| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: www.VNCommodore.com Support Forums
|
|
|
svaganet
P Plater
16 Posts
 |
 Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 6:17:15 PM
|
|
I am the proud owner of a VN V6 commodore. I have now seen the new VE commodore and it looks fantastic. According to the road tests of the major car magazines, the ride is incredible, the handling is great and the refinement (something the vn certainly has never had) is in the league of the europeans. The biggest concern is the weight of the thing. In base auto form it weighs 1700kg, before adding extras, fuel, a person and some luggage. That is big weight for a base trim car. The fuel economy may look good in the bull**** numbers that holden released (by the way all manufactures deliver bull**** economy numbers), but according to an article I read in Top Gear magazine, 80% of the fuel used in driving is in the initial acceleration from a standing start. That explains why stop start city driving can see you go from 10L per 100km right up to 16L in the peak hour. Anyway I think a reason why the series 1 VN commodore was and still is so gutsy is because back in 1988, holden fully imported the Buick V6 and the auto transmission and seeing Ford had got a jump on Holden with the EA falcon, holden had to put the engine and transmission straight in without any retuning or fiddling of any kind. On doing some research I found that this engine and tranny package had been hauling around a large 1850kg car in the good ol US of A. Now all of a sudden this engine which was obviously tuned for massive low end power to get 1850kg of car moving had been put straight into a car weighing around 1300kg, a bloody sizeable 550kg less. No wonder why the VN V6 has jack rabbit acceleration which got many owners into trouble and saw Holden take the never seen before step of altering the settings of future V6 commodore models, because of too much low end power, especially in the wet. I am not saying the VN is the best car or anything, but we are talking about a 17 year old car for less than $2000, which 0 - 60 kph (city speed) is as quick as a lot of newer and bigger engined cars out there. The VE is way, way better than the VN in every way, but I think in a straight line drag from the lights, the VE owner may be very surprised at how well the VN goes. I think apart from VN owners like all of you people on this site, the VN remains a mystery to all owners of older and newer commodore models. I don't think people realise how fast a stock VN is. They sit there in there VY for instance and don't have a clue that the 17 year old car next door is not that slow. Looking forward to responses.
|
|
Report to Moderator |
|
|
mouce
National Driver
1525 Posts
|
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 7:53:10 PM
|
Actually the VN Buick motor and transmission were not imported as is from the US. Over in the US the Buick motor was mounted in an East-West configuration, and was actually carby fed.
When GMHA got their hands on the motor, they converted it to use a MAP sensor (rather than MAF), fuel injected it, and turned it around 90 degrees.
Because the engine was turned around the gearbox could not be used, it required some serious modification (and strengthening) to be used with the North-South configuration.
Making the change from MAF to MAP allowed for a much smoother air-flow into the manifold which means that higher power/torque figures were obtained. GMHA never re-tested the Buick engine after making the modifications, and just used the power/torque figures from the US.
As for the Car getting to street legal speeds compared to the VE. Official figures from both Wheels, and GMHA show that the VE and VN do exactly the same 1/4 mile time. As for 0-100kph times, I haven't seen any official figures, but I know that the VE next to me the other day, wasn't next to me for long. Either they didn't push it to 100% or the VN out-ran them. Either is possible.
From standstill to 100kph the VN V6 Manual is as quick as any modern V6 manual commodore, assuming that the driver knows how to shift properly.
As for the fuel usage figures that you're looking at, 10-16L/100km...the majority of the fuel is used in rapid speed changes. I know that even in stop start driving in the city I can (and regularly do) get figures of 11.5L/100km OR BETTER, by driving smoothly. Even when I have to come to a complete stop, I can take off using bugger all fuel. Get a vacuum gauge and learn how to use it. Between that and a tacho (in the manual) and you'll use a hell of a lot less fuel than you normally would.
The major reason for GMHA 'de-tuning' the V6 engine in the VN S2 is not so much because of the 'excessive' power/torque getting people into trouble. It was because sales of the V8 engined variants was slipping because the V6 was actually quicker to street legal speeds, and it used less fuel. As such, people tended to go for the V6...allowing for the fact that the VN was designed to SAVE holden (hence it being a complete redesign) they needed the V6 to be a 'competitive' car, but they also needed the V8 to be a bit of a hero car, hence they 'de-tuned' the V6 a tad.
Just for the record, most manufacturers quoted fuel figures are not bu1l****, as you have claimed, they are all achievable. The VN was quoted as having 7.6L/100km on the highway and 11.5L/100km around town (for the manual), and I have managed to do better than both of those figures on more than one occasion, in more than one car. |
Bite off more than you can chew, and chew like hell - Peter Brock (1945-2006) |
Edited by - mouce on 20 Sep 2006 7:55:05 PM |
Report to Moderator  |
|
|
chooba
P Plater
57 Posts
|
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 11:16:00 PM
|
Jesus Christ! Where the hell do you get this bloody info from!! How is it possible that you guys know so much!!!! My god!
Anyway, im having a little trouble with my fuel situation. When you said youve managed to get less than 11.5L/100km around town, how did you actually work it out.
The reason i ask is that with the tank of fuel ive got now, i filled it up about 7 days ago, ive only gone about 250-300k's with the tank and im almost empty. Is this how it should be because i get the feeling that its using more than it should be. Its almost like someone is cyphoning little bits of fuel out of my car every morning. It pretty much started when i got my car lowered.
Is that anything to do with that?
I remember i filled up at a "Shell". Ive sorta found that the 7eleven will last me the longest.
Can you guys back me up?
WHATS HAPPENING WITH MY FUEL!?!??!?!?! |
A VN quote to Remember...
'THE MIGHTY SLEDGE HAMMER SOLVES ALL VN PROBLEMS'
Anything can fit if its mashed into place... |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
svaganet
P Plater
16 Posts
|
Posted - 21 Sep 2006 : 06:40:55 AM
|
Yeah. The info you state is totally correct mouce. Except for the fuel figures. The fuel figures are indeed bull****. I know and the whole world knows. The reason being. Wheels magazine did a 6 cylinder megatest about 4 months ago. The Hyundai Sonata, toyota camry, vz commodore, bf falcon, mitsubishi 380 and nissan maxima were tested. It was a combination of highway driving, city driving and performance testing. The Ford falcon had an official figure of 10.8 L/100km but slurped at 15.5 on test, the commodore on the other hand (and commodores have always been way better on fuel than falcons) had an official figure of 11 L/100km but slurped at 13.7L/100km. Now the reason why the figures that everyday drivers get from their cars is way out of whack is because of the following info I digged up from drive.com.au:
Just for example - and I quote "Toyota has been able to achieve a miracle, exactly the same fuel consumption from a 200Kw 3.5L V6 engine as the 117kw 2.4L 4 cyl engine, in the same car". According to the figures both cars have an official 9.9L/100km. Now the quoted figures given by manufacturers are achievable. Where I say they are bull**** is in that, what the manufacturers do is recalibrate the auto transmission, remove the spare tyre, increase the tyre pressures and put the car on rollers in a temperature controlled, non wind room. This is entirely legal and suits the criteria in Australian Design Rule ADR81/01. Rule ADR81/01 also allows a single fuel use figure to be shown. Where it gets tricky is that the highway/city component is not 50/50 as you may think, but the highway figure is given disproportionate weighting in the calculation. The manufacturer has to count both figures in the calculation but it is up to them, how much of which number will be used. Now blind freddy knows that the highway number is going to be given huge weight because it is a good 50% lower than in the city. Manufacturers are only required to supply one figure to the government, and as long as it is a number containing both city and highway figures, it is legal. In 2007 ADR81/01 is going to be overhauled and manufacturers are going to have to supply all figures to the government. What it does not say is whether all these figures will be released to the public as is done in Europe. Drive. com also asked Ford, Holden, Toyota and Mitsubishi for all the fuel use figures, they flat out refused. Hmmm. Why is that? Afraid the truth will come out. By the way Ferrari, Maserati, Mercedes Benz, Alfa Romeo, Audi, BMW, Saab plus more, gladly handed over all figures. Could it be because Holden, Ford etc buyers are very fuel conscious and would scoff when seeing the real figures, whereas buyers of Ferrari, Mercedes etc. could not care less about the fuel use because of the exorbitant prices of the cars. Interesting. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
svaganet
P Plater
16 Posts
|
Posted - 21 Sep 2006 : 07:28:14 AM
|
Oh yeah I forgot. Also the reason why Toyota was able to achieve the same fuel consumption figures for its 200kw 3.5L V6 and its 117kw 2.4L 4 cyl in the same car is because under ADR81/01, Toyota weighted the highway component vs city in the V6 more than in the 4 cyl car. Ok enough talk about fuel economy. Now I talk about the VN like I should be. My apologies people.
PS I just thought this information on fuel economy figures is interesting. Hope you guys did too. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
mouce
National Driver
1525 Posts
|
Posted - 21 Sep 2006 : 10:45:10 AM
|
@chooba...I (we) just all pick up little bits of information along the way, read stuff, hear stuff...where ever it comes from. The best way to work out your fuel figures is to completely fill the tank, drive around for a day or two (get to about 300km) then fill the tank again. Make a note of exactly how far you've gone then divide the number of liters by the number of kilometers then multiply that figure by 100. Don't trust your fuel gauge, they aren't that accurate, mine shows empty when there's still 15L in the tank.
@svaganet: I know that some manufacturers claims are hard to achieve (some are even hard to accept as the truth), but it is possible to meet all the 'claimed' figures if driven properly. On a recent run up to Ararat I managed to run at 7.4L/100km. Around town I have managed to get a 9.8L/100km. That was with the spare tyre in, that was with the radio running and with a driver in the car. The issue of tyre pressures is an interesting one, and one that I have ranted on about several times, for stock 14 or 15" rims on a VN, most people find that handling and fuel usage improves if they are run somewhere about 32-36psi. Holden recommend 28. The reason for this has nothing to do with fuel, it's all to do with comfort.
I agree with a lot of what you've said, however I have never come across a car manufacturer who is not willing to disclose fuel consumption figures either highway or city to a potential customer. I've never had a problem finding out what the claimed figures were.
The toyota example is an interesting one, and one which I find quite believable. To be able to get the same figures from a larger capacity more powerful engine? Yep...other manufacturers have done better than that. If driven sensibly a 5.0L VN around town, will use the same amount of fuel as the 3.8L VN (given the same transmission in both). Why? The amount of torque available in the larger engine means that to get the same car moving requires a lower percentage throttle opening in the larger engine. Now...assuming that both engines are well maintained, and the driver of the V8 can control the urge to plant the foot on take-off the figures can come back the same from both engines. So I find it quite believable.
I know several people with BA and BAII falcons who regularly see 10-11L/100km around town, and as low as 6.8L/100km on the open road. As for the commodore, I know plenty of people who manage to get it below 11 around town, and below 7-8 on the open road.
The key to getting the best fuel figures out of the car is the driver. I have managed to get fuel figures out of an excel that Hyundai refuse to acknowledge (because they were so bad) and I've gotten fuel figures out of a VN that are BETTER than what Holden claim I should be able to get. It all comes down to how it's driven. |
Bite off more than you can chew, and chew like hell - Peter Brock (1945-2006) |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
matt
P Plater
95 Posts
|
Posted - 21 Sep 2006 : 6:03:42 PM
|
| i increased my tire pressure to bout 35 psi on all fours and the other day i put 30 bucks in at 1.24 a ltr ( safeway priemium) and it is now near empy and i got 200 ks out of it, just normal suburban driving, no freeways or nething, i dont nkow bout all u guys but the safeway priemium petrol seems to work good for me. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
mouce
National Driver
1525 Posts
|
Posted - 21 Sep 2006 : 6:32:18 PM
|
You've got a good point there matt, different fuels suit different cars (and even different driving styles). For the majority of my driving, I find that Optimax gives me the best fuel figures, for open road cruising BP Ultimate (but I don't like it as a fuel personally), and for flat out performance (ie. hill climbs and stuff like that) I can't go past Caltex Vortex. So it's just a case of working out what suits your car the best.
I know some people whose cars almost die when they put Optimax in, but they run perfectly on BP Ultimate. You've just got to find which one works for you and stick with it. |
Bite off more than you can chew, and chew like hell - Peter Brock (1945-2006) |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
lolo
Fully Licenced
503 Posts
|
Posted - 24 Sep 2006 : 11:02:35 PM
|
| GOD mouce, you dont usually tear into learners like that lol and I don;t care about stats or the VE for that matter because i know that my good ol series 1 VN is the best and sexiest looking holden out there and for those who ddont agree... well... everyone has a right to MY OWN OPINION |
Marcus Rogulic R.I.P (1980-2007)
"The Good Die Young" |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
pizzadude213
P Plater
58 Posts
|
Posted - 25 Sep 2006 : 08:37:49 AM
|
lol listen to mouce, man he knows whats he's talking and his right with his inform and guys a got a auto,
I managed to run at 5.4L/100km. high way.
Around town I have managed to get 8.5L/100km and she runs nice as like ya on air lol any way guys i'm off to bed night shift worker here lol laterz |
go the vn beast!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
pizzadude213
P Plater
58 Posts
|
Posted - 25 Sep 2006 : 08:44:46 AM
|
The design of the Holden VN was inspired by the German Opel design, and was specially redesigned to suit Australian road conditions. The Holden VN was equipped with a new 3.8 L EFI V6 engine, enabling even the base Commodore model to produce as much power as the old carburettor-equipped V8. Holden continued to import the parts for this model- the 4 Spd TH 700 auto was sourced from the USA- but the 5-Spd manual transmission model was an Australian-made B-W T5. Power steering was provided as the standard on all VN models and 4-Spd automatic transmission was also introduced.
|
go the vn beast!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
mouce
National Driver
1525 Posts
|
Posted - 25 Sep 2006 : 1:01:25 PM
|
The V6 motor was 'new' in an Australian car, it is however quite an old motor in that the base of the engine had been in use in the states for quite a while. We got it as a fuel injected model (previously it had been carby fed in the states), with a MAP sensor (in the states it had a MAF).
Just as an interesting side-note you could get a VN without power steering as a factory option. There was also a 2.0L 4-cyl engine that was used in the VN as an 'export-only' engine. I've only heard of there being three in Australia, there's a few in NZ, I don't know where they were exported to (might have been Asia, might have been Europe, middle-east perhaps?).
As for those figures pizzadude, they are seriously impressive fuel figures. When I replace my O2 sensor I'll have to see if I can get it down to 8 around town.
Interesting to learn that it was based on the Opel design at the time, I can believe it, but I'd never thought about it or realised it. |
Bite off more than you can chew, and chew like hell - Peter Brock (1945-2006) |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
pizzadude213
P Plater
58 Posts
|
Posted - 25 Sep 2006 : 7:38:41 PM
|
| thanx mouce i look after my motor to much and by that it looks after me with cost of fuel lol and that last thing i wirte was just copy and past from the holden site laterz guy |
go the vn beast!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Report to Moderator |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
