8 days without any postings....and weeks without seeing a ZB on the road

[Brettly-2008]

Maybe when revved right out to the max the Gen 3 V8 was a bit quicker than the 2.0 LT I have at present but we have 191 kw's going through a vastly more efficient gearbox and the previously mentioned weight savings... (kind of ironic really a 2.0 turbo four having very similar performance to a 5.7 Gen 3 V8 don't you think ?).

Where are you getting the ZB weight info from? I can't easily find it online... but a VX was circa 1550kg, which is not heavy at all. And while 191kW (T4) verses 225kW (LS1) seems close, the torque figures are way different - 350Nm verses 460Nm. Yeah, sure a nine-speed auto is nice, but I still reckon a 5.7L would destroy a ZB in the real world.

 

[Calaber]

How much better was the 6 litre VE over the same engine in late HZ's, with the invrease from four to six speed autos? I've never driven either so it's a genuine question.

 

[Badgerdog]

Where are you getting the ZB weight info from? I can't easily find it online... but a VX was circa 1550kg, which is not heavy at all. And while 191kW (T4) verses 225kW (LS1) seems close, the torque figures are way different - 350Nm verses 460Nm. Yeah, sure a nine-speed auto is nice, but I still reckon a 5.7L would destroy a ZB in the real world.

https://www.carsguide.com.au/holden/commodore/price/2018/lt?id=4EjNSFDM Click under the dimensions drop down tab to get the weight.
LS1 in the application in my 2000 Holden Calais from memory made its peak torque a lot latter in the rev range than the current 2.0 engine and through a very old gearbox and rear wheel drive driveline.
I don't think the power to the wheels would be all that much different and I also think many people would find the way the 2.0 delivers its torque much earlier in the rev range makes it a very enjoyable car to drive. No its not a V8 and it certainly doesn't sound anything like one but for about $25K LT is a LOT of car for the money.

 

[Brettly-2008]

How much better was the 6 litre VE over the same engine in late HZ's, with the invrease from four to six speed autos? I've never driven either so it's a genuine question.

I've owned HQ and HZ, the former with a 355cui and T700 and that was light years ahead of the HZ with a 253 trimatic. But the 6.0-litre 6-speed in my VE is light years ahead again. The march of continual improvement...

 

[Brettly-2008]

https://www.carsguide.com.au/holden/commodore/price/2018/lt?id=4EjNSFDM Click under the dimensions drop down tab to get the weight.
LS1 in the application in my 2000 Holden Calais from memory made its peak torque a lot latter in the rev range than the current 2.0 engine and through a very old gearbox and rear wheel drive driveline.
I don't think the power to the wheels would be all that much different and I also think many people would find the way the 2.0 delivers its torque much earlier in the rev range makes it a very enjoyable car to drive. No its not a V8 and it certainly doesn't sound anything like one but for about $25K LT is a LOT of car for the money.

So ZB is heavier than VX and has less power and a lot less torque... I take your point that it's an impressive car in many areas and probably feels fast with all those gears channelling turbo torque, but in the real world a 5.7L is going to get the job done a lot easier. Think a 40C day, four blokes in the car, maybe towing something... that's all I was getting at.

 

[Immortality]

Boosted engines will always have a greater torque spread and this is the reason those little engines have so much get up and go.

 

[Calaber]

I just wonder about the life expectancy of a boosted 2 litre in a reasonably heavy car.

 

[Badgerdog]

So ZB is heavier than VX and has less power and a lot less torque... I take your point that it's an impressive car in many areas and probably feels fast with all those gears channelling turbo torque, but in the real world a 5.7L is going to get the job done a lot easier. Think a 40C day, four blokes in the car, maybe towing something... that's all I was getting at.

Yeap I can see where you're coming from. Heat is a killer of turbo performance and 350 nm's of torque is not much to tow with or if the car is full of big blokes.

I just wonder about the life expectancy of a boosted 2 litre in a reasonably heavy car.

For "some strange" reason I am far more concerned about the life expectancy of my replacement 3.6 V6 engine lol (850 km's from the first one is not exactly a glowing endorsement is it !)

Boosted engines will always have a greater torque spread and this is the reason those little engines have so much get up and go.

They must be making fairly big boost pressure to get 191 kw's out of a 2.0 liter but you wouldn't know it with the complete lack of turbo lag.
Its a pretty sweet bit of kit...I think I'd rather have it as the replacement engine than the V6 that's supposed to be fitted later this week.

 

[Badgerdog]

Replacement engine was supposed to be fitted and car available yesterday. Its late. I wish I could say I'm surprised.
Some interesting info on the 2.0 turbo motor. Looks pretty good to me
http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/

 

[figjam]

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/

I read the bit about the 3cyl 1.3litre Malibu.
I wondered how long you would spend on the wrong side of the road while overtaking an Australian semi-trailer on a typical country road.