Hang On! The 3 valve isn't dead!

[Powdered Toast Man]

I didnt say it would use less fuel than the atmo 6, I said your estimate figures are exaggerated.

And if the turbo 6 made as much torque as low as the 3V then yes it would use less fuel than what the current turbo terry does (once again I'm not saying it would be more efficient than the atmo 6). I'm not saying the 3V matches the turbos outright numbers but it is a little meatier under 1500rpm, maybe even meatier up to 2000rpm (turbos max torque is 450Nm from 1750rpm to 4000 or something right? And the 3V makes 470Nm at 3750rpm with most of that available by 2000rpm I'd say). Sounds like they have addressed the low down torque in the turbo FG range though going by the road tests I've read. Sounds like a great engine.

Have you never modded a car such as exhaust or intake and noticed that under the exact same driving conditions the engine doesn't need to work as hard because it is more powerful? Thats all I was getting at.

It's all about low down torque when moving heavy cars efficiently as possible, not power. Hence diesels being used in trucks.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by JBomb3000

The the turbo 6 has much more power and torque than the atmo 6 and there for able to move the bulk of the territory easier, so based on your logic it should use less fuel too should it?

No because it's forced induction which generally use more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine. No expert but something to do with low compression or off-boost power or something.

I would compare a 3V in the Territory like a 200ci vs 250ci Crossflow in the XE or Starfire vs 202ci in Commo. The bigger capacity engine only uses marginally more fuel.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sleekism

No because it's forced induction which generally use more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine. No expert but something to do with low compression or off-boost power or something.

I would compare a 3V in the Territory like a 200ci vs 250ci Crossflow in the XE or Starfire vs 202ci in Commo. The bigger capacity engine only uses marginally more fuel.

So thats why my F6 used more fuel than my GT-P, hang on, no it didn't it used less..........

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by flappist

So thats why my F6 used more fuel than my GT-P, hang on, no it didn't it used less..........

Thats why my uncles WRX uses less fuel than his SS. Oh wait the WRX uses more

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Thats why my uncles WRX uses less fuel than his SS. Oh wait the WRX uses more

I compare two vehicles that are virtually identical other than the engine.

You compare two totally different vehicles, RWD to AWD, totally different weights, geometry, transmissions and driving techniques and you think that is valid?

But then you started this thread so obviously your studies have not yet included logic or reasoning.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Thats why my uncles WRX uses less fuel than his SS. Oh wait the WRX uses more

are you steffo's brother..?

[da_ilks]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Thats why my uncles WRX uses less fuel than his SS. Oh wait the WRX uses more

Having owned a Liberty B4 (bigger then a WRX, same motor with another turbo strapped on it) and having owned a couple of 304's and have mates who have owned Gen3's, I can guarantee you the 2L (or the newer 2.5L) would use less fuel if driven the same way... Never seen a V8 average 9.5L over 20,000km's in a variety of conditions :

[AnthonyQLD]

well this thread is going well

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by flappist

I compare two vehicles that are virtually identical other than the engine.

You compare two totally different vehicles, RWD to AWD, totally different weights, geometry, transmissions and driving techniques and you think that is valid?

But then you started this thread so obviously your studies have not yet included logic or reasoning.

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by sleekism

the Barra turbo ... is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

Just let it go!

[Clint Eastwood]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

I can gaurantee you that my 230rwkw 3V guzzle's more fuel than my mate's 290rwkw XR6T,both 5 speed manuals,both driven in a similar manner.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

Unless the cars were driven in the same way on the same roads in the same conditions the comparison will be tainted.
You cannot compare "driving miss daisy" with the aircon off to save fuel against "craig lowndes eat your heart out" "I go through a set of tyres every month".

My GT-P and F6 were work cars. They went to the same places over the same roads and my consumption figures are documented from the fuel cards and log books.
I fueled at the same servos and drove mostly at the same times of day in all types of weather and temperature.

This was 200,000 km over a 5 year period, not just a holiday trip.

I also have had anecdotal access to fuel figures from a large telco with a perchant for blue and orange and their figures for XR6T, XR8 and 3V ghias/fairmonts/XTs etc also show the V8s to eat more fuel on average, so much so that the costs were increased to compensate.

Now I don't know how this stacks up against your

Originally Posted by sleekism

No because it's forced induction which generally use more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine. No expert but something to do with low compression or off-boost power or something.

I would compare a 3V in the Territory like a 200ci vs 250ci Crossflow in the XE or Starfire vs 202ci in Commo. The bigger capacity engine only uses marginally more fuel.

but I suspect you are heading towards the silver medal.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by flappist

Unless the cars were driven in the same way on the same roads in the same conditions the comparison will be tainted.
You cannot compare "driving miss daisy" with the aircon off to save fuel against "craig lowndes eat your heart out" "I go through a set of tyres every month".

My GT-P and F6 were work cars. They went to the same places over the same roads and my consumption figures are documented from the fuel cards and log books.
I fueled at the same servos and drove mostly at the same times of day in all types of weather and temperature.

This was 200,000 km over a 5 year period, not just a holiday trip.

I also have had anecdotal access to fuel figures from a large telco with a perchant for blue and orange and their figures for XR6T, XR8 and 3V ghias/fairmonts/XTs etc also show the V8s to eat more fuel on average, so much so that the costs were increased to compensate.

Now I don't know how this stacks up against your


but I suspect you are heading towards the silver medal.

I will make the point that I would suspect the BOSS will consume more fuel than the 3V.

I only started this thread to make the point that the Ford press release that a "plant closure" ended the availability of the 3V in the Falcon was incorrect. I also believe that not having a V8 option in the G series is a mistake as booming V8 Calais sales show.

I'm sure with a bit of tinkering the 3V could get to an emissions compliant 270kw to match the turbo. Correct me if I'm wrong but the 3v runs the 6cylinder exhaust and a very restrictive intake. I'm sure a simple upgraded intake and exhaust could make a difference not to mention work with the VCT and use of high revving springs, pistons etc. from the BOSS.

[da_ilks]

The problem with the 3V is perception. If you bought one over a XR6 turbo, your using more fuel for no real benefit. If your buying one over a BOSS you were buying the lesser V8.

Basically, the bastards didn't sell, and now that the G6ET is available they'd sell even less in my opinion.

[Burnout]

The 3V is a good Truck engine (including, 1 Tonne Utes, RTV's n' stuff) & that's about it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sleekism

I will make the point that I would suspect the BOSS will consume more fuel than the 3V.

I only started this thread to make the point that the Ford press release that a "plant closure" ended the availability of the 3V in the Falcon was incorrect. I also believe that not having a V8 option in the G series is a mistake as booming V8 Calais sales show.

I'm sure with a bit of tinkering the 3V could get to an emissions compliant 270kw to match the turbo. Correct me if I'm wrong but the 3v runs the 6cylinder exhaust and a very restrictive intake. I'm sure a simple upgraded intake and exhaust could make a difference not to mention work with the VCT and use of high revving springs, pistons etc. from the BOSS.

So far no one has agreed with you.
Various members have shown reasioned logic as to why you are wrong.
Members who own 3Vs have all stated you are wrong.
Ford dropped the engine from their line up and they will have good financial and technical reasons to do so.
You have not shown any reasoning, evidence or logic let alone proofs in any of your posts.

Booming Calais sales??? Like booming Statesman sales helped the LTD/Fairlane G8???

As stated above, just let it go........

[XR6_190]

It still comes down to value, Before the 3V was phased out in BF2 a V8 XT was only about $3,000 less than a XR8, why would anybody have gotten the XT, by the time you option up decent wheels and sports suspension it's the same price as the better equipped XR8. This is the main reason the 3V didn't sell.

Holden are able to sell more V8s because they only use the same engine whether it's a Berlina, a SS or Calais V and that's it, there isn't any turbo V6, there isn't a more powerful V8, Just One real Performance motor. If you add Fords Turbo 6 sales to their V8 sales, they wouldn't be that far behind Holden.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by sleekism

I will make the point that I would suspect the BOSS will consume more fuel than the 3V.

I only started this thread to make the point that the Ford press release that a "plant closure" ended the availability of the 3V in the Falcon was incorrect. I also believe that not having a V8 option in the G series is a mistake as booming V8 Calais sales show.

I'm sure with a bit of tinkering the 3V could get to an emissions compliant 270kw to match the turbo. Correct me if I'm wrong but the 3v runs the 6cylinder exhaust and a very restrictive intake. I'm sure a simple upgraded intake and exhaust could make a difference not to mention work with the VCT and use of high revving springs, pistons etc. from the BOSS.

The reason why Ford dropped the 3V was due to lack of sales. If the 3V was a succsess they would have sourced another V8 to replace it.
When your selling about 26 units a month why would you even bother doing any R&D on the engine when your not gonna get the money back.

[Falc'man]

Uleh Sleek the 3V is a good motor, but as mentioned before there is no demand for it. Instead we have to put up with this G6E Turbo thing that has 533Nm of torque from 2000rpm all the way to 4900. It sounds like a Hoover, BMW M3 and Nissan GTR, all in one. And is pretty bad on fuel economy too, averages about 11L/100km.

The question you should be asking is whether Ford will offer the next V8 in the FG Mk2 G Series. It will (most likely) be the 300kW 5L quadcam, and no bulge to ruin the G6E's elegance, is required (Could you imagine the G6E with a bulge? It just won't blend). Maybe Ford will make it an option beside the TTV6. It would be the same donk as the XR8's and wouldn't hurt Ford if demand was low, one would think.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by XR6_190

It still comes down to value, Before the 3V was phased out in BF2 a V8 XT was only about $3,000 less than a XR8, why would anybody have gotten the XT, by the time you option up decent wheels and sports suspension it's the same price as the better equipped XR8. This is the main reason the 3V didn't sell.

Actually a an XT optioned with the 3V has alloy wheels and sports suspension standard, as well as XR8/XR6T spec brakes (if they were in fact any different to the regular jobbies, I know they are for the BF).

You would have to think that the BFII price reflected Fords desires to reduce the marketability of the V8 option as they were discontinuing it. When the BA first came out there would have been more like $7,000 between a 3V XT and an XR8 but the new price of the XR8 dropped about 5 grand over the years.

Can't disagree with the rest of your post, it's spot on I'd say.

[schnoods]

But did they get an LSD??

I know a few G220 fairlanes equipped with the 3 valver didnt get the lsd, a world of difference in my opinoin, especially with all that torque.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I believe an LSD was an option. But no mine doesnt have one, or traction control.

Just makes driving more fun

[Clint Eastwood]

As far as I know lsd wasnt an option.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Uleh Sleek the 3V is a good motor, but as mentioned before there is no demand for it. Instead we have to put up with this G6E Turbo thing that has 533Nm of torque from 2000rpm all the way to 4900. It sounds like a Hoover, BMW M3 and Nissan GTR, all in one. And is pretty bad on fuel economy too, averages about 11L/100km.

The question you should be asking is whether Ford will offer the next V8 in the FG Mk2 G Series. It will (most likely) be the 300kW 5L quadcam, and no bulge to ruin the G6E's elegance, is required (Could you imagine the G6E with a bulge? It just won't blend). Maybe Ford will make it an option beside the TTV6. It would be the same donk as the XR8's and wouldn't hurt Ford if demand was low, one would think.

Or more intersting what if instead of getting the 5.0L quadcam motor we get the 6.2L SOHC motor with a tasty 317kw and 576nm of torque.

Then all FPV have to do is develop a quadcam head for the 6.2L and churn out a neat 351kw and apply a nostalgic "BOSS 351" hood decal.

Only problem is that from what I have heard the 6.2L is an even bigger monstrosity than the 5.4L which may create some problems (anyone know if the FG has bigger underbonnet space than BA/BF?).

Myabe Ford will use the 300kw 5.0L for the G-series and push a "high-tech", "european" angle and use the 6.2L for XR8/GT???

It's a shame Ford never shoehorned the BOSS motor into the Fairlane. I don't know what it is like in other towns but suprisingly a large amount of people are in to doing up V8 Statesmans. I see just as many modified Statesmans as modified SS's.

Shame nobody seems to be doing up V8 Fairlanes :

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Shame nobody seems to be doing up V8 Fairlanes :

Theres at least 2 on these forums, Sourbastard and Poorboy Racer.

If you dont consider PoorBoy Racers Fairlane "done up" then you have much higher standards then me lol

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

As far as I know lsd wasnt an option.

I wasn't sure if it was or not on the earlier series 1 BA. I know it wasn't available later on.

I bought mine second hand and have never done much research on what options were available so it was only an assumption.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Or more intersting what if instead of getting the 5.0L quadcam motor we get the 6.2L SOHC motor with a tasty 317kw and 576nm of torque.

Then all FPV have to do is develop a quadcam head for the 6.2L and churn out a neat 351kw and apply a nostalgic "BOSS 351" hood decal.

If FPV couldn't afford new wheels what chance do they have of finding money to create their own set of 4V heads for a 6.2.

They will surely be going for crate engines in the future as a way to save money on not only R&D costs but by also not needing a Boss production line.

[schnoods]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Or more intersting what if instead of getting the 5.0L quadcam motor we get the 6.2L SOHC motor with a tasty 317kw and 576nm of torque.

Then all FPV have to do is develop a quadcam head for the 6.2L and churn out a neat 351kw and apply a nostalgic "BOSS 351" hood decal.

Only problem is that from what I have heard the 6.2L is an even bigger monstrosity than the 5.4L which may create some problems (anyone know if the FG has bigger underbonnet space than BA/BF?).

Myabe Ford will use the 300kw 5.0L for the G-series and push a "high-tech", "european" angle and use the 6.2L for XR8/GT???

It's a shame Ford never shoehorned the BOSS motor into the Fairlane. I don't know what it is like in other towns but suprisingly a large amount of people are in to doing up V8 Statesmans. I see just as many modified Statesmans as modified SS's.

Shame nobody seems to be doing up V8 Fairlanes :

Developing a quad cam head is like developing a whole new motor and if thats the case, they may want to look at something more versatile and less obese and yet still is potent enough to move a 1800 odd kg car into sub 14 sec passes.

I dont see the boss engine being alive in new models after the FG, unless its an entry level V8, the 3 valver has had its run, on the overseas forums (like corral mustang forums) the 3v and sohc is treated as a joke compared to the windsors and the quad cammers.

Will be interesting, but dont be surprised if something different comes along next model.

[charlie200]

Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man

I wasn't sure if it was or not on the earlier series 1 BA. I know it wasn't available later on.

Mine is a 10/02 and does not have a l.s.d

[punktured]

I've got a series 1 and no LSD, and it came with an alloy tailshaft that did not hold up after an airbox and exhaust :|

I would have like to of seen a v8 G6E but with the value for money with the turbo and the overall lack of go from a stock 3v it's no wonder they didn't sell and the turbo has now taken over.