Hey Guys, I'm looking at getting rid of the VL... and upgrading to a VR Commodore. Do any of you guys know if they're any good? especially on fuel cos that the main reason the VL is going. And its getting a little old and showing its age. I toyed with the idea of a VR 3.8L V6 in a VL... but it would be expensive i reckon... Has anyone heard of this being done? If i get the funding to do it i may just give it a go.

i had a VS V6 and it used more fuel than my VL's do. Not much but still more. Not really sure bout VR, The engine was different.

Well the VS was the first Buick Motor with ECOTEC (mainly emisson ****, but it also had more refined ecu) So it should use less fuel than the VR does. Honestly, if you get your Nissan 3L running correctly, (not rich, etc) you will find economy is hard to beat. Especially compared to the 3.8 Buick. The Vt/Vx motor is a hell of alot more refined than the earlier models so fuel consumption is better, more comparable to the 3L Nissan Motor. I can understand wanting to upgrade to newer model though, even if you restore a VL, it is still not ever like a new car to drive, and the shape is also very aerodynamically challenged compared to say VT/VX shape. So newer models have less drag, wind noise at high speed on freeways etc. Anyway i guess the point of my story is, I love VL's and when i replace it with a newer car it will be to a VX as they are seperior to a VL in many ways. Dont get me wrong i am a die hard VL fan, but the only other model commy that i like is the VX, everything in between i feel is not really any better than the VL at the end of the day. Cheers Mick

Yeah, my dads VX easily gets 800-900km to a tank, it's great!

WTF!, is it running on 3cyl or something? how the fark does a 3.8 get 800km to a tank? does he drive 100km to and from work at an average of 100km/hr my 4L gets 450km city driving, and 700 country my god, why cant i get 800km around town, its not fair!

He drives 4-5k to work each day and around 100 more each day of 110km/h driving on average This is in a stocker acclaim. He used to have a magna which got about 750km/ tank as well with a slightly smaller engine (3.5L) And he doesn't exactly flog it either My unkle actually just bought a new v6 vectra and that gets around 9l/100km around the city Wish I got that sort of fuel economy.... Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

The 3.8 is a very very economical engine. I also drive a VP Calais and I can get 800kms to a tank on a trip. Had a work VX and it was great on trips!!!!! No VL will get anything like that. The VS is even more economical than that. The first VT's were heavier and not as economical as the VS but the VX is back up there. Economy is where the 3.8 kills the Falcon 4.0. Same with the Gen111 versus the Tickford!!!

Ok cool... Does anyone know about a VN HSV SV3800?? what they were like on fuel?

It's basically a VN V6 so it will be more economical than a VL. That model looks good too. Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

ha ha south i think the Ford 6 is one of the thirstiest engines ever made - solid as a rock tho for reliability (EA not counting!) Yeah I think that the RB30 is the most economical commodore engine (new factory spec)except the Ecotec. (VS onwards?) redbook.com.au has a thing on exact fuel usage per model if you're more interested

hi all, the v6 3.8L engine in the vn to vr commodore(think VS to) is out of a 1983-84 front wheel drive buick and they were nothing but trouble then and the motor was designed for a front wheel drive not real wheel andthese 800km per tank of fuel commodores must have at least an 85L tank not 60L or r they on LPG or something.MY VLT gets 40 rods to the hogs head and thats the way i likes it. hahahah Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

They are only 75L i think and are running on ULP Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

V6 VN's and onwards with the standard tank size on ULP can get around 800 kms on a trip. I've done that several times now. And so what if the V6 was originally designed to go in a Front wheel drive? They've now proven themselves in rear wheel drive haven't they? Holden made them more powerful for each model they bought out and they have proven themselves in who knows how many 100's of thousands of cars in Oz.

Dude, I don't want to stir crap, but I would more settle for a jap import or something different. The VR/VS models are a bit sluggish and old (they use Pushrods for christ's sake). I own a VS II Exec and it is mmmkay, but jap import would be better. I hope you can understand it ...

Hey Guys, Thanks for the help aye... i drove an SV3800 #307 and its a peice of ****... I'm hoping to get into either a VR or a VS for a good $$$ figure... Who knows, i may even keep the VL as a weekend car.

Fark 600-800K per tank, What are you all like driving miss daisy or something If i could ever get that out of any car i drive, i would buy one for myself. I think my fuel consumption reflects my driving, LOL. Anyway some figures for those that are interested. VL fuel consumption AVG: 114kW@5200 RPM Max Torque 247Nm@3200 RPM Manual: 11.1 L/100km Automatic: 11.7 L/100km Turbo figures are slightly more though, due to obvious reasons. VN fuel consumption AVG: 125 kW@4800 RPM Max torque: 292 Nm@3200 RPM V6 Manual (City / Highway): 11.5 / 7.6 (L / 100km) V6 Automatic (City / Highway): 12.5 / 8.0 (L / 100km) VR fuel consumption AVG: 130 kW@4800 RPM Max Torque: 295 Nm@3200 V6 Manual: (City / Highway): 11.0 / 7.0 L/100km V6 Automatic: (City / Highway): 12.0 / 7.6 L/100km VS fuel consumption AVG: 147 kW@5200 RPM Max torque: 304 Nm@3600 RPM V6 Automatic City / Highway: 11.5 / 7.2 (L/100km) V6 Manual: 10.5 / 6.8 (L/100km) As we all know the VT is a Bardge(heavy), use same motor as VS and uses more fuel than the VS. That why it was heavily criticised when it was first released. The VX model has had numerous changes to fix fuel consumption, including ecu, suspension, different oil viscosity, u name it heaps of changes, all to get good fuel economy. So the average figures for the VX are comparable to the VS. Mick Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

Thanks for those figures, The one thing i noticed is they're good on paper but i wouldn't be selling up if my VL was getting 11.5 The other reason is a VL is no longer a good investment. To look at the figures, i bought the car 14 months ago for $4700, and keeping it on the road and running has cost me $3,000. Thats without regular servicing. Infact, it hasn't had proper servicine schedules because it was having other things replaced. Anyway i guess there is only so much money you can get for a VL and spending more on mine makes no sence... Its gonna be sad to see it go as its my first car, and hold some sentimental values but its time to get something more sensible. Thanks for all the help fellas. Some original photos have not been recovered yet.

seriously it could just be ur luck with the car u brought rob, ive had my n./a now for almost 2 years and nothin major has ever gone wrong... my fuel consumption has always been to almost spot on to the 11.5L/100km or whateva it is.... i dont think all vls would need 3k spent on them to keep them goin., the 3L engine is well known for one of the best balanced motors of all time.... but yer... all good man.. good luck with the next car -Mike

Yeah thats true Mike... i got a lemon from the word go and was sucked in by the inclusion of mags and the momo wheel for that price mentioned above. I'd love to go for another VL but at the end of the day i really need something a fair bit newer. I guess its cos i spend so much time in the car i want something thats newer, looks more stylish, and can carry the 3 or 4 computers that i often have to carry. Anyway Hopefully (fingers crossed) the finance should be given the yes/no tommorrow. If that goes ahead then i can start genuinly looking at new cars.

I get around 500 - 550 ks to a tank in my r33 Loving it.. I got sweet **** all in my vl Some original photos have not been recovered yet.