Holden Commodore Limited Edition models

[zappaboy]

I'll address the first observation first; viz, struggling up slight inclines at 100-120km/h, rpm 1600-2000. Clearly, in the auto, this could only be achieved in 6th gear. As most of you are aware, the stock LS3 really only comes alive from 3000rpm. So, at 1600-2000 in an overall ratio that would see 280km/h in an unlimited Commodore, it is entirely unsurprising that acceleration is poor. You see, despite the motoring journos all yapping about the LS3's great torque, it just ain't true (below 2700-3000). These same journos used to criticize the LS1 for having little low range torque. Having owned both of them, I can state quite authoritatively that the LS1 was pretty good down low, and the LS3 not so good. Remember, an LS3 in a VF II Commodore is a 376ci plant in a 3900-4000lb body; this is a similar cubic inch to weight ratio as a 383 Dodge Phoenix or a 390 Galaxie or a 308 Statesman - not real good, you'll agree.
So, what d'ya do? Well, the rear axle is already a fairly stout 3.73, and the trans has very widely spaced ratios, so you can't do much there. The motor can be improved with airboxes, exhausts, cams, and "tunes", but these will generally add to the mid and upper rpm torque outputs. Witness the "407", it really rips from 3000-3300, but is virtually identical to the stocker below 3000. The HSV 340kW LS3, of which I drove a fair bit in a Tourer, was similarly fairly sedate down low, but really got up and ran from 3000rpm.
If you want to improve the bottom end torque, there really are only three solutions; in order of simplicity, they are: Nitrous Oxide injection, displacement increases, or forced induction.
1: Nitrous has obvious disadvantages, and I won't consider it any further.
2: Displacement increases involves motor out, heads off, almost complete disassembly, new crank, rods, and pistons, reassembly and reinstallation. A lot of work, but undetectable from the outside (think cops and insurance assessors). The result: 427ci is easily achievable off the shelf. Much better bottom end torque....and mid range and top end!! I recommend a bit of a cam upgrade, and the usual induction/exhaust improvements for a real street thumper.
3: Forced induction - expensive, complicated, easily detected by the aforementioned cops and robbers - but will yield bottom end torque like no other. This is the factory solution (LSAs, Ford Coyotes, Jags, etc) and the aftermarket ultimate solution (Walkinshaw 450-557 packages, Herrod, KPM etc).
Say you don't want to touch the engine, but you want more off-the-line pep, the only other solution (short of removing the interior, doors, boot lid) is to loosen the convertor. The LS3/Commodore set up would really love a torque convertor that slipped to 3000-3300rpm. Then you could light up the tires at will. Of course, fuel economy would take a big hit.
Say you don't want to do any of that, then, as others have pointed out, you just need to understand the LS3's torque curve. All you need to do is keep it in a gear that will keep it in the 3000-3500rpm (or higher) range at whatever road speed you're doing. As one of the motoring journos said, "...the LS3 rewards revs..." At 100-120km/h, if you want it to bark at the slightest right foot movement, hold the auto in 3rd or 4th (use the paddles). You'll be flattening hills and embarrassing trucks in no time.

Regarding your second observation re slowing down, in theory a bigger engine being throttled (that is, foot off pedal) will provide more resistance to road speed than a smaller engine. This was easily observed in the older cars (pre-90s). However, another factor which is often more important nowadays is transmission (autos only) can have their so-called "engine braking" ability altered according to what the designers want. It is quite possible and easy to design an auto to have NO engine braking. Anyone who has driven some of the older autos with full manual valve bodies will have experienced this. So, you can have a 600ci Hemi with a 727 Torqueflite and a Transgo manual valve body that merely coasts once you lift your right foot. The '72 Corolla 1300 auto next to it will slow down markedly once granma lifts her foot. The Commodore LS3/auto has significant engine braking built in, quite unlike the final Falcon's V8 auto which has almost none. I haven't driven any V6 Commodores since a VT back 10 years ago (nor do I want to) so I can't comment with any authority on them, except that I don't recall the VT/V6/auto being anything unusual. Your VF II/LS3/Auto combo is what it is, the powertrain engineers have set it up with that amount of engine braking, and, just personally, I quite like it.

I hope all the above waffle helps you.

Thanks Prof for the detailed responce. You have explained the virtues and quirks of the LS3 and given members info on upgrade options.

 

[monstar]

Thanks Prof for the detailed responce. You have explained the virtues and quirks of the LS3 and given members info on upgrade options.

 

[426Cuda]

I'll address the first observation first; viz, struggling up slight inclines at 100-120km/h, rpm 1600-2000. Clearly, in the auto, this could only be achieved in 6th gear. As most of you are aware, the stock LS3 really only comes alive from 3000rpm. So, at 1600-2000 in an overall ratio that would see 280km/h in an unlimited Commodore, it is entirely unsurprising that acceleration is poor. You see, despite the motoring journos all yapping about the LS3's great torque, it just ain't true (below 2700-3000). These same journos used to criticize the LS1 for having little low range torque. Having owned both of them, I can state quite authoritatively that the LS1 was pretty good down low, and the LS3 not so good. Remember, an LS3 in a VF II Commodore is a 376ci plant in a 3900-4000lb body; this is a similar cubic inch to weight ratio as a 383 Dodge Phoenix or a 390 Galaxie or a 308 Statesman - not real good, you'll agree.

So, what d'ya do? Well, the rear axle is already a fairly stout 3.73, and the trans has very widely spaced ratios, so you can't do much there. The motor can be improved with airboxes, exhausts, cams, and "tunes", but these will generally add to the mid and upper rpm torque outputs. Witness the "407", it really rips from 3000-3300, but is virtually identical to the stocker below 3000. The HSV 340kW LS3, of which I drove a fair bit in a Tourer, was similarly fairly sedate down low, but really got up and ran from 3000rpm.
If you want to improve the bottom end torque, there really are only three solutions; in order of simplicity, they are: Nitrous Oxide injection, displacement increases, or forced induction.
1: Nitrous has obvious disadvantages, and I won't consider it any further.
2: Displacement increases involves motor out, heads off, almost complete disassembly, new crank, rods, and pistons, reassembly and reinstallation. A lot of work, but undetectable from the outside (think cops and insurance assessors). The result: 427ci is easily achievable off the shelf. Much better bottom end torque....and mid range and top end!! I recommend a bit of a cam upgrade, and the usual induction/exhaust improvements for a real street thumper.
3: Forced induction - expensive, complicated, easily detected by the aforementioned cops and robbers - but will yield bottom end torque like no other. This is the factory solution (LSAs, Ford Coyotes, Jags, etc) and the aftermarket ultimate solution (Walkinshaw 450-557 packages, Herrod, KPM etc).
Say you don't want to touch the engine, but you want more off-the-line pep, the only other solution (short of removing the interior, doors, boot lid) is to loosen the convertor. The LS3/Commodore set up would really love a torque convertor that slipped to 3000-3300rpm. Then you could light up the tires at will. Of course, fuel economy would take a big hit.
Say you don't want to do any of that, then, as others have pointed out, you just need to understand the LS3's torque curve. All you need to do is keep it in a gear that will keep it in the 3000-3500rpm (or higher) range at whatever road speed you're doing. As one of the motoring journos said, "...the LS3 rewards revs..." At 100-120km/h, if you want it to bark at the slightest right foot movement, hold the auto in 3rd or 4th (use the paddles). You'll be flattening hills and embarrassing trucks in no time.

Regarding your second observation re slowing down, in theory a bigger engine being throttled (that is, foot off pedal) will provide more resistance to road speed than a smaller engine. This was easily observed in the older cars (pre-90s). However, another factor which is often more important nowadays is transmission (autos only) can have their so-called "engine braking" ability altered according to what the designers want. It is quite possible and easy to design an auto to have NO engine braking. Anyone who has driven some of the older autos with full manual valve bodies will have experienced this. So, you can have a 600ci Hemi with a 727 Torqueflite and a Transgo manual valve body that merely coasts once you lift your right foot. The '72 Corolla 1300 auto next to it will slow down markedly once granma lifts her foot. The Commodore LS3/auto has significant engine braking built in, quite unlike the final Falcon's V8 auto which has almost none. I haven't driven any V6 Commodores since a VT back 10 years ago (nor do I want to) so I can't comment with any authority on them, except that I don't recall the VT/V6/auto being anything unusual. Your VF II/LS3/Auto combo is what it is, the powertrain engineers have set it up with that amount of engine braking, and, just personally, I quite like it.

I hope all the above waffle helps you.

Hey Professori.
It' been a while!
Some good thoughts there. Although I have to say none of the stock LS1's I've owned or driven had good bottom end torque? I'd like to see the curve of an LS1 overlaid on one for an LS3. I have lttle doubt the former would be well below the later across the entire rev range.
Regarding mods to change / improve low to mid range torque. The stock the does have significant torque management programmed in. For emissions, safety and fuel efficiency I assume. So, a good tune, even if. Retaining some torque management probably adds more to lazy cruise throttle response and seat of the pants acceleration, than the increase in peak power does. Would you agree?
I certainly found this to be the case in my L77 Redline.

 

[Hyperduc]

And thanks too Monstar.

Is E85 85% ethanol?

I don't believe I have seen this at the servo. Where do you get it from? If travelling where do you get it from?

Who can do a Tranny tune? And yes Halloween's over!

 

[monstar]

And thanks too Monstar.

Is E85 85% ethanol?

I don't believe I have seen this at the servo. Where do you get it from? If travelling where do you get it from?

Who can do a Tranny tune? And yes Halloween's over!

Yeah e prefix means ethanol and the number after that is the fraction. Like p98.
It used to be quite the thing back in 2009 through a deal Holden struck with Caltex, basically an amazing fuel called eFlex mainly for our car, but when Govco stopped subsidising our manufacturing, GM pulled out, so did Chevron, the parent company of Caltex.
Thing is our V8 CO2 generator emits 292 g CO2/km on 91 (crappy sulphurous sludge), much less on premium 98. Then consider that ethanol fuel pollutes 40% less CO2 than petrol, 175 g CO2/km, same as a Hyundai i30 hatch.
View media item 309View media item 395Being free from excise, and ethanol production simple and cheap, the opportunity spawned a shift in the agribusiness supply chain, essentially molasses from wheat in NSW and biomass from sorghum in QLD. Caltex and others bought from Manildra in NSW and United set up a farming co-operative and processing plant in Dalby. A decade on from when the alternative bio fuels initiative was announced, there is still a skeleton of stations on the eastern seaboard that sell high ethanol fuel blends, ranging from 70¢ to $1.39 for 112 Octane. Needless to say that where there's e85 there's hot cars at the pump.
View media item 269Anyways thing is although cheaper per km, actual fuel consumption is ~10% higher than petrol, so was difficult to convince average driver and pump jockey to think in a new paradigm - yes more liquid per km - but cheaper, cleaner, safer, home-grown, sustainable, more torque, runs cooler and cleaner better for your car... when it uses more fuel! Plus there was (and still is) a big oil scare campaign that alcohol will kill your car and is the devil's work. I've rebuilt my engine around the properties of ethanol, driven 320k km, and without the derp, suffice it say I know the ins-and-outs.
View media item 396Main thing in context of above, is our car was built to run on ethanol, for the 6.2 all that's required is a $100 fuel composition sensor and flick a switch in the tune, to deliver 15% more torque at 2500 RPM WOT.

 

[HemiMagic]

Yeah e prefix means ethanol and the number after that is the fraction. Like p98.
It used to be quite the thing back in 2009 through a deal Holden struck with Caltex, basically an amazing fuel called eFlex mainly for our car, but when Govco stopped subsidising our manufacturing, GM pulled out, so did Chevron, the parent company of Caltex.
Thing is our V8 CO2 generator emits 292 g CO2/km on 91 (crappy sulphurous sludge), much less on premium 98. Then consider that ethanol fuel pollutes 40% less CO2 than petrol, 175 g CO2/km, same as a Hyundai i30 hatch.
View media item 309View media item 395Being free from excise, and ethanol production simple and cheap, the opportunity spawned a shift in the agribusiness supply chain, essentially molasses from wheat in NSW and biomass from sorghum in QLD. Caltex and others bought from Manildra in NSW and United set up a farming co-operative and processing plant in Dalby. A decade on from when the alternative bio fuels initiative was announced, there is still a skeleton of stations on the eastern seaboard that sell high ethanol fuel blends, ranging from 70¢ to $1.39 for 112 Octane. Needless to say that where there's e85 there's hot cars at the pump.
View media item 269Anyways thing is although cheaper per km, actual fuel consumption is ~10% higher than petrol, so was difficult to convince average driver and pump jockey to think in a new paradigm - yes more liquid per km - but cheaper, cleaner, safer, home-grown, sustainable, more torque, runs cooler and cleaner better for your car... when it uses more fuel! Plus there was (and still is) a big oil scare campaign that alcohol will kill your car and is the devil's work. I've rebuilt my engine around the properties of ethanol, driven 320k km, and without the derp, suffice it say I know the ins-and-outs.
View media item 396Main thing in context of above, is our car was built to run on ethanol, for the 6.2 all that's required is a $100 fuel composition sensor and flick a switch in the tune, to deliver 15% more torque at 2500 RPM WOT.

About 8 months ago I bought E85 at $1.22/L. I got 25L per 100ks. The 98R was $1.39/L and I got 12L per 100ks. Car is stock.

 

[monstar]

About 8 months ago I bought E85 at $1.22/L. I got 25L per 100ks. The 98R was $1.39/L and I got 12L per 100ks. Car is stock.

Well hard to comment on that without more info, except forget about value from less consumption rather more value for better performance, oh and don’t buy from United when Caltex is half the price!
Stock tune will get you anything from 15 - 45 litres / 100km around town on e85 realistically, 400 km per tank. Highway about 650.
Stock tune is not ideal, being one of the first mass produced flex fuel V8s. WOT driving upper rpm “road tests” maybe 250 km to the tank.
I do a lot of logging and tuning and there’s safe room for a huge improvement in consumption as well as performance.

 

[blackve76]

anyone want a magnum, also 2 motorsports both red manual and auto

Black manual

http://www.mcraeholden.com.au/VehicleDetails/new-2017-Holden-Ute-Magnum-Wodonga-VIC/3087724693

 

[zappaboy]

Around my way South west Sydney Caltex Bio Flex is way cheaper than United Eflex. In fact from my observations United charge more for E85 than 91. I realise different fuels but E85 should be cheaper than 91

 

[ratsmow]

If anyone is after Red Manual Magnum Mcraes Wodonga have one unsold.