vl vers vn not quiet sure

[vks]

thanks guys ur all legends, after readin all the replies i think my vn will be more than up 2 the task :thumbsup: , thanks guys much appreciated
cheers vks

 

[holden007]

Had a go with a VL manual the other day, killed it and mines a VR. Even the turbos are crap, unless they have been worked on.

 

[GLD-086]

if its an Non turbo VL, you wont have any problems! Though, i havent been in a manual VL, but i wouldnt think there would be much difference to the auto.

I've driven both and the Manual VLs eat Auto VLs alive.

From factory, the Autos ran about a 17.5 and the Manuals about a 16.6.

That's not quite 1 second. Pretty large gap for the same car, with the same power, but different trans, if you ask me.

Anyway the VL might not be able to beat the VN in stock form, but I can guarentee stock for stock a VL Manual, maybe even a Auto will stomp any 6 Cylinder Commodore, made before the VL.

 

[VNV6VENGEANCE]

Manual VL ran 0-100 in 9.6 seconds with a very good driver from factory... VN Auto did 8.1 seconds 0-100

...Big difference

Oi mate **** ya stats. I don't give a **** bout what the car did when it rolled off the showroom floor. We're talkin bout two worn in cars that would have done a fair few k's between them. It all depends on the condition of both cars. The manual gearbox is an advantage if his mate can use it. Holdens statistics are very vague. Saw an article in wheels mag where holden were gettin given **** for estimating many statistics they publish... Put it this way there is always going to be a possibility that a vl can beat a vn. no matter what the statistics say. Though every VL driver that has given me a go including a few turbs (not worked) has gotten romped...

 

[greenfoam]

I've driven both and the Manual VLs eat Auto VLs alive.

From factory, the Autos ran about a 17.5 and the Manuals about a 16.6.

That's not quite 1 second. Pretty large gap for the same car, with the same power, but different trans, if you ask me.

Anyway the VL might not be able to beat the VN in stock form, but I can guarentee stock for stock a VL Manual, maybe even a Auto will stomp any 6 Cylinder Commodore, made before the VL.

It would be close against a VK efi converted to manual!, or auto vs auto very very close. But really you are right the older COmmodores are painfully slow, I gteched my VH 202 auto sle (barge boat) to 60 mph and it took 13.5 funny enough thats about what they got from the factory, my VN V6 could get to 60mph and stop again quicker than that. Still the VL is no match in anyway for a VN v6 unless its a turbo, a stock turbo will beat a V6 VN by about .3 seconds over the 1/4 mile. VN's will run an 1/8th mile in about 10.2 and the VL turbo is about 10 flat

 

[GLD-086]

Though every VL driver that has given me a go including a few turbs (not worked) has gotten romped...

Well the supercharger, maybe an advantage.

I think alot of people, underestimate the VLs alot, because of the certain image that surrounds them.

Fair enough that an N/A, is far from a fast car, but is it really the slowest car on the road? I highly doubt it.

I mean, I know mine isn't a super duper ultra fast rocket launcher, but it's definately NOT the slowest car, I've driven or been in.

 

[Bax]

Well I had a romp with a VN ages back when I first got my car, and I was in front until 80ish, then I made a bad gear choice and lost him.

I think Manual VL vs Auto VN is fairly close.

 

[VNV6VENGEANCE]

Well the supercharger, maybe an advantage.

I think alot of people, underestimate the VLs alot, because of the certain image that surrounds them.

Well i don't get my license till the 22nd of this month and i installed the charger in my spare time while i didn't have my license. So those drags were my car basically stock:thumbsup: . I have not since dragged a VL with the charger on...don't really think i would bother. And as far as people underestimating them thats because they have jap engines.:yeah:

 

[nemodore]

beatin a rb30 is like beatin a pintara. go the vinnie power.

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

Oi mate **** ya stats. I don't give a **** bout what the car did when it rolled off the showroom floor. We're talkin bout two worn in cars that would have done a fair few k's between them. It all depends on the condition of both cars. The manual gearbox is an advantage if his mate can use it. Holdens statistics are very vague. Saw an article in wheels mag where holden were gettin given **** for estimating many statistics they publish... Put it this way there is always going to be a possibility that a vl can beat a vn. no matter what the statistics say. Though every VL driver that has given me a go including a few turbs (not worked) has gotten romped...

Man I have been in so many VL's it aint funny. My last car (only last year) WAS a VL.

I am telling you the VN would have to be having massive problems for the VL to take it. Look at VLFury's post, first off its a wagon and secondly its in bad running condition and it still manages to hold out her VL when she is drivin the VN wags.

Holden statistics are vague yes... But what about the rest? Torque curves? Power curves? Peak power? Peak Torque? Torque to weight ratio? Power to weight ratio?

Power to weight:
VL is 10.99kg per kw
VN is 10.32kg per kw

Torque to weight:
VL is 5.07kg per NM
VN is 4.47kg per NM

The VN has a massive advantage in torque and power curves as well....

I understand what you are saying about age and depending on condition, and that could be a valid point if the VL was a brand new car now. But its not, its even older than the VN. So the VL is gonna be aged/worn as well. Both cars will be. And it takes alot of wear to account for the difference between the VN and the VL.