Why don't GM let Holden use this motor in the Commodore? Bring back the 4.2 litre badge.. making me feel all nostalgic...
Nice engine, but Holden just spent a zillion dollars setting up for the worldwide production of the alloytech so I think we will be stuck with it for a along time
that look like a pretty sweet engine, and an awesome torwue curve by the sound of it
sounds the goods.
wonder how they'd go with a blower
I think the big car sales are suffering enough thanks to petrol prices without shoving a 4.2L straight 6 designed for SUV's into the commodore....
First of all, its only 201kw, which is just 1kw more than the Alloytec will produce in the VE.
Secondly, The Vortec 4200 does 15 mile to the gallon...which is a massive 18.84L per 100km. Compared to 11.0L per 100km for the Alloytec engine and 14.0L per 100km for the 260kw V8.
Who would buy a Commodore that has a 201kw Straight 6 that uses 18.84L per 100km when they could have a 260kw V8 that uses only 14.0L per 100km?
what vehicle is that economy figure based on? I know in the states they have in them in big heavy SUV's, so surely in the weight range that the commodore sits in, it wouldn't be too bad. Nice to slap a turbo on it... roll on the VL days!
Had a look and the vortec 4200 is an SUV motor in the states. It features in the buick rainier, chev trailblazer and gmc envoy. All these SUV's weight atleast 2000kgs so the economy for a car that heavy aint too bad. The gmc envoy gets 10 ltrs/100 on the highway and 14 around town which is nothing to sneeze at. The V6 VZ Berlina wagon weighs in at 1663kgs so there a bit of a weight difference there between it and an SUV. Anyways its all academic really...
Originally Posted by Mike215
Where did you pull 14L per 100km from for the GMC Envoy? Thats contradicting the fuel economy I found for the Envoy. Also the VE is set to weigh about 1850kg's so the weight difference and fuel economy will not be that different.
Power? bah, power is for the boy racers with the doof doof and the fully sick dyno queens and the wooooshpsssst! (Oh and the drag racing crowd, who I actually very much approve of actually) Aussie muscle is about one thing only in my humble opinion, torque, and lots of it. Superior low end and midrange provided by good torque production is what has kept the falcon six ahead of the buick/ecotec since the late 80's. This vortec 4200 produces 275foot pounds (416 N.m for y'all metrically minded types) at a fairly average 3600RPM, thats more than my 5 litre! Faaark the alloytec, this thing kicks some arse, on paper anyway.Originally Posted by 1991_Vn2nV
The supervisor at work has a VZ with the 190KW alloytec, he loves it for the top end power (the dude has a go hard or go home attitude towards driving ). But for the average bloke who just wants to tow a boat, cruise around, and embarrass ricers at the traffic lights, it might not be ideal. This vortec 4200 thing sounds very nice indeed for such a purpose, besides which, in my yet again humble opinion, inline sixes sound just that little bit nicer than V6's generally. The rough and ready roar of the old 4.1 falcon, the somewhat more refined growl of the 4.0 and of course the insane banshee howl of the BMW inline six (that thing is just spooky ).
As for economy, Mike215 has hit the nail on the head, the fuel economy figures for this thing were done in a 2000kg+ SUV, in a significantly lighter commo with tall gearing it should do just fine, especially with the conservative tune that holden are famous for.
So there you have it, massive torque, still more power than the falcon would have, a nicer (or at least different) exhaust note, and most likely quite decent economy. Still glad the global HFV6 project was forced onto holden? Honestly in my mind this is definitely a better option of an engine to compete with the falcon six, especially now that ford are using a true variable timing system (honda inspired if what my ricer mates are telling me can be trusted).
man, he probably got 14L/100 from the manufacturers, theres been a bit of fuss recently about the US manufacturers using unrealistic scenarios to test for fuel economy. Are your figures are from a reviewer of some sort like a magazine or website? They do a true highway/city circuit test generally. Oh and the US manufacturers are most likely understating the weight as well, VE will be a barge true, but nowhere near as bad as something like the envoy.Originally Posted by 1991_Vn2nV
The GMC Envoy fuel economy is as following:
2WD: 15 mile per gallon City.....19 mile per gallon highway
4WD: 16 mile per gallon City......18 mile per gallon highway
Now to convert it to Litres per 100km for the 2WD:
1 Gallon = 3.79L
15 Miles = 24.14km
100km/ 24.14 = 4.1425
4.1425 x 3.79L = 15.7L per 100km
The 4WD version gets 18.39L per 100km.
Still MUCH more than the Alloytec or the V8. The SS gets 14.0L per 100km and it weighs 1654kg.
The GMC Envoy weighs 4404lbs which is 1997kg. Therefore it is 20.7% heavier but it uses 31.4% more fuel than the 260kw 6.0L Gen IV V8
But if you want a torquey engine, why not get a Gen IV!!!!!!!!!
500NM of torque compared to the 416NM for the Vortec 4200
The 6.0L V8 MUST sound better than the 4200 wouldnt it? It is much more powerful and has much better fuel economy! Plus with the VE it should have DOD making fuel economy better again!
The alloytec 190 is not built for drag racing. Its for the more conservative drivers out there that want FUEL ECONOMY such as for fleets etc. and the majority of normal drivers.
Who would buy a Straight 6 when they could have a V8 that sounds better, has better fuel economy, more power, more torque, more displacement?
Your points just don't make that much sense to me really. Ok firstly, this whole fuel economy business, that curb weight figure for the envoy is most likely a dry weight for the most poverty stricken model possible. Some good calculation of percentages there but you are assuming a linear relationship between weight and fuel economy which is most likely not accurate, the envoy has the aerodynamic profile of a house brick, a commo has the aerodynamic profile of half a housebrick in comparison. Any idea what kind of gearing that envoy has? Also you are comparing the fuel consumption for the 4WD envoy to the 2WD commo. If it wasn't so obvious, that might count as spin doctoring of statistics.Originally Posted by 1991_Vn2nV
DOD is an unproven technology as of yet, I have my doubts as to how well it works, time will tell. There are many factors involved in fuel economy, who knows how this engine would have done in a commo?
Secondly, in terms of both power per litre of displacement (47kW/L v. 43kW/L), and torque per litre of displacement (99N.m/L v. 83.3N.m/L) the 4200 is more efficient, that much can definitely be calculated from the figures available. So it would seem to be a more efficiency focused engine than the gen4.
Also, I was not trying to say that the alloytec is a drag racing engine, I was trying to say that peak power figures as a marketing tactic for what is basically a "family car" are a bit of a wank. I just reckon this 4.2 litre six might be a better engine for a compromise between power/torque/economy than the alloytec. Fact is though, thanks to GM's marvellous idea of centralising all of it's subsidiaries designs, the alloytec is in Oz for the long haul.
Oh and as for noise, while it might not be a major factor in the purchase, it sure would be a nice bonus to have an engine with a different note to the average vacuum cleaner commo V6, without having to go to the trouble of voiding the warranty.
Hmmmmm sounds like the old Charger days.
4.2 Litre I6 aye? Holden need a 6 thats makes more torque then the Barra.
It would be awesome, for another I6 Commie.
Originally Posted by pandaman
But surely you realise that a 4.2 litre engine is going to use alot more fuel than a 3.6 litre engine (generally atleast). Fuel Economy is a major selling statistic of any new car today. With petrol prices looking to continue the way they are going, Holden would be bent over and spanked for the next ****ing decade by much of the public and the media if they used the 4200 instead of the 3.6L alloytec engine. If you are willing to spend extra money on fuel because you want power and torque, then you would buy the Gen IV. Simple as that.
I dont think there is any major problem with the Alloytec's power and torque. Don't forget that the Alloytec has a decent torque curve as well, with 90% of the torque is available between 1570 and 5870 rpm, which is a 38% wider torque range than the Supercharged 3.8L in the VY.....Is that really so horrible? Plus this is an aussie engine, designed and built here in Australia in Port Melbourne. Oh and i just realised, that the alloytecs torque curve is in fact WIDER than that of the GMC Envoy...but yes the GMC Envoy has more torque.
In my opinion the biggest problem with the Alloytec 190 is its max power, which doesnt come until 6500rpm which means you have to rev the shit out of it...But for the everyday commodore driver which is a family car...i dont see the problem?
And the weight i stated for the GMC Envoy was the gross vehicle mass published by GMC....just as the weight i gave for the commodore was the Gross Vehicle Mass published by Holden. Seems a fair weight comparison to me.
Just had a look at the power and torque figures for the 2006 vortec 4200 versus the alloytec 190. Stats below.
214kw@6000rpm 375Nm@4800rpm V4200
190kw@6500rpm 340Nm@3200rpm A190
fuel economy BAH! If you're concerned about the economy go out and buy that 1.5 litre daewoo, me I want torque and power from a good old straight 6 that smacks fords barra engine about and unfortunately the alloytec just doesn't cut it in my books. I'm comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges, ie I6 versus I6 not I6 versus V8s. Perhaps a poll should decide what on paper is a better choice.
Just read in motor trend that the skunkworks guys at gm bolted on twin turbos to the V4200 in a chev trailblazer.. it pumped out 400 horses and did 0-60mph in 5.35 seconds..damn. I gotta get me one of those!
Last edited by Sphinx; 27-05-2006 at 08:18 PM.
Originally Posted by Mike215
Why the **** are you talking about fruit? The commodore is a family car ...fuel economy is important in a FAMILY CAR....If a V8 gets better fuel economy, more power, and more torque than a straight 6....then who would buy the straight 6? Other than you obviously.
Also that max torque comes pretty late in the 4200 compared to the Alloytec 190...
Also, isnt the SV6 faster than the XR6 anyway?
As stated in some of the previous posts, the fuel economy isn't really a debatable issue. As no Vortec has ever been installed into a commie relative comparisons can't be done...just don't do it. Personally I find it rather hard to believe a 6L V8 can blitz a 4.2L 6 on fuel economy. I think the poor economy quoted for the Vortec is likely to have had something to do with the weight and aerodynamics of the SUV's, and the gearing!
3 is always greater than 2, even for extremely large values of 2.
Had a bit of a look on the web for a close comparsion between the weight of the envoy with the v4200 and the adventra with the a190 in it. The envoy weighs in at about 2000kgs and the adventra weighs in at about 1900kg's so it's a fair match up. In the article below it shows the adventra getting 17L/100 city/urban and 15 or so on the highway.
So really to use the apple analogy from my previous post and compare things on a par with each other, the v4200 has more torque and power than the A190 and about the same economy in a equally weighted car. Which one would you prefer? Mind you the adventra has a 5 speed auto and the envoy only has the good old 4L60E 4 speed and gets equal economy. Also the envoy has a 3.42:1 diff ratio while adventra has a 3.46:1 so that's another example of how close these two cars are in comparison.
Exactly! And the all wheel drive losses. Mike215's comparison with the adventra is a much better example of how the alloytec compares in terms of fuel consumption.Originally Posted by NetJunkie
Well with both cars being AWD and more similar weights and gearing, the adventra was still high 16's compared to mid 18's (L per 100km) for the 4200.
And those mid 18 figures for the 4200 are as stated by the manufacturer...so its gonna be the bare minimal. The alloytec is going to use less fuel than the 4200. Its logical.
Ok i had a look at the Consumer Guide website in the Auto Section.
"2006 GMC Envoy: Road Test
Passenger and cargo room
Fuel economy "
According to the Consumer Guide road tests, the 4.2L Straight 6 got the same mileage as the 5.3Litre V8 version. Check under the Engine section for fuel economy and specifications:
Last edited by 1991_Vn2nV; 28-05-2006 at 04:09 PM.
Considering that it's only producing 9hp less than the V8 i'm honestly not surprised. Dude, no one is questioning that this engine isn't getting very good fuel economy in it's usage, which just happens to be lugging around a bargearsed 4WD with an antiquated driveline.Originally Posted by 1991_Vn2nV
Pandaman has a good point. The crappy old 4 speed auto in a 2000kg SUV is going to cause pretty much any engine to get crappy economy. If you put the A190 in the envoy with a dinosaur 4 speed auto would you expect it to get good mileage? The answer would be no I think. For example, if you put the V4200 in an SV6, with either the new 6 speed or 5 speed auto and standard SV6 diff, I'd expect it to get better economy.
Found the combined economy for the V6 adventra at drive.com.au.. it's rated at:
Fuel consumption: AS 2877 and ADR81/01, combined (l/100km): 13.2 and combined (mpg): 18.
Combined mid 18's for the envoy and 18 for the adventra.. bugger all in it really.
Last edited by Sphinx; 29-05-2006 at 08:02 PM.
Ah Whatever....i might as well stop or this thread will go on forever. Fine the 4200 is a better engine for a family car like the holden commodore than the 3.6L alloytec.