Holden 'upgrades' base Commodore V6....advantage Falcon!

[MR_SIDO]

**edit** already said in a previous post

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Wally

Manufactuer's figures aside what are the city/highway figures for the base Falcon?

I found this on the NRMA site:

Falcon: We would suggest that you can expect 9-11L/100km on the highway, and 15-17L/100km in town, from the 4.0 litre engine.

Commodore: On test we recorded a highway consumption figure of 8 litres per 100kms. On our suburban cycle the Omega returned 10.8 litre per 100 kms both excellent figures for this size vehicle.

15-17L That thing was stuck in 1st gear and reving it's head off.
11.3L last time I checked with my 4sp auto BFII around town.

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by Rodp

They're saving $$'s and the mass market wouldn't even know the difference. It's a bean counter move pure and simple.

Exactly, save a few bucks on the entry level Joe Blow Commie and still make a sale.. Sounds like a sound business plan to me.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

If you weren't brand biased, why would you buy a six cylinder Commode over a Falcon :monkes:

Yet people will in huge numbers

Resale for one thing... most people couldn't care less about how fast their car goes.

Everyone knows that if you buy a base model Falcon it isn't going to be worth jack in 2 years.

[Crazed]

Originally Posted by Wally

Manufactuer's figures aside what are the city/highway figures for the base Falcon?

I found this on the NRMA site:

Falcon: We would suggest that you can expect 9-11L/100km on the highway, and 15-17L/100km in town, from the 4.0 litre engine.

Commodore: On test we recorded a highway consumption figure of 8 litres per 100kms. On our suburban cycle the Omega returned 10.8 litre per 100 kms both excellent figures for this size vehicle.

Yeah I found my previous VZ was actually really good around town on fuel, but my AU before that was pretty thirsty (its tall first gear didnt help) obviously im comparing cars a few years years apart. But gee 10.8 litres per 100k for a 1.7 tonne family sedan around town is pretty bloody good, no matter which brand you follow, Camrys would use more than that im sure.

[Swordsman88]

It seems pretty damn obvious to me this is totally fleet motivated. Its not like Holden is selling too many of these omega sedans, wagons or utes to private buyers, so the fact the VE is now totally outclassed in terms of performance, refinement and yes, still fuel burn is of no consequence.

Anyone out there looking to buy a large car (or any car) will tell you times are tough, you don't have to go far to see crazy deals on new cars. Holden is probably the worst at this.....they have chopped the proverbial out of their commodore pricing lately. I saw an ad for a anniversary model not long ago on tv for $33k drive away....it had all the usual additions like aloys, spoiler, leather trim, even dvd. Now i know ford has territories going for $37k drive away SR models but that is an old car and is updated soon....the VE ain't that old.

Ford has already tried out methods for moving pre august build FGs....fleet discounts for everyone (and bugger all if you want a new build). The point here is that holden is keeping commodore numbers up by crazy fleet discounting.....aurion sales are down, as are falcon, but VE still looks ok on paper. The percentage fleet in the VE right now must be very high (have seen numerous omega sportwagons already). The fleets are looking for the best deal, and while holden has chopped out the price of the cars up front, the high fuel burn of the VE (not just on paper, people who drive them every day will tell you) is hurting. To avoid losing sales, they basically take the HO engine (which should have been standard anyway), use the same exhaust and 4spd (which they have to sell the car so cheap) and tune it exclusively for economy. The fuel savings while significant still can't match the falcon and in fact are so aggresive they have lost power.

If you wanted to keep private sales you'd do what ford did and put in the 5 (or 6) speed autos, get close to the same saving (FG 5sp XT is 10.6, 6sp XT 10.1), and still make the same or more power than current set up.

Even so, this pretty much dooms the VE to irrelevancy in the base six pot game. Its now so slow that even the average punter will notice on a test drive - the lack of an upgrade to the high spec motor doesn't bode well either. God knows when holden will finally put in the DI version of the engine...looks like 2010 and by then ford has its new DI duratec which should make 200kw+ and 400nm with ease.

This won't affect VE sales at all, it might even help with the fleets. But comparitive reviews its all over Holden. I just feel for the poor sods that have to drive these things day in day out....i hope it is a bit more refined because even less power and torque with that 4sp... :togo:

[Mick K.]

Does anyone remember that just a few months into the VZ model life Holden "upgraded" the VZ Alloytech from 175Kw to 172Kw and the "Alloytech 195" on Calais and SV6 dropped a couple of Kw too to meet some new environmental regulations?

I think this VE power drop will also go largely unpublished in most media who will instead focus on Ford cutting 450 jobs and rumouring about a FWD Falcon / Taurus in 2012. Holden's successful marketing will prevail.

MK

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Mick K.

Does anyone remember that just a few months into the VZ model life Holden "upgraded" the VZ Alloytech from 175Kw to 172Kw and the "Alloytech 195" on Calais and SV6 dropped a couple of Kw too to meet some new environmental regulations?

It was Euro 3 and the I6 was only one of a few engines to actually get more power and torque out of engine. Unfortunately it never met Euro 4 and now we get the V6 *shudders* that will be imported. I wonder how thats gonna go with our dollar being around 65c US mark.

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by Russell

This can't be right, if it is it is the dumbest move ever.

It certainly is just that! :

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Wally

Manufactuer's figures aside what are the city/highway figures for the base Falcon?

I found this on the NRMA site:

Falcon: We would suggest that you can expect 9-11L/100km on the highway, and 15-17L/100km in town, from the 4.0 litre engine.

Commodore: On test we recorded a highway consumption figure of 8 litres per 100kms. On our suburban cycle the Omega returned 10.8 litre per 100 kms both excellent figures for this size vehicle.

I just emailed NRMA to get them to update the information with actual correct information instead of continuing the misinformation of the Falcon being thirstier than Commodore. Asking them to quote actual AS fuel figures and more realistic information.

****

This is a copy of my email.

Your reviews are generally pretty good. But the inaccuracy or bias evident in regard to VE Commodore over the FG Falcon is astounding.

Consider this:
Falcon: We would suggest that you can expect 9-11L/100km on the highway, and 15-17L/100km in town, from the 4.0 litre engine.
Commodore: On test we recorded a highway consumption figure of 8 litres per 100kms. On our suburban cycle the Omega returned 10.8 litre per 100 kms both excellent figures for this size vehicle.

If you guys read other reports from magazines or know the actual AS fuel figures you would know that you are grossly wrong when referring to the Falcon's consumption. I would even suggest bias.

Apart from offering significantly more power, torque, acceleration, refinement and emissions the Falcon uses 10.1L (6spd) or 10.5L (5spd). The turbo uses 11.7L and is itself capable of using 8L on the open road.

Your misinformation is highly detrimental to both prospective purchasers and to the sales of the FG Falcon.

NRMA is continuing the perceived thirst of the Falcon, despite it being the more fuel efficient model since the AU of 1998. I therefore kindly ask that the information is in fact updated post haste.

[uranium_death]

I await a response, because I notice that there is very little positive coverage of Ford.

Holden released the VE and it was everywhere.
Ford release a superior car, and instead, we're focusing on lost jobs.
If people bought Australian, all this negativity would be lessened.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I just emailed NRMA to get them to update the information with actual correct information instead of continuing the misinformation of the Falcon being thirstier than Commodore. Asking them to quote actual AS fuel figures and more realistic information.

****

This is a copy of my email.

Your reviews are generally pretty good. But the inaccuracy or bias evident in regard to VE Commodore over the FG Falcon is astounding.

Consider this:
Falcon: We would suggest that you can expect 9-11L/100km on the highway, and 15-17L/100km in town, from the 4.0 litre engine.
Commodore: On test we recorded a highway consumption figure of 8 litres per 100kms. On our suburban cycle the Omega returned 10.8 litre per 100 kms both excellent figures for this size vehicle.

If you guys read other reports from magazines or know the actual AS fuel figures you would know that you are grossly wrong when referring to the Falcon's consumption. I would even suggest bias.

Apart from offering significantly more power, torque, acceleration, refinement and emissions the Falcon uses 10.1L (6spd) or 10.5L (5spd). The turbo uses 11.7L and is itself capable of using 8L on the open road.

Your misinformation is highly detrimental to both prospective purchasers and to the sales of the FG Falcon.

NRMA is continuing the perceived thirst of the Falcon, despite it being the more fuel efficient model since the AU of 1998. I therefore kindly ask that the information is in fact updated post haste.

Bravo hope you get a reply soon!

I haven't seen 15-17L around town since my dads XE 4.1L auto. My XE 5 speed gets 13 around town ans my AU in the 12's pretty much lineball with what mates with VT's get.

[Dr Smith]

We always hear stories of Holden's fleet pricing being far superior to Ford's. I even remember an article once giving some pretty good insight into how Ford has to carry greater costs in building the Falcon because it has a far greater developmental cost for it's engines due to their full local development, especially the V8's while Holden crates in their V8's and shared development of the V6's with GM Powertrain. Guess the new Ford V6 might even up the game somewhat.

Anyone in a fleet dept. confirm these stories of big differences in fleet deals without giving too much away?

ps. congrats phillyc on your email.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by burnz

your of the opion the a motor makes the car, not the total package.

Of course (insert sarcasm), that's why I purchased Boss powered Falcon :

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 220XR8

I agree it's way too similar.

:

why does a thread on holden engines have to include dim comments on BF v's FG....oh well, banned eh.

[ehast13]

people won't remember that the holden has less power.

Remember how gutless vb thru vk commodores were (especially VB). Even the lightest auto 3.3's couldn't break 18 seconds for the quarter. They were barely more economical than the much quicker falcons and the commies were so small.

A volvo 240 (2.3 litre 100kw, 17.4 sec quarter) auto was quicker and roomier and more economical but the bogans still cruise around in commies with no fear stickers coz Brocky won bathurst in MY CAR. Even the stock V8's (not the HDT's) were slower than a decent efi XE or XF (or a manual 2.3litre Volvo)

Image means a lot. Holden's 'Go bEtter'. Driving a ford just makes you play finger games and tow boats while letting the missus listen to Krap music just to shut her up while the kids puke over the leather trim in the xrb turbo. It's true. I've seen the adds

image is everything

I drive an XC with big rubber coz it's cool. An beige XF would drive much better and be quicker. quieter, brake better, handle better etc etc etc but I like the image of a big 70's car with wide hotwires and BF Goodrich's with raised white lettering.

Commies will always sell coz people often buy with their heart rather than their brain.

If the next falcon was a horse and cart painted blue, I would still buy one and tell everyone else how crap the commodore is. If I am like this then there must be plenty of people who feel the same way about commodores, or nissan skylines, or subarus, or volvos (but not aurions. I just can't accept that)

[woteva]

Some of you blokes get worked up over nothing. Who really cares if people buy 6 cylinder Commodores? Ford has had the better 6 for years so it isn't like it is anything new. I drive a Commodore because imo the V8 is a better option than the Ford. If I was in the market for a six, it would be a no-brainer. Falcon all the way!

[EgoFG]

Funny, though - the commie 6 sells based on the reputation of the 8

[Bobman]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/ho...1030-5c0t.html

In a radical move, Holden has reduced the power output of its best selling Commodore in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and weekly fuel bills.

As part of the mild engine update, all entry-level Commodore V6s built from November will get 5kW less power, representing a 2.8% reduction. The 175kW power output of the new Commodore for 2009 is identical to that of the 2004 Commodore - and 20kW less than the rival Falcon.

[Iggypoppin']

do you reckon the drop in fuel cost associated with the commodore will offset agaisnt the fact falcon will have more power? what does the australian people want? the thirst for power has never been greater.

[zyweik]

go ford!!! suck up the oil while its still there in my opinion :P

[Whitey-AMG]

Just watch the HOLDEN marketing machine go to town on this one..........despite the power loss...........they'll still turn it into a winner.


They'll probably advertise the new Commodore as the "thoughtful choice".........and...... the Falcon as the lecher.......a Hoon mobile with blatant disregard for our precious resources and environment and you know what.............IT WILL WORK.

[FGII-XR6]

ford need an add of a falcon passing a commy both towing identical caravans with a line like the falcon will stand up the the family holiday demands ( ok i'm no good at slogans but you get the idea)

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

ford need an add of a falcon passing a commy both towing identical caravans with a line like the falcon will stand up the the family holiday demands ( ok i'm no good at slogans but you get the idea)

How do you plan to keep both cars in the frame? The Falcon will keep pulling away!!!!! :

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

ford need an add of a falcon passing a commy both towing identical caravans with a line like the falcon will stand up the the family holiday demands ( ok i'm no good at slogans but you get the idea)

Exactly. I'd never regard a Commodore as a workhorse. It's always a Falcon which you see towing a trailer around town.

Extra pub bragging rights now for the blue brigade.

[Sprint XR8]

Originally Posted by ESP

Just watch the HOLDEN marketing machine go to town on this one..........despite the power loss...........they'll still turn it into a winner.


They'll probably advertise the new Commodore as the "thoughtful choice".........and...... the Falcon as the lecher.......a Hoon mobile with blatant disregard for our precious resources and environment and you know what.............IT WILL WORK.

The Commodore still uses more fuel than Falcon.
Commodores fuel consumption drops from 10.8 to 10.6l/100km.
FG Falcon XT uses 10.5 with 5sp auto and 10.1 with 6sp auto.

[Gobes32]

And yet it's the Falcon that receives the new motor in two years :togo:

[phillyc]

Thanks to all for your appreciation for my email I sent to the NRMA. I got a bog stock, "thanks, we'll pass it onto the motoring review/research people."

Unfortunately, it doesn't undo the harm they have already perpertrated.

At least, they now know that some people will keep the bastards honest and take them to task!

Thanks.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Thanks to all for your appreciation for my email I sent to the NRMA. I got a bog stock, "thanks, we'll pass it onto the motoring review/research people."

Unfortunately, it doesn't undo the harm they have already perpertrated.

At least, they now know that some people will keep the bastards honest and take them to task!

Thanks.

Good stuff mate.

I've been in a VE Omega for my 3rd week straight (rental). I cannot get better than 14L average. The modified BF Futura easily returns low 13's over the same route, with a fair bit more WOT moments.

[jweb]

Originally Posted by XR4568

So it loses power and torque, gains 0.2l/100km and retains the 4 speed slushbox. Have we a new case for the 'what were they thinking' wall?


http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2574DE00062E75

Holden has not abandoned its fuel economy push with the Commodore’s 3.6-litre global V6, however, announcing the immediate fitment of the “premium” version of its Alloytec V6 as standard across the Commodore range.

Announced deep within Holden’s AIMS press release, the move sees Omega and Berlina versions of the VE Commodore sedan and Sportwagon, as well as the base Holden Ute, lower their official ADR 81/02 average fuel consumption figure by between 0.2 and 0.4L/100km.

However, while the VE sedan’s official fuel consumption is reduced from 10.8 to 10.6L/100km (its average CO2 emissions similarly drop, from 256 to 252g/km), the entry-level Commodore still falls short of its key rivals in terms of fuel efficiency.

Ford’s entry-level FG Falcon XT returns 10.5L/100km with its standard five-speed automatic and 10.1L/100km with its optional six-speed ZF auto. Toyota’s Aurion V6 returns a class-leading 9.9L/100km at base level.

Meantime, the base Sportwagon models reduce their official fuel consumption figures from 11.1 to 10.7L/100km (CO2 emissions drop from 261 to 256g/km), while V6-powered Holden Utes drop a similar amount - from 11.3 to 10.9L/100km (CO2: 259 v 268g/km).

Crucially, the entry-level Holden V6 now scores the variable exhaust valve timing system of the “High Output” V6 that powers models from the Calais upwards, but it remains mated to GM’s aged four-speed automatic transmission in the Omega and Berlina (and base Ute), which also miss out on premium models’ dual exhaust system.

As such, the “recalibrated” base V6 does not share the 195kW/340Nm performance outputs of the V6 found in premium models, nor even the 180kW and 330Nm peaks of the models they replace.

In fact, with 175kW available at 6500rpm (500rpm higher than before) and 325Nm of torque on tap from 2400rpm (200rpm lower than currently), Holden’s new entry-level V6 offers 5kW and 5Nm less than it did previously.

Now on par with the Commodore’s LPG Alloytech V6, Holden’s revised base petrol V6 is now at a greater performance disadvantage when compared with the Falcon’s 190kW/383Nm 4.0-litre straight six and the Aurion’s 200kW/336Nm 3.5-litre V6, despite remaining less fuel-efficient.

Absolutely a poor effort by Holden.Sacrificing power to increase fuel economy.The falcon proves that power and torque do not need to be sacrificed to achieve good fuel economy,it is just that holden's transmission and engine are inefficient.
The falcon is safer,more powerful,more fuel efficient and better equiped,it also has a more upmarket interior.

But why do commodores still sell better than falcons?.......Ford's marketing is a complete joke,that is why.