Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jabe]

Hey,

I have a question on the 0-60 times of pre/post facelift V6's.

According to official figures, a 2.5 pre-facelift auto does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. The 2.6 facelift (even with 9hp more) puts out the same 0-60 time. (assuming from the extra weight facelift cars have.)

The 3.0 auto (again all according to official figures) puts out an 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds HOWEVER the facelift 3.2 (with 7hp more) does the same time a second quicker @ 8.0 seconds!

Can someone please explain to me how exactly the 3.2 dropped a second of its time? What changed? Better low down power? Different autobox, diffs, what?

[duggs]

The 3.2 was going down hill !      

[Jabe]

The 3.2 was going down hill !      

Haha!! Excellent.

[TheBoy]

I have both sat on my driveway - a 1998 3.0l auto (189k on clock), with latest v9 gearbox software, and a 2003 3.2l auto (68k on clock), with latest v8 gearbox software, and latest engine software.

On the standard map, the 3.0l is quicker, and more economical.


Quoted 0-62 figures are often inaccurate, and Vauxhall traditionally were not too aggressive with their claims.

[serek]

Hey,

I have a question on the 0-60 times of pre/post facelift V6's.

According to official figures, a 2.5 pre-facelift auto does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. The 2.6 facelift (even with 9hp more) puts out the same 0-60 time. (assuming from the extra weight facelift cars have.)

The 3.0 auto (again all according to official figures) puts out an 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds HOWEVER the facelift 3.2 (with 7hp more) does the same time a second quicker @ 8.0 seconds!

Can someone please explain to me how exactly the 3.2 dropped a second of its time? What changed? Better low down power? Different autobox, diffs, what?

there extra 20NM that what make 3.2 go faster then 3.0

[YZ250]

Hey,

I have a question on the 0-60 times of pre/post facelift V6's.

According to official figures, a 2.5 pre-facelift auto does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. The 2.6 facelift (even with 9hp more) puts out the same 0-60 time. (assuming from the extra weight facelift cars have.)

The 3.0 auto (again all according to official figures) puts out an 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds HOWEVER the facelift 3.2 (with 7hp more) does the same time a second quicker @ 8.0 seconds!

Can someone please explain to me how exactly the 3.2 dropped a second of its time? What changed? Better low down power? Different autobox, diffs, what?

As The Boy will confirm, it's because the 3.2 facelift is far superior. 

[TheBoy]

In reality, in standard trim, very little between them on acceleration over the first mile and a bit.

[Jabe]

there extra 20NM that what make 3.2 go faster then 3.0

Lol. 20nm knocks off an entire second?

Behave...

[Jabe]

As The Boy will confirm, it's because the 3.2 facelift is far superior. 

Thats not what he said... Or was he being sarcastic?

[Jabe]

In reality, in standard trim, very little between them on acceleration over the first mile and a bit.

What kind of throttlebody - manifold - ECU setup did the 3.2 have? I know most manufacturers bloat their claims but that would mean they did the same on all the other motors which should leave the gap the same. = 1 second.

[TheBoy]

In reality, in standard trim, very little between them on acceleration over the first mile and a bit.

What kind of throttlebody - manifold - ECU setup did the 3.2 have? I know most manufacturers bloat their claims but that would mean they did the same on all the other motors which should leave the gap the same. = 1 second.

Std.

Traditionally, Vauxhall understated their performance. I guess with the 3.2, they decided something closer to reality.

In standard trim, both are in the region of 8s, with autoboxes and 3.9 diffs.

[Lazydocker]

In real terms there is nothing between them on the road The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior

[TheBoy]

In real terms there is nothing between them on the road The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior

Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one

[YZ250]

As The Boy will confirm, it's because the 3.2 facelift is far superior. 

Thats not what he said... Or was he being sarcastic?

It was me being sarcastic, due to TB's love of TBE, the 'Superior Facelift'. 

As said, nothing between them. 

In real terms there is nothing between them on the road The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior

 

[Lazydocker]

In real terms there is nothing between them on the road The 3.0 is slightly more economical but the 3.2 is easier to work on and, obviously, newer and far superior

Surely the one thats slightly quicker, noticibly more economical, and a smaller capacity must be the superior one

In standard trim, on the road, there is nothing between them, as tested a few times but most memorably (for me) on a trip from Alton to Aldershot for a certain meet where I spent the previous night enjoying that Mr Woods' "Magic Cupboard" and we left a little late That was a F/L Saloon and a M/F/L Saloon

And the F/L is superior... Just admit it