39 replies to this topic

[Melbourne Park]

My wife is getting a new car in March /April. She has had a Miata / MX5 for coming up to three years. its a great car, but she drives it to work and people keep running into here. Also when you take it to the supermarket, people drive into it with their tow bars. And people open their doors onto the unprotected side of the car.

So she wants something higher, bigger. She is considering the Holden Monaro, which is a GM rear drive car with a new two door body. There's a V6 and a V8 version. The V8 is an alloy push rod, same engine is used in the states. Its referred to as "Family III". It has I think only two valves per head. However it is powerfull, and especially considering its power and torque (225 kw & 460NM Torque is the base configuration) its economy is quite good. All version are the 5.66 litre engine

Government figures say it will average 11 litres/100km. Road tester get from 8.3 to 22.9 litres/100km, but the push the thing at times.

The latest 911 engine doesn't do that much better with economy, although you do push them a bit. but they are a not as heavy a car as the Holden. And their power / torque here in Australia is 221kw and 350NM torque for the standard Carrera 3.4 litre powerplant.

It seems curious to me that a simple engine seems on the surface to perform well. Could it be that a simple big engine is not such a bad thing?

[tedmna]

20 mpg is very reasonable for the 5.7l V8. Big SUV's here in the states do that. This engine is seriously underutilized in everyday use so GM has tuned it for low-end torque and fuel efficiency.

Fifteen years ago I managed a company that turbocharged these beasts for GM, easily doubling HP and torque at wide open throttle, yet keeping the real world driveability and effciency essentially intact.

Yes, there is something to be said for size, if tuned properly.

[desmo]

I agree, current pushrod V8s out of Detroit are so highly developed that they really give nothing away to "higher tech" DOHC 4-valve designs in real world motoring conditions where specific output isn't an issue other than technical cachet. The method is less important than the result.

[Melbourne Park]

Yeah, its a major consideration.

We have an SUV, a Toyota, which is built on the 4 Runner chassis, its called a Prado here, in the UK a Colorado. It has a almost 3.4 litre 60 degree V6, which 4 cams and four valves per cyclinder. I would not want a complex engine in such a vehicle but from Toyota there's no problem as the engines although they cost a little more to service they seem to go forever. In the States there's a turbo kit for it but at the end of the day I wonder what is the point in an SUV? Better to start upgrading the brakes first ...

Anyway I will have a drive of one of the V8s. The Monaro vehicle costs quite a bit more than the sedan, and there is no fleet discount. But they say they will only built 10,000, so it should be an easy car to sell. There are 4 versions of the car: a supercharged Buick type 3.8 litre V6 which requires expensive high octain fuel and has worse fuel economy than the V8, according to motor magazines. But the V6 although an unpleasant engine in many ways (it feels "loose", sounds tinny, but even the standard engine has gobs of Torque - what the car guys here call "launch feel". The V6 engined vehicle misses out on a fancy sound system and some interior fitments and has semi electric powered seats only. But its 20% cheaper. Then there's the 225 kw V8. Then there's the HSV models, which are up to twice the price (the 300kw "Calloway enhanced" with over 500NM of torque) and 6 piston front 4 piston rear brakes. http://www.hsv.com.au/main.htmlhttp://www.hsv.com.au/main.html is the link for the car. The GTS looks pretty good IMO. But dollars matter, for what she does the V6 would be fine, but the V8 I suspect is an interesting car because people would want to buy it and re tune the engine as mentioned earlier, while the V6 has less scope for that I imagine, although I guess the blower could be dialled up ... the V6 only has 2 years to go before they build a new better technology version. The Australian cars are not too bad really, and they are rear wheel drive which better suits their horsepower. But GM has never like Holden to compete with its own brands, although in some places there have been attempts to do so.

but with my wife's mindset, she might even get a RAV 4 , because one sits up high (a reaction to the invisible MX5). I think she blaims me for that choice, but then my defence has been that at least she's the sports car thing out of her system. For me, I love the M5. Its more fun to drive than a 911. But a 911's power is difficult to live without. I wonder about the cost thought of the whole 911 exercise.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Howdy,
I have owned 10 Corvettes and I currently own a 2002 Z06. At 70 mph, I get 30mpg. The engine is turning at 1700 RPM. The LS6 in the Z06 (pronounced Zee oh 6)is a developement from the LS1 all aluminum Chevrolet engine and variations of the LS1 are found in GM full size trucks. 4.8 litre, 5.2 and a 6 litre iron LS1. A detuned LS1 5.7(5.6 actual) is found in the Camaro and Firebird. This version is also exported to Australia for the Holden Division. I had a 2001 Z06 which got less mpg with 20hp less and a 99 Vette with the LS1, which is still used in stock Vettes. I got 32 mpg on a US gallon once. 1500 rpm at 70mph. I only get 6sp Vettes.
The cast aluminum oil pan acts as the main bearing caps, and the head bolts extend into the pan and retain enough energy after torquing at time of production, that they have the correct energy after break in heat cycles. The Chevy engineering team had a budget to produce any engine they wanted. The cam is on plane with the valves, achieving high thermal and frictional efficiencies and answerring the needs of the stockholders to boot. It is one hell of an engine, and I would not hesitate getting the Holden with this engine coupled to the 6 speed.
The LT5 found in the ZR1 Vette from '90 to '95, was a joint effort of Chevrolet and Lotus, which they owned at the time. The last version pushed out 405 hp. It had 4 cams 4 vales per cylinder and revved to 8000. My 93 got 32 mpg with the ZF 6 speed and a friend currently owns it in Munich. The engine option was $20000 and was no match for the current LS6 which is at the beginning of its development phase.

The 3.8 V6 you speak of, was designed by the Buick division in'62, and was sold to American motors. GM bought it back in n'67 and it will still be around for 4 more years. Also indestructable. It found its way into Camaros ,Firebirds, Buicks and Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles and other Chevrolets. The Buick GS turned 12s in the quarter mile in stock Turbocharged form, and the bottom end can handle 800 hp.
It is so popular, that sales dropped in new Oldsmobiles, when they switched to their own version of a DOHC V6. This V6 was derived from the Caddilac Northstar engine which is the base for the Olds V8 Araura engine which is the base for the IRL engine, which will become a Chevrolet engine in CART.
Whew, gotta stop these long posts, Sorry. One more thing, OK?
The Holden Commadore has the same unibody as the Vauxhall/ Opel Omega. TheCaddilac Cattera is actually an Opel Omega and is built in Germany with the Opel 3 litre V6. My question is, why did they not go the Holden route?

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Yeah, its a major consideration.

We have an SUV, a Toyota, which is built on the 4 Runner chassis, its called a Prado here, in the UK a Colorado. It has a almost 3.4 litre 60 degree V6, which 4 cams and four valves per cyclinder. I would not want a complex engine in such a vehicle but from Toyota there's no problem as the engines although they cost a little more to service they seem to go forever. In the States there's a turbo kit for it but at the end of the day I wonder what is the point in an SUV? Better to start upgrading the brakes first ...

Anyway I will have a drive of one of the V8s. The Monaro vehicle costs quite a bit more than the sedan, and there is no fleet discount. But they say they will only built 10,000, so it should be an easy car to sell. There are 4 versions of the car: a supercharged Buick type 3.8 litre V6 which requires expensive high octain fuel and has worse fuel economy than the V8, according to motor magazines. But the V6 although an unpleasant engine in many ways (it feels "loose", sounds tinny, but even the standard engine has gobs of Torque - what the car guys here call "launch feel". The V6 engined vehicle misses out on a fancy sound system and some interior fitments and has semi electric powered seats only. But its 20% cheaper. Then there's the 225 kw V8. Then there's the HSV models, which are up to twice the price (the 300kw "Calloway enhanced" with over 500NM of torque) and 6 piston front 4 piston rear brakes. http://www.hsv.com.au/main.htmlhttp://www.hsv.com.au/main.html is the link for the car. The GTS looks pretty good IMO. But dollars matter, for what she does the V6 would be fine, but the V8 I suspect is an interesting car because people would want to buy it and re tune the engine as mentioned earlier, while the V6 has less scope for that I imagine, although I guess the blower could be dialled up ... the V6 only has 2 years to go before they build a new better technology version. The Australian cars are not too bad really, and they are rear wheel drive which better suits their horsepower. But GM has never like Holden to compete with its own brands, although in some places there have been attempts to do so.

but with my wife's mindset, she might even get a RAV 4 , because one sits up high (a reaction to the invisible MX5). I think she blaims me for that choice, but then my defence has been that at least she's the sports car thing out of her system. For me, I love the M5. Its more fun to drive than a 911. But a 911's power is difficult to live without. I wonder about the cost thought of the whole 911 exercise.

[desmo]

My guess is simply so the can put a "4 valve" or "DOHC" badge on it or for purely packaging considerations. Without artificial displacement limits either through tech regs in racing, or by tax laws for road cars, it makes a whole lot of sense to apply state of the art tech to a simple, strong pushrod engine such as the LS series rather than to build an expensive, hard to repair DOHC engineering tour de force for road use. If you don't need to make 125bhp/liter or rev to 8000+rpm, a simple two valve pushrod design may well be a better solution if the marketing people are left out of the equation.

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
I have owned 10 Corvettes and I currently own a 2002 Z06. At 70 mph, I get 30mpg.

My 1989 240SX gets 8.5L/100km (28mpg) @ 70. It's a 2.4L 12 valve SOHC 4cyl. The 16 valve DOHC model doesn't perform much differently. Guess that 6th gear would make up the difference to the 'vette though.

[Melbourne Park]

Thanks for all the comments guys.

Firstly imaginesix, although your car is more economical, its not as fast as the 'vette ...

Brian, thanks for all that info. As to the comment about a six speed box, the Monaros come with a six speed or a four speed auto. The six speed is a poor gearbox: heavy, slow, impressice, but tough. For my wife, following a Miata/MX5, whose gearbox is superb, I think the automatic is the go.

Interesting about the V6. Curiously Holden hear actually do not tell the truth about its performance. The supercharged version's power is under quoted; they fear its performance is too close to the 225kw V8. TRecetnly there was a car magazine comment that analysed the power and torque claims versus the performance, and they concluded that Holden was understating the engine's performance. The magazine said its the only instance they can recall of a manufacture in Australia understating performance. Although I think its a normal thing in Japan ...

As to why no one got the Commodore, all that goes a long way back I think. Our cars have always been somewhere between the US and Europe. We have bigger engines (more the US style) and more Eurpean handling. But our cars are heavier, because although the floor pan is from Opel, its much heavier as we strengthen it a lot so that it can handle rough roads. When Australians go to the outback, and the roads are rutted and have very nasty corrugations, we don't slow down; we actually speed up. Since the distances are vaste, to slow down would mean you'd never get anywhere. And speeding up smooths up the ride a lot. But it wrecks a European spec. body. Also our cars are not as well built as a German car, but better than Italian ones. Not as good as Japanese, better than US cars mostly, and better than Korean. Better than English also in our experience (less rattles than English built Peugots for instance). So I would imagine that the politics would give the Europeans the nod, and their history of Opel/Germany building better cars. But the Commodore is a lot better built now than even 5 years ago. Also, one cruncher: the current Commodore doesn't pass a rear end smash test - the next one will, but that's two or three years away. Evidently they wouldn't give Holden the money to re engineer the rear for US safety regs.

Now the Commodore is exported to the middle east. The reason that happened is because GM were embarresed that Toyota was exported 30,000 or so V6 Camries to the middle east. Evidently Australian cars are well set up for that area, able to handle the fuel, and the hot climate, and being quite fast. So now the Commodore is sold as a Chevrolet over there. There's also a long wheelbase version, which is easy to build because the floor pan is so strong. Its got a lot of room in the back and a huge boot, and it looks pretty good as well IMO. However the factory currently can't make enough cars anyway, because the Ford equivelent here is considered not as good looking. In most other ways its a better car, but it sadly lacks the family III or LS1 equivelent engine.

[Yelnats]

Desmo said.... "I agree, current pushrod V8s out of Detroit are so highly developed that they really give nothing away to "higher tech" DOHC 4-valve designs in real world motoring conditions where specific output isn't an issue other than technical cachet. The method is less important than the result. "

So true. I recal when Ford came out with Detroit's first high tech OHC V8 in the early 90s the old reliable GM pushrod V8 would run rings around it. The push rod GM generating around 250HP vs about 210HP from the high performance version of the Ford engine. Things have changed recently for the higher performance versions of 'big block' V8 engines but for every day touring you can't beat GM's pushrod V6 for smooth power delivery.

For an engine that never revs over 6k an OHC is over kill!

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Thanks for all the comments guys.

Firstly imaginesix, although your car is more economical, its not as fast as the 'vette ...

You're welcome. My point was that my car is LESS economical than the vette. Of course, I entirely neglected to make my point in the post, so I'll do it now.
It seems to me that there really shouldn't be a very big difference in fuel consumption between most cars at highway speeds.
As long as
1- Their drag is about the same (most are in the .30 to .35 range)
2- Their engines are mature designs in terms of their efficiency
3- They don't use a hybrid, diesel or lean-burn engine
Then fuel ecocnomy should be close. I attribute the difference between my car and the 'vette's mostly to the difference in number of gear ratios.

[Top Fuel F1]

Tell her to try out a Honda Odessey with the V6 engine with Vtec.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Let us know of your decision.

The Vette has .29 drag coef. The fuel consumption can be altered drastically with ones right foot. The HP required to move the car at that speed with all things being equal, will be the same with each engine. The engine is most efficient at its max torque. Using this rpm at lower throttle openings will cause the smaller engine to use more fuel because of higher rpm. The torque requirements are done with gearing. The smaller the engine, the higher the percentage of specific hp output is required to do same the job which also comes at higher rpm. Efficiency Also depends on cam design. Old 1970 LT1 350 Chevy V8 engines would get 20 mpg at a steady 70mph, spinning at 3800 rpm, but 40mph in the same gear would yeild 12 mpg.(No ECM).
Downtown will get you 8 mpg without getting on it. I get 12mpg with the LS6 in autocross events.
A Honda S2000 will use more fuel than a Vette at any speed, even downtown, especially with the air on, because you have to rev the S.H. one T. out of it all the time. It is also very inefficient at low rpms even with VCT.. A F360 does not do much better than 10mpg anytime and 5 when you get on it. . Also the more cylinders there are and the higher the engine revs, the more fuel it will use.. This is the reason F1 engines are V10 and not V12s(Now a regulation).

Give me big displacement push rod V8 anytime. Go for the Holden.
b.

Originally posted by imaginesix

You're welcome. My point was that my car is LESS economical than the vette. Of course, I entirely neglected to make my point in the post, so I'll do it now.
It seems to me that there really shouldn't be a very big difference in fuel consumption between most cars at highway speeds.
As long as
1- Their drag is about the same (most are in the .30 to .35 range)
2- Their engines are mature designs in terms of their efficiency
3- They don't use a hybrid, diesel or lean-burn engine
Then fuel ecocnomy should be close. I attribute the difference between my car and the 'vette's mostly to the difference in number of gear ratios.

[TAB666]

Buy a SAAB

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
Let us know of your decision.

The Vette has .29 drag coef. The fuel consumption can be altered drastically with ones right foot. The HP required to move the car at that speed with all things being equal, will be the same with each engine. The engine is most efficient at its max torque. Using this rpm at lower throttle openings will cause the smaller engine to use more fuel because of higher rpm. The torque requirements are done with gearing. The smaller the engine, the higher the percentage of specific hp output is required to do same the job which also comes at higher rpm. Efficiency Also depends on cam design. Old 1970 LT1 350 Chevy V8 engines would get 20 mpg at a steady 70mph, spinning at 3800 rpm, but 40mph in the same gear would yeild 12 mpg.(No ECM).
Downtown will get you 8 mpg without getting on it. I get 12mpg with the LS6 in autocross events.
A Honda S2000 will use more fuel than a Vette at any speed, even downtown, especially with the air on, because you have to rev the S.H. one T. out of it all the time. It is also very inefficient at low rpms even with VCT.. A F360 does not do much better than 10mpg anytime and 5 when you get on it. . Also the more cylinders there are and the higher the engine revs, the more fuel it will use.. This is the reason F1 engines are V10 and not V12s(Now a regulation).

Give me big displacement push rod V8 anytime. Go for the Holden.
b.

The comparison to the S2000 is apt, as it illustrates exactly the comparison between old-tech and new-tech (as opposed to high-tech, which applies about equally to both vehicles).
According to carpoint.com, the Honda gets 20/26 mpg city/hwy, while the Chev gets 19/28 mpg. They are as good as equal, as far as I am concerned.
as as as...
Anyways, the major determining facors of mileage are not only the rpm at a given speed, but also throttle opening and engine displacement.
Keeping rpm down while keeping the throttle open is the key to fuel economy. Unfortunately that is a difficult accomplishment, better suited to large-displacement (large piston) engines. And that is where the equalising factor lays.
If you can design a small engine that doesn't detonate itself to pieces at 1700rpm with the throttle open wide, you'll have a fuel economy champ fer sur.

[Melbourne Park]

If this post goes for longer, somebody might recommend my wife get a Miata (MX5), which is what she has been driving. I know for fuel economy, a common rail diesel is the answer ...

The fuel economy issue on the big engines masks the reality of normal useage IMO. For instance our Holdens' have two engines in them, the versions of the ancient V6 as described by Brian below (Brian your wrong about F1 V10 reasons but that's another story, like Toyota had developed a V12 until the powers enforced everyone use a V10), and versions of the V8 as described. Although the V6 is not bad on fuel on long trips, around town it uses quite a lot especially if one uses its ample low end torque; and the V8 uses more around town. Curiously the Govt. regs. here rate the V6 supercharged as using more fuel than the standard 225 KW V8.

I suppose I should get her to try a Saab, but I don't think she would go for one. We've had a Saab, years ago, I had one of the first Turbos, a 99 model, I was driving it when I met my to be wife (I proposed 4 days after I met here and she said yes!). That car was great. And boy its long distance fuel economy was sensational, if you kept off the loud pedal. I thought the early Saabs were very special cars, but the recent ones floorpans and suspensions have not impressed me in comparison to other cars available for the roughly the same dollars.

The Honda Oddessy, over here that's a people mover type vehicle. But the V-tec V6 is the opposite concept of the GM keep it simple principle that we've been discussing. My Toyota 4WD has a non v-tec 60 degree called 3.4 litre 4 valve quad cam truck engine, and its a fabulous engine. Strong torque feel off launch, smooth and quiet, Ok on fuel and they say it lasts. I won't say how much fuel the thing carries, but I've driven over 1,400 km before between re fueling.

My wife's choice of car is still three months away, but it will be interesting, as for all I know she will get a completely different car. Many people in her company drive the Holden, its a typical company choice: that's a negative on getting one, as she likes to be a bit different.

My wife visited the Toyota dealership today, and she sat in several cars. Curiously no sales people even came over. The Toyota dealership is a new huge place. The land cost for it was US23 million. She could get anything form an Echo (a Yaris in Europe), she likes the two door RAV but I've said its bad value compared to the bigger RAV, and she doesn't like the bulkier 4 door RAV.

She sat in the new Corrolla, the brand new European tech. model, its biggeer than before, stronger but lighter and more powerfull, the engine/gearbox /suspension is light weight and hence the car comes out lighter. Didn't drive it though. It felt very different from the earlier ones, nice interior although you can't see the bonnet (I hate that). Its better than the other cars in its class in many areas, she could even get one of those.

She feels the Corolla is in the same class as a 3 series BMW. We had a current 5 series V8 for three months and did not think much of the Aussie version of that car. The right hand drive version of the V8 looses the rack and pinion, and the Aussie version steers horrably. A friend has a 4.4 litre wagen in Hamburg, its steering is sweet. But not the Aussie one. Nice good quality interior though, besides the stiff to open and shut doors. Of course stupidly expensive here, the price is unreasonable. Over here the three series is expensive and gutless unless one buys a six cylinder, which is really quite pricey.

She also likes the two door hatchback C class Benz, with the described as rough supercharged 4 cylinder 2 litre engine ... the Benz may be a serious choice, I don't think you get so tired of them. We had a 280CE Benz, it was a great car. We drove from Brisbane to Melbourne, which is over 1000 miles, in 13 hours in that car. And we did not speed through the towns or do over 125 kmh in Victoria (300 km of road distance). We always loved that car, its was beautifull to drive and own. It always got 25 MPG, no matter what, very strange. Our gallons are different to US gallons as well, one of our gallons = 4.5 litres, the US gallon is different.

I think the V8 Monaro would be a fun choice, as its quick and somewhat collectable, they say they will only build 10,000, but who knows? A new model sedan is coming in two years I think. The Benz hatchback is about the same price as the V8 Monaro.

She sat in the old shape in the US Toyota Avalon, one model she didn't like the interior, but another she loved. She likes the old fashioned shape. It was full of high quality Australian cream leather, and she loved that car. The Avalon has sold poorly in Australia, even though its a fine car I've read. I suspect although a boring car, it would be a nice place to go to work in (she drive 40 minutes one way in a deal of traffic, hence the MX5 being invisible has become tiresome) I've told her she could buy a four door V8 Commodore SS, get a fleet discount and the car is much less expensive than the two door Monaro of the same family, and has the same accelleration if handles a bit worse and is not as nice inside; but she seems to be turned right off the 4 door Commodore, she thinks the SS version is a macho guys car, and I think maybe that's why I must respect it.

I've even said I'll buy the MX5 and she can get a diesol version of my 4WD; she said that would be great, as I've said you don't know its a diesol when its moving (you do at idle though, I have not mentioned that ...). But that thing is great for Australia, and its very cheap on fuel and has more torque and lower down than the V6 has (it has an intercooled turbo). From what I've read from you guys (gals? I don't think gals are here...) the GM engines are OK, especially the V8. For myself, I love the smoothness of a 60 degree V6, I reckon the other angles are compromises, leaving out the narrow angle Lancias of years gone by. But the V8s got some grunt.

[desmo]

For anyone interested in the ramifications of V10 v V12 F1 engines, please PM me and I'll hook you up with some very informed writing on the topic.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Go for it, Desmo. I gotta haven some ammo when I attack Melborne Park. He says Im wrong. Thats fighting talk.;)

There are these four guys talking about cars and the Frenchman says:

Frenchman:. wi have thi finest autoomoobeel. The Citreon and the Peugout.
German: 9 9 9, Ve hev ze best outos, Ze Bah Em Vee, und ze Dimelar Benz.
Englishman: dont be bloody silly, chaps, we all know that the Rolls Royce and Jaguar are
the finest motorcars in the world.
American: you guys have got to be kidding, Toyota is the best.

Originally posted by desmo
For anyone interested in the ramifications of V10 v V12 F1 engines, please PM me and I'll hook you up with some very informed writing on the topic.

[Melbourne Park]

[RiverRunner]

Do they have Jeep Libertys over there yet MB?
I'm now on my second jeep Cherokee/Laredo 4WD with the 4L straight six,with direct port injection.Absolutely love that engine, the first one I had went 172K miles b4 I sold it,with nothing more than a couple of computer chips and a set of injectors,the second one is at 52K and is running like a top.My vacation home is 200 miles away and I drive there virtually every weekend with excellent mileage,towing capability and torque to spare when launching my water toys or rockcrawling through the brush.
It may not have awesome fit and finish but for durability,it's the bomb.
I do probably more routine maitenance than most,I change the oil every 3K and all fluids front to back once a year,but I've never toasted a tranny,transfer case or diff,cheap insurance is my POV and getting broken down in the desert during the summer is something I don't want to deal with.
Good luck with whatever you/she chooses!

[Melbourne Park]

Yes RiverRunner we have Jeeps. And thanks for the good wishes.

As to the Jeeps, we've had them for about 7 years. I think Australia is the third biggest market for 4WD vehicles, so its not surprising they came aventually. The reason for their popularity is our desire to go outback, although most don't, our relatively cheap fuel, their people carrying ability, their relaxing nature to drive in traffic due to their height, their price is cheap because they don't have any import duty being classified as trucks, their percieved and in many cases actual safety aspects, their longevity due to their construction and due to their longer production cycles and their less fashionable nature.

As to the specifics of the Jeep: my father had a Nash Rambler Ambassadore, it was a great car. Back in about 63. It had a very large V8. But the non Ambassador version, had a six cylinder engine. I think the same engine thats in your Jeep ...

I had a friend who bought a Jeep Cherokee, and sold it after three months. It had the same engine. The Cherokee is assembled from a CBD kit in Austria at the same plant that makes 4WD Mercedes sedans and the MB tough 4WD, the G Wagen, which I heard was being stopped. We drive on the left as they do in the UK and Japan. Anyway, the parts maybe OK but the some of the assembled version here resulted in a un reliable vehicle. For some reason, the electronics in them seem to play up over here, with all sorts of weird electronic bugs happening.

Also the Jeeps don't have a chassis. This makes them lighter, and not so high. But over harsh terrain, the forces imparted on the suspension will twist the body, which ages the vehicle. Many believe that although weighing 200 pounds more, a chassis provides longevity over here. Also after market kits, such as auxiliary fuel tanks and water tanks, are easy to fit to a vehicle with a chassis. The chassis therefore lowers depreciation.

The smaller Jeeps was very popular here though. Its lighter weight and price and good performance provided many sales. But since that time, the market has seen many Japanese vehicles enter which compete with the smaller Jeep, vehicles such as the new Ford/Mazda, a Nissan, a GM Izuzu vehicle, even the Honda HRV and Toyota RAV. So the Jeeps are finding it tough. But the two door convertable with the 6 cyclinder has a niche to itsefl, I think this vehicle sells quite well for Jeep.

[rdrcr]

For what it's worth... another 2cents.

I have 3 GM products, The engines range from a 5.7 liter pushrod V8, a 4.6 liter DOHC V8 and a 454 V8 truck motor.

All of these engines have been properly maintained and run great. The 5.7 might be the closest in size and internal configuration to the one you would be considering for use in a SUV. This engine has some minor modifications (perf chip.) but runs and performs great at 66k miles.

A few of my friends have the GMC based Sierra or Cad and they run great, are very comfortable with all of the amenities and offer a better value than a Range Rover or a Lexus. (I Don't know about the price differences down-under.)

Good luck with your future purchase.

[Melbourne Park]

Thanks rdrc. The Family III V8 or L6 etc. is not for a 4WD though, it might be for a Holden car being available next year, called a Monaro, its a two door four seater with RWD and has two engines available, the ancient Buick etc. supercharged V6 or varieties of the 5.7 litre pushrod alloy V8.

[Ferrari Boy]

There are these four guys talking about cars and the Frenchman says:

Frenchman:. wi have thi finest autoomoobeel. The Citreon and the Peugout.
German: 9 9 9, Ve hev ze best outos, Ze Bah Em Vee, und ze Dimelar Benz.
Englishman: dont be bloody silly, chaps, we all know that the Rolls Royce and Jaguar are
the finest motorcars in the world.
American: you guys have got to be kidding, Toyota is the best.

[byrkus]

That's an EXCELLENT one!!

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by desmo
My guess is simply so the can put a "4 valve" or "DOHC" badge on it or for purely packaging considerations. Without artificial displacement limits either through tech regs in racing, or by tax laws for road cars, it makes a whole lot of sense to apply state of the art tech to a simple, strong pushrod engine such as the LS series rather than to build an expensive, hard to repair DOHC engineering tour de force for road use. If you don't need to make 125bhp/liter or rev to 8000+rpm, a simple two valve pushrod design may well be a better solution if the marketing people are left out of the equation.

I agree that 'marketing' is the real driving force behind most of it... but with belt drives in near-universal use, I think it's possible to say that OHC engines are getting to be less difficult to repair than pushrod engines.

[ray b]

WHY IS G M so stupid they make a great v8
but kill the cars that use it, big chevy ss and camero
only vets will use the 5.7 here soon or trucks
wish the Commodore was a USA inport or made here
TOYucka is a boring car well built but no soul or flare.

[AndrewK]

As a whole-hearted supporter of OHC, 3/4 valve heads, and variable valve timing, I guess I'm a bit out of place here. According to actual real-world economy ratings here in the US, the large GM V8's get 13 mpg, while similar OHC Ford engines get 15-16. Its small, but the power output is similar and 3 mpg is 3 mpg. Also, the S2000 to V8 comparison is deceiving. In Consumer's Union testing, the S2000 delivered 27 in mixed driving and 30 on the highway (actual numbers, not estimates). By comparison, SUV's with the 5.3 V8 were unable to deliver the rated 14/16 mpg. Instead, it delivered 9 mpg in the city and 13 overall. I'll take the efficiency and the technology any day.

Andrew

[desmo]

Are DOHC four valve designs intrinsically more fuel efficient than pushrod two valve designs? And if so, why?

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Andrew, I own a Silverado with the 5.3 and a Zo6 with the LS6 5.7. I regularly attend autox meetings where there are S2000s. I dont know where you get your information, but in the 'real' world, my Silverado never gets less than 18mpg and my Vette consistetrly gets 30mpg and last week, I got 32 mpg on US Gallons. 18 around town is normall and 12 in actuall autox.
I just phoned my buddy with a S 2000, and 30mpg is impossible. It uses more gas than my Vette anytime and is more like my Silverodo. The Honda encourages heavy foot driving, because it wont go any other way. You will be lucky to get 18mpg in it and maybe 25 mpg on the HWy without the air on, if you drive carefully. Camaro Z28s are econo cars compared to the Honda. 13mpg, indeed. Maybe you aught to talk to some Chevy drivers. As for Fords, why, I'd rather eat worms than drive one.

Originally posted by AndrewK
As a whole-hearted supporter of OHC, 3/4 valve heads, and variable valve timing, I guess I'm a bit out of place here. According to actual real-world economy ratings here in the US, the large GM V8's get 13 mpg, while similar OHC Ford engines get 15-16. Its small, but the power output is similar and 3 mpg is 3 mpg. Also, the S2000 to V8 comparison is deceiving. In Consumer's Union testing, the S2000 delivered 27 in mixed driving and 30 on the highway (actual numbers, not estimates). By comparison, SUV's with the 5.3 V8 were unable to deliver the rated 14/16 mpg. Instead, it delivered 9 mpg in the city and 13 overall. I'll take the efficiency and the technology any day.

Andrew

[joachimvanwing]

[QUOTE
Government figures say it will average 11 litres/100km. [/QUOTE]

They must be kidding.

[Chui]

I was the Durability Engineer at General Motors Powertrain - V8 Passenger Car Engine Development back in '90 and '91where I worked on within was the LT-1 or Corvette engine. They are remarkably well-developed and understood [as can be expected]. GM's comprehension of combustion is also very, very good. When I left for graduate school I had eight production tooled engines running durability testing: 02312-496G, 02312-496H and 02312-496J all completed over 600 hours of durability testing. 496H and 496J ran to just under 800 hours.

John Juriga, LS-6 Chief Engineer, was my supervisor at the time. The knowledge that he and the rest of the Engine guys there at that time was truly impressive. The wonderfully potent LS-6 is indicative of the capability of the engineers and scientists at GM Powertrain.

As much as I truly love my Honda Integra Type R's jewel of an engine as well as other so-called "high technology", high specific output engines I'd have no problems whatsoever driving a car with a General Motors "350 CID" engine providing the locomotion...

[blkirk]

I compiled a short list of motors from different car makers to see how their BMEPs compare. I don't expect this list to end any debates, but some of you might be interested in it, so here it is. The list here is sorted by BMEP at peak power (BMEPp).

I have been trying to find a way to combine both BMEP numbers into a "quality" number that demonstrates the sophistication of the engine. For example, at the top of the list we have the S2000. Its BMEP only drops by 1 psi between peak torque and peak power. It looks like an amazing accomplishment until you realize that the two points are only 800 RPM apart. Three lines lower, we have the RSX-Type S with identical BMEP numbers 1400 RPM apart. Which motor is better?

At the other end of the list, we have Chevy's 454 cubic inch V8. Its BMEP is horrible, but it manages to put out peak power at over twice the RPM of peak torque with only a 13% drop in BMEP. Is this an impressive accomplishment, or does the motor simply suck equally at all speeds?

Other points to note:

BMW's new M engines with double VANOS take the top two spots for BMEP at peak torque.
The Ferrari F360 has 3750 RPM between peak torque and peak power. The Audi A4 is a distant second at 3100 RPM. The BMW M3 is a close third at 3000 RPM.

In the end, remember that this is only two data points from a continuous system. YMMV

Car			Disp	Power	RPM	Torque	RPM	BMEPp	BMEPt	

			(cc)	(hp)		(lb-ft)		(psi)	(psi)	

Honda S2000		1997	240	8300	153	7500	188	189	

Porsche 996 GT3		3598	410	8000	280	7000	185	192	

Acura Integra GSR	1797	195	8000	130	7500	176	179	

Acura RSX-Type S	1998	200	7400	142	6000	176	176	

Diablo SV		5707	530	7100	445	5500	170	193	

BMW M3			3246	333	7900	262	4900	169	200	

Ferrari F360		3586	395	8500	275	4750	168	190	

BMW M5			4641	394	6600	368	3800	167	196	

Ferrari F50		4703	513	8500	347	6500	167	182	

Ferrari 550		5474	485	7000	419	5000	164	189	

Porsche Boxster S	3179	250	6250	225	4500	163	175	

BMW Z3			2793	193	5500	206	3500	163	182	

Nissan Maxima		3500	255	5800	246	4400	163	174	

Acura Integra GSR	1797	170	7600	128	6200	162	176	

Porsche Boxster		2687	217	6500	192	4500	161	177	

BMW Z3			2494	170	5500	181	3500	161	179	

Ford Steeda F-150	5410	355	5300	387	4500	161	177	

Toyota MR2 Spyder	1794	138	6400	125	4400	156	172	

GM Corvette Z06		5665	405	6000	400	4800	155	175	

Mazda Miata		1839	142	6500	119	5500	154	160	

Audi A4			2976	220	6300	221	3200	152	184	

Ferrari Testarossa	4943	390	6800	362	4500	151	181	

VW GTI			2792	174	5800	181	3200	139	160	

Ford Expedition		5410	260	4500	345	2300	139	158	

Chevy Silverado		5328	285	5200	325	4000	134	151	

Dodge Viper		7990	415	5200	488	3600	130	151	

Chevy Silverado		8129	340	4200	455	3200	129	138

Chevy 454 SS		7440	230	3600	385	1600	111	128

[AdamLarnachJr]

You are talking about the 30 year old technology in those two lower Chevrolet engines which cost no more than $4000 to build tops. Those are also truck engines with a good deal of torque, you are comparing them with high dollar sports car engines. In fact those two lower engines are no longer in use in any of GM's line of vehicles. All the new small block V8's are based on the LS1 architecture, the one the Corvete Z06 uses, which is the LS6 is an LS1 with some minor revisions in head, valve, and cam work.

It's like taking the Ford Powerstroke motor and comparing it to the Honda S200's engine with bhp per litre, its absurd. The Ford motor puts out 230hp and 500ft. lbs with 7.5 litres, but the the Honda engine puts out 240hp and 153hp from 2 litres, so it must be a better engine.

The rational and the engines you are comparing are like apples and oranges.

[AdamLarnachJr]

Oh yeah, and if I was totally off the mark with your comparison, because I've last read this post a week ago, please feel free to say shutup:)

[blkirk]

Originally posted by AdamLarnachJr
Oh yeah, and if I was totally off the mark with your comparison, because I've last read this post a week ago, please feel free to say shutup:)

Dangit! I wrote a nice long reply to this last night, but it looks like I forgot to hit the Submit button.

Let's try this again...

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Truck motors are designed for hauling and towing while sports car motors are designed only for peak power. I've been trying to come up with a comparison that clearly shows this difference. The best I've been able to do is BMEP ratio over RPM ratio.

Car			Ratio

			   BMEP/RPM

Chevy 454 SS		1.960

Ford Expedition		1.720

Audi A4			1.633

Ferrari F360		1.587

VW GTI			1.577

BMW M5			1.479

BMW Z3			1.408

BMW Z3			1.405

BMW M3			1.361

Porsche Boxster		1.318

Toyota MR2 Spyder	1.317

Porsche Boxster S	1.296

Ferrari Testarossa	1.257

Dodge Viper		1.240

Nissan Maxima		1.236

Acura RSX-R		1.232

Chevy Silverado		1.226

Ferrari 550		1.215

Ferrari F50		1.194

Chevy Silverado		1.151

Mazda Miata		1.139

Diablo SV		1.137

Acura Integra GSR	1.124

GM Corvette Z06		1.107

Porsche 996 GT3		1.098

Honda S2000		1.098

Ford Steeda F-150	1.070

Acura Integra R		1.050

There's no real scientific basis for it, but it clearly shows how the trucks and sports cars are different. Before anyone tries to read too much into this, remember that these numbers are based on only two data points taken at somewhat arbitrary RPM. To do this right would require converting each car's torque curve to a BMEP curve and doing some sort of statistical analysis on that. If anyone knows where I can find actual torque curves for a wide variety of cars, please let me know.

P.S. I included the 454 SS only because a friend of mine drives one and he wanted to see how it did.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Silverados since 2000 have LS1s in their gas powered trucks. 4.8, 5.3 and a cast iron block 6 litre.
I only compare bang for the buck when purchasing a car. You can drive out the door in a new Vette for the same price as a new S 2000 in the 'real' world. Watchoo gonna doo?

Originally posted by AdamLarnachJr
You are talking about the 30 year old technology in those two lower Chevrolet engines which cost no more than $4000 to build tops. Those are also truck engines with a good deal of torque, you are comparing them with high dollar sports car engines. In fact those two lower engines are no longer in use in any of GM's line of vehicles. All the new small block V8's are based on the LS1 architecture, the one the Corvete Z06 uses, which is the LS6 is an LS1 with some minor revisions in head, valve, and cam work.

It's like taking the Ford Powerstroke motor and comparing it to the Honda S200's engine with bhp per litre, its absurd. The Ford motor puts out 230hp and 500ft. lbs with 7.5 litres, but the the Honda engine puts out 240hp and 153hp from 2 litres, so it must be a better engine.

The rational and the engines you are comparing are like apples and oranges.

[AdamLarnachJr]

"All the new small block V8's are based on the LS1 architecture"

Yep, some guys are using the truck based blocks to punch out 427ci+ engines for their vettes. It beats buying the GTZ race block which cost $6000 alone.

[berge]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
Andrew, I own a Silverado with the 5.3 and a Zo6 with the LS6 5.7. I regularly attend autox meetings where there are S2000s. I dont know where you get your information, but in the 'real' world, my Silverado never gets less than 18mpg and my Vette consistetrly gets 30mpg and last week, I got 32 mpg on US Gallons.

30mpg. wow. vette, as in chevette, right?

[AdamLarnachJr]

C5 Corvette, unless you are referring to the Chevelle or Corvair, anyway GM confuses me sometimes... I'll stick to Camaro:)

[Melbourne Park]

I sat in the back of the Monaro last Saturday. Concerned about the poor six speed manual, I felt it was best that my wife drive an auto, since she's used to the sweet Miata gearbox. They are only making 4 Monaros a day, and they almost all pre-ordered (some from deposits of two years ago when a show car was shown which built up such momentum that GM Holden ended up making the biggish coupe.

The owner of the dealership took us for a spin: I actually got tingles in my spine when the engine hit 4000 RPM. They evidently spent some time tuning the sound! The sound was fantastic! The interior in leather is really beautiful; much nicer than my previous 911. And two big driver type bucket seats in the back are excellent, with good visibility and lots of leg room. I love the car; I am trying to get an automatic demo car from Holden themselves as dealers don't have demos...