80 Seconds
That's a full 1 second quicker in my book.
1/4 mile times are :-
VT Commodore Executive - 16.6 seconds
Toyota Camry V6 CSi - 15.7 seconds.
The Camry is even quicker than the Commodore S over the 1/4 mile by .03
seconds.
Now, anything else we can clear up for you ?
Tony
bungles
Tony Cardone wrote:
>
> >Tony, if you read the post carefully, they were talking about 88 Camries (no
> >grunt) and VN Commodores (got grunt).
> >
> >
> >Arnie
>
> Arnie, If they were comparing the 4cyl Camry to the V6 Commodore, then that's
> a lame argument anyway (apples and pears). If the comparison was between the
> Quadcam V6 Camry of the late 80's and the V6 Commodore, then I reckon the
> performance figures would still be close.
>
NO, I was refer to a V6 Camry againsed a V6 Commodore! My father had the
misfortune, of
taking a V6 Camry Company car for a spin a while back, and reckons it
was nothing
special, and that he'd have expected a hell of a lot better performance
from a QOHC motor.
I'll go take one for a test drive and see for myself. I seriously doubt
whether it is
quicker. Maybe Toymota should bolt the Lexus V8 into the Camry.....then
we'd be talking!
Bungles.
gteye
Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
the shit box holden behind you.
Forg
bungles wrote:
>
> Tony Cardone wrote:
> >
> > >Tony, if you read the post carefully, they were talking about 88 Camries (no
> > >grunt) and VN Commodores (got grunt).
> > >
> > >
> > >Arnie
> >
> > Arnie, If they were comparing the 4cyl Camry to the V6 Commodore, then that's
> > a lame argument anyway (apples and pears). If the comparison was between the
> > Quadcam V6 Camry of the late 80's and the V6 Commodore, then I reckon the
> > performance figures would still be close.
> >
> NO, I was refer to a V6 Camry againsed a V6 Commodore! My father had the
> misfortune, of
> taking a V6 Camry Company car for a spin a while back, and reckons it
> was nothing
> special
A friend of my parents bought a V6 Camry, and still have it (as their
second car now) after about 220,000km.
At the time, it had similar straight-line performance (slightly better
on 0-100, but only by a smidgin, abd I can't remember how much), but was
much, much better around corners. It was also much smoother & quieter,
and with similar equipment to a Calais at a cheaper price. It is also a
lot more solid than a VL (or an Aussie-assembled Camry, for that matter
- I tried the door-slam test).
It does feel a little tired now, but nowhere near as tired as the four
VN's that I can recall driving (and the VL's I've driven with those
sorts of km's on them are downright scary!).
--
Forg! -=DUH#6=- (Y1)
"To Err is Human. To Flame is Divine."
Leigh Nunn
gteye wrote:
>
Bungles.
>
> Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
> commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
> using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
> the shit box holden behind you.
Well, lets put 5 adults in each and see how it goes. Personally I think
the
Maxima and Bluebird aren't very good comparisions at all, because to me
they
are a different class of car.
Leigh
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I never drive faster than I can see, and besides..."
"Its all in the reflexes."
--"Jake", Big Trouble in Little China
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-
Leigh Nunn BSc (Computer Science)
Officer Cadet, University of QLD (St Lucia)
Royal Australian Air Force. Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Webmaster, #Streetmachines Homepage (oz.org IRC network)
URL: http://www.xenon.net/~ironwulf/streetmachines
Email: iron...@xenon.net
s32...@student.uq.edu.au
iron...@night.prowlers.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Pete!
FROM: gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au>
>>whether it is
>> quicker. Maybe Toymota should bolt the Lexus V8 into the Camry.....then
>> we'd be talking!
>>
>Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
>commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
>using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
>the shit box holden behind you.
All these cars mentioned would roast your shitbox GTi Swift - 0-100 in 11 secs
HAHAHAHAHA - that Hyundie Crapcel territory
Pete! -=DUH#1=- (FM)
"EFI - Electonic Flame Injection"
Ben Wilson
Leigh Nunn wrote:
>
> gteye wrote:
> >
> Bungles.
> >
> > Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
> > commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
> > using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
> > the shit box holden behind you.
>
> the
> Maxima and Bluebird aren't very good comparisions at all, because to me
> they
> are a different class of car.
>
> Leigh
Vee".....hehe
Arnie
gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
>Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
>commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
>using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
>the shit box holden behind you.
Nissan Bluebird outrun a VT Commodore?
If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that you
claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
Poole another one Dan!
Arnie
notturno
Arnie wrote:
> Nissan Bluebird outrun a VT Commodore?
> If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that you
> claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
> And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
>
> Poole another one Dan!
>
> Arnie
But then again Arnie, you're the same bloke who reckons a standard V6
Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
Chris.
Student PC
Arnie wrote:
>
> gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
> [snip]
> >Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
> >commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
> >using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
> >the shit box holden behind you.
>
> Nissan Bluebird outrun a VT Commodore?
> If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that you
> claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
> And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
>
> Poole another one Dan!
>
> Arnie
I think u should get ur facts straight before u open ur mouth,
have a read of say motor magazines figures, i think u'll find that a 5sp
bluebird is quoted FASTER than a VT and auto about the same.
gteye
notturno wrote:
>
> Arnie wrote:
>
> > Nissan Bluebird outrun a VT Commodore?
> > If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that you
> > claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
> > And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
> > I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
> >
> > Poole another one Dan!
> >
> > Arnie
>
> Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
>
> Chris.
Common chris everyone knows the V6 commdore engine is unstopable, its
going on with ECOTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
And with so much horsepower for its size, ie supercharged model, 164kw
or what every it is from 3.8ltr supercharged, quite impressive compared
to the shity 142kw approx from 2.2ltr non turbo 4cyl.
Danny
Arnie
notturno wrote :
>Arnie wrote:
>
>> Nissan Bluebird outrun a VT Commodore?
>> If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that
you
>> claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
>> And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
>> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
>>
>> Poole another one Dan!
>>
>> Arnie
>
>
>But then again Arnie, you're the same bloke who reckons a standard V6
>Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
Yep, I've actually done the side by side road test. A stock *manual* V6
Commodore running PULP will outrun a stock *manual* VTEC Prelude running
PULP
by about 2 car lengths (not exactly "creaming" however) by 120 kph. My buddy
and I then swapped seats and after a bit of practice he was able to repeat
similar results. We thought it wasn't a good idea to go any faster than
120kph on an 80kph limit stretch of public road. Even Motor mag times
supports my claim (their 0-100kph times suggest an even greater difference).
Arnie
Richard Fay
Arnie wrote:
> And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
>
The only figure I have at the moment (back of Wheels) are.
Maxima 0-100 = 8.8 seconds.
Statesman 0-100 - 9.6 seconds (S/C = 8.6 seconds).
Falcon 0-100 = 8.9 seconds
Bluebird 0-100 = 9.9 seconds
No Commodore figures where present.
Richard
To e-mail me, remove the * from the address
Arnie
gteye wrote :
>notturno wrote:
[snip]
>> But then again Arnie, you're the same bloke who reckons a standard V6
>> Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
>>
>
>Common chris everyone knows the V6 commdore engine is unstopable, its
>going on with ECOTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
>And with so much horsepower for its size, ie supercharged model, 164kw
>or what every it is from 3.8ltr supercharged, quite impressive compared
>to the shity 142kw approx from 2.2ltr non turbo 4cyl.
>
>Danny
Sarcasm noted. Now if we change a coupla words here and there:
Come on Danny everyone knows the Honda engine is unstopable, its going on
with VTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
And with so much horsepower for its rpm, ie 2.2L Prelude model, 142kw or what
ever it is from 7000rpm, quite impressive compared to the shity 147kw from
5200rpm from 3.8L lazy non turbo V6.
Bloody VTEC activates like a light switch at 5000rpm (VTEC lag?), nothing
special below 5000 - not really "variable" valve timing is it? If you put the
2.2L VTEC in the Commodore (remember V6 auto runs V8 ratios), it won't be
going anywhere in a hurry. Typical of you boy racer types to think of
specific power as *the* measure of a good engine.
Arnie
notturno
Arnie wrote:
>
> gteye wrote :
> >notturno wrote:
> >
> >Common chris everyone knows the V6 commdore engine is unstopable, its
> >going on with ECOTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
> >And with so much horsepower for its size, ie supercharged model, 164kw
> >or what every it is from 3.8ltr supercharged, quite impressive compared
> >to the shity 142kw approx from 2.2ltr non turbo 4cyl.
> >
> >Danny
>
> Sarcasm noted. Now if we change a coupla words here and there:
>
> Come on Danny everyone knows the Honda engine is unstopable, its going on
> with VTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
> And with so much horsepower for its rpm, ie 2.2L Prelude model, 142kw or what
> ever it is from 7000rpm, quite impressive compared to the shity 147kw from
> 5200rpm from 3.8L lazy non turbo V6.
>
> Bloody VTEC activates like a light switch at 5000rpm (VTEC lag?), nothing
> special below 5000 - not really "variable" valve timing is it? If you put the
> 2.2L VTEC in the Commodore (remember V6 auto runs V8 ratios), it won't be
> going anywhere in a hurry. Typical of you boy racer types to think of
> specific power as *the* measure of a good engine.
>
> Arnie
Arnie, give me one good reason why you think a V6 Commie will eat a VTEC
Prelude. (Besides the fact that one has more power than the other.) The
best figures I've seen for a manual Exec are 8.7 0-100Km, while the best
I've seen from the Prelude are *at least* one full second faster.
From what I've seen on the road, V6 Commodores have a hard time holding
back V6 Magnas & Camrys.
Chris.
Bradley Gray
In article <5unsm9$e...@gemini.roads.sa.gov.au>,
Tony.C...@roads.sa.gov.au (Tony Cardone) wrote:
>>Tony, if you read the post carefully, they were talking about 88 Camries (no
>>grunt) and VN Commodores (got grunt).
>>
>>
>>Arnie
>
>Arnie, If they were comparing the 4cyl Camry to the V6 Commodore, then that's
>a lame argument anyway (apples and pears). If the comparison was between the
>Quadcam V6 Camry of the late 80's and the V6 Commodore, then I reckon the
>performance figures would still be close.
>
>Tony
Possibly it is what you interpret "GRUNT" as. To me it is not the 400metre
time or the 0-100 time or the top speed. It is the ability to be able to
floor the accelerator and something happen straight away; I guess I'm
talking about torque - something the Japanese just don't seem to be able to
build into their engines. My 93 Bluebird does great 0-100 and quarter mile
times (for a 2.4 motor) but it just doesn't have the grunt/balls/power
available at all times feeling of the string of commodores my wife has had
as company drives.
Brad
Student PC
Yeah but i'd rather have some GRUNTY car nail it beside me, pull away,
then once my rev's are up come shooting past (not nessarily in my car
but in general), that would be better than having that intial pull.
Danny
Student PC
Arnie wrote:
>
> gteye wrote :
> >notturno wrote:
> >> But then again Arnie, you're the same bloke who reckons a standard V6
> >> Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
> >>
> >> Chris.
> >
> >going on with ECOTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
> >And with so much horsepower for its size, ie supercharged model, 164kw
> >or what every it is from 3.8ltr supercharged, quite impressive compared
> >to the shity 142kw approx from 2.2ltr non turbo 4cyl.
> >
> >Danny
>
> Sarcasm noted. Now if we change a coupla words here and there:
>
> Come on Danny everyone knows the Honda engine is unstopable, its going on
> with VTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
> And with so much horsepower for its rpm, ie 2.2L Prelude model, 142kw or what
> ever it is from 7000rpm, quite impressive compared to the shity 147kw from
> 5200rpm from 3.8L lazy non turbo V6.
>
> Bloody VTEC activates like a light switch at 5000rpm (VTEC lag?), nothing
> special below 5000 - not really "variable" valve timing is it? If you put the
> 2.2L VTEC in the Commodore (remember V6 auto runs V8 ratios), it won't be
> going anywhere in a hurry. Typical of you boy racer types to think of
> specific power as *the* measure of a good engine.
>
> Arnie
Since when as i've said before does the ability to rev and actually
increase power become a burden, im sure the VTEC would hold the commdore
out longer in each gear even if it's ratio's are lower, and with the
power comming on strongest at this time in a side by side comparison
this would prove useful
Danny
Student PC
Arnie wrote:
>
> Student PC (was gteye, was Dan Poole) wrote :
> >Arnie wrote:
> >>
> >> gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> >Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
> >> >commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
> >> >using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
> >> >the shit box holden behind you.
> >>
> >> If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that
> you
> >> claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
> >> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
> >>
> >>
> >> Arnie
> >
> >
> >have a read of say motor magazines figures, i think u'll find that a 5sp
> >bluebird is quoted FASTER than a VT and auto about the same.
>
> times are questionable. Hell, their figures shows a huge difference between a
> 5sp Commodore and a VTIR Prelude - I've done the road test and the difference
> is not that big.
> A bluebird WILL NOT run away from a VT ok. It especially won't run away from
> a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird SSS
> and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out and
> drive a few cars.
>
> BTW, funny how you keep changing your alias, as well as drop your sig.
>
> Arnie
You really love ur shitty commodores don't u, well the loan bluebird
auto that Nissan gave my mate when his 200sx was in for service, we had
quite
a deal of fun beating though all mighting commodores, in REAL LIFE
SITUATIONS. U want to race a bluebird/commodore forget about car mag
figures they me jack shit on the road, u hire the cars and i'll bet u
what ever u want the bbird will win!!!
Danny
DJ!
Arnie wrote:
<<<SNIP>>>
> A bluebird WILL NOT run away from a VT ok. It especially won't run away from
> a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird SSS
> and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out and
> drive a few cars.
Arnie
I hate getting into the "my cars are faster than yours" or "my car can
do a 1/4 in x.xx sec" arguments but I'm going to take you to task on
your comments.
I own an auto 2.4L 1995 Bluebird. and I'm telling you right now that I'm
struggling to find a VN-VR (with the standard 3.8) on the road that will
take it from a standing start. As you know, most 3.8L Commodores have an
auto tranny shoved in so I'm safely assuming my "tests" have been done
auto-vs-auto.
The VS Ecotec donk is a different story. They'll have me over the first
400m but then the Bluebird can pull em in.
DJ!
PS The Bluebird WILL be traded for a VT next year....I don't give a toss
for brand loyalties! Mini to Cressida to Skyline to Excel to Bluebird
to.....
--
/""""" You have just experienced another
| (.).) message by DJ! -=DUH#2=- (FM)
C _) \_///
\ _| \ _/ der...@sia.com.au
\__/___/ / dirty...@hotmail.com
<___Y> \_/
/ \ #\__\ http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/7028
"Nine out of ten nutritionists recommend Flame-Bix"
Student PC
notturno wrote:
>
> Arnie wrote:
> >
> > gteye wrote :
> > >notturno wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Common chris everyone knows the V6 commdore engine is unstopable, its
> > >going on with ECOTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
> > >And with so much horsepower for its size, ie supercharged model, 164kw
> > >or what every it is from 3.8ltr supercharged, quite impressive compared
> > >to the shity 142kw approx from 2.2ltr non turbo 4cyl.
> > >
>
> > >Danny
> >
> > Sarcasm noted. Now if we change a coupla words here and there:
> >
> > Come on Danny everyone knows the Honda engine is unstopable, its going on
> > with VTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
> > And with so much horsepower for its rpm, ie 2.2L Prelude model, 142kw or what
> > ever it is from 7000rpm, quite impressive compared to the shity 147kw from
> > 5200rpm from 3.8L lazy non turbo V6.
> >
> > Bloody VTEC activates like a light switch at 5000rpm (VTEC lag?), nothing
> > special below 5000 - not really "variable" valve timing is it? If you put the
> > 2.2L VTEC in the Commodore (remember V6 auto runs V8 ratios), it won't be
> > going anywhere in a hurry. Typical of you boy racer types to think of
> > specific power as *the* measure of a good engine.
> >
> > Arnie
>
> Prelude. (Besides the fact that one has more power than the other.) The
> best figures I've seen for a manual Exec are 8.7 0-100Km, while the best
> I've seen from the Prelude are *at least* one full second faster.
>
> From what I've seen on the road, V6 Commodores have a hard time holding
> back V6 Magnas & Camrys.
>
> Chris.
A V6 commdore would probably have trouble beating a 78 prelude, well
maybe not but id know which one i'd rather be driving. Probably
wouldn't have to stop every servo in prelude to top up oil
Danny
Kieron Murphy
Student PC <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> By who? MOTOR magazine? Ha! They don't use an average of runs. A lot of their
>> times are questionable. Hell, their figures shows a huge difference between a
>> 5sp Commodore and a VTIR Prelude - I've done the road test and the difference
>> is not that big.
>> A bluebird WILL NOT run away from a VT ok. It especially won't run away from
>> a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird SSS
>> and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out and
>> drive a few cars.
>>
>> BTW, funny how you keep changing your alias, as well as drop your sig.
>>
>> Arnie
>You really love ur shitty commodores don't u, well the loan bluebird
>auto that Nissan gave my mate when his 200sx was in for service, we had
>quite
>a deal of fun beating though all mighting commodores, in REAL LIFE
>SITUATIONS. U want to race a bluebird/commodore forget about car mag
>figures they me jack shit on the road, u hire the cars and i'll bet u
>what ever u want the bbird will win!!!
Did you go around beating all the Commies driven by family/business
people who couldn't care less about your stupid racing antics?
The only way to compare car for car is to take it to the strip and do
a few solo runs in each car on the same day using only one driver, a
full tank of fuel and optionally one passenger, wow this is what the
decent magazines do.
Kieron
Mike
Arnie wrote:
>
> DJ!, it depends who is more capable/trying harder. Take this as a compliment
> - you were obviously better with your Bluebird than the other guys in their
> Commodores.
>
> Arnie
YES! you have reached my favoured conclusion. . .
A LOT IS IN THE DRIVER
Mike
Mike
Arnie wrote:
>
> A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a couple of
> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual, PULP
> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to redline.
> The VTEC does not light up until 5000 rpm, meaning you either have to drop
> down a gear (or 2) to get going or you're a slug. 0-100kph and 1/4 mile times
> are not the be-all-and-end-all measure of GRUNT ok (when will you boy racer
> types wake up?). As for figures, I got 8.1s out of a stock VN *auto* wagon
> (running Std ULP) I once had. I've also been able to get consistent sub 8.0s
> 0-100 times out of 5sp VN Execs (best of around 7.5s but hard to achieve
> consistently). I had a drive in a 5sp 3.8L V6 VS ute with LSD and it took off
> even harder - never got to measure 0-100kph though :-( It is hard to get sub
> 8.0s times out of the VTEC Prelude - a really *HARD* launch with the VTEC is
> much harder. Put up 5000rpm and you get too much wheelspin (FWD without LSD
> doesn't help either), too little revs and the engine bogs down. Yes, it is
> fun to rev the VTEC when driving hard, but it ain't got the torque like the
> 3.8L V6 which makes it so much more driveable. You could drive at
> traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
> can do that?
>
> Arnie
Scuse my pesemissim, What ratios, gearbox and final drive does the commy have to be able
to pull 100 clicks under 2000rpm?
Also the times used here are a little low ie, make out the commy is quicker than it is!
What did you use to get those times, optomistic stopwatch?
Figures are crap. . . put 2 cars side by side then you have a comaparison. . .
I consistantly beat supposedly quicker cars in my stock skyline. . . I got a coupla
mates with GTi's whose 1/4 and 1-100 times are slightly quicker, up to 1/2 a second,
that I can beat any day of the week. . .
Mike
Figures are nothin'
Performance is everything,
Obey your right foot. . .
Mike
Student PC wrote:
>
> > Possibly it is what you interpret "GRUNT" as. To me it is not the 400metre
> > time or the 0-100 time or the top speed. It is the ability to be able to
> > floor the accelerator and something happen straight away; I guess I'm
> > talking about torque - something the Japanese just don't seem to be able to
> > build into their engines. My 93 Bluebird does great 0-100 and quarter mile
> > times (for a 2.4 motor) but it just doesn't have the grunt/balls/power
> > available at all times feeling of the string of commodores my wife has had
> > as company drives.
> >
> > Brad
>
> Yeah but i'd rather have some GRUNTY car nail it beside me, pull away,
> then once my rev's are up come shooting past (not nessarily in my car
> but in general), that would be better than having that intial pull.
>
> Danny
I think this whole thread started when someone was having a pull. . .
Mike
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <34176DB1...@ocean.com.au>,
notturno <gorg...@ocean.com.au> wrote:
>Arnie wrote:
>>
>
>> A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a
couple
of
>> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual,
PULP
>> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
>> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to
redline.
>
>DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
>
How about the Chevy LS-1. Peak power at 5600rpm, and redline of 6250rpm.
Not
that I am a pushrod fan. Now, about that Falcon......:)
Then there were engines like the Kent 1.6's etc (we are still speaking
about
street engines here). Now, getting to racing stuff, how about the Menard
V6
(Buick stock-block) that was used at Indy; 9500rpm. Or further, how about
the
pushrod engine that Mercedes made specifically for the Penske in 1994;
about
11000-12000rpm.
All that I am saying is, don't generalise.
Dennis
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Aaron Mihe
notturno <gorg...@ocean.com.au> wrote in article
<34176DB1...@ocean.com.au>...
> Arnie wrote:
> Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
> DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
Um what about the A series Datto motors? The 'ol Mini Cooper motor, the
..... Damn, this is too easy, heck read a good Porsche bible and learn that
some of their flat fours with pushrods went out to 8000rpm....
Now where's that Falcon for me?
Arnie
Student PC wrote :
[snip]
>You really love ur shitty commodores don't u, well the loan bluebird
>auto that Nissan gave my mate when his 200sx was in for service, we had
>quite
>a deal of fun beating though all mighting commodores, in REAL LIFE
A bit like your GTi outrunning V8s, Ha! Maybe you guys took more brave pills
than the humble guys in the Commodores in REAL LIFE. Line up next to me in my
stock auto V6 and your stock auto Bluebird WILL NOT be able to stick it's
nose in front.
>SITUATIONS. U want to race a bluebird/commodore forget about car mag
>figures they me jack shit on the road, u hire the cars and i'll bet u
>what ever u want the bbird will win!!!
>
>Danny
Silly little Danny.
Arnie
Arnie
DJ! wrote :
>Arnie wrote:
>> A bluebird WILL NOT run away from a VT ok. It especially won't run away
from
>> a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird
SSS
>> and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out
and
>> drive a few cars.
>
>
>I hate getting into the "my cars are faster than yours" or "my car can
>do a 1/4 in x.xx sec" arguments but I'm going to take you to task on
>your comments.
>
>I own an auto 2.4L 1995 Bluebird. and I'm telling you right now that I'm
>struggling to find a VN-VR (with the standard 3.8) on the road that will
>take it from a standing start. As you know, most 3.8L Commodores have an
>auto tranny shoved in so I'm safely assuming my "tests" have been done
>auto-vs-auto.
>
>The VS Ecotec donk is a different story. They'll have me over the first
>400m but then the Bluebird can pull em in.
DJ!, it depends who is more capable/trying harder. Take this as a compliment
Kieron Murphy
Student PC <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>> Possibly it is what you interpret "GRUNT" as. To me it is not the 400metre
>> time or the 0-100 time or the top speed. It is the ability to be able to
>> floor the accelerator and something happen straight away; I guess I'm
>> talking about torque - something the Japanese just don't seem to be able to
>> build into their engines. My 93 Bluebird does great 0-100 and quarter mile
>> times (for a 2.4 motor) but it just doesn't have the grunt/balls/power
>> available at all times feeling of the string of commodores my wife has had
>> as company drives.
>>
>> Brad
>Yeah but i'd rather have some GRUNTY car nail it beside me, pull away,
>then once my rev's are up come shooting past (not nessarily in my car
>but in general), that would be better than having that intial pull.
It would prefer to have a GRUNTY car with decent low down torque to
beat you in the first place as I wouldn't have to break the speed
limit to do so, then back off and let you fly past in your high winder
at stupidly high speeds.
Brad was on about overtaking speeds, If I'm out on the open road
overtaking a coach/semi etc I want something that gives me the fastest
acceleration without having to hunt through a gearbox for a cog to get
the engine up to 6500 before it reacts, this is what a low torque
larger capacity motor has (also turbo's) that a 4 doesn't and can't
without a blower.
Kieron
damien
notturno wrote:
> Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
> DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
Every second Holden straight 6 cyl. Mine is in need of some sort of
modification _because_ it redlines at unusually low rpms (ie, 4000 or
so) which is kinda annoying.
Damien
Pete!
FROM: "Arnie" <a...@bigfoot.com>
>notturno wrote :
>>Arnie wrote:
>>
>>> Nissan Bluebird outrun a VT Commodore?
>>> If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that
you
>>> claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
>>> And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
>>> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
>>>
>>> Poole another one Dan!
>>>
>>> Arnie
>>
>>
>>But then again Arnie, you're the same bloke who reckons a standard V6
>>Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
>Yep, I've actually done the side by side road test. A stock *manual* V6
>Commodore running PULP will outrun a stock *manual* VTEC Prelude running
>PULP
> by about 2 car lengths (not exactly "creaming" however) by 120 kph. My buddy
>and I then swapped seats and after a bit of practice he was able to repeat
>similar results. We thought it wasn't a good idea to go any faster than
>120kph on an 80kph limit stretch of public road. Even Motor mag times
>supports my claim (their 0-100kph times suggest an even greater difference).
>Arnie
When the new preludes where introduced, I had a guy try run my VN V6 (auto,
exhaust) he was tailgating and at an overtaking lane I dumped it and he tried
to pass) - I managed to pull away - and yes Virginia, it was a VTEC
Pete! -=DUH#1=- (FM)
"EFI - Electonic Flame Injection"
Pete!
FROM: gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au>
>>
>> But then again Arnie, you're the same bloke who reckons a standard V6
>> Commodore will cream a VTEC Prelude.
>>
>Common chris everyone knows the V6 commdore engine is unstopable, its
>going on with ECOTEC to take on the best engines in the world.
>And with so much horsepower for its size, ie supercharged model, 164kw
>or what every it is from 3.8ltr supercharged, quite impressive compared
>to the shity 142kw approx from 2.2ltr non turbo 4cyl.
Thats still 22kW more and I've don't recall a car fitted with a gauge marked
"horsepower vs capacity"
>Danny
Pete!
FROM: Student PC <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au>
>A V6 commdore would probably have trouble beating a 78 prelude, well
>maybe not but id know which one i'd rather be driving. Probably
>wouldn't have to stop every servo in prelude to top up oil
Yep, those tow trucks are extremely reliable
Kieron Murphy
notturno <gorg...@ocean.com.au> wrote:
>Arnie wrote:
>>
>> A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a couple of
>> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual, PULP
>> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
>> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to redline.
>Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
>DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
OK, go find your cold hard facts on this Falcon, here's a small sample
of my facts (look at the max power/torque figures) -
http://www.voicenet.com/~fomoco/eng/289k.htm
http://www.voicenet.com/~fomoco/eng/63427.htm
http://www.voicenet.com/~fomoco/eng/351cj.htm
These engines where doing well above your 5000 before you where
probably born.
Kieron
DJ!
Mike wrote:
>
> I think this whole thread started when someone was having a pull. . .
>
> Mike
Amen.
Peter McMillan
notturno <gorg...@ocean.com.au> wrote:
>Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
>DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
I know it's getting away from the intention of the post, but every
pushrod Fiat passenger car engine of the last thirty years will exceed
5000 rpm, and most by a long long loooong way.
Cheers,
Peter.
To email me, change .com in my address to .au
Forg
Arnie wrote:
>
> notturno wrote :
> [snip]
> >Arnie, give me one good reason why you think a V6 Commie will eat a VTEC
> >Prelude. (Besides the fact that one has more power than the other.) The
> >best figures I've seen for a manual Exec are 8.7 0-100Km, while the best
> >I've seen from the Prelude are *at least* one full second faster.
>
> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual, PULP
> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to redline.
> down a gear (or 2) to get going or you're a slug. 0-100kph and 1/4 mile times
> are not the be-all-and-end-all measure of GRUNT ok (when will you boy racer
> types wake up?). As for figures, I got 8.1s out of a stock VN *auto* wagon
> (running Std ULP) I once had. I've also been able to get consistent sub 8.0s
> 0-100 times out of 5sp VN Execs (best of around 7.5s but hard to achieve
> consistently). I had a drive in a 5sp 3.8L V6 VS ute with LSD and it took off
> even harder - never got to measure 0-100kph though :-( It is hard to get sub
> 8.0s times out of the VTEC Prelude - a really *HARD* launch with the VTEC is
> much harder. Put up 5000rpm and you get too much wheelspin (FWD without LSD
> doesn't help either), too little revs and the engine bogs down. Yes, it is
> fun to rev the VTEC when driving hard, but it ain't got the torque like the
> 3.8L V6 which makes it so much more driveable. You could drive at
> traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
> can do that?
On an 85km/h freeway I could ... :)
But the V6 Commodore just feels so unresponsive & gutless at speed. I
drove my dad's VR back from Wollongong on the freeway, and while it
feels like it can hold a speed with relative ease, it seems to take
forever to get around to accelerating if you're doing over 100km/h. The
Liberty just does it straight away; maybe the Commodore needs Liberty
gearing?
--
Forg! -=DUH#6=- (Y1)
"To Err is Human. To Flame is Divine."
Justen
> You could drive at
>traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
>can do that?
Who cares ? What difference does it make what revs the thing is doing if it
gets there just as fast. You use the right gearing for what your car weighs to
take advantage of what your motor delivers.
4000rpm in my 4 is nothing. It's not noisy (meets rego db), it's not busy
(motor is hardly turning over as far as it is concerned), it's not thirsty
(i'm a lead foot so mpg is a bit of a mistery) and i'm cruising at 140 kph.
What's the big deal that it's not doing it at 3000rpm. If it was a perfect
world we would all have max torque from go to redline and cubic inches would
win. Obviously the world ain't perfect so we have gearing to take advantage
of the strengths of the different motors that are out there.
Justen
Turbo 77 Celica
Pete!
FROM: notturno <gorg...@ocean.com.au>
>Arnie wrote:
>>
>> A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a couple
of
>> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual, PULP
>> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
>> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to
redline.
>Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
>DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
'69 Boss 302 Stang - redline of 8000 - Trans Am racers where getting 9,500 or
what about current V8 Supercars - limited to 7,500 and capable of excedding
this - Perkins used to quote 8 - 8,500 on his old group A 308s (pre 4 bolt VL
blocks)
BTW, whats the Ford part # for that DOHC Falcon head?
>> As for figures, I got 8.1s out of a stock VN *auto* wagon
>> (running Std ULP) I once had. I've also been able to get consistent sub
>8.0s
>> 0-100 times out of 5sp VN Execs (best of around 7.5s but hard to achieve
>> consistently). I had a drive in a 5sp 3.8L V6 VS ute with LSD and it took
>off
>> even harder - never got to measure 0-100kph though :-( It is hard to get
sub
>> 8.0s times out of the VTEC Prelude - a really *HARD* launch with the VTEC
is
> >much harder. Put up 5000rpm and you get too much wheelspin (FWD without LSD
> >doesn't help either), too little revs and the engine bogs down. Yes, it is
> >fun to rev the VTEC when driving hard, but it ain't got the torque like the
> >3.8L V6 which makes it so much more driveable.
>>You could drive at
>> traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
>> can do that?
>Not too many, but then a never said the VTEC is a torque meister.
>Show me a printout of your Correvit times. If it's just your "seat of
>the pants" times, then your pants must really be multi-talented.
>BTW, don't take this criticism personally, but I'd like to see some cold
>hard figures and facts and a little less personal bias before I'll
>believe you. (And no, I don't hate Commodores)
Personally, I have raced and beaten a current VTEC Prelude in my VN V6 and
that was from about 70 kmh
>Chris
This Community Service Announcement bought to you by
Pete! -=DUH#1=- (FM)
"Its a long way to the top if you wanna flame a troll"
notturno
Pete! wrote:
>
> Personally, I have raced and beaten a current VTEC Prelude in my VN V6 and
> that was from about 70 kmh
>
I've also raced a VTEC Prelude in my '93 manual MX-6 and beaten him,
but it was a close thing, with the Prelude in my rear quarter panel the
whole way.
Chris.
Forg
Arnie wrote:
>
> Student PC (was gteye, was Dan Poole) wrote :
> >Arnie wrote:
> >>
> >> gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> >Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
> >> >commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
> >> >using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look at
> >> >the shit box holden behind you.
> >>
> >> If I remember correctly, you're Dan Poole with the hot rod Swift Gti that
> you
> >> claimed outruns V8 Commodores! *LOL*
> >> And the Maxima is not much faster than the VT Commodore.
> >> I hope you're comparing manual to manual, auto to auto.
> >>
> >> Poole another one Dan!
> >>
> >> Arnie
> >
> >
> >have a read of say motor magazines figures, i think u'll find that a 5sp
> >bluebird is quoted FASTER than a VT and auto about the same.
>
> times are questionable. Hell, their figures shows a huge difference between a
> 5sp Commodore and a VTIR Prelude - I've done the road test and the difference
> is not that big.
> a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird SSS
> and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out and
> drive a few cars.
I can believe it; the N14 Pulsar was as quick as a 3.8 Commodore at
legal speeds (probably all automatics, though; and a 2 litre 'Q' for
this comparison, with a fairly heavy me & a medium-weight friend driving
vs. driver-only Commodores). And you can tell when a Commodore is
trying; it's so loud & thrashy, you can easily hear it over your own car
in most cases.
Now, considering a Bluebird is supposed to be quicker than a Pulsar in
straight line (although never marketed that way), I wouldn't be
surprised if it was quicker than a Commodore to 100km/hr, although it
would surely be running out of breath due to gearing as you get to
higher speeds.
Pete!
FROM: Forg <fo...@zip.com.au>
>But the V6 Commodore just feels so unresponsive & gutless at speed. I
>drove my dad's VR back from Wollongong on the freeway, and while it
>feels like it can hold a speed with relative ease, it seems to take
>forever to get around to accelerating if you're doing over 100km/h. The
>Liberty just does it straight away; maybe the Commodore needs Liberty
>gearing?
YEah, but 70 in that fast lane Forg in the VR :-)
On that particular stretch of road my VN got in excess of 210kmh from my auto
V6 and 130 - 180 (in 3rd) was quite brisk - couldn't keep it there as the auto
thought it needed to accelerate even further and tried to kick down :-(
>--
>Forg! -=DUH#6=- (Y1)
>"To Err is Human. To Flame is Divine."
notturno
Arnie wrote:
>
> A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a couple of
> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual, PULP
> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to redline.
Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
> The VTEC does not light up until 5000 rpm, meaning you either have to drop
> down a gear (or 2) to get going or you're a slug. 0-100kph and 1/4 mile times
> are not the be-all-and-end-all measure of GRUNT ok
I never said they were, but a few months ago you clearly stated that a
V6 Commie will outrun a VTEC Prelude from a standing start.
>(when will you boy racer
> types wake up?).
I resemble that ! :-) I am not a boy racer, nor do I drive a VTEC
Prelude.
> As for figures, I got 8.1s out of a stock VN *auto* wagon
> (running Std ULP) I once had. I've also been able to get consistent sub 8.0s
> 0-100 times out of 5sp VN Execs (best of around 7.5s but hard to achieve
> consistently). I had a drive in a 5sp 3.8L V6 VS ute with LSD and it took off
> even harder - never got to measure 0-100kph though :-( It is hard to get sub
> 8.0s times out of the VTEC Prelude - a really *HARD* launch with the VTEC is
> much harder. Put up 5000rpm and you get too much wheelspin (FWD without LSD
> doesn't help either), too little revs and the engine bogs down. Yes, it is
> fun to rev the VTEC when driving hard, but it ain't got the torque like the
> 3.8L V6 which makes it so much more driveable.
>You could drive at
> traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
> can do that?
Not too many, but then a never said the VTEC is a torque meister.
Show me a printout of your Correvit times. If it's just your "seat of
the pants" times, then your pants must really be multi-talented.
BTW, don't take this criticism personally, but I'd like to see some cold
hard figures and facts and a little less personal bias before I'll
believe you. (And no, I don't hate Commodores)
Chris
Tim Archer
Arnie <a...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> Yep, I've actually done the side by side road test. A stock *manual* V6
> Commodore running PULP will outrun a stock *manual* VTEC Prelude running
> PULP
> by about 2 car lengths (not exactly "creaming" however) by 120 kph. My
buddy
> and I then swapped seats and after a bit of practice he was able to
repeat
> similar results. We thought it wasn't a good idea to go any faster than
> 120kph on an 80kph limit stretch of public road. Even Motor mag times
> supports my claim (their 0-100kph times suggest an even greater
difference).
Yeah - I can just see you driving the Prelude, Arnie ... <grunt> <groan>
"Can't ... get ... accelerator ... down ... Damn, there goes the Commodore!
Looks like I lost again." ;-)
Tim
notturno
Brendan WALKER wrote:
> Uh hmm....
>
> My bog standard dinosaur 2V pushrod XR8 revs *easily* past 5500 rpm!
Gee, that's funny, considering it's redlined at 5500rpm. Love to see how
long your motor lasts.
> My previous car, dinosaur 2V pushrod 350 Chev powered IROC Camaro
> revved to 6000rpm (not bog standard... though still only "mild" as
> far as the available Chev small block modifications go).
Gee, 6 grand, that is high. Come on, 6 grand is hardly high revs.
>I also once
> owned a 351C Falcon, also pushrod 2V dinosaur, that revved to 6500 rpm!
> Mind you, that dinosaur was a Stage III set up (1/2 race) that was
> dyno'd at 350 bhp at the flywheel.
> Group A pushrod dinosaurs rev to
> 7500 rpm, but they are rev limited, and also only produce about
> 600 bhp.
>
> Back in the Group C days, 351C's were spinning to 8000 rpm.
Another one who mentions race cars. V8 Supercars are RACE engines that
are designed to rev high. Max. torque is at 5 grand, and peak power at
7,200. They are designed to rev hard, unlike the standard V6 Commodores
I was referring to.
>
> Gee, the person making that statement above sure knows what they are
> talking about.......
It was in refference to standard Falcons & Commodores that have heaps of
torque and don't like to rev. Perhaps my comment was over the top, by
then I've got the balls to admit my mistakes.
>Can't wait to drive the DOHC 24V EL!
>
OK, don't rub it in ! I would like to see one, but I doubt the
beancounters will allow it. (Can't a-Ford ?)
Regards,
Chris
Arnie
BTW, funny how you keep changing your alias, as well as drop your sig.
Arnie
Arnie
Student PC wrote :
[snip]
>A V6 commdore would probably have trouble beating a 78 prelude, well
>maybe not but id know which one i'd rather be driving. Probably
>wouldn't have to stop every servo in prelude to top up oil
>
Very funny :-|
Exaggeration at its best.
Arnie
Arnie
notturno wrote :
[snip]
>Arnie, give me one good reason why you think a V6 Commie will eat a VTEC
>Prelude. (Besides the fact that one has more power than the other.) The
>best figures I've seen for a manual Exec are 8.7 0-100Km, while the best
>I've seen from the Prelude are *at least* one full second faster.
A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a couple of
car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual, PULP
to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to redline.
The VTEC does not light up until 5000 rpm, meaning you either have to drop
down a gear (or 2) to get going or you're a slug. 0-100kph and 1/4 mile times
are not the be-all-and-end-all measure of GRUNT ok (when will you boy racer
types wake up?). As for figures, I got 8.1s out of a stock VN *auto* wagon
(running Std ULP) I once had. I've also been able to get consistent sub 8.0s
0-100 times out of 5sp VN Execs (best of around 7.5s but hard to achieve
consistently). I had a drive in a 5sp 3.8L V6 VS ute with LSD and it took off
even harder - never got to measure 0-100kph though :-( It is hard to get sub
8.0s times out of the VTEC Prelude - a really *HARD* launch with the VTEC is
much harder. Put up 5000rpm and you get too much wheelspin (FWD without LSD
doesn't help either), too little revs and the engine bogs down. Yes, it is
fun to rev the VTEC when driving hard, but it ain't got the torque like the
3.8L V6 which makes it so much more driveable. You could drive at
traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
can do that?
Arnie
Arnie
Mike wrote :
[snip]
>Scuse my pesemissim, What ratios, gearbox and final drive does the commy
have to be able
>to pull 100 clicks under 2000rpm?
The auto V6 uses the same ratios as the auto V8! Both have OD 4th gear of
0.70 and 3.08:1 diff. 100kph is achieved with about 1900rpm. Some V6 S specs
had 3.27:1 diffs (much better for the V6). The manual V6 has different
gearbox ratios than the V8 however. OD 5th is pretty similar though : 0.72
for the V6, 0.73 for the V8. Diffs are same ratios for manual V6 and V8
(generally; as 3.27:1 is availabe).
>Also the times used here are a little low ie, make out the commy is quicker
than it is!
>What did you use to get those times, optomistic stopwatch?
A bloody good hard launch. I've done hundreds of (hand) timed runs in all
sorts of Commodores. The difference is in the launch, the way you shift
(manual and auto), and how you open out the throttle. Most people just leave
the auto in D and stomp on the pedal - this will give you the worst 0-100kph
times. I can get 2 car lengths in front before the 1st gear change against
these type of launches.
>Figures are crap. . . put 2 cars side by side then you have a comaparison.
.
.
And I've done this! And I do this sort of test often with different cars. I
think I need a FAQ. Please find my other recent post regarding manual V6 vs
manual VTEC Prelude. My buddy and I even swapped seats to eliminate any
possible driver advantage - results were similar either way. The VTEC
Prelude
never got in front from 0-120kph.
Arnie
Arnie
Kieron Murphy
Forg <fo...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>On an 85km/h freeway I could ... :)
>But the V6 Commodore just feels so unresponsive & gutless at speed. I
>drove my dad's VR back from Wollongong on the freeway, and while it
>feels like it can hold a speed with relative ease, it seems to take
>forever to get around to accelerating if you're doing over 100km/h. The
>Liberty just does it straight away; maybe the Commodore needs Liberty
>gearing?
I always found the Commie auto to be sluggish in its changes causing
an initial lag, once in a lower cog though it took off.
Kieron
Kieron Murphy
b...@vampire.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) wrote:
>In article <34176DB1...@ocean.com.au>,
>notturno <gorg...@ocean.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>Show me a pushrod motor that can rev past 5 grand and I'll show you a
>>DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
>>
>Uh hmm....
>My bog standard dinosaur 2V pushrod XR8 revs *easily* past 5500 rpm!
>My previous car, dinosaur 2V pushrod 350 Chev powered IROC Camaro
>revved to 6000rpm (not bog standard... though still only "mild" as
>far as the available Chev small block modifications go). I also once
>owned a 351C Falcon, also pushrod 2V dinosaur, that revved to 6500 rpm!
>Mind you, that dinosaur was a Stage III set up (1/2 race) that was
>dyno'd at 350 bhp at the flywheel. Group A pushrod dinosaurs rev to
>7500 rpm, but they are rev limited, and also only produce about
>600 bhp.
>Back in the Group C days, 351C's were spinning to 8000 rpm.
Read an article in Popular Science earlier this year that said NASCAR
V8's can do 9000 no problems, in fact here's part of the article -
Engines are from GM or Ford and are BASED on the traditional small
blocks. Displacement is a max 358 cid.
All engines must use a small carb, in the 300-400 cfm range (depending
on rules).
Engines are all pushrod operated, with aluminum heads, titanium
valves, 4 bolt main, 15:1 compression ratio, etc...
9000 rpm is not a problem, horsepower is in 700-750 range.
Check out the compression ratio!!!
Kieron
Kieron Murphy
sim...@nospam.lake.canberra.edu.au (Justen) wrote:
>> You could drive at
>>traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
>>can do that?
>>Arnie
>Who cares ? What difference does it make what revs the thing is doing if it
>gets there just as fast. You use the right gearing for what your car weighs to
>take advantage of what your motor delivers.
>4000rpm in my 4 is nothing. It's not noisy (meets rego db), it's not busy
>(motor is hardly turning over as far as it is concerned), it's not thirsty
>(i'm a lead foot so mpg is a bit of a mistery) and i'm cruising at 140 kph.
>What's the big deal that it's not doing it at 3000rpm. If it was a perfect
>world we would all have max torque from go to redline and cubic inches would
>win. Obviously the world ain't perfect so we have gearing to take advantage
>of the strengths of the different motors that are out there.
I tend to disagree, driving long distances in my experience a high
revving engine tends to get tiring whereas a low revver gives a more
relaxed drive. A while back 4 of us in a friends Laser XR3 drove long
distance which became unpleasent and required frequent stops, it was
also quite hard to overtake as the thing didn't have the torque to
pull the weight. I did the same trip in my EA Falcon wagon which was a
breeze, even my wife commented on how east the Falcon did it and she
isn't into cars :-)
Kieron
Arnie
Arnie
Arnie
notturno wrote :
>Arnie wrote:
>> A V6 Commy does not "eat" a VTEC Prelude ok, it will marginally (a couple
of
>> car lengths at 120kph) outrun it from standstill (both running manual,
PULP
>> to be fair). Where the Commy will "eat" the VTEC is in rolling in-gear
>> acceleration. The V6 has way superior torque from basically idle to
redline.
>
>DOHC IRS 24v EL Falcon
I've been playing tag with 5500rpm on the tacho in V6 Commys for years! If
it
wasn't for the rev limiter I'd be hitting 6000rpm easy.
>> The VTEC does not light up until 5000 rpm, meaning you either have to
drop
>> down a gear (or 2) to get going or you're a slug. 0-100kph and 1/4 mile
times
>> are not the be-all-and-end-all measure of GRUNT ok
>
>I never said they were, but a few months ago you clearly stated that a
>V6 Commie will outrun a VTEC Prelude from a standing start.
And they (manual with PULP) do.
>>(when will you boy racer
>> types wake up?).
>
>I resemble that ! :-) I am not a boy racer, nor do I drive a VTEC
>Prelude.
I'm sorry if I offended you there, but VTEC Prelude superiority is widely
misconceived - bloody good marketing. They're good, but not THAT good.
[snip]
>Show me a printout of your Correvit times. If it's just your "seat of
>the pants" times, then your pants must really be multi-talented.
Sorry, I can't afford a Correvit. The times were taken by hand using my
trusty Seiko stopwatch and the speedo. Low 8s 0-100 in an auto VN V6 is not
hard. I remember a comparison in a mag (Car Australia?/Wheels? can't
remember
which) between a VN Calais, a Cressida, and a Fairmont. They got sub 8.0s
times in the auto V6 Calais (this is hard to achieve consistently). A manual
VN V6 on the other hand would have no trouble cracking 8.0s (7.5s if you
tried real hard). BTW, a VN is the fastest *auto* V6 Commodore from
0-100kph.
>BTW, don't take this criticism personally, but I'd like to see some cold
>hard figures and facts and a little less personal bias before I'll
>believe you. (And no, I don't hate Commodores)
Try it yourself. Borrow an auto VN V6 in good nick (unfortunately, a lot of
them are a bit tired by now), make sure the tyres have good pressure (I
recommend 35psi all round), and manual shift the auto. When you've got the
hang of the launch, try it again using PULP in the tank.
Arnie
Arnie
Arnie
Wierd, is everybody else seeing like 4, 5 copies of this post or is my NG
server playing up?
Arnie
DJ!
It's broken, Arnie.
Here - have mine.
DJ!
Arnie
Justen wrote :
>> You could drive at
>>traffic/freeway speed all day without going over 2000rpm - how many 4 pots
>>can do that?
>>Arnie
>
>Who cares ? What difference does it make what revs the thing is doing if it
>gets there just as fast. You use the right gearing for what your car weighs
to
>take advantage of what your motor delivers.
What about drivetrain inertia? Assuming similar drivetrain components, the
more you rev the more inertia you have to overcome. Higher rpms means more
driveline losses and most likely a higher rate of wear and tear.
Arnie
notturno
Arnie wrote:
> Try it yourself. Borrow an auto VN V6 in good nick (unfortunately, a lot of
> them are a bit tired by now), make sure the tyres have good pressure (I
> recommend 35psi all round), and manual shift the auto. When you've got the
> hang of the launch, try it again using PULP in the tank.
>
> Arnie
I drove a VR V6 rent-a-car about 18 months ago, and yes, it has all the
things that VN/VP/VR/VS are known for (raspy idle, great off the line
thrust, but it sounds like its going to drop its guts when it revs past
5 grand). It was a good drive, but the driveline shudder put me off
(gear lever shaking under brakes). At least it was quieter and had less
road noise than the EB11 Falcon I replaced it with.
Chris.
Forg
Pete! wrote:
>
> FROM: Forg <fo...@zip.com.au>
>
> >But the V6 Commodore just feels so unresponsive & gutless at speed. I
> >drove my dad's VR back from Wollongong on the freeway, and while it
> >feels like it can hold a speed with relative ease, it seems to take
> >forever to get around to accelerating if you're doing over 100km/h. The
> >Liberty just does it straight away; maybe the Commodore needs Liberty
> >gearing?
>
>
> On that particular stretch of road my VN got in excess of 210kmh from my auto
> V6 and 130 - 180 (in 3rd) was quite brisk - couldn't keep it there as the auto
> thought it needed to accelerate even further and tried to kick down :-(
Shit, 210 in a VN? 120 almost makes you sea-sick in a VR; the VN I drove
for a while would have just floated between the north-bound and
south-bound lanes - on the freeway section!
Forg
Arnie wrote:
>
> Mike wrote :
> [snip]
> >Scuse my pesemissim, What ratios, gearbox and final drive does the commy
> have to be able
> >to pull 100 clicks under 2000rpm?
>
> The auto V6 uses the same ratios as the auto V8! Both have OD 4th gear of
> 0.70 and 3.08:1 diff.
That makes me wonder. When they get rid of the 5 litre Holden engine,
are they going to have to swap to a 3.50 ratio diff? Or is the new Chev
motor no longer 350ci?
(Sorry)
Bradley Gray
In article <34182D...@cit.gu.edu.au>,
Student PC <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>> A bluebird WILL NOT run away from a VT ok. It especially won't run away from
>> a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird SSS
>> and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out and
>> drive a few cars.
>>
>> BTW, funny how you keep changing your alias, as well as drop your sig.
>>
>> Arnie
>
>
>You really love ur shitty commodores don't u, well the loan bluebird
>auto that Nissan gave my mate when his 200sx was in for service, we had
>quite
>a deal of fun beating though all mighting commodores, in REAL LIFE
>SITUATIONS. U want to race a bluebird/commodore forget about car mag
>figures they me jack shit on the road, u hire the cars and i'll bet u
>what ever u want the bbird will win!!!
>
>Danny
Danny, your Student PC address gives you away. In the real world the
Bluebird will not beat a Commodore.
You are probably getting your speed perspective from the passengers seat;
my wife constantly says, when we are in the Bluebird, "Don't drive so fast"
She then looks at the speedo and mumbles something like "Oh, is that all
your doing". The nIssan feels faster than it really is. I think I('m
being fairly unbiased here. We have the Bluebird and think it's a great
car and we have had a VL, 2 VNs, 2 VPs and a VR. A '94 Bluebird is not
quicker in real life driving than a '94 Commodore.
Brad
Bradley Gray
In article <34182C...@cit.gu.edu.au>,
Student PC <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>> Possibly it is what you interpret "GRUNT" as. To me it is not the 400metre
>> time or the 0-100 time or the top speed. It is the ability to be able to
>> floor the accelerator and something happen straight away; I guess I'm
>> talking about torque - something the Japanese just don't seem to be able to
>> build into their engines. My 93 Bluebird does great 0-100 and quarter mile
>> times (for a 2.4 motor) but it just doesn't have the grunt/balls/power
>> available at all times feeling of the string of commodores my wife has had
>> as company drives.
>>
>> Brad
>
>Yeah but i'd rather have some GRUNTY car nail it beside me, pull away,
>then once my rev's are up come shooting past (not nessarily in my car
>but in general), that would be better than having that intial pull.
>
>Danny
Just out of interest, do you actually own / drive a car? As has allready
been said, a V6 coomodore and a 2.4 Bluebird do 400metres and 0-100 in
about the same time BUT in the real world of motoring those figures mean
stuff-all. What really matters is roll-on times like 80-120 and 60-80. In
the Bluebird when I floor it to overtake it often changes down or is caught
outside the powerband, in the commodore this happens less often because it
has a wider, flatter torque curve. The Commodore is a better drive because
9 times in 10 it gets the job done quicker.
BTW the commodore gets better fuel economy around town than the Bluebird
because the accellerator isn't nailed to the firewall all the time.
Brad
Arnie
Tim Archer wrote :
[snip]
>Yeah - I can just see you driving the Prelude, Arnie ... <grunt> <groan>
>"Can't ... get ... accelerator ... down ... Damn, there goes the Commodore!
> Looks like I lost again." ;-)
Heh Heh :-) Unfortunately, the owner of said VTEC Prelude was not happy with
the way I tortured his clutch. I did achieve some hard takeoffs and a few
high 7's 0-100kph times. I did try real hard, I don't discriminate, and I'll
happily torture ANY car. :-)
Arnie
Arnie
Forg wrote :
>Arnie wrote:
>> The auto V6 uses the same ratios as the auto V8! Both have OD 4th gear of
>> 0.70 and 3.08:1 diff.
>..
>
>That makes me wonder. When they get rid of the 5 litre Holden engine,
>are they going to have to swap to a 3.50 ratio diff? Or is the new Chev
>motor no longer 350ci?
>
>(Sorry)
Hehe, good try! :-) Unfortunately, the EFI 5L V8 are not 308ci but actually
304ci. As for the 5.7L Chev LS1, it is not exactly 350ci but 347ci (346.615ci
to be more precise). I think a 3.46:1 diff behind the LS1 would be rather
wicked!
Arnie
Glen
i reckon that both the camry and the bluebird
would have the legs in the
horsepower stakes than the hg 350
munros and the phase 3's just lucky
they dont run at bathurst eh
glen
> > > Hmm id have to say the camry is nothing special, but compare the new
> > > commodore to say a Nissan Maxima or Nissan Bluebird, hmmm then u'd be
> > > using the rearview mirror in either of these two quite often to look
at
> > > the shit box holden behind you.
> >
> > Let's all remember too folks that the Camry gives the Charger the "big
> Vee".....hehe
>
Scott Moody
In article <5v7jgq$pg4$3...@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au>, "Arnie" <a...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Student PC wrote :
>[snip]
>>You really love ur shitty commodores don't u, well the loan bluebird
>>auto that Nissan gave my mate when his 200sx was in for service, we had
>>quite
>>a deal of fun beating though all mighting commodores, in REAL LIFE
>
>than the humble guys in the Commodores in REAL LIFE. Line up next to me in my
>stock auto V6 and your stock auto Bluebird WILL NOT be able to stick it's
>nose in front.
>
>>SITUATIONS. U want to race a bluebird/commodore forget about car mag
>>figures they me jack shit on the road, u hire the cars and i'll bet u
>>what ever u want the bbird will win!!!
>>
>>Danny
>
>
>
>Arnie
>
>
>
Poorly spoken Danny!
Scott.
Forced induction - 'The replacement for displacement.'
bungles
notturno wrote:
>
> Pete! wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally, I have raced and beaten a current VTEC Prelude in my VN V6 and
> > that was from about 70 kmh
> >
>
> I've also raced a VTEC Prelude in my '93 manual MX-6 and beaten him,
> but it was a close thing, with the Prelude in my rear quarter panel the
> whole way.
>
> Chris.
See! The V6 commodore is also faster than an MX-6!
bUNGLES.
Greg Stewart
DJ! wrote:
>
> Arnie wrote:
>
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
> > A bluebird WILL NOT run away from a VT ok. It especially won't run away from
> > a VS,VR,VP,VN - manual to manual, auto to auto. I've driven a Bluebird SSS
> > and you have not, so there. Stop tossing in front of the mags and get out and
> > drive a few cars.
>
>
> I hate getting into the "my cars are faster than yours" or "my car can
> do a 1/4 in x.xx sec" arguments but I'm going to take you to task on
> your comments.
>
> I own an auto 2.4L 1995 Bluebird. and I'm telling you right now that I'm
> struggling to find a VN-VR (with the standard 3.8) on the road that will
> take it from a standing start. As you know, most 3.8L Commodores have an
> auto tranny shoved in so I'm safely assuming my "tests" have been done
> auto-vs-auto.
>
> The VS Ecotec donk is a different story. They'll have me over the first
> 400m but then the Bluebird can pull em in.
>
> DJ!
>
> PS The Bluebird WILL be traded for a VT next year....I don't give a toss
> for brand loyalties! Mini to Cressida to Skyline to Excel to Bluebird
> to.....
Sheesh, could have fooled me!! I took a few cars for a test drive,
about a year ago, including the bluebird and the 'then current'
commodore!, and if someone had asked me I would guanantee that the
commodore was quicker!!! It certainly felt like it was anyway!!
I ended up keeping my 3.0L skyline, because I was dissapointed with the
performance of the bluebird, and the 'cheapness' of the commodore!!!!
Forg
Arnie wrote:
>
> Forg wrote :
> >Arnie wrote:
> >> The auto V6 uses the same ratios as the auto V8! Both have OD 4th gear of
> >> 0.70 and 3.08:1 diff.
> >..
> >
> >That makes me wonder. When they get rid of the 5 litre Holden engine,
> >are they going to have to swap to a 3.50 ratio diff? Or is the new Chev
> >motor no longer 350ci?
> >
> >(Sorry)
>
> Hehe, good try! :-) Unfortunately, the EFI 5L V8 are not 308ci but actually
> 304ci.
I was hoping nobody would bring that up ... :-( { :-) }
...
> As for the 5.7L Chev LS1, it is not exactly 350ci but 347ci (346.615ci
> to be more precise). I think a 3.46:1 diff behind the LS1 would be rather
> wicked!
...
Reckon! And we could show the yanks exactly why 4-door cars are faster +
handle better!! :)
Forg
Bradley Gray wrote:
...
> You are probably getting your speed perspective from the passengers seat;
> my wife constantly says, when we are in the Bluebird, "Don't drive so fast"
> She then looks at the speedo and mumbles something like "Oh, is that all
> your doing". The nIssan feels faster than it really is.
Which is interested, because the couple of times my dad has driven my
Liberty, he was going faster than he meant to; because it feels like
it's going _slower_ than his VR Berlina!
It was quite frustrating after driving a Corolla actually; kept driving
happily along wondering why everyone was driving so slowly, and then
nearly getting booked!
notturno
bungles wrote:
> > I've also raced a VTEC Prelude in my '93 manual MX-6 and beaten him,
> > but it was a close thing, with the Prelude in my rear quarter panel the
> > whole way.
> >
> > Chris.
>
> See! The V6 commodore is also faster than an MX-6!
>
> bUNGLES.
No it isn't. I have never been beaten by a V6...auto or manual. In fact,
I give SS Commodores a run for their money. That's why I didn't believe
Arnie.
Chris.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <341D7D...@cit.gu.edu.au>, gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au>
wrote:
>will
>> > take it from a standing start. As you know, most 3.8L Commodores have
an
>> > auto tranny shoved in so I'm safely assuming my "tests" have been
done
>> > auto-vs-auto.
>> >
>> > The VS Ecotec donk is a different story. They'll have me over the
first
>> > 400m but then the Bluebird can pull em in.
>> >
>> > DJ!
>> >
>> > PS The Bluebird WILL be traded for a VT next year....I don't give a
toss
>> > for brand loyalties! Mini to Cressida to Skyline to Excel to Bluebird
>> > to.....
>>
>> Sheesh, could have fooled me!! I took a few cars for a test drive,
>> about a year ago, including the bluebird and the 'then current'
>> commodore!, and if someone had asked me I would guanantee that the
>> commodore was quicker!!! It certainly felt like it was anyway!!
>>
>> I ended up keeping my 3.0L skyline, because I was dissapointed with the
>> performance of the bluebird, and the 'cheapness' of the commodore!!!!
>
>actually is NOTHING!!! a car may FEEL faster but in fact may actually be
>slower!!!
>
>Danny
Have to agree with this completely. The Mk1 butt (tm) is not a very good
performance measuring device; additionally, it is more attuned to
immediate take-off (torque out of the hole) than to power. If you had a
ride in a 351 Falcon, and a Ferrari 328, you would be positive that the
351 was quicker.
A personal example. I recently got a set of HM headers for my manual EF
Futura. Prior to getting them, I did an acceleration run from 1000rpm to
5700rpm in second (roughly 20km/h-105km/h). It took 8.1s (As an aside, I
hate doing standing start tests for acceleration, as they are highly
non-repeatable), after I had the extractors fitted, the same increment
took 7.5s, along the same stretch of road. I have to say though, the car
did not really feel any quicker (a bit crisper). It certainly didn't FEEL
anything like the actual performance improvement.
Dennis
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Arnie
gteye wrote :
[snip]
>hmmm yes i've read old magazines articles quoting figures in the 7's
>-100kms and 1/4mile in low 15's for a std VN. if these arn't bias then
>why by a hsv when a std VN is quicker.
Because 0-100kph times do not explain the whole story. Boy racers don't seem
to understand this !??!
Arnie
Paul David Nelson
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------44E2C4F3493149D10DBBBF1E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just for the record fellas a 94 Lancer GSR is faster than a VR
dunnydore clubsport over the 1/8. I know this because I ran mine over
the one at Canberra yesterday and I was a full second faster over the
1/8th. Would anyone else like to comment.
P.S Forg I also ran half a second faster than a liberty RS
Nelo...
--------------44E2C4F3493149D10DBBBF1E
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Paul Nelson
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Paul Nelson
n: Nelson;Paul
org: Australian Defence Force Academy
email;internet: nel...@octarine.adfa.oz.au
title: Officer Cadet
x-mozilla-cpt: 131.236.107.60;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------44E2C4F3493149D10DBBBF1E--
gteye
Ben Wilson wrote:
>
> Arnie wrote:
>
> >
> > hard. I remember a comparison in a mag (Car Australia?/Wheels? can't
> > remember
> > which) between a VN Calais, a Cressida, and a Fairmont. They got sub 8.0s
> > times in the auto V6 Calais (this is hard to achieve consistently). A manual
> > VN V6 on the other hand would have no trouble cracking 8.0s (7.5s if you
> > tried real hard). BTW, a VN is the fastest *auto* V6 Commodore from
> > 0-100kph.
> >
>
> of any bias that Australian car magazines might have towards the
> Commodore (or Falcon). Of just been looking over years of backcopies and
> comparing their 'times' for the VN-VS. And, even though the weight/power
> improved from about 10.5 for the VN (kg/kW) to about 9.5 for the VS the
> times gradually declined to about a second off the pace of a VN for the
> 0-100 and about 0.5s for the 400m (manual and auto). At the time the
> magazines were raving about the VN and how good it was. I think there
> was a bit of fudging for the VN's times because I can't really explain it
> any other way.
>
> Unless someone else wants to put forward a theory?....
>
> Oh, by the way, I don't doubt the Commodore's performance credentials!
> They will eat most passenger cars and a lot of the hot 4 competition. I
> never liked the way the performance was delivered though (but then I have
> only driven autos). Couldn't call it enjoyable.
hmmm yes i've read old magazines articles quoting figures in the 7's
-100kms and 1/4mile in low 15's for a std VN. if these arn't bias then
why by a hsv when a std VN is quicker.
Danny
gteye
gteye
don't know how u can back up V8's here, not counting the new ones that
get done every time by a new 4cly turbo, there are plenty of shit v8's
goin round, be it in commodores kingswoods etc that would probably loose
to a 2.6ltr sigma!!!!!!
Danny
gteye
Chris common man, u don't seriously think that a 4cly could beat a V8 ss
no way man, there the quickest car on the planet, not to mention the
person behind the wheel of the big 5ltr would just get cut!
DJ!
Arnie wrote:
<<<SNIP >>>
> Gee you're an idiot Dan. Since when did a 93 MX6 have a 4cyl engine?
Arnie, I think your news client/server is having problems again. This is
the third time I've seen you call young Dan an "idiot".
I refer to the following header IDs
news:5viknb%24knk%2...@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au
news:5vikm0%24kij%2...@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au
news:5vikm7%24kj0%2...@minotaur.labyrinth.net.au
Just thought you'd like to know....
Kieron Murphy
Forg <fo...@zip.com.au> wrote:
Dunno about 210 but I've had VN's/EA's in the 190's and for more than
just a quick burst, its handy when the mine site has its own sealed
roads :-).
Kieron
notturno
If you were reading the post (and you know anything about cars) you may
notice that I said a 93 Mx-6. It is a 2.5L V6, not a four.
And I'm not lying about the SS.
Chris.
Arnie
gteye wrote :
>notturno wrote:
>>
>> bungles wrote:
>>
>> > > I've also raced a VTEC Prelude in my '93 manual MX-6 and beaten
him,
>> > > but it was a close thing, with the Prelude in my rear quarter panel
the
>> > > whole way.
>> > >
>> > > Chris.
>> >
>> > See! The V6 commodore is also faster than an MX-6!
>> >
>> > bUNGLES.
>>
>> No it isn't. I have never been beaten by a V6...auto or manual. In fact,
>> I give SS Commodores a run for their money. That's why I didn't believe
>> Arnie.
>>
>> Chris.
>
>Chris common man, u don't seriously think that a 4cly could beat a V8 ss
>no way man, there the quickest car on the planet, not to mention the
>person behind the wheel of the big 5ltr would just get cut!
Gee you're an idiot Dan. Since when did a 93 MX6 have a 4cyl engine?
As far as I've driven (hand timed), a V6 MX6 is about as fast as a VTEC
Prelude. IMO, a little easier to launch on take off in the MX6 though. AFAIK
Chris, I've never bean beaten by a V6 MX6 in my V6 Commy either. As I've
mentioned before, in a street drag situation, it depends largely on driver
skill/bravery/stupidity. Back to back?.....well.... I haven't done an MX6 vs
Commy......yet.
Oh, a 5sp V8 SS driven hard, blows away all the above mentioned.
Arnie
Arnie
Arnie
gteye wrote :
[snip]
>don't know how u can back up V8's here,
I usually use the reverse gear.
>not counting the new ones that
>get done every time by a new 4cly turbo, there are plenty of shit v8's
>goin round, be it in commodores kingswoods etc that would probably loose
>to a 2.6ltr sigma!!!!!!
That's a stupid thing to say Dan.
Arnie
Jason Fong
Bradley Gray <bra...@cia.com.au> wrote in article
<B04056C2...@d36.cia.com.au>...
What sort of fuel economy are you getting through your Commodore and which
model is it? I know with my Bluebird that I'd be getting better economy
than a Commodore for sure, around 9.5L/100 KMs, and that is pushing it
pretty hard. This is in Sydney by the way.
Arnie
Arnie
Ben Wilson wrote :
[snip]
>Hmmmm....I've seen these 'hard' figures too but I'm a little suspicious
>of any bias that Australian car magazines might have towards the
>Commodore (or Falcon). Of just been looking over years of backcopies and
>comparing their 'times' for the VN-VS. And, even though the weight/power
>improved from about 10.5 for the VN (kg/kW) to about 9.5 for the VS the
>times gradually declined to about a second off the pace of a VN for the
>0-100 and about 0.5s for the 400m (manual and auto). At the time the
>magazines were raving about the VN and how good it was. I think there
>was a bit of fudging for the VN's times because I can't really explain it
>any other way.
>
>Unless someone else wants to put forward a theory?....
VN had better low down torque than VP/VR/VS (you can feel the difference).
Holden nobbled that low down grunt because people were complaining about
wheelspin and jack-rabbit take offs (preferable for some, not for others).
The difference in the 0-100kph times are all in the takeoffs - in this
respect, VN is faster than VP/VR/VS. Those extra peak kw were made at higher
rpm and did not make up for the lesser low down grunt compared to the VN. On
top of that, the VN Exec (1300kg) was about 100kg lighter than the VR/VS
Exec
(or about the same weight as a VTEC Prelude).
Arnie
Pete!
FROM: "Arnie" <a...@bigfoot.com>
>I've been playing tag with 5500rpm on the tacho in V6 Commys for years! If
>it
>wasn't for the rev limiter I'd be hitting 6000rpm easy.
Email me a dump of your memcal and I'll soon fix that :-)
This Community Service Announcement bought to you by
Pete! -=DUH#1=- (FM)
"Its a long way to the top if you wanna flame a troll"
Pete!
FROM: Forg <fo...@zip.com.au>
>> >But the V6 Commodore just feels so unresponsive & gutless at speed. I
>> >drove my dad's VR back from Wollongong on the freeway, and while it
>> >feels like it can hold a speed with relative ease, it seems to take
>> >forever to get around to accelerating if you're doing over 100km/h. The
>> >Liberty just does it straight away; maybe the Commodore needs Liberty
>> >gearing?
>>
>> YEah, but 70 in that fast lane Forg in the VR :-)
>>
>> On that particular stretch of road my VN got in excess of 210kmh from my
auto
>> V6 and 130 - 180 (in 3rd) was quite brisk - couldn't keep it there as the
auto
>> thought it needed to accelerate even further and tried to kick down :-(
>Shit, 210 in a VN? 120 almost makes you sea-sick in a VR; the VN I drove
>for a while would have just floated between the north-bound and
>south-bound lanes - on the freeway section!
I'd say something wrong - after about 160 the VN feels tight (with the current
2.5" lower and 235/17/45 it sits _REAL_ tight at 160) and appears to be pulled
toward the ground - the 210 was done with stock suspension but decent 15"
rubber - also 180 across Roseville bridge with the 15" rubber was a fright
=:-)
>--
>Forg! -=DUH#6=- (Y1)
>"To Err is Human. To Flame is Divine."
Pete!
FROM: gteye <dpo...@cit.gu.edu.au>
>>Sheesh, could have fooled me!! I took a few cars for a test drive,
>> about a year ago, including the bluebird and the 'then current'
>> commodore!, and if someone had asked me I would guanantee that the
>> commodore was quicker!!! It certainly felt like it was anyway!!
>>
>> I ended up keeping my 3.0L skyline, because I was dissapointed with the
>> performance of the bluebird, and the 'cheapness' of the commodore!!!!
>Since when is how a car FEELS FASTER got to do with how quick it
>actually is NOTHING!!! a car may FEEL faster but in fact may actually be
>slower!!!
It fells fast when you have to rev to 7000 and return disappointing 10.5 sec
0-100 times. Like most (not)swift owners with big exhausts
BTW Danny, most of your posts contain one sentence of around 3-5 lines - is it
a concentration thing?
>Danny
Greg Stewart
gteye wrote:
>
> will
> > > take it from a standing start. As you know, most 3.8L Commodores have an
> > > auto tranny shoved in so I'm safely assuming my "tests" have been done
> > > auto-vs-auto.
> > >
> > > The VS Ecotec donk is a different story. They'll have me over the first
> > > 400m but then the Bluebird can pull em in.
> > >
> > > DJ!
> > >
> > > PS The Bluebird WILL be traded for a VT next year....I don't give a toss
> > > for brand loyalties! Mini to Cressida to Skyline to Excel to Bluebird
> > > to.....
> >
> > about a year ago, including the bluebird and the 'then current'
> > commodore!, and if someone had asked me I would guanantee that the
> > commodore was quicker!!! It certainly felt like it was anyway!!
> >
> > I ended up keeping my 3.0L skyline, because I was dissapointed with the
> > performance of the bluebird, and the 'cheapness' of the commodore!!!!
>
> Since when is how a car FEELS FASTER got to do with how quick it
> actually is NOTHING!!! a car may FEEL faster but in fact may actually be
> slower!!!
>
Yea well, A standard \Daihatsu Charade 'feels' slower than WRX, for a
darn good reason!!! it is!!!!!!!!!!
The ferocity in which a car forces you back into the seat, is directly
proportional to it's acceleration, and therefore how quick it gets to
100k/h or some other measurement!!!! Am I making any sence to
anyone here????????
Greg.
Keith Kum-Tuck Wong
Greg Stewart (gre...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: The ferocity in which a car forces you back into the seat, is directly
: proportional to it's acceleration, and therefore how quick it gets to
: 100k/h or some other measurement!!!! Am I making any sence to
: anyone here????????
Well Greg, I suggest you take a drive in a Suzuki Swift GTi some day.
When you plant the accelerator, you get pushed back and the car
accelerates surprisingly briskly. Now, drive a bog-standard Holden
Commodore. Plant the accelerator and you can feel the thing pick up
speed, but not as dramatically as the Swift.
Now, compare the 0-100 times of the two - the Commy is faster than the
Swift! Surprise, surprise!
--
o_o KEITH KUM-TUCK WONG, in Perth, Western Australia
( - ) WWW: http://cygwww.uwa.edu.au/~tfrogon/welcome.html
( | | ) email: Keith...@mail01fh.health.wa.gov.au,
tfr...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au
Ben Wilson
Arnie wrote:
>
> hard. I remember a comparison in a mag (Car Australia?/Wheels? can't
> remember
> which) between a VN Calais, a Cressida, and a Fairmont. They got sub 8.0s
> times in the auto V6 Calais (this is hard to achieve consistently). A manual
> VN V6 on the other hand would have no trouble cracking 8.0s (7.5s if you
> tried real hard). BTW, a VN is the fastest *auto* V6 Commodore from
> 0-100kph.
>
Hmmmm....I've seen these 'hard' figures too but I'm a little suspicious
of any bias that Australian car magazines might have towards the
Commodore (or Falcon). Of just been looking over years of backcopies and
comparing their 'times' for the VN-VS. And, even though the weight/power
improved from about 10.5 for the VN (kg/kW) to about 9.5 for the VS the
times gradually declined to about a second off the pace of a VN for the
0-100 and about 0.5s for the 400m (manual and auto). At the time the
magazines were raving about the VN and how good it was. I think there
was a bit of fudging for the VN's times because I can't really explain it
any other way.
Unless someone else wants to put forward a theory?....
Oh, by the way, I don't doubt the Commodore's performance credentials!
Kasper Kowalski
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote:
> A personal example. I recently got a set of HM headers for my manual EF
> Futura. Prior to getting them, I did an acceleration run from 1000rpm to
> 5700rpm in second (roughly 20km/h-105km/h). It took 8.1s (As an aside, I
> hate doing standing start tests for acceleration, as they are highly
> non-repeatable), after I had the extractors fitted, the same increment
> took 7.5s, along the same stretch of road. I have to say though, the car
> did not really feel any quicker (a bit crisper). It certainly didn't FEEL
> anything like the actual performance improvement.
I had the same experience when I fitted extractors/exhaust to my
Futura. The car did not feel any quicker and it wasn't until I compared
times that I could see the difference. The car actually felt slower
because the power delivery was much smoother and the engine wasn't as
raucous at high revs.
KK
Ben Wilson
Arnie wrote:
>
> Ben Wilson wrote :
> [snip]
> >Hmmmm....I've seen these 'hard' figures too but I'm a little suspicious
> >of any bias that Australian car magazines might have towards the
> >Commodore (or Falcon). Of just been looking over years of backcopies and
> >comparing their 'times' for the VN-VS. And, even though the weight/power
> >improved from about 10.5 for the VN (kg/kW) to about 9.5 for the VS the
> >times gradually declined to about a second off the pace of a VN for the
> >0-100 and about 0.5s for the 400m (manual and auto). At the time the
> >magazines were raving about the VN and how good it was. I think there
> >was a bit of fudging for the VN's times because I can't really explain it
> >any other way.
> >
> >Unless someone else wants to put forward a theory?....
>
> Holden nobbled that low down grunt because people were complaining about
> wheelspin and jack-rabbit take offs (preferable for some, not for others).
> The difference in the 0-100kph times are all in the takeoffs - in this
> respect, VN is faster than VP/VR/VS. Those extra peak kw were made at higher
> rpm and did not make up for the lesser low down grunt compared to the VN. On
> top of that, the VN Exec (1300kg) was about 100kg lighter than the VR/VS
> Exec
> (or about the same weight as a VTEC Prelude).
>
> Arnie
Yeah, I was wondering about the kg/Nm (and what the different
engine characteristics were eg. max Nm @revs etc) department. That was
the only other plausible explanation I could think of. I didn't bother
checking the road reports only the performance specs but I'll see if I
can grab some more complete figures.
Brendan WALKER
In article <5vj6to$jr8$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
Keith Kum-Tuck Wong <tfr...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Greg Stewart (gre...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
>
>: The ferocity in which a car forces you back into the seat, is directly
>: proportional to it's acceleration, and therefore how quick it gets to
>: 100k/h or some other measurement!!!! Am I making any sence to
>: anyone here????????
>
>Well Greg, I suggest you take a drive in a Suzuki Swift GTi some day.
>When you plant the accelerator, you get pushed back and the car
>accelerates surprisingly briskly. Now, drive a bog-standard Holden
>Commodore. Plant the accelerator and you can feel the thing pick up
>speed, but not as dramatically as the Swift.
>
>Now, compare the 0-100 times of the two - the Commy is faster than the
>Swift! Surprise, surprise!
WHAT! Baahahhahahahahahahaaaaaa
A Suzuki Swift that pushes you back into the seat!!! I don't think so!
The Swift certainly makes a lot of noise (if fitted with mandatory large
tail pipe tip and sports muffler), and it revs high, but it *does not*
create the push in the back sensation that a V6 Commy starts to give.
I remember when I was a young'un (back in mid-eighties!) I used to own
a reasonably quick Fiat 124 Sports, (twin cam and all that), it was a
good car, and it was certainly fun to drive, much like a decent Swift
might be I suppose.... I used to think that "fast fours" like my car
could hold there own against V8's etc, and I thought that the car felt
fast as well....
Then I went for a ride in my mates ex-cop chaser XD 351 manual......
and I experienced for the *first time* in my life what real back in
the seat, "oh my goooddd I cant breath" acceleration/grunt felt like.
I saw the light and stopped kidding myself after that experience! I
suggest you try going for a ride in an SS or HSV Commodore or XR6/XR8
Falcon or the like just to experience what real fast cars with some
real grunt feel like. Even the V6 Commy starts to approach this
level of acceleration and feel, certainly far more than a Swift ever
will!!
Regards,
--
Brendan Walker | All opinions expressed are my own
IASSF Project, | and nodody else is allowed to use
GMS S3I (Australia) | them!