Loading indicator
News & Reviews
Last 7 Days

by Daniel DeGasperi

The Holden VF Commodore SS V-Series shown this week has a 6.2-litre naturally aspirated V8 engine beneath its bright-orange aluminium bonnet, 0.2L larger than the engine in the outgoing VE Commodore SS and the same engine used in current HSV models.

That means the Holden VF Commodore has the largest engine ever offered in a production Holden, while the VF Commodore weight loss program should also make it the fastest-ever production Holden.

The switch to a larger capacity V8 for the regular Holden range also leaves HSV with supercharging as the only option for its range of high-performance VF Commodores.

Engine details were revealed by Chevrolet at the US launch of the Chevrolet SS, which will run down the same production line as its Holden Commodore SS near-twin in Adelaide from later this year.

The 6.2-litre ‘LS3’ V8 engine (pictured above) is expected to produce 309kW of power and 563Nm of torque in Chevrolet SS guise, according to Chevrolet. That’s fractionally less power than what HSV is currently offering in its VE Commodore-based range – 325kW – but the Chevrolet SS/VF Commodore SS will offer 13Nm more torque.

While Holden has offered Active Fuel Management (AFM) – or cylinder shut-down capability – with its 6.0-litre V8 engine since 2009, HSV has never offered the fuel-saving technology with its 6.2-litre V8.

General Motors, however, has since upgraded the 6.2-litre V8 with ‘flex fuel’ E85 ethanol compatability and AFM, rebadging the motor from LS3 to L99 in the process. In addition to shutting off four of the eight cylinders on light loads, the L99 also gets camshaft phasing technology.

Holden VF Commodore SSV - 1

It is the upgraded L99 engine that Holden will likely use to maximise efficiency, and fulfill its promise to make the VF Commodore more economical than the outgoing VE generation. Currently, the 6.0-litre V8 SS has a claimed fuel consumption of 12.2L/100km, where the 6.2-litre non-AFM-equipped HSV is rated at 13.5L/100km.

Thanks to an expected weight loss program of up to 100kg with the VF Commodore range, the 6.2-litre VF SS should drop its economy rating to under 12L/100km, despite the increased capacity.

The news that the Chevrolet SS/VF Commodore SS will use a 6.2-litre V8 all but confirms the rumour that HSV will use a supercharged V8 engine of the same capacity.

Chevrolet SS - 17

Badged LSA, the GM 6.2-litre V8 (pictured top) gets an Eaton four-lobe-rotor supercharger to produce 432kW of power and 754Nm of torque in the Chevrolet Camaro ZL1, and only slightly less in the Chevrolet CTS-V. It is unlikely, though, that HSV will stump up for the ‘hero’ specification of that engine, called the LS9, which is the most powerful GM production engine ever.

Together with the Holden VF Commodore weight loss program, the newly supercharged range of HSV models should be the fastest-ever Holden production cars,  even with the lower outputs of the LSA supercharged V8 engine. A sub-4.5 second 0-100km/h would be required to make the HSV faster than its supercharged V8 arch rival from Ford, the FPV GT RSPEC.

In the ongoing power war with FPV, the HSV range has been bested in the past two years, with the supercharged range of Ford Falcon models producing up to 335kW and 570Nm – 10kW and 25Nm more than the HSV Clubsport, Senator and GTS.

Come the HSV VF Commodore, the FPV power advantage will be gone.


    %$^%^ prIMO &*(


    • horsie

      true . l love pushrods so much. i want to marry them. 
      Don’t even get me started on rockers

      • $29896495

        Have you ever seen a duller looking car? That fuel consumption, my god!

        • Darryl

          My God is OK with that fuel consumption, if yours isn’t then the letter V and the number 8 in combination are not for you. You can always go electric. That silver colour does it no favours. The Malibu would be a candidate for a duller looking car, coming to your Holden dealer soon.

          • $29896495

            They look the same. See below

        • LC

           You can always buy a Prius…

          • $29896495

            It’s supposed to have fuel saving tech. What would it be like if those eight cylinders ran all the time.

          • LC

             Well they won’t, so what’s the issue?

          • $29896495

            The point is that economy is non existent, with fuel saving measures.

          • ShaneMcGrath

            These are “performance” cars not shopping cars, What’s your point? You don’t buy a powerful V8 if all you want is a commute car to and from work to save on petrol. These fuel saving modes are just a bonus but those of us who buy these cars honestly don’t give 2 shits about spending an extra $20 a week in petrol.

          • LC

            Fuel saving measures it just happens to have.


          • $29896495

            Again the point is it is supposed to have measures which make it run on 4 cylinders, so in theory should produce 4 cylinder economy. Yet the figures are V8 numbers. Get it!

          • Joe Bloggs

            Even at 4 cylinders it is still a 3.1 litre plus it doesn’t run on 4 ALL the time. Pretty basic really.

          • Daniel O’Connell

            In theory it ” shouldn’t ” I think is the word your after. When it does transfer into 4cyl mode the other 4 cylinders don’t just magically disconnect themselves, they are still operating/moving just as fast as the other 4 power producing cylinders just without and fuel supply (put simple), therefore making it much less efficient then a conventional 4 cylinder engine.

          • $29896495

            You’re blowing your own argument out of the water. It’s meant to have 4 cylinder economy. That’s why it’s there. Simple. Only using 4 cylinders worth of fuel, get it.

          • GaLuburt

            Yes we get it. On The freeway under no load it can get 5 cylinder economy.

        • Michelle

          you add nothing to any of the following discussion, go comment on something that you actually like

          • $29896495

            As I wrote before, who made you king of the world? What about a contribution yourself, rather than just being mindlessly contrary.

        • ShaneMcGrath

          Don’t even bother about fuel consumption if you think those little 4 cylinder sports car turbo’s are any better then think again!
          As soon as you put your foot down the fuel  consumption is worse than a V8. My friends modified WRX has to fill up more than once a week and that’s just urban driving. Of course if you are talking about some gutless 4 cylinder small car “without” turbo then sure you can say my god the fuel consumption of this V8.
          You are talking about fuel consumption on a performance car?
          It’s not a Prius, it’s an SS(Super Sport) with a huge engine that is one of the best (LSx series engines) for mods, I even see little import cars that have been modified, Little engine ripped out and an LS1 put in with supercharger or turbo kit, And boy is that fun.

        • Adam

          Yeah, that fuel consumption is good!

          My mate has a VZ SS Crewman (one of the last series that got the L98 engine), and we just towed another car across Australia with it. 14L/100 average, and 12.4L/100 at night when the air was cold. Towing fine in 6th gear at 1450rpm. This was without VVT and without AFM. This engine and car, newer and lighter is going to be fantastic. The pushrods and number of valves dont matter, its got the numbers we want, power, torque and economy and with this configuration. Its a beast!

        • ShaneMcGrath

          My god all right in the opposite way, If VF SS-V(my next car) can get fuel consumption under 12l/100 I am impressed. A lot of underpowered 4cylinder SUV’s out there get those figures in real world driving, So don’t knock these figures from a V8 offering twice the power and a more fun ride!

          • Rowan Clarke

            swap ya, i have a 304 fuel injected v8 5 litre, i get roughly 15 litres to the 100/km, so i think they have done well considering they are doubling my power and prob using less fuel

          • ShaneMcGrath

            Exactly, My VY SS gets around 15.7L/100 in urban driving and drops way down on freeway in 6th gear but hardly ever get on freeway to use 6th gear. These new VF’s will be a lot better on fuel with added power to boot!

      • Homer

        If Pushrod is the way to go then Porshe, Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW engineers must be stupid and GM/Holden are smarter than them. Oh wait a minute, all F1 racing teams are wrong too. Red Bull, Mc Laren, Lotus do not us pushrods. 

        • Chad

          The market Porsche Merc etc is aiming for is completly different to what GM is aiming for. GM is for the average person those cars are for high end and if push rods were so bad i guess the most powerful internal combustion engines in the world would have all this hi tec stuff… wait they dont 2 valves per cylinder and pushrods. Push rod engines make enough power for what GM is aiming for and they are pretty much bullet proof, is there really that much of a need to change if its working for you exaclty how you want it to???? lets not forget an F1 car weighs only a big more than some motorcycles on the road light weight typically = high revs, hardly the thing GM is chasing

          • Chad

            *bit more*

          • $29896495

            Might I remind of Ford. Also Toyota, Nissan,etc etc

          • Chad

            Toyota and Nissan V8s drink like fish, are the fords really  any better

          • $29896495

            What’s fuel consumption got to do with your original comment. I was talking about main stream double over head cm V8s as were you. I had a look at Aurion, it’s in the 9 that’s as much as 4 litres difference and reasonable.

          • mundeen the man mundeen

             its true, the main reason they use overhead cam and not pushrod is because at 12rpm you would get huge valve bounce issues, push rod works best in low reving high torque motors, not high reving low torque motors

          • issabendeck1

            brilliant coment and its called EFFICIENCY thats why gm have keept this old school engines , coz they do more for less , not DOHC doing less for more RPM

        • DoubleBlue

           BRILLIANT !

        • Rick

          Just remember top fuel drag cars are the most powerful cars in the world and guess what . they use pushrods and 2 valves per cylinder . Actually all top level drag cars do

          • $29896495

            What, those things are alight for maybe 30 seconds at a time. They need them simple because they keep blowing up.

          • Rick

            Un reliable , explain NASCAR engines still pushrod / 2 valves 850+hp and run at 8000+rpm for the race and “are considered in the racing world to be some of the most reliable race engines ever built ” Wikipedia

          • $29896495

            Gees champ, way to read something and jump to the  wrong conclusion. Looks like you are to emotionally involved. In any case, I wasn’t talking NASCARs. I’m not a fan of those either. Does a NASCAR run 30 secs at a time? No don’t think so.

        • dv8

          am curious, why do you think push rod is rubbish, what’s wrong with simpler
          lighter engine that’s been perfected of years of r & d, just because it isn’t
          considered State of the art, doesn’t mean it isn’t good, and do you think your Euros
          producing this sort power has better fuel economy, there generally allot worst
          as they need to rev, 


          by this theory you wouldn’t by a h gate manual, its considered old technology
          by f1, even V8 supercars hasn’t used a traditional manual in years, 


          the car, can’t wait for the HSV and its great to see Australian designed and
          built taking on the world

        • Wayme

          My workmates VE SS ute has pushrods and with 640 horsepower at the wheels he embarrasses BMW, Merc, Porsche drivers.

        • Brentara

          so i take it you have a porshe or a ferrari or a mercedes or even a beemer then. i got a v8 vess and drive it every day, love it

        • Daniel O’Connell

          It may be old, but it works and it works well. I grantee it will outlast any modern small displacement high output turbocharged engine form any European manufacturer. And have you seen the performance ability of these LS V8’s? 450rwkw with stock internals and turbo kit easy!

        • Rowan Clarke

          hmmmm there pushrods are keeping up with the new ford engines, which are actually bmw designed, with quad cams, and the ls2 and ls3 make more power…….so u r right, bmw engineers are STUPID lol

    • DoubleBlue

      If you think its good with “pushrods” DAVIDZ just imagine how much better it would be with DOHC & 4 valves with hemi combustion chambers. More POWER more TORQUE lower EMISSIONS & using even LESS fuel.!!

      • Acfsambo7

        HEMI engines cannot have 4 valves.

      • JoeR_AUS

        and more expensive to make as well…

        I drove a LS7 Z06 idles at 700rpm and pulls to 7200rpm and if you did not know it you would never know whats under the rocker covers

      • LeStori

         Having driven the same car with the same engine but one with a 2.0 litre engine with 2 valves per cylinder and the other with 4 valves per cylinder the main differences was the 2 valve engine had much more bottom end and the 4 valve engine more top end. Off the line is a ‘street”  drag the 2 valver beat the 4 valver up to around 80 kph….

      • Dv8

        just like the ford Boss motor was, oh hang it, it was slower, heavier and thirstier,

        Try some facts

      • Wayme

        You forgot more maintenance, more moving parts resulting in more wear for no gains really.

    • LeStori

      The advantages of a push rod engine is lower engine profile compared with overhead cam. This means the car can have a much lower bonnet line. For large capcity engines it is pointless going to overhead cams unless you want a revier, more expensive engine. A 6.2 litre engine with pushrods will loose oyur licence just as quickly as a 6.2 litre engine with over head cams…

    • steddy eddy

       long live the V8! and it looks no more dull than any german shit box, and i couldnt give a toss about fuel economy, lol! bring it on!

    • The Dude

      I want to know where the heck direct-injection is?

    • Brian Hunt

      Pushrods belong to the same era as drum brakes,but were exciting news in 1955.

  • itsme

    I remember all the hsv people baging fpv for using supercharger. And all fan boys on these sites saying hairdrier needs blower to be good and this and that.Well looks like there following suit I wonder what all hsv supporters will say now. Will they bag it or all of a sudden wow this is good we using blower now ????

    • Dave W

      Fanboys are a funny bunch. In some ways, their behaviour mimics that of those religious fanatics. If other people do it, there’s gotta be something wrong with it, but if they do it, it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

      With that in mind, I’d say they’ll suddenly start seeing the advantage in forced induction.

      • JoeR_AUS

        No just get a LS7

    • Zaccy16

      they will like it but still bag out the much better coyote supercharged 335

      • $29896495

        Funny, they rip the polo for having a supercharger. This will be interesting.

        • gtrxuone

          Don’t quiet see your point there.Vw recalled 7840 twincharged engines.Thoes where offical Vw figures from DR Karl Gearling.
          Also that was only dated to June25 2011 when the article was published.How many since then.25℅ of recalled engines required replacement.

          • $29896495

            You just made my point. Personally I’m not into blown motors, but it may be the way of the future.

          • Brendan Cooke

            Just a question huwtm… Do you like anything? Anything at all. You have basically up to this point of the comments criticised every car maker and motor AND TYPE. Pushrods are more reliable, no timing chains to rip to shreds and I have been stranded like this in a falcon in the past, My 447rwkw 06 GTS dropped the push rods on cylinder 1 and I could still limp it off the road into a safe tow truck pickup area. I know what I would proffer to have fail. As for fuel consumption, Until a perpetual electric motor is released that can match 350KW, I think everyone should stop whining about fuel use. My partners FG XR6 averages about 8.7L/100k on a trip, my fathers BMW 535i averages the same around town (both are DOHC so wtf is the problem with the Ford), My brothers 08 SSV averages 8.2L/100k that’s pushrod V8 auto and better on a trip then a DOHC six cylinder.

            In my honest opinion, fuel consumption is about image, if you are concerned about how much fuel your car uses, then you don’t buy a big V8 to start with. You go and get something that people expect to be economical like a BMW 325d or something. and you certainly don’t get a OHC because it “Revs higher” or its “more economical” Higher revs mean more fuel usage.

            Anyway, that is my rant over.


          • Jared Tate

            8.2l/100km with a ssv
            wtf i can’t even get that i get 17.5 and havent seen below that

      • Chad

        i think the 5.0L Coyote is an absolute cracker of an engine just like fords turbo 6 and so many of fords engines these days but their 5.4 was a piece of crap, all this OHC tech etc and the gen 3 5.7 was push rod and was way better

    • Harold

      hsv have been putting supercharger,s on there engine’s longer than ford..
       Just tick the right box

      • birdie

        so when was that?????? ,please enlighten me

        • Karl Sass

          XU6 in the late 90’s.

        • Harold

          apart from the xu6 You have been able to tick the box for a supercharger since before ford had supercharger,s

    • Dv8

      i am a fanatic Holden support, and i have always thought what ford did was awesome, i wish holden would Twin turbo the v6, i would buy one the day they were released, but i think the thing is, Ford blown the V8 and just had more output than the HSV, when this motor comes out there is no comparison, 100kw more and torque isnt even in the same comparison, 


    I want to know why we miss out on the Corvette 5.5L GEN5, once again with nice simple bulletproof pushrods

    • 75

      What 5.5 litre are you talking about? The new C7 Corvette has a 6.2 litre LT1.
      Also, Caradvice, Camaro has an LSA supercharged engine in the ZL1, not the C6 ZR1’s LS9.

      • Daniel DeGasperi

        Thanks 75, ZR1 was a typo meant to read Camaro ZL1 with the LSA supercharged V8.

    • $29896495

      Don’t worry, they all have push rods. Don’t want to move into the 21 st century yet. To shocking.

    • DoubleBlue

      “Bulletproof” pushrods Hu. EVER other Car Manufacture has “Bulletproof” DOHC & 4 valves.!

  • Dave W

    As Jeremy Clarkson would put it… “MOOOREEE POOOWEEERRR!!!”

  • Darryl

    Sure about all this, CA? Another site said Chevrolet revealed the 6.2L V8 that would be in the Chevy SS, and that Holden is yet to reveal it’s V8, but is expected to continue with the current 6.0L 270KW one. I hope you’re right of course.

    • Misguided

      CA, wrong again. Hope you come cleen.

  • Slick-slim87

    They initially planed to use a 5.5 but reversed the decision, and kept the 6.2 capacity.

    • Golfmother

      Yer 6.2 is bigger than a 5.5inch , you get my drift girls .

    • Declan Collins

      5.5l capacity was actually never planned. In the corvette race car, rules said you cant have a bigger capacity then 5.5l in the race series, hence they made a 5.5l engine. It was never intended for a production engine.

      • DAVIDZ

        NO, WRONG!

        Here is the REAL REASON the motor got punched out to 6.2:

        “While previous speculation had the new small block pegged at 5.5-liters, GM says they went with a larger 6.2-liter displacement because of the advantages of cylinder deactivation, which effectively has the LT1 operating as a 3.1-liter V4 under lighter loads. If GM had made the engine’s displacement smaller, the V4 mode wouldn’t have provided as much power, and thus drivers wouldn’t have the engine operating in cylinder deactivation mode as often in daily driving. By operating in full-on V8 mode more often, GM would have negated the efficiency benefits of going with a €smaller displacement.”

        God bless Google and GM Media website

        • $29896495

          Yes true – but why the bad economy?

        • Declan Collins

          Yeah Gm says SPECULATION pegged the engine at 5.5l. it was never them.

  • Nerdbustermd

    So much wrong info here, but this ‘is’ caradvice after all. For starters, the LSA is used in the Camaro ZL1. The ZR1 is a Corvette.

    • Daniel DeGasperi

      Nerdbusterman, the ZR1 was a typo, as the linked article shows it should read ZL1.

  • Ted

    A good car and equally good engine !

    • Golfmother

      YER  a better bogans car , not , nice juice sucker , better get a tanker .

      • Daniel D

        Golfmother you are Das Auto Bogan. 

        • Paradigm

          lol u get alot of das auto geeks and Mugan power freaks in forums talking about their highly strung buzz boxes requiring awd and boost to make unusable torque curves and bad fuel economy

    • DoubleBlue

       That comment is about as intelligent as your name Ted.! lol.

      • LC

        Which in turn was a more of an intelligent comment than yours, DoubleBlue, you moron.

        See? I can call people names too. It’s not hard.

        • DoubleBlue

           Hey what are you suggesting LC, that “Ted” is not an intelligent name.?

  • Save It For The Track

    considering how low the psi is set on the FPV’s, there is plenty of skope for a power increase in FPV’s  if HSV goes supercharged.

    • Hung Low

      400kw from just a tune on the lower power GS shows the potential within this engine. Remember these engines aren’t ever inter cooled.

      • Hung Low

        *even intercooled*

    • Daniel D

      The problem for Ford isn’t tweaking the power output, its whether the rest of the driveline can support it and stay reliable doing it,

      Frankly more power for Falcon is just a number. The car doesn’t need it.

      • Robin_Graves

        And the crummydore does?

        • $29896495

          neither do in reality.

  • Goodfa

    If the VF SS has the L99 engine I think HSV will pull a surprise and have the LT1 in it won it is released.

    • DoubleBlue

       Gee you’ll be “wetting” your pants over that one.!

  • Car Fanatic

    It’ll still handle like a drunken Bogan. Get some real engineers onto it

    • Car Fanatic

      My sister loves it

  • \//

    Anyone who thinks OHC is new tech hasn’t read their history books. Pushrod V8s have a number of advantages over OHC, one being the “packaging”. Compare the size of Fords 5.0 to GMs 6.2. The 5.0 looks like a big block! Push rods also avoid the very long timing chain or belt. And if they are achieving if less than 12l/100km from a 6.2l then who needs OHC.

    • Robin_Graves

      Side valves have many advantages over OHV.  Even lower profile than pushrods, lower center of gravity and you can get spares from Briggs & Stratton.  When the heads warp you can get some BBQ plate and drill some holes in it for the spark plugs. NOICE!  If you put a magneto on it and heat the heads up with some bellows and coal you can run it on moonshine!  Yeeee Hawww!

      • DoubleBlue

         BRILLIANT Robin-Graves & that was a GOOD ONE too Homer.
        Seriously “these” negative IQ “push_rod OHV” lot sure need a little guidance.! lol!

    • Homer

      Take a lesson from Porsche dude. OHV?? you must be stubborn. No F1 team uses pushrod, never. What does that tell you??

      • Declan Collins

        It tells me F1 racers want small capacity engines that can rev really high and sound like a mosquito. Those cars are so light they don’t need the down low torque..

        A better comparison of the engines would be the GT2 series in America. In this class you have pushrod Corvettes going head to head with DOHC Ferraris and the like. Guess who wins? Both, I think Corvette team actually wins more? The Pushrod is a just as viable alternative.

      • DAVIDZ




      • Guest

        What lesson? Take a lesson from Porsche in history and you’ll see they used whatever was most practical for a given engine. Some engines were overhead cam, while other engines built later on were overhead valve arrangement.

        Porsche also built engines to a budget – and nearly always with an eye on dual uses. Such as the 908 engine being a type 916 with two more cylinders for 355hp at 8500rpm (Monza).

        And it didn’t use technology for the sake of having it. There had to be a tangible benefit for it. The four cam Carrera engines had great performance – but they were ultimately a pain to live with – noisy and they fouled their spark plugs regularly. The 911 ended up going from a type 745 flat 6 to the overhead cam dry sump type 901, while the 912 had a pushrod engine of type 616/36.

      • Stimp

         Does Ford export their high performance v8’s to the world?

    • Monster Fgturbo

      You are dreaming mate, tell me which commodore uses 12,2L/100. lmfao no V8 will use less than 13 nd if you believe those numbers than you are moron to boot. Also your v6 will use more than that so if you think new one will use less than 12L well son you are dreaming.

      • Rob

        My VE SSV Wagon averages 11l/100, 7-8l/100 on the freeway. PLENTY of AFM V8s average low fuel consumption, the technology makes the engines not only supremely powerful but exceptionally economical on fuel too. This new 6.2 will be just as frugal with even more power. Sensational.

      • Wayme

        My VE SSV Redline uses 9.5 on the highway doing 120kph, less if I sit on 110.

  • Garry Whopper

    I’m a loser

  • Princess

    Pushrods are underrated. DOHC are overrated. Just read the Lexus ISF V8 5.0L

    Takaaki Kimura, who ran the Yamaha’s F1 engine program, did most of the development on the IS-F’s 5.0L V8 powerplant.

    It’s an all-alloy quad-cam, 32-valve with high-flow cylinder heads, dual VVT-I with electric VVT-iE inlet camshaft actuation, titanium inlet valves, high-lift camshafts, dual D-4S fuel injection, dual intake air system, tuned length surge tank, dual titanium intake tract, magnesium quad-cam covers and stainless steel dual exhaust system. It’s high tech.

    Pushrod is good and simple

    • Hung Low

      You just made pushrods look even more antique not simple, with that comment.

      • JoeR_AUS

        Its all about price.

        Lets see Toyota package there engine into a car for around 40k…

    • Homer

      yes that’s because you have an a*rh**d!! It may be simple but it ain’t good. Porsche, Ferrari, Merc etc don’t use pushrod for a reason!!

      • DAVIDZ


        = B R O C H U R E HORSPOWER


        • DoubleBlue

           Now Now don’t get too upset DAVIDZ just cause YOU& big GM are WRONG & the rest of the Automotive World is RIGHT.

          • JoeR_AUS

            The rest of the world, except for Ford, charge for it. No free Lunch.

      • JoeR_AUS


        Porsche, Ferrari and Merc compared to what?

    • Chad

      Well its easy to understand GM;s thoughts on all of this, the engine is much smaller much less moving parts, possibly lighter and extreamly easy to work on. just check out the 2 examples 2010 HSV GTS and a 2010 mercedes E63 AMG both 6.2L

      GTS 325KW, 550NM, 13.5L/100km
      E63 386KW, 630NM, 12.7L/100km

      so power and torque figures are 10% or so less and fuel consumption not a lot in it really and the HSV can run on standard ULP, saving around 10c/L, so if u look at it all this high tech expensive to fix stuff is it really worth it??

      • DAVIDZ

        New GEN5 V8

        335kW, 610Nm, 9.05L/100km

        GTS 325KW, 550NM, 13.5L/100kmE63  386KW, 630NM, 12.7L/100km

        • Chad

          Another thing to consider is Merc, Ferrari,Porsche etc their V8’s are not made for the common market (any of these cars are 150k plus) Gm’s engines are not aimed at these expensive markets, they are aimed so the average Jo car have a bullet proof, reasonably hi power, hi torque engine to push a reasonable big car around reasonably fast, do they do it? yes. Well done GM you are one of only 2 manufactures in the world that make a powerful RWD car that pretty much everyone can afford

      • $29896495

        Actually I believe the reason was they couldn’t afford to develop a new engine so went with a modification.

        • Chad

          a multi billion dollar company that has just designed a lot of new engines from just over 1L to 3.6L with the latest tech and cant afford to develope a new V8????? seriously?

        • DoubleBlue

           Sounds true, well isn’t GM still paying back THAT bankruptcy load to the USA Govt.!

          • Golfschwein

            That’s been repaid long ago. Easy to look it up.

          • JoeR_AUS

            GM went bankrupt on Monday, June 8, 2009 and paid back its loan to the US government on April 21, 2010.

  • Whitecar

    I love my Mitsubishi Magna AWD. With its lumpy 3.5 supercharged twin screw.

  • Boogsy1

    Is that the vf ssv? Or ss? Sorry…but that is a huge bland design. The calais vf looks like the ss… Rather go luxury than sporty for the vf series. But the ve id go the ssv. Vf Interior is awesome. Exterior of the vf ss…… Don’t know spending 50000 on it… Maybe get a hsv ve instead. Hopefully the hsv vf will be a sexy car. Imagine the ssv vf in white….. Looks like an omega…

  • Daniel D

    I think it is highly improbable that Holden will switch to the LS3 for the SS-V at launch. They have no reason to and its not consistent with how Holden has historically updated their models. Building LS3 and L98 equipped SS Commodores on the same line is  not a logisitical problem for them as they do it now. There will be enough customers keen to upgrade just for the tech and new look that adding the new engine would unnecessary.

    I would say expect L98 this year. Next year when the car is not so fresh and the new Falcon is about to be launched, I would expect Holden to announce the LS3 is going in then.

    As for supercharging the HSV range. Its entirely possible if HSV decide the cost of putting a LT1 or something similar doesn’t add up. Delaying the launch of the LS3 in the SS will give them some breathing room to complete any testing for the supercharger application.

    Whatever way you look at it, Holdens lineup is going to give Ford some sleepless nights, I can’t imagine for a minute that given Falcon sales volume, Ford have plans to spend anything like the money Holden have spent. 

    As for the tired pushrod jokes. GM like the pushrod design for packaging reasons as it fits a sports car like the Corvette and lowers the center of gravity. It is also generally lighter and deliver similar or better fuel economy to other designs. They have also had a lot of experience with that engine design and they make competitive engines.

    A simple read of some documentation and articles about GM’s history with the pushod design and listening to the AutoBlog podcast with the GM engineer discussing the reasons the like it will make you informed. Presuming of course that being informed is of any interest to Holdens many critics on here.

    Oh and I don’t own a Holden and never have. Just don’t bag cars because my collegues will think I am cool or I am trying to justify paying over the mark for a small euro, that at some level I know I was ripped off buying, but my ego won’t let me do otherwise.

    • The Real Wile E

      6.2L and the fuel consumption that goes with it does not seem to be a step in the right direction.So what that it has improved,it was heavy to start with.
      But then again the Americans have never been too concerned about excess.
      And while the relative good times roll lots will jump on board.
      Should another fuel crisis strike us these engines will  be relegated to Jurassic Park.
      Until then you can’t blame people for grabbing em and melten those tyres cause it ain’t gonna last forever.


      • JoeR_AUS

        Heard of DI, AFM & VVT? 

        The 6.2l was choosen as quote “for substained fuel saving deactivation with Active Fuel Management, based on car weight and engine torque output. In other word a smaller engine like a 5.5L or smaller would not cut into four cylinder mode for any appreciable length of time”, hence the smaller engine would run as 8 cylinder not 4.

        • $29896495

          So why does it suck 12L/100?

          • JoeR_AUS

            Well, the goal was: To build the LT1 version of this engine that would power the Corvette to a 0-100km in under 4 secs with improved fuel consumption compared to the previous engine.

        • Robin_Graves

          AFM is marketing B.S. that doesnt work in real life.  You still have pumping losses and friction in the ‘switched off’ cylinders.  Like I’ve said before, DI on a 2 valve pushrod engine is like putting lipstick on a gorilla.  And VVT on a single cam engine changes the phasing of the inlet and exhaust cams together not independendtly like a DOHC engine.  AU Falcons (VCT) had that in 1998 and it does nothing for fuel economy.

          • JoeR_AUS

            Self pointed expert. Get the real facts here:

            Direct fuel injection—the first such application for a pushrod gasoline engine—is the big news. This enables raising the compression ratio from 10.7 to 11.5:1, which pays significant dividends in power, torque, and fuel efficiency. (GM limited the jump in compression in part because of a desire to maintain the Corvette’s traditional ‘premium fuel recommended but not required’ rating.) In addition, the LT1 adopts two technologies well proven on the Gen IV V-8 and other GM engines: continuously variable valve timing (VVT) and Active Fuel Management, the latter of which is GM code for shutting down half of the cylinders at times to curb consumption.GM Powertrain engineers acknowledged investigating the cam-in-cam VVT approach successfully used in the Viper V-10; they discovered that one simple cam phaser shifting both intake and exhaust valve events in lockstep delivered 80 percent of the more complicated approach’s benefits, while saving cost and overall engine length.The heart of the LT1 is a new advanced combustion system that GM spent two full years developing, using their sharpest minds and best analysis tools. Some six million hours of computational analysis (out of the 10 million total hours invested in the whole engine design) were focused on evaluating 75 different combustion chamber configurations. Splaying the valves at an included angle of five degrees, configuring the intake ports with a slight twist, and adding a sculpted surface to each piston top are the most obvious features. Locating the spark plug and six-hole injector and packing in a 54-mm (2.13-inch) intake valve and a 40.4-mm (1.59-inch) exhaust valve inside a 103-mm (4.06-inch) bore were no small feats. Fuel-injection equipment—lines, pump, pressure regulator, injectors—is buried deep in the valley of the engine and covered with a thick insulation blanket to minimize noise transmission.

          • Robin_Graves

            More marketing B.S. from government motors.  Lipstick on a gorilla, polishing a turd, pushrods are antique.  Why bother putting all that R&D into something that’s fundamentally flawed?  They wouldn’t have had to try and make some fancy sleeved cam setup if they just went to DOHC.

      • Chad

        kinda like last time we had a fuel crisis in 2006-2008 around then when everyone was complaining about fuel prices the i could be wrong, but im sure i read an article that said while V6 commodore sales were declining the V8 sales were actually increasing

        • The Real Wile E

          Fuel crisis in 2006 to 2008?

          You are kidding me.

          The last fuel crisis was in 79 and the biggy was in 73 when Americans stopped driving their big V8s.

          Don’t count on history not repeating itself.

    • Robin_Graves

      “GM like the pushrod design for packaging reasons as it fits a sports car like the Corvette and lowers the centre of gravity. It is also generally lighter and deliver similar or better fuel economy to other designs” 
      Are you for real?  What are we talking about here, 5kg at the most shifted 20cm higher?  It’s got nothing to do with centre of gravity and all to do with saving money.  It also allows them to sell lots of crate motors to hotrodders etc who want to be able to modify their engines easily.  Valve train inertia is the major downfall of a pushrod engine, along with lower volumetric efficiency due to lower intake charge velocity and poor swirl effect with only two large valves.  The camshaft profile needs to be compromised to stop valve bounce and the valve springs need to be heavier balanced off with higher valve lift to compensate, not an ideal situation.

      Any notion of 2 valve pushrod engine having superior fuel economy is purely absurd.  Face it, its a cheap engine that has a huge aftermarket following, that’s why its still here.

      • JoeR_AUS

        see the previous reply to The Real Wile E

        also, the number of valves is a issue on smaller engines as the bore size is smaller. Therefore a cylinder thats 0.5L can only fit small valves but a cylinder thats .77L can fit 2 large valves were the small engine would need 4. Also, dont forget with DI you are only passing air into the combustion chamber not fuel, a very big difference. Yes its cheaper esp when you produce engines in the millions plus the engine is more compact which makes it easier to package into multiple cars.

        • Robin_Graves

          What a load of waffle.  A yamaha 250cc 4 cyl motorbike had 20 Valves (5 per cylinder) You can fit more valve area in with multi valves, the combustion chamber surface is nearly all valve head.  Large 2 valve heads have very low intake charge velocity at low RPM so people saying that 2V engines pull better at lower RPM is purely because it has a smaller cam and is tuned to make low RPM torque.

          • JoeR_AUS

            Thanks for agreeing with me!

            Robin. I will have my waffles with cream and golden syrup.

      • Pro346

        and that huge aftermarket following is what makes it great! that’s the exact reason no one bothers with new ford v8s now

        • Robin_Graves

          Plenty of people play around with ‘new’ Ford V8’s – but a lot more people play around with Chev V8’s because they are basic and it’s easy to tinker. That’s fine they have their place in the market but people trying to argue that pushrod are somehow equal or superior to DOHC have rocks in their head.  An engine is a pump and the higher the volumetric efficiency and BMEP then the more power it makes.  All chev do is make the engine bigger, they dont keep up with the best engineering. Also if you do end up throwing a rod or something catastrophic then a new crate motor can be picked up cheaply whereas buying a replacement Coyote/Miami would be expensive.

          • JoeR_AUS

            Partly to do with Chevy having a continuous lines of V8 engines which Ford did not.

            Nobody is arguing here, DOHC is continually mention by some for there own agenda but GM set its goals and achieved them without using DOHC. From the engineering point of view both systems have plus and minus, there is no free ride.

      • Karl Sass

        The push rod design would be a lot more than 5 kgs lighter, just the shorter timing alone chain would be close to that. Look at the change from the 3.8 ecotec to the 3.6 alloytec (push rod to DOHC). Despite downsizing and going from an cast iron block to an all alloy set up, it was only 10 kg lighter. The block alone should’ve been worth 40+kg weight saving, all gobbled up by the DOHC set up.

        The push rod engine’s real weakness is at WOT high revs. However GM have never wanted to make high revving engines. The higher specific power comes from being able to rev higher. Low/mid range punch is similar. Why would the swirl effect matter on a DI engine? It’s only taking in air. DI’s benefits come from the cooling effect and the higher comp ratio, which is the same story for the DOHC engines.

        I agree with you that push rods aren’t more economical, but than again either are are DOHC. Day to day driving with powerful engines involves maybe 10-40% throttle. Remember BMEP is measured at WOT, virtually irrelevant to day-to-day driving fuel efficiency. Major difference on a test bench though. However to be fair the DOHC engines higher specific power allows the engine to be downsized more that an equivalent PR engine, which may result in better economy. Horses for courses. Yes cost and playing to the aftermarket market is a factor too, why wouldn’t they? Pros and cons either way.

  • Trvbridges20

    The 5.0 ford motor has way more potential to build a lot more power than GM’s dinosaur.

    • Declan Collins

      Google the new LT1. I doubt many DOHC V8s are more impressive then this engine.

      • DoubleBlue

        In your “Mark Skaife” dreams. “Dec”

    • Pro346

      clearly you know nothing about the aftermarket seen any 2000 plus hp coyote engines lately

      • Robin_Graves

        Beyond that territory you are into HEMI land.  Doesnt make the Coyote a bad engine, just that its easier to slap a cam in a Chev.

        • Pro346

          Never said it was a bad engine its a good engine but I can’t see it doing much good will be forgotten about like the boss v8 was,don’t see any boss v8s going into old fords retrotech…6 cylinder ba/fg motor a much better choice.

    • JoeR_AUS

      What Ford has not done is provide an architecture to build various platforms off. The LS engine was available from 4.8L right up to 7.0L, supercharger/NA, and built in the millions every year. This is GM legacy, they build for the masses not for the selected few. 

  • Sambo_c7

    Well if you have ever driven a GM pushrod you would know that they aren’t a bad engine, easy, cheap, reliable, make decent power. Nothing wrong with them. Also HSV could decide to use the LT1 instead of supercharging? which in my opinion would be better. Then in the series II they could use the LT1 in the SS and either update the HSV LT1 or just supercharge it?  

  • Bc

    Sorry caradvice do you have any information to back up your claims?

  • Sumpguard

      I saw a WA registered GT today with the rego plate reading “6LTR ETA. He may have to get new plates :)

  • Dick

    All that power and prob still manage a high 12

  • Andrew M

    This argument about pushrods sounds a little like the falcon straight 6 versus V6 argument.

    The straight 6 is a less technical motor, but it is much better down low and much more bullet proof.

    They are also easy to tune with 1500hp having been achieved from 1 tuning house in particular.
    But with the straight 6 Ford have BMW backing them up as they are about the only other player in the market still using them.

    Just because no big namers are using the pushrods doesnt mean they are hopeless, although it would have been a nice touch to go with the rest of the technological advancements if they did downsize and supercharge like Ford did

    • Pro346

      GM push rod v8 engines have the best aftermarket support of any engine clearly they must be doing something right….

    • Karl Sass

      The Falcons torque has more to do with it being a long stroke engine, as opposed to GM’s shorter stroke. Otherwise I agree.

      • F1orce

        Yeah the Falcon is diesel like with the undersquare design.

        • Karl Sass

          Yep, it’s the way it should be in my opinion.

          • F1orce

            It really depends and really comes down to personal preference.

            GM’s Alloy-Tech V6 is not good.

            But Toyota has been making all-alloy quad cam V6’s since the 90’s and they’re very good..

            Nissan VQ series V6’s are also very good, though I would say Toyota’s V6 are just a little better.

            Ultra Smooth power, efficient, reliable and unruffled refinement is how I would describe the Toyota V6 engines.

          • Karl Sass

            Absolutely, horses for courses  The Japanese are very good at making smooth, rev happy engines. GM aren’t very good at it, which makes no sense for them to use short stoke engines which prefer to rev. I also think GM customers expect a certain amount of torque, look at the displeasure with the 3.0 SIDI engine, 290nm isn’t enough.

    • $29896495

      Actually the Falcon 6 has become quite a complicated motor over the years. Twin over head cam, VCT etc. It really is a packaging issue with them and BMW, which is why both companies have V6 engines too. The GM V8 is around because of money nothing more, all the excuses for  it can and have been shot down, but in one form or another it’s been around since the late 50s early 60s. All that time means people know it inside and out. Capacity changes and the things they hang on the outside change, but that’s about it.

  • Robin on the tray top .

    This ‘thing’ still uses a pushrod?

    • Stop_the_boats

      Yer, still a dino .

      • Robin_Graves

        qrrrrrrrk copy that personality #2, personality #1 out.

      • DoubleBlue

        Yeah “Stop_the_boats” ideal name for THAT engine. BOAT ANCHOR.!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000455670119 Remmy Lalremsanga

    My  decade old mercedes benz E240 consume 13.5 Litre/100KM (always use 95 or 98 Ocane as well). For the same fuel consumption this Car is  excellent.

    • Al Tungupon

      The actual consumption will never ever be near that claim.

      • JoeR_AUS

        Well, I have seen a Commodore V8 driven to Melbourne from Sydney on 1 tank of fuel. Auto as well, thats 75Litres to cover over 875km or 8.5l/100

        • DoubleBlue

           Yeah Right.!

          • Karl Sass

            Just showing your ignorance DB. These engines are surprisingly economical when it comes to highway cruising, but they vary wildly when you throw in some stop-start conditions.

          • $29896495

            And most are used in stop start conditions.

  • Al Tungupon

    Um, it’s Cadillac CTS-V, not Chevrolet.

  • Amlohac

    FYI, no one on earth, not a single soul, buys a V8 and expects it to hug trees and sip fuel from a pipette.

    If you want a frugal V8 you spend over 100k and buy something euro such as a merc, BMW or an Audi.

  • DoubleBlue

     OK but while you’re repaying that’s less money available for R/D & OPEL/ Europe, UK has been a financial “Monkey” on GM back.

  • MrDucati

    Hahaha, they’re still using coil leads, wonder what else they’re still using?

  • steddy eddy

    their still using good old fashioned horse power, unlike your speed limited , sounds like a washing machine motor, over rated, over priced german billy cart. Hahaha!

    • $29896495

      “their still using good old” Should be ‘they’re’ . Plenty of Kilowatts to go round in all sorts of engines. Should try some.

  • virtuososhowpieces

    Old dunga technology in a New Fuel Injected (really new??) 

    Try this on for size bogans with your shaky, vibrating noisy oil leaking royal saloon! POS!Japan Back in little old! 2001 v8 6bolt mains all-alloy quad-cam, 32-valve with high-flow cylinder heads, dual VVT-I with electric VVT-iE inlet camshaft actuation, titanium inlet valves, high-lift camshafts, dual D-4S fuel injection, dual intake air system, tuned length surge tank and stainless steel dual exhaust system. and if you want to get really reatrded how about the fact japan make RWD Camry’s with v8 twin Turbo’s 680Hp and 1.125Nm and TRD Crowns 550hp factory!! your GM/Holden can be 10Litres with superchargers, your push rods will fly out the block lmao!!

    • $29896495

      Good stuff. That’s one of my pet peeves about Toyota. they have some great cars and engines, which we just don’t see. 

  • virtuososhowpieces

    I know! makes you think some other car manufacture or government have the monopoly! 

    • $29896495

      In what respect? Toyota? No, that’s just how the Japanese see us. They give the HiPo stuff to the States, but our Toyota people have cardigans that interfere with their thinking, so don’t press for the good cars.

  • Marty Shead

    I think he was referring to how the Government bail out GM so they probably have a firewall stopping the imports of new and present v8 Japanese cars, Nissan Fuga, Infinity, Crowns, Majesta’s.

  • virtuososhowpieces

    farqen where’s the delete!

  • M S

    So,, the argue is “why do Top Fuel & drift cars like LS Engines? simple answer  “$$PRICE$$” I’d surely love a 2GZ-GTE  twin turbo at 62psi boost! pumping 1000+hp or a RB30 running a truck turbine, M5,  AMG Lexus (similar to Toyota Camry in Japan!!!!!!!!) are expensive to repair, but last 3 times longer.

    XR6 Turbo
    Japanese v8 Camry
    Nissan Fuga
    Leave the old push rod v8’s for dead! (talking factory, don’t go saying my bolt on blah blah blah!)

    Who ever compares this to an M5 Again, so help me god! It’s a lower class car HELLO!!! wake up!! – gaps not even, front & back bar different colours, leather is from China, farq me!!

  • push rod

    i think american companys are generally cheap and also slow to adapt compared to the europeans and asians.
    heres an example:

    look at briggs and stratton, they still make flathead lawnmower engines (and ohv too, but mostly flatheads) . where as honda makes belt driven SOHC lawnmower engines. honda hasnt made a flathead mower engine is 20 years. their lowest economy model engine still features overhead valves, which is only somthing that high end briggs motors have.

    briggs and stratton could of made a ohc engines decades ago if they wanted to, but they are cheap and wanted to milk the flathead profits.

    i think this is a similar problem with american automotive companys. they like milking the old designs to get maximum $$$ out of them before switching onto somthing new. you can see this “milking the design” in everyting from engines to suspensions.

    almost any american company could produce a quad cam v8 with 5 valves per cylinder but they never will. its too advanced and american companys like to progress is small steps so as to milk current designs for all they are worth.

  • ls3twinturbz

    buy a base model audi, bmw or merc etc or xr8 – fpv – ssv – hsv for the same price???

    I like hp cars and have more sense than money know what id be spending my hard earned $ on !
    and gm sticking with there push rod design as it is a cheaper just as reliable and making good kw & nm whats wrong with that ???

  • Lukeypoo

    Great car but the back has reacked it. But the sportswagon and ute looks good.

    I hope that they will get the 6.2 litre V8 engine

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=745843906 Simon Houghton

    All this talk about engines and power, what about the chassis, brakes, and suspension setup?? No-one even looks at this aspect of a good performing car these days.  My chassis is a Nissan one, I have 3.5mm front camber, 2.5mm rear camber, 9 degrees of castor, 381mm 6 pot front brakes with 356mm 4 pot rears, a subtle stock aero package, and a 6 speed bullet proof drive-train. My engine makes a lot of power in all the right places, that’s all that needs to be said, except for, IT’S GOD DAM FAST…….LOL, and sucks 33L/100kms around town, way too much I know, but hey, you can’t get power for free.

  • One_x

    “Come the hsv vf commodore, the fpv power advantage will be gone”

    Yeah, for a couple of months maybe.

    The NA version of the fpv engine puts out 300kw.. And they only running about 3lbs boost stock – WITHOUT an intercooler. All fpv have to do to easily out do hsv AGAIN is whack an intercooler in an up the boost a little.

    • DV8

       it is a bit more complicated than that, Ford will need to offer a package that can cope with the jump in horses, thats why HSV hasnt gone above 325KW till Vf and more importantly above 550NM, they need a drive train to cope with that amount of pwer, and still have it do do possible 200,000 kilometres, (figurative speaking) and your argument they produce 300KW NA HSV produce 325 an thats tuned well with in the motors capability,
      an old saying, theres no subsitute for cubes, yes you can force induct a smaller mototr and produce smiller power to a NA, but if you focre in duct a big motor thats when you get serious torque, and remember torque is the power that moves the car,

      • $29896495

        They can access more gear from the Mustang for a start. Shouldn’t be to hard if that’s the way they want to go. On the other hand they could make a smaller lighter car and keep the out put they have now and eat the Holden alive.

  • Twin turbo HSV

    I own a 6.2 litre HSV withg twin turbos and i love it,  I do a lot of country miles and the comfort of a large car for my family to travel in with a good ride, heaps of power and 9litres/100km all fo $80k is a pure delight.

    I will never own a car of similar refined power and handling as I wont spend more than that to go bush bashing. 

    In the city it looks good (to Me) and on a track it out accelerates most if not all expensive euros and japanese turbos.  So far porsches, GTR’s, a ferrari and all BMW’s and Mercs have failed aganst the cubes with turbos.

    I am not a fan of supercharging as it increases torque on my motors and i have enough I want take off with KW increased    

    I love reading the comments as most of the people posting on here will never own a car like the VF HSV and yet they pine for the expensive euro stuff they will never afford or own either

  • Joanne alexandrou

    My husband is very excited about the 6.2  litre engine. He works in a Holden Dealership
    and has been waiting for this car to be released.  Hence no 6.2 litre in SSV. HE WILL NOT BUY ONE!!! If this Holden is the  last hoorah for the Australian market surely we deserve the
    upgraded 6.2 litre.

  • Chocolatesalties

    Pushrods =
    Great power. Easy to work with, don’t need an i.t. degree to figure it out when something goes wrong. Can everyone putting down pushrods say they can work on their engines themselves without the help of anymore than a handbook and tools and get it right? Just did an engine conversion to a hilux with ls1. Using 2l per 100 less than the original Dohc 3.4 5vzfe Toyota engine. Different engines different cars different purposes and different opinions. Each v8 has its pros and cons just like a golf or civic has its pros and cons like if you want to come out of the closet without telling anyone they are a good buy…… Just my opinion though haha

  • Daniel O’Connell

    This information is incorrect, all VF Commodores carry over the same 3.6L V6 and 6.0L V8. The only Holden Vehicle to get a totally new engine is the HSV GTS, with the 430kw LSA 6.2L V8.

  • GaLuburt

    Awesome Vehicles. at GM Better American designed Australian Built American Cars profit from being made in australia. BUT That pushrod engine has to GO.

  • afm lover

    well we have the 2009 model afm ss and find it fantastic on fuel we get around 9l/100ks most of the time when towing a horse float and 2 horses which comes in around the 2 tonne mark we us 14l/100 ks can,t complain about that

    • ShaneMcGrath

      14l while towing is still better than my VY SS without towing(15.7litres/100), That’s awesome!
      Can’t wait to get my VF Redline, Mind you I will probably disable the AFM as I will get full exhaust/CAI and tune, So should get roughly the same as with AFM anyway but more power there if I need it.

  • issabendeck1


  • sup

    it’s time Holden/chev get with the times over head cams shim and bucket valve trains probably get a lot more power smother and even better fuel economy

  • RussellB

    I found out why GM don’t go DOHC with their V8’s , my VY SS Commodore which has the stock 241 heads bolted to the stock LS1 engine flows about 300 CFM of air @ 0.6″ inch (about 15mm) of valve lift,the same CFM rating as the 32 valve Nissan VK56DE V8 engine (5.6 litre capacity).The stock LS7 cylinder heads (casting number 8452) flows a whopping 400CFM of air and the engine is apparently the most powerful naturally aspirated engine in the world,Chevrolet dropped the 4.6 litre 32 valve Northstar V8 engine from their line up in 2010 as its performance is nearly matched by the 3.6 litre alloytec V6 engines now.The Nissan VK56DE engine puts out the same sort of power in stock production form (227 – 240 kilowatts) as the Chevy LS1 in that form in the VT series 2 – VZ series 1 Commodores anyway.I think their thinking is ,if it ain’t broken ,don’t try to fix it,that’s why I can’t work out why there are some 4 litre quad cam V6 powered vehicles (Toyota Hilux for example) which use about 33% more fuel than my LS1 powered Commodore on the highway !!!!

  • Brian Hunt

    This V8 really is dead lazy, do the math,take a beige cardigan Aurion v6 of 3.5 ltrs putting out 200kw in pretty gental tune,. so 200 / 3.5 x 6.2. surely the Holden V8 should be putting out an easy 355kw in grandfather tune. Why do we get stuck with 260kw if you want it to work out the gear changes, or 270 if you are prepared to let your left hand do the work. So, go figure? are Toyota really that brilliant, but bring in some other,more athletic engines such as Nissans 370z, and the calculation gets worse. The Golf GTI engine calculation on kw’s per ltr just ram the case home.