E39 GMH 3.0 SIDI: 91 vs 98 Octane

[swingtan]

Just to separate this from the PID thread.....

I got down to 70KM to empty and figured it was as good a time as any to compare 91 and 98 octane fuel. The car had 460km on the clock, so is still very, very new. The comparison is still valid though.

Vehicle:

Holden VE SII Sportwagon (Omega)
3.0L SIDI engine
6 speed auto
E39 ECM
T43 TCM


Conditions:

Ambient Temp: 32'
Rel. Humidity: 29%
Barometric Press. : 97kPa
2 Adults and 2 teenagers on board.


Here's the log details, Note #1 is on 91, the "Chart Inspector" is in the middle of the tank refill and Note #2 is on 98.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7173/6821527167_cef528ae45_o.jpg



Octane
91
98


RPM
2298
2350


ETCTP
52%
58%


APP
37%
40%


Spark Adv.
10'
15.5'


KR
2.5% (3' peak)
0'


MAP
95kPa
96kPa


VSS
56kmh
57kmh


MAF Air
57.95gm/S
54.78gm/S


IAT
37'C
47'C


Engine Trq.
235.0nM
237.5nM



So.... I think the difference is pretty obvious. Some of the really interesting points here....

Spark advance came up 5.5' with similar engine load and RPM.
MAF air speed was slightly reduced.
Calculated engine torque rose slightly.
No KR with 98 fuel.
The ECM applied significant throttle torque reduction when shifting with 98RON fuel.
All this occurred with an additional 10' of IAT.


The car also felt much better on the road, an indication that it's suffering badly from the lower octane fuel. I think Holden should have made this a 95RON minimum engine, really it's not happy with 91. Note also that the fuel trims also reduced, indicating it was running slightly richer on the 98, so maybe the use of 98 would get better value for money....... It's an interesting thought.

Simon.

[Dieselman]

What Comp Ratio is this engine Simon??

They might like E85 even better??

Interesting results :grin:

[GMPX]

Engine comp is 11.7:1.
I think Holden tried to put too much timing in them for low grade fuel, the US cals on the same engine (eg, Cadillac SRX) took a different approach, less timing but very different cam adjustment maps, yet they make the same power and torque. It would be very interesting to see how an SRX runs on low grade fuel as far as knock goes.
Swingtan, if you can locate somewhere that has E85 I would recommend giving it a tank of that too. Running these cars on 98 Octane kind of defeats the intended reason you would buy one. You accept that running a supercharged LSx engine on 98 is mandatory, not for a grocery getter. Ideally, we need to come up with a nice tune for E85 that isn't a killer on fuel economy. It should be possible, I think it was GM that directly claimed the 2012 Buick Regal was able to get the same fuel economy on E85.

[swingtan]

Good point! I can get E85 from the Caltex on FTG road, so may need to try that at some stage. The car has "E85 compatible" all over it so I think Holden really want you to start using it. Unfortunately, the fuel card is Shell only and they won't even do E10 anymore and I doubt they'll ever do E85. I should be able to get the odd tank full from other servo's though and claim the expense back.

[kangsta]

Here are some charts for comparison, I've set them up the same as Simons ones for easy viewing. These are from a 2011 Holden Captiva with 3.0L SIDI on NZ 91octane fuel

Similar conditions to Simons chart
12790

Cruise control set at 100km/hr going from flat to incline. Check out the KR
12789

[GMPX]

I recently did a couple of logs on mine for the benefit of Simon to show what they are like on E85 fuel. The actual ethanol percentage was showing 53% as it was an eFlex fill on a 1/4 tank of 91. Anyway, on the stock tune the most knock recorded on a one hour drive was 1.1 deg and this happened just once, well below the typical 3 to 7 degrees these things seem to constantly hit on just 91 Octane. I usually give the OEM's the benefit of doubt on why they do things with the cals, but I can't imagine why they would want to be running at 4+ degrees constant knock retard as these Holden's tend to on 91. They did it on the first release of this engine in 2010, and looking at Simon's logs of a brand new 2012 model nothing has changed! It would be really interesting to see a log from a US 3.0L running their 87 Octane to see if they are on the ragged edge too on low grade fuel.

12791

I just noticed something really cool too. Look at the VE number in the log above, that is the value calculated by the Virtual VE tables, if you ever wanted to question how accurate our calculations are, check out the VVE table below from the 3.0L SIDI with the correct amount of cam timings applied to match the log, it's so close it's scary, 1201 on the log vs 1197 calculated.

12793

[swingtan]

FWIW, I hit a new record a couple of days ago. -1.5' total timing advance........ This engine is crying out for some work and will get to it shortly. Fair enough it's running 91 and 11.7:1 compression, but I think the PE mode timer may be hurting things here. It's going to take some lateral thinking.

[swingtan]

Update Time:

Over the past week I've been working on what I feel are the two major issues with this vehicle...


The amount of KR the stock tune exhibits on 91 RON fuel.
The sluggish / non responsive feel of the car in general.


Let's start with the KR.
If you look at the tune, you'd think the High Octane spark table was set for E85, it's really high, too high. But the tune also runs very aggressive Octane Scalar Decrement settings, so it learns down quickly to the low table. The only problem is the low table is quite high as well, so it still knocks. This is complicated by the shape of the tables not being great, so KR at cruise speeds ( where the timing is quite high ) cause a drop in spark timing in the power cells where it may not normally have any KR. So step one was to drop timing across the board on the high table and to blend some of the peaks out and level the table a bit. Then I copied the high table over the low table and removed 8' across the board. This obviously reduced the occurrences of KR, keeping the spark closer to the high table, so keeping the average spark timing higher every where.

Further more, I spent a fair amount of time reading up on VCT and the effects of cam timing when the inlat and exhaust cams are adjusted individually. I won't go into the full details, but the basics are that the high cam advancing used in the stock tune basically results in...

When the exhaust cam is advanced, it bleeds off cylinder pressure early, reducing the "drive" toward the end of the power stroke and allowing more exhaust gas to excape out the exhaust.
When the inlet cam is advanced (significantly), it allows exhaust gas to enter the intake and dilute the intake charge. This reduces over all power, but acts as mechanical EGR system, reducing emissions.

So what I've also done is to reduce the maximum advance of both cams by up to half, attempting to make more use of each power stock and reduce the intake charge dilution. My thinking is that intake advance has been used for emissions, but then exhaust cam advance is being used to reduce the amount of EGR. The combined advance should have helped with reducing pumping losses as light throttle, but I'm not convinced it was working as designed. So I've gone for less advance overall.

Finally, I've altered PE mode settings to bring it in earlier and allow the get the fuel it needs to make some power. While entering PE mode earlier will use more fuel, reducing KR and keeping a higher average spark timing "should" give better overall efficiency. At least that's my theory.

I'm now seeing the odd KR spike to 3' with rare hits at 4.5'.

Next up, the sluggishness.

Reducing the KR in the tune helped a bit but there were two main areas that have been used so far to pick up the driveability of the car.

{B8802} Torque Model: This table basically tells the ECM how much theoretical power should be delivered depending on the engine RPM and the commanded TPS. The ECM will then open the throttle a calculated amount to provided the desired torque. These cars feel really dead off the line, mainly due to this table commanding little power at low RPM and the pedal flat to the floor. So the the easy fix here is to increase the desired power where you want more power. A word of caution though, increasing it too much in the lower cells will result in a car that will drive it's self easily up to the local speed limit...
Gearbox Tune: I spent a fair amount of time working on the previous generation V6 where I could only tune the auto. This taught me that a good gear box tune can cover a myriad of problems in the engine tune. I think that in this case, the stock tune is trying to rely too heavily on keeping the revs low and locking the TCC too long. While this keeps the car in a higher gear, it also loads the engine more, causing KR and driving it in to PE mode more often. Every one should know that laboring an engine will never allow for peak efficiency, so I see no reason to do it.
I've altered the speed settings for part throttle shifts and TCC controls so that,

the TCC releases sooner as engine load increases. This allows the TC to do its job of torque multiplication, and allows the engine to pick up a few Revs.
the gear box will down shift sooner, picking up more RPM and reducing engine load by dropping gears.


I've also firmed up the shifts to make the car feel better through the gears.

Prior to to tuning, I had an economy figure of 12.3L/100km (19.12MPG) averaged over 4,500Km (2,800m) and mainly suburbs driving in peak hour traffic. Since the adjustments, economy is now at 11.4L/100KM (20.6MPG) but it's only been over 450KM (280m), so it'll probably come up a little. However, the car feels much better to drive now and while it's no where near the same as the other car, it's very enjoyable to drive.

More to come as more is found.....

Simon.

[joecar]

Simon, thanks for the update, very interesting info there. :cheers:

[GMPX]

Funny, I was Emailing Simon over the weekend about these engines and how he was going tuning he's as our car also has one. My conclusion is that it was never designed to run happily on Australian 91 Octane in a car with the weight of a Commodore, I would hate to think what one of these would be like towing a boat on a 35°C day. One thing with the E39 though, when you floor it off the line and you only see 40% at the blade, also check the MAP reading, if it's 100kPa (or close enough) then the ECM will not open the blade further than it needs to be. This makes perfect sense, it would be quieter through the intake, faster to react for traction control or power reduction. I know it looks bad on the logs and had me going for a while, but if the engine is at 100kPa then there is no reason the blade needs to open up further.

One thing I've found, people I've spoken to complain the engine feels harsh at 2,500 - 3,500 RPM at full load. I've found the exhaust cam table to be the problem, for some reason Holden put a big spike at this point, with the spike removed the engine feels much nicer.

[kangsta]

Simon, do you have logs of a few WOT runs you could post? be great if they included cam timing too

[swingtan]

Hi Kangsta, sorry, I'd missed your post. Let me get a couple for you.....

[swingtan]

OK, here's some WOT data. It's a series of WOT sections from a few log files joined together.

13962

I still would like access to the table that limits the ETCTP % under 3000RPM though. I've done some testing to fudge the throttle opening and can get more actual throttle under 3000RPM, but it tends to mess up a lot of other stuff.

Another interesting point is the "minimum MAP" setting for the torque control settings. This thing is really interesting as it will change throttle opening to maintain a "minimum" MAP level. Needless to say, setting this to 100kPA is not a good idea ( yes, I tried this ), it opens the throttle to maintain the set MAP level and results in a car that, with no pedal movement, will drive its self up to the speed limiter.....

As you can probably tell, I'm really working on a "poverty" tune for this controller. Running it on 91RON ULP and keeping the car bog stock, the 3lt motor is really under powered in this configuration for a heavy car though. If I can get my hands on a stock HSV 3.27:1 diff for the right price I'd be tempted to put it in. Otherwise it might have to be a 3.45 from a manual car. The later is going to be easier to come by though.

Simon.

[GMPX]

the 3lt motor is really under powered in this configuration for a heavy car though.
A poor decision by GMH for sure. I'd be interested to see how they drive in a CTS, Equinox etc. But what choice do we have out here? I don't want an SV6 just to get the 3.6L, though that should have been the standard V6 across the range. I also don't want a 6L for the wife to do the running around in. My father in law has a 3.0L Berlina too, he summed it up well, it's a great car, if only it came with the Falcon's 4.0L motor. I hate to think what these 3.0L's will be like on a hot summer day towing a boat, van etc. I must confess Simon, since getting to Cruze to play with, I'm 'over' the 3.0L. If there was a better option out there for a wagon, we'd get rid of it. If 'only' Holden made the Commodore with the 2.8L Duramax (like in the Colorado), 346 lb·ft @ 2000 RPM.
Unfortunately the 3.0L SIDI problems extend beyond being able to fix them via tuning. Vehicle weight can't be changed, cubes can't be changed and the two are too far apart to make it nice to drive. It's the peak torque point that is the problem (223 lb·ft @ 5700 RPM) compared to the older VE 3.6L (non SIDI) (240 lb·ft @ 2400 RPM). Interestingly the LFX (which I think is just a 3.6L version of the LF1) has peak torque back down where it's needed (258 lb·ft @ 2800 RPM).

[swingtan]

Yeah, exactly right Ross. Hence why I think a 3.45 diff would help a lot. I'm going to be towing a big heavy trailer just after Christmas, so I'd like to have a car that will at least move up a hill....

Any chance on that a table like {B8801} ( from the Regal CXL Turbo cal ) would remove the throttle limiter off the line? Once it hits 3000, it really takes off but up to there it's yawningly slow....... As mentioned, I've belted the torque model in that area to make the ECM think it's not making any torque, and the throttle opens further and feels better, but it really messes with normal cruise driving. Hence the feeling that the ECM has a "max torque limit vs RPM" table.....


Simon

[GMPX]

Been there done that with the Regal thing, unfortunately all it does is squash down the usable power in to a smaller area ( I sort of touched on this in Chucks E38 throttle thread).
I actually don't have an issue with the full throttle power (apart from lack of it), it's the part throttle lack of torque that is the issue, it can't get up a slight incline without down-shifting two gears, I don't see how that can be fixed in tuning when by design the engines peak torque is at 5,700 RPM.

[swingtan]

Yeah, I see what you mean, I'd still like to try 100% throttle below 3000RPM though..... The diff gear change "should" make a difference, if I can get something at a good price. I guess I should also test the speedo settings in the tune to prove I can correct for the change in gear ratio. I'm also releasing the TCC a bit sooner to try and lift the RPM before the down shift occurs. It helps a little, but it's no V8 killer.

[GMPX]

I'd still like to try 100% throttle below 3000RPM though
Sorry but I'm not currently chasing that one down. I'm sure if it sees 100kPa at WOT then the ECM is happy to leave the throttle where it is. Doesn't seem to affect boosted engines (Cruze and Regal), I'm not sure about other engines using the E39 like the N/A 4 cyl ones.

[ScarabEpic22]

Ross, do you guys get the 2.6L and 2.8L I4 Duramax engines in AU/NZ? I would KILL for one here in the states, I love the 4.2L I6 P10 in my 02 TB but would happily swap a 2.8L Duramax into it.

If they do, wonder how much it would cost to ship stateside...you cant get them here.

[GMPX]

We've had the 'little' Duramax engines for a while, but, they are only available in something similar to the Colorado in the US. Which is fine, but I don't need a vehicle like that.
I just don't understand why Holden won't stick these Diesels in the Commodore, charge an extra 4 or 5 grand if they must. Diesel passenger cars are quite popular here in Australia, but only in European built cars, none of the local stuff has them.
The only downside is, the last time I looked in the engine bay of one of these Diesels the ECM was a Korean made one with no brand name on it, so who knows what it is.
I have no doubt with a tune up one of those 2.8L Duramax's could match a GenIV for torque.

[swingtan]

Hey Ross, I understand about the time needed to find the table, then the on going support etc. However, I'm pretty sure that the throttle limit below 3000 hurts the all important take off and foot to the floor response. I know that in my car, you definitely feel the throttle open up at 3000, the comparison difference is huge. While the MAP remains at 100kPA the only difference is the ETCTP %. If I fudge the torque map to make the ECM calculate less power in that area, I get a little more throttle and it is slightly quicker off the line.

For now I'll concentrate on the rest of the tune ;)

[auspeed]

good read so far gents... Have you had a chance to verify your findings on a dyno as yet?
I have been asked to look at a sidi manual ute, he has put a cat back exhaust on it and from his feed-back that its lost all its bottom end. (which doesn't surprise...)

Will post my findings here as we go, but not expecting too much as the ecotech's were time consuming for little gain in my experiences....

[swingtan]

You can't lose what you never had........

All of these motors in stock form are really lethargic off the line. In the one I'm playing with, You can feel it pick up loads of power as the throttle opens up at 3000RPM, even though the MAP is at 100kPA before that point. I've worked the torque map significantly in the low RPM range to make the ECM think it's not making any power. The result was that the throttle did open up a bit quicker and the car did respond better, but it messes up the rest of the tune badly and not worth playing with in any serious form.

I might have to try some work on a dyno where I can really mess with the torque map and try and get 100% throttle under 3000, but only on the dyno as it'll really make the car dangerous. I'm still looking for a manual diff to try out as well.

Simon.

[auspeed]

Do we no exactly what date they started using the E39 instead of the bosch pcm's?

[GMPX]

If it's the 3.0L, it's an E39 ECM, that engine never used Bosch. If it's the 3.6L, then 'sometime' in 2011, probably with the SeriesII release, but, I could be wrong.

[auspeed]

here is a read.... if it helps with E69 if it is still on the agenda..

14070

[auspeed]

Has there been any progress on tuning the E39 3.0 SIDI, I would guess there would be a few fundamentals to follow by now?

[swingtan]

I guess it depends on what you want to do. I'm not sure how many shops are doing SIDI work so I can only give personal experience form the one that I've worked on.

Simon.

[GMPX]

Has there been any progress on tuning the E39 3.0 SIDI
Unfortunately GM still stick it in cars and it still makes torque in all the wrong places so there's no progress as far as they are concerned :mrgreen:
Sorry I shouldn't be so mean, but take note of my sig, I am talking from experience.

[kangsta]

using good high octane fuel and getting the trans right will go a long way to making it more economical and better to drive. It still isnt the same as the low rev, high torque driving feel of the v8 and supercharged 6 holden motors but it can still be fun ;)

[GMPX]

Considering stock they average around 13.0 - 13.5L/100 city cycle it's not the car to buy if economy is on your mind. Sorry but I feel it's a poorly thought out engine with a dreadful torque curve and therefore it should not be in something that weighs as much as a VE, they should have only offered the 3.6L which at least doesn't have peak torque up near redline.
It's been shown in many tests the FORD 4.0L gets better fuel economy than the 3.0L SIDI. And if the answer is to use 98 Octane to get better performance (which I agree with) it's missed the point of it's original intention, 90% of these will be run on discount supermarket fuel, Holden would have known that.

[swingtan]

The wifes car is on an average of 11.8L/100KM after close on 9,000 KM (she never resets the trip computer). This is with plain old 91RON and doing the average school drop offs and peak hour crawls with the odd long distance trip towing a trailer.

I agree with Ross though, the 3.0 is way underpowered in the big car. It's probably fine if you are only driving in 50KMH back streets, but it's just mot quite there. Sure, running E85 would help, as would 98 or E10, but if you get a fuel card that only allows 91, you are stuck. Tweaking does help, but this little motor really wants a couple of exhaust additions to really make it a good motor. That and the ability to achieve 100% TPS below 3000 RPM.......

[kangsta]

Yep, I agree with you guys. Unfortunately you cant get peak power with these without high grade fuel :(

Wonder how many stroker kits will come out once these things get a bit older

[swingtan]

hint.... Intake cam advance helps a lot ;)

[GMPX]

That and the ability to achieve 100% TPS below 3000 RPM.......
That isn't what is annoying, if it catches itself in the wrong gear even at part throttle, slight incline you have a dead pedal until it kicks down two gears, no torque = busy transmission. The WOT performance is not my biggest complaint, it's the part throttle that is bad too.

[ScarabEpic22]

That isn't what is annoying, if it catches itself in the wrong gear even at part throttle, slight incline you have a dead pedal until it kicks down two gears, no torque = busy transmission. The WOT performance is not my biggest complaint, it's the part throttle that is bad too.

Have you cleaned the shift points up Ross? I did that on an Impala, reduced shift times a little, bumped the pressures, and it made a HUGE difference. The transmission would actually be in the right gear when you wanted it to be, think it had the 3.6 in it though.

[GMPX]

I moved on once I got the Cruze :music_whistling_1:

[ScarabEpic22]

I moved on once I got the Cruze :music_whistling_1:

Lol! Im hoping a Sonic is in my near future, need a little DD because my TBSS is killing me driving to work right now.

[3L SIDI]

The wifes car is on an average of 11.8L/100KM after close on 9,000 KM (she never resets the trip computer). This is with plain old 91RON and doing the average school drop offs and peak hour crawls with the odd long distance trip towing a trailer.

I agree with Ross though, the 3.0 is way underpowered in the big car. It's probably fine if you are only driving in 50KMH back streets, but it's just mot quite there. Sure, running E85 would help, as would 98 or E10, but if you get a fuel card that only allows 91, you are stuck. Tweaking does help, but this little motor really wants a couple of exhaust additions to really make it a good motor. That and the ability to achieve 100% TPS below 3000 RPM.......

^ i have SIDI 3L with custom xforce cat back exhaust plus the below custom SIDI extractors, on my old tune on BP98 it was shooting Quad flames on the race track & drags havnt put my EFI live base files from oz track on yet might try soon


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRsxVBHB59g

15831 15832

15833

GM tech 2 tool is indicating im only getting the standard 60% throttle on that tune running slightly too rich still at the high RPM range hope to soon get it fully dyno tuned with EFI live with the RPM vs TP table for a track tune maybe E85 flex fuel

[Boost]

hint.... Intake cam advance helps a lot ;)

Would like to know more about this please. I thought it would cause overlap reducing overall power.

[swingtan]

OK, a bit of an update on all this....

Firstly, cam timing:

I'm finding that increasing the intake timing sooner helps a fair bit. The timing table don't allow for -ve timing, so I'm assuming at the moment that the setup is a bit like the Honda VVT-I or Rover VVC setup. So there are two main points to consider.


Advancing the Intake cam increases cylinder filling efficiency, but also increases exhaust overlap.
Advancing the exhaust reduces overlap when the intake is advanced.


So the idea here is to advance the exhaust at low / light cruise to reduce pumping losses (maybe), and increase economy. Also have the exhaust and intake advanced at lower RPM high load to both reduce overlap and improve cylinder fill. Ten at higher RPM, bring the exhaust timing back to "0" advance to increase overlap and use the exhaust pulse to help fill the cylinder. Anyway, that's the theory. Get the timing wrong though and you get the exhaust contaminating the intake charge....


Secondly, I get the feeling that the standard injection timing is too late. Especially in the lower RPM / high load cells. Given the valve timing, I'm going to try and advance the timing a bit to see if that helps. Other than that, the last big test showed fairly good results. Averaging 13.5L/100KM while towing a large cage trailer full of holiday gear. It pulled OK for the V6, but I still miss the cammed 6Lt when towing.....

[Boost]

OK, a bit of an update on all this....

Firstly, cam timing:

I'm finding that increasing the intake timing sooner helps a fair bit. The timing table don't allow for -ve timing, so I'm assuming at the moment that the setup is a bit like the Honda VVT-I or Rover VVC setup. So there are two main points to consider.


Advancing the Intake cam increases cylinder filling efficiency, but also increases exhaust overlap.
Advancing the exhaust reduces overlap when the intake is advanced.


So the idea here is to advance the exhaust at low / light cruise to reduce pumping losses (maybe), and increase economy. Also have the exhaust and intake advanced at lower RPM high load to both reduce overlap and improve cylinder fill. Ten at higher RPM, bring the exhaust timing back to "0" advance to increase overlap and use the exhaust pulse to help fill the cylinder. Anyway, that's the theory. Get the timing wrong though and you get the exhaust contaminating the intake charge....


Secondly, I get the feeling that the standard injection timing is too late. Especially in the lower RPM / high load cells. Given the valve timing, I'm going to try and advance the timing a bit to see if that helps. Other than that, the last big test showed fairly good results. Averaging 13.5L/100KM while towing a large cage trailer full of holiday gear. It pulled OK for the V6, but I still miss the cammed 6Lt when towing.....

Thanks for the great info! You know that little engine runs pretty ok in the rental car Impalas here, though not towing anything - just floored everywhere with T/C off...

I imagine on my (very) turbocharged car, there would be some special considerations or is the theory the same?

[GMPX]

Sorry Simon, IMHO it's a horrible engine, well, in something as heavy as a VE Commodore it is. Drive the 3.6L version and feel the difference, 0.6L can't make such a big difference so there is just something fundamentally flawed with the 3.0L. My opinion is maybe a little tainted now too given ours won't make it between services before running out of oil.:ranting:
Not that it matters now with Holden shutting down, but they should have offered the Colorado's 2.8L Diesel in the VE, with 500Nm of torque and better fuel economy that the 3.0L SIDI, why not?
Boost, I'm pretty sure the Impala rental cars are all 3.6L (LFX) SIDI engines, that is why they feel ok and that is the only V6 option Holden should have had for the VE. Unfortunately the LFX was only available on a select few models for us.

[swingtan]

No, I agree. The 3.0 is too small for a heavy VE Wagon. But looking at the exhaust manifold, I'm sure Holden was thinking of twin tubos. With just a small amount of boost I'm sure the motor would be significantly better.
With boost, I'd probably be advancing the exhaust cam a little more and leaving it it advanced all through boost to reduce chances of the intake charge blowing straight out the exhaust. Maybe a little less intake advance is needed as well as a boost will fill the cylinders.

[GMPX]

But looking at the exhaust manifold, I'm sure Holden was thinking of twin tubos.
If they were considering that they could just use the LF3 TT 3.6L from the current Cadillac range (which has got the same single exhaust port), however I think the cost of a TT SIDI V6 would be far greater than the good old 6.0L GenIV so I don't think anyone would consider paying more for a V6 than a V8 in a Commodore even if the potential after mods would be pretty good. I am still surprised Holden dropped the 3.0L in the VE, anyone who has driven one complains about how much they continually struggle to haul the VE's 1,850 kg weight around, surely in their early testing on development vehicles they would have found the same thing and decided the 3.6L should be the only V6 option.
Not only that, in many motoring tests it was found in real world driving (not the BS manufacturers Fuel Econ tests) the FORD 4.0L 6cyl and the Chrysler 300C 3.6L V6 get better economy and are nicer to drive than the GM 3.0L. But this is to be expected when the 3.0L engine makes peak torque at around 5,200 RPM.

[Boost]

With boost, I'd probably be advancing the exhaust cam a little more and leaving it it advanced all through boost to reduce chances of the intake charge blowing straight out the exhaust. Maybe a little less intake advance is needed as well as a boost will fill the cylinders.

Thanks, I will definitely try that!

[Boost]

Boost, I'm pretty sure the Impala rental cars are all 3.6L (LFX) SIDI engines, that is why they feel ok and that is the only V6 option Holden should have had for the VE. Unfortunately the LFX was only available on a select few models for us.

Hmm, I really thought so too. But I am almost sure I remember that I was shocked to see 3.0 on the engine cover of one I drove. Then again that was a while ago.

[3L SIDI]

i couldnt complain about my 3.0L SIDI After dyno tune ross its been hauling ass & its got torque broken another drive shaft & also it chirps between gear changes full open throttle u need traction control turned off other wise it just kicks in every shift point lol

also i it down to 6.8L Per 100km on the highway average speed 110KM/H @ 2,000RPM cause i have 3.70 diff ratio on the 6speed auto

[3L SIDI]

Ross i found that hidden Torque communication wire! left passenger under the seat its a clear almost see through wire hard to see yank it real hard so it disconnets & should be good to roll :secret::secret::secret:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201482582682863&l=6345104653171250020


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201482582682863&l=6345104653171250020

[auspeed]

Does anyone have 12654753 os that they can share for a VF 3.6 sidi ute please?


Salesmake: Holden
Model Year: 2015
Model: VF COMMODORE
Engine: 3.6L (LFX)
Controller: K20 Engine Control Module
Function: Programming