New Ford Falcon Beats Holden's Commodore To Become Our First 5-Star Safety Rated Car

[mikmak]

Dear lord Gen IV, where do I start?

How can you say that the HFV6 is going to be better than the Duratec when it gets here? That was the question. Answer it if you can. Keep it in bullet points so as not to confuse yourself.

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

Are you kidding me? Yeh of course it outclasses it now and to assume the HFV6 will remain in the same shape it is now for another 6 years is foolish.

[quote=GenerationIV]

Yes, indeed.You could apply that theory to both companies.

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

I don't remember saying the 3.7 will perform worse.

Umm...

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

The Alloytec is getting more and more smooth, refined, less thirsty and more powerful with each model update. Im actually expecting Holden to overtake Ford for a certain amount of time when the I6 is dropped and the 3.7 V6 is introduced.

That's a big statement considering that we don't have any information on the DI Duratec. I am sure there is one on the way since EcoBoost is not only Turbo Charged but also DI. I'm sure you already knew that but I thought I would point it out for the regular folks.

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

My main point is, that anyone suggesting the HFV6 will be inferior to an engine that is yet to be even driven or even applied to the Falcon for at least another couple of years is beyond me. Why would anyone believe the HFV6, I mean specifically the DI HFV6 would be trash in comparison?

That's a valid point and can be applied in both directions.

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

True, these forthcoming updates would apply to the Duratec as well. However, Ford have failed to announce anything apart from a GDi twin-turbo version is possible for the MKS in 2011. GM have released a standard DI V6 already. If you ask me, GM is in front of the game there. I'm assuming you've driven the 3.7 f&h. Please enlighten us with your thoughts on it.

Also, Holden are yet to announce a Turbo Charged Alloytec. Should you then assume that they are behind Ford in that department (let alone turbo DI)?
I'm assuming you've driven the DI 3.6 GenerationIV. Please enlighten us with your thoughts on it.

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

Passing judgement on the superior today is a stupid idea.

Indeed....

Originally Posted by GenerationIV

You can bet the Ford Aus/Holden versions will produce different outputs.
Taking past examples into the equation, you can probably bet the Holden version will produce more power and torque, like previous versions. Ford have no V6 history, so hard to judge on that front. This is all speculation people.

Yes, that is correct.


I'm going to eat my dinner so please respond with something so I can come back for dessert.

[mmciau]

Originally Posted by Generation IV

Ford Duratec V6 / GM DI HF V6

Power (kW): 205 @ 6,250 / 225 @ 6,300rpm
Torque (Nm): 366 @ 4,250 / 370 @ 5,200rpm
Capacity (cc): 3721 (3.7L) / 3564 (3.6L)

3.7L Duratec V6 figures quoted on premium unleaded gasoline
3.6L DI HFV6 figures quoted on regular gasoline

Its close, in terms of torque, power needs no explanation, these are the current generations. Give another 4 years for when the Falcon receives it and we'll see more changes for both engines.

Passing judgement on the superior today is a stupid idea. You can bet the Ford Aus/Holden versions will produce different outputs. Taking past examples into the equation, you can probably bet the Holden version will produce more power and torque, like previous versions. Ford have no V6 history, so hard to judge on that front. This is all speculation people.

The massively disappointing figure in thar summary is that the Holden V6 has to spin a thousand revs higher to deliver its torque.

Mike

Mike

[ford&holden]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2574A200120292

I think Mark Reuss will be a better leader than Denny Mooney.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by mmciau

The massively disappointing figure in thar summary is that the Holden V6 has to spin a thousand revs higher to deliver its torque.

Mike

Yes, Mike, but I think it's important to point out that it spins out 1,000 RPM higher to deliver its 'peak' torque. The impressive thing about the HFV6 is how flat its torque curve is. Its torque output @ 4,200 RPM is probably not much lower than the Ford engine, but its 'peak' torque is more.

Dr Terry

[mikmak]

Is it just my imagination (ie. I don't have time to research it) or does the US seem to tune their engines for max power rather than max torque. One thing I also found odd (in my comparison of the 3.7 and HFV6 is the MKS has a terrible towing capacity. I have also noticed that both Ford and Holden have put very low limits on their manual transmission towing capacities. The FG is limited to 1200kg and Holden to 1600kg (or at least, you can't buy the 2100kg tow kit for manual Commodores). Anyone care to elaborate/speculate? I'm guessing it has to do with the expotential load increase generated by higher kurb mass. this of course would be driven by market research such as the number of current owners who actually tow with a manual transmission, the result being an allowance for engineers to specify a lower capability clutch and save a few bucks.

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Is it just my imagination (ie. I don't have time to research it) or does the US seem to tune their engines for max power rather than max torque. One thing I also found odd (in my comparison of the 3.7 and HFV6 is the MKS has a terrible towing capacity. I have also noticed that both Ford and Holden have put very low limits on their manual transmission towing capacities. The FG is limited to 1200kg and Holden to 1600kg (or at least, you can't buy the 2100kg tow kit for manual Commodores). Anyone care to elaborate/speculate? I'm guessing it has to do with the expotential load increase generated by higher kurb mass. this of course would be driven by market research such as the number of current owners who actually tow with a manual transmission, the result being an allowance for engineers to specify a lower capability clutch and save a few bucks.

I see the same trend in relation to US V6's being tuned to show higher power figures rather than torque being the priority.
Take Aurions 3.5 V6, they advertise the fact it has 200kw of power but never mention the torque figure, not as sellable, not when it's no better than it's primary competition
US style of advertising perhaps?

Which would you prefer to have?

I also think the towing limits placed of manual versions of falcons and commodores comes down to price, not many people even specify manuals on non sport models these days anyhow and therefore a way of saving money.
The standard fitment of tiptronic automatics also allows greater manipulation for towing without the need for a true manual, i guess?

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by Generation IV

I'm assuming you've driven the 3.7 f&h. Please enlighten us with your thoughts on it.

Haven't you driven a Mazda CX9?

[BBDOS CV8]

The reason for the low tow rating on manuals is to keep clutches alive. With the standard single disc clutch it's easy to smoke one up if you get impatient - that's with the Holden or Ford. The V8s (and 'special' cars with 18" or bigger low-profiel tyres/lower suspension) are the same. Lower load limit for trailers, partly because of the load limit on the towbar tongue. My car has the same 1600kg limit, even though underneath it's mostly the same as a car with the 2200kg braked limit.

All the DI V6s, Holden, Ford, Mazda, Nissan seem to suffer from 'Mt Fuji' torque curves, although when you compare with normal port-injected motors they still produce more torque just about anywhere. This is probably due to the behaviour of the air/fuel mix in the chamber, which is running much leaner. They probably have to keep timing in check to prevent pre-ignition or too fast a burn of the flame front. The difference between my LS1 and the motor in a similar HSV is extractors and cold air which is worth a couple kw, but mostly more ignition advance everywhere because of the better fuel they demand, and less retard (not the driver) at high revs. To a certain degree the more ignition you can run at lower revs without detonation, the more torque, basically. Standard Holden (and Ford) tunes start pulling timing at around 5,000 revs which makes the engine feel breathless and unwilling to rev; to persuade you to change up rather than bounce off the limiter. The older GTS with Callaway C4 and it's better valvetrain would freely rev over 6 grand. That's why it produced 60kw more than mine - along with bigger ports/valves/cam/throttle body.

The Toyo/Lexus 3.5 is just a typical Japanese short-stroke motor with short (cheaper to make) conrods which basically sacrifice bottom-end for revvability. HP/Kw is torque by revs. You rev harder as the short rods allow - bingo, more power even though the motor is gutless down low. That's a very 'Honda' motor, not only in cars, but motorbikes, too. The S2000 comes to mind. Then you gear it down (Aurion 3.9:1 final drive, vs 2.78 on the Commodore) to make it spin through the gears quicker. Lots of gears, lots of changes. It also makes the motor inherently smoother, shorter rods, lower peripheral masses creating vibration and shaking.

[mikmak]

Originally Posted by ford&holden

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2574A200120292

I think Mark Reuss will be a better leader than Denny Mooney.

So I was reading this article and found this statement:
[quote=GoAuto**
As we reported in GoAuto last week, at the time, the VE was not eligible to take part in the pole test, which is a pre-requisite to scoring five stars, because it was not fitted as standard with curtain airbags.
[/quote]

Considering that the XT does not come with curtain airbags (yes it does have front side thorax/head) as standard, does this make the XT only a four star car?

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by mikmak

So I was reading this article and found this statement:


Considering that the XT does not come with curtain airbags (yes it does have front side thorax/head) as standard, does this make the XT only a four star car?

No.
Holden and Toyota simply didn't provide a free vehicle to perform the pole test, like Ford did.
You don't have to have curtin airbags to do the pole test.
Apprently the VE still wouldn't achieve 5 stars if it was re-tested with curtain airbags due to the fact that it didn't pass 11.5 points in the offset frontal crash test, a vehicle has to achieve at least 12.5 points in this test to be eligible.

[RedVee8]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Is it just my imagination (ie. I don't have time to research it) or does the US seem to tune their engines for max power rather than max torque. One thing I also found odd (in my comparison of the 3.7 and HFV6 is the MKS has a terrible towing capacity. I have also noticed that both Ford and Holden have put very low limits on their manual transmission towing capacities. The FG is limited to 1200kg and Holden to 1600kg (or at least, you can't buy the 2100kg tow kit for manual Commodores). Anyone care to elaborate/speculate? I'm guessing it has to do with the expotential load increase generated by higher kurb mass. this of course would be driven by market research such as the number of current owners who actually tow with a manual transmission, the result being an allowance for engineers to specify a lower capability clutch and save a few bucks.

There was another thread earlier in the piece (pre-G8?) were i was discussing towing and towing capacity on cars, basically a RWD Commodore Vs FWD snowbelt cars.
In the end all I understood from the thread is that our US (and Canadian?) cousins just don't tow with cars - don't even think of it. they just buy a truck for towing.
Anyway, that was the gist of it as I understand it.

[mikmak]

^^^True. Perhaps, with the death of the truck, it is time to reconsider that capability, or at least advertise G8s superior specification as a strong selling point.


Back on crash ratings:
It is also interesting to note that although Corolla obtained a 5 star ENCAP rating, it would not be eligible for a ANCAP 5 star rating.....

still reading

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by mikmak

^^^True. Perhaps, with the death of the truck, it is time to reconsider that capability, or at least advertise G8s superior specification as a strong selling point.


Back on crash ratings:
It is also interesting to note that although Corolla obtained a 5 star ENCAP rating, it would not be eligible for a ANCAP 5 star rating.....

still reading

Different rating systems perhaps?

You could also say that not all 5 star vehicles have the same crash safety, i'd rather be in a falcon or commodore rather than a corolla if i was in a head on collision, a heavier vehicle will always be preferable.

[mikmak]

On another note, the LPG Falcon does not get 5 stars because it does not have ESP available ( a requirement added from January 2008).

[ford&holden]

Originally Posted by mikmak

On another note, the LPG Falcon does not get 5 stars because it does not have ESP available ( a requirement added from January 2008).

Correct, around Jan 09 is when ESP will be available for LPG vehicles while the utes will get ESP around september this year.

I guess it doesn't change the front offset crash performance of the FG's primary structure though...

Offset frontal crash performance rating.
14.6 - FG
11.5 - VE
13.6 - aurion