Same old theme revisited ie: VN vs VP - V6
After a little research (Father's friend has worked for a Holden Dealership for 30 years as Manager) I was provided with the following Holden official claimed specs for the VN & VP sixes.
Holden Commodore VN SI
Year of Introduction: 1988
Engine: 3.8 litre EFI V6 ; 5.0 V8 EFI
Power: 125kW (V6) & 165kW (V8)
Transmission: 5 speed manual ; 4 speed Turbohydramatic ; 6 speed ZF manual (Group A)
Performance: 0 - 100 km/h 8.1 seconds (V6 Auto) 7.2 seconds (V8 Auto); Standing 400 metres 15.7 seconds (V6 Auto) 15.1 seconds (V8 Auto)
Holden Commodore VP SI
Year of Introduction: 1991
Engine: 3.8 litre EFI V6 ; 5.0 V8 EFI
Power: 127kW (V6) & 165kW (V8)
Transmission: 5 speed manual & 4 speed Turbohydramatic 700
Performance: 0 - 100 km/h 8.0 seconds (V6 Auto) 7.2 seconds (V8 Auto); Standing 400 metres 15.5 seconds (V6 Auto) 15.1 seconds (V8 Auto)
This appears to clear up the the debate.
But I was told unofficially the performance claims were exaggerated for the VP. The modest 2kW power increase, the increased weight along with the Cam variation, gearbox recalibration (Autos) and computer enhancements to make the VP (and VN series IIs) more tractable in normal driving (read as reduced harshness in the takeoffs) robbed it of some of the lowdown performance of the series I VNs. As speeds rose the cars were close to identical in acceleration but the VN would have a sizeable lead in initial takeoff that the VP could not make up.
At the time the 4.0litre Falcon was ready for release with a lot more power than the Commodore (but less performance) and Holden did not want their updated Commodore, on paper at least, showing less performance than the earlier model.
This is what I was told so please don't shoot the messenger. There are probably quite a few "Official" Holden connected people who think or know this info to not be correct. As for myself having owned VNs SI & SII and 2 x VPs, from my experience this does sounds plausible as my SI is easily the quickest V6 I have owned.
If you look at Modern Motor and Wheels issues covering VNs & VPs the Auto VN SIs consistently ran 8.20 seconds 0-100Km/h and the VN S IIs & VPs 8.96 - 9.3 seconds.
VN/VP with 300 000 + on the clock will not do better than 9 seconds to 100km/h I predict.
Yes they were quick from the factory and that was 13-15 years ago but most are aging rust buckets now (no offence) unles their owners are spending money on servicing and restoring the car.
I guarentee my VN is quicker from 0 - 100 than 9.0seconds. Someone buy me a GTech and I'll prove it
The very existance of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to do it.
You have an ss dude, its a v8 and u prolly baby sit it and spend time and money on it.Originally Posted by ElDubya
Mine has 275,000 and still runs 8 flat or better most of the time, stock engine, exhaust, it has never never ever ran anywhere near as slow as 9 seconds not even with heaps of wheelspin on launch in the rain.Originally Posted by BOV
Oh yeah I forgot something . The lesson is think twice if you reckon you can get to 100 quicker in your VS than a Series one VN, you might get a suprise
Holden Commodore VS
Year of Introduction: 1995
Engine: 3.8 litre EFI V6 ; 5.0 V8 EFI
Power: 145kW (V6) & 165kW (V8)
Transmission: 5 speed manual & 4 speed Turbohydramatic
Performance: 0 - 100 km/h 8.9 seconds (V6) ; Standing 400 metres 16.3 seconds (V6)
I forgot to add I had my Lexcen timed running on gas (dual fuel setup)
0 - 100km/h = First try, floored it, big backfire and then 10.25 seconds.
Taped together the blown apart airbox and tried again with a gentler start.
9.45 seconds was the best I could get.
Switched it to petrol and laid one run 8.02 seconds. So by the Kilometre/performance formula with the huge 240 000+ KMs and the rust, it must have run 7.0 flat when new. I don't think so.
I ran a 8.09 in my VN Lexcen on the way home after replying up there at my parents house bit slow for my car but pretty good for 270,000ks : ), Toa said his parents VN runs the same times now with hundreds of thousands of ks on it as it did when it was new, My friend has a fairly strong VP with extractors and exhaust, really swarve cai and filter and his runs low 9's on gas, but it's much faster on petrol. You have to remember the Lexcen is carrying at least 40kgs more weight than a Commodore Executive so the base model Commodore should be a bit quickerOriginally Posted by Pretender
My Lexcen is dead stock (I now Know about the headers on SIs thanks).
My Cat rattles very badly but does not effect performance unless it gets, as it does occasionally , a rumble in the exhaust like a mild backfire. It then is very slow off the mark until it clears itself. I am going to fit new plugs, leads and Cat when I get the money. It appears I am getting unburnt fuel in the exhaust so I may have an occasional misfire. I hope this fixes it as I get very strange looks from other drivers when my car growls at them.
hahaha, that would get you some 'different' looks from people waiting to cross the road when you drive past while its happening lol.
but yeah the VNs go pretty hard, and correct me if im wrong but are the lightest commodore? i heard that somewhere but im not sure about it because the VL it smaller.
Id read those with a grain of salt, VS ecotec produces 147 kw not 145.Originally Posted by Pretender
I can't remember the exact weights but I was surprised to hear, more than once, that the VN was lighter than the VL. I have a magazine relating solely to the VN development so I'll dig it out and see if the comparison is shown.
Unless someone out there knows for sure and posts it before I do.
i thought the vk was the lightest of the lot
I think without the V6 installed the VN is about the same weight as a VL without it's motor but I reckon the VN is heavy all together ?. The earlier Commodores were lighter and it makes sense the VK was the lightest since it had less steel on it, but I bet some of those VBs-VHs are pretty light now days : ) with super light weight racing doors and front chassis rails : )
Anyway, the quickest V6 now is the sporty version of the VZ : ) so the VN series one lost it's crown allready
Yes the VN has had it's glory taken. Oh well it lasted a long while.
If I had the money I'd love to buy the new V6 sporty. Unfortunately I don't but I can squint at my car and pretend. Fortunately I love my VN and it was cheap. $600 not running and no brakes but licensed. $15.00 for a brake booster hose and insert and a piece of vacuum hose from the shed and it hasn't given me any trouble other than a backfire when using BP Gas and the rattly CAT. Touch wood.
If I had 40 grand to spare I wouldn't touch a VZ V6 with a 50 foot pole, I'd be down talking to the ever popular Ford salesman : ) asking for a deal on a Turbo XR6. It's going to go down in history as the craziest machine Ford ever made. Just wait 5 years or so till they get cheaper secondhand and the majority of them will be running 12 seconds or better on the 1/4 mile, it will be a revelation, a second comming of the insanely fast Australian muscle car : ). I've allways loved Holdens but you've got to give it to Ford on the BA, looks great, goes great, they won that round
If only it weighed 1300kgs now that would be something
I have never given the Fords much thought until the BA was released. I think it looks better than any Commodore.
I think I would buy one over a Commodore. There are a lot of different reports going around about the Turbo, good and bad, but nobody can argue with the stats.
I think the bad reports are written by disgruntled Commodore fans as they tend to list a lot of petty excuses for why it's not as good as the Holden.
a well run in engine (without any excessive wear) will be more powerful and smoother than brand new.
Wouldn't care how fast a XR6 Ford was, I would rather push my Holden then buy a Ford.
Mate seriously Ford and Holden, EXACTLY the same QUALITY and exactly the same MARKET appeal. Why are you so against Fords? If you owned a BMW or Merc and bagged a Ford/Holden then fair enough because Ford and Holden dont compare to the Euros cos quiet frankly in comparison Ford and Holden make crap. If I could afford a 50 K car do you really think Id be driving a 7 K commodore?Originally Posted by 2Fast2FuriousDude
One thing Fords and Holdens have is speed for cheap price...
yeah same here, BA made Ford blossom!Originally Posted by Pretender
I would sure love to own a new BF falcon xr6 T or typhoon with a new german 6 speed auto! That thing would fly!
a VN with over 200,000k's STOCK will NOT do 8 sec 0-100 times you are kidding, try 9.something and mid 16's over the qtr.
when new maybe but just remember what wheels and motor have said that their timing equipment now is about .2 diff quicker than the auctual qtr and thats technology NOW not in 1990 so i still think that they would have been a 8.8 at best when new and are mid to low 9's now depending on condition.
never had a VN beat my parents AU SR either my mates VP v6 with cat back gets owned by it as well and according to motor times they run an 8.8 stock 0-100 and a 16.2 qtr.
well exactly, VN is an old car the engine is going downhil unles its been rebuilt and the tranny regularly serviced...Originally Posted by UNR8D
AU's can be pretty fast, some stock ones are supposed to be able to do 0-100 in the high 7's, but My mums AU Classic (80,000kms) doesn't seem that fast, She likes to drive my VN because it goes heaps faster than her AU<- so she says : ) I agree. But it's faster than my Dad's VY ute now that is a real SLUG. My VN is not "officially" stock but it does have a stock 270,000km engine and stock exhaust it's just that it's tuned to within and inch of it's life. I'd bet my VN for your AU that my VN can run 0-100 in less than 8 seconds but I don't think it can do a quarter mile any faster than about 15.8. I never tested it really, but I did a low 16 up a fairly steep hill so it should be good for a 15. They don't have enough power for that kind of mission, they just have a low weight, low first gear and monster low down torque, Holdens traffic light special :P.Originally Posted by UNR8D
I've never really tested the AU before because it feels quite slow to drive and well I don't really like the touchy way Ford make the throttle and brake work, I either almost crash it every time I get in it or almost put myself out the front window when I go to slow down . So I don't drive it much. But power to weight suggests it could do better than 8 seconds, so maybe it's just an illusion that it's going slow, the road test guys might have had traction problems on the stock tires, I can't imagine being able to do a full power take off in a heavy and torquey AU without mega smoke on a stock tire. One thing about the AU is that it has excellent fuel ecconomy, 6. something liters per 100km cruising on the highway no worries
VN - 243000Km. Why do so many think they not as quick as posted.
My motor has been on gas since 1989 and is in great condition.
It is not just one magazine that has shown 8.00 - 8.25 seconds for the SI.
How did they all get it so wrong. Independent tests also show these figures.
Just to test my VN, I had a race with my Brother-in-law"s AU up to 100Km/h.
It was closer than I thought but I stilled trounced him easily three times. His car has done just 63000K's. Maybe my car has been tweaked but it only runs times consistent with most reports and test drives reports of the VNs.
I have organised to get it tested properly so I will post the results.
8 second to 100Km/h is not quick these days anyway.