Holden - Getting Nervous, Go Drive

[mik]

putting a smaller NA engine in a heavy car is always going to make it work harder than a bigger torquey engine, put a family in the commy (=2 ton) it must work harder, do the SIDI commy`s come with anything but 6 speed auto? it would be interesting to see a 4 speed auto version doing the Bathurst test, for any real benefit the VE needs to shed weight imo.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Interesting, I especially like how many are discounting the relevance of the Bathurst excursion.

Well my fine feathered friends, what's the one BIG claim they make on the TV ad?? Melbourne to Sydney on one tank, ring a bell??

I'm going to hazzard a guess and say that most of you Bathurst rejectionists have never driven this road, or perhaps not very often, thing is that their are actually quite alot of long hills, BIG ones in fact.

I've done at least 30 laps of it in several of my cars over the years. I don't care what claim Holden make on TV, I'm not trying to defend Holden here, I'm just saying this test doesn't reflect everyday driving.

Considering most people live in populated areas and drive their vehicles in traffic, the leisurely experience of trundling up and down 'the mountain' in no way reflects the day to day driving that I experience and I'm pretty sure my experience isn't unique. My first job I'll be driving ~25kms and it will take me between 1 and 1.5 hours. Seeing what 2 other vehicles doing the same trip would be a whole lot more relevant to me than an unobstructed cruise around Bathurst.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Interesting, I especially like how many are discounting the relevance of the Bathurst excursion.

Well my fine feathered friends, what's the one BIG claim they make on the TV ad?? Melbourne to Sydney on one tank, ring a bell??

I'm going to hazzard a guess and say that most of you Bathurst rejectionists have never driven this road, or perhaps not very often, thing is that their are actually quite alot of long hills, BIG ones in fact.

So what I'd like to see is both cars start in Melbourne and drive to Sydney, on cruise of course so as to eliminate as much driver input as possible with regard to how the car is driven. Fill the tanks right up to the top of the filler neck till it's just about spilling out and then drive them till they stop, pretty much Top Gear style.

I'm willing to take one, anyone else keen to do the trip??

If you strat putting caveats on how the drive should be carried out you are negating the comparison. The test should be from Sydney to Melbourne or whatever, but the driving should be the choice of the person at the wheel. If he breaks the law, he breaks the law, but the only way to get a real world comparison is with real world everything.

We don't know if the Bathurst test was a cynical exercise, but we do know it was a follow the leader test, which would have been very unfavourable to a less powerful car simply by the imposition of impractical acceleration times up grades to maintain a mean 60kph.

The proper test should have been the two cars independentlty completing 1000km with normal driver attitude for the car. Tying a less powerful car to the same time base a larger more powerful car on a circuit that favours tractive effort is irrelevent to the guy who buys a car for economy and merely meanders up to the speed limit, sans mean/average speed over the trip.

Very few of us drive from point A to point B with dedication to average speed, we use the pedal to suit our desire for the prevailing need for acceleration and/or speed. I have a big V8, but on average I probably accelerate slower than when I'm driving my wife's low powered 4 banger. I'm sure there are people out there who have 4 bangers who accelerate even slower than me and it's the combination of all those different driver variables and attitudes that determine what the public will judge and decide by word of mouth. I don't think any woman/man in the street is seriously going to look at the Panorama trial nor Global Challenge and consider either valid indicators of driving to work on weekdays and to the kid's sports on weekends.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Wally

We don't know if the Bathurst test was a cynical exercise, but we do know it was a follow the leader test, which would have been very unfavourable to a less powerful car simply by the imposition of impractical acceleration times up grades to maintain a mean 60kph.

The proper test should have been the two cars independentlty completing 1000km with normal driver attitude for the car. Tying a less powerful car to the same time base a larger more powerful car on a circuit that favours tractive effort is irrelevent to the guy who buys a car for economy and merely meanders up to the speed limit, sans mean/average speed over the trip.

Very few of us drive from point A to point B with dedication to average speed, we use the pedal to suit our desire for the prevailing need for acceleration and/or speed. I have a big V8, but on average I probably accelerate slower than when I'm driving my wife's low powered 4 banger. I'm sure there are people out there who have 4 bangers who accelerate even slower than me and it's the combination of all those different driver variables and attitudes that determine what the public will judge and decide by word of mouth. I don't think any woman/man in the street is seriously going to look at the Panorama trial nor Global Challenge and consider either valid indicators of driving to work on weekdays and to the kid's sports on weekends.

Stop, stop you're making me sick just reading such BS!!

[XRQTR]

It's not a caveat as such, it's simply eliminating differences in driver technique and putting it all down to the car itself, otherwise you would have to do the thing twice, once for each driver, then get an average that way. All this does is give you a good average and only having to do the trip once.

So no takers then??

[LTDterri]

Ive always known putting a small engine in a big car means the engine works harder to keep it at speed and therefore using more fuel, the task now for Ford is to use it to its advantage, some how though I dont think they will and Holden will still give Ford a canning in new car sales

[Franco Cozzo]

I think we should all stop trolling Wally, I'm pretty sure people are entitled to their opinions, doesn't mean we have to believe them but still, post a rebuttal to his argument but don't just go "Oh thats BS" without backing it up with facts.

Anyways about the Bathurst test not being "real world", sure it isn't for most people but the key thing was that there was two cars and two drivers doing the exact same thing. It might not be real life for you guys, and its not for me either because instead of doing 60km/h, I'm doing 100km/h climbing medium/steep hills on my commute, 95% of my driving is all country highway.

[4Vman]

Today when i drove to work it took 35 mins, i averaged about 50kph in flowing but stop start traffic in speed zones from 60 to 80kph.
Im my mind this trip is probably representative of how the majority of people experiece driving who drive daily and live in the bigger city's or if you like 90% of Australia's population, i.e: 15 - 50mins driving in traffic...
Sitting on a constant speed (110kph) for 9 hrs from syd to melb is as far away from "real world" as you can get, the figures and results of a test like that are meaningless to most Australian drivers.
The bathurst test at-least is done at speeds everyone will encounter for the majority of their day in suburban areas, and the hills replicate REAL suburban topography... The only thing missing is the frequency of "stop start"... but @ 60kph the car will experience load adjustments more in line with suburban driving, @ 110kph you carry far more momentum and engine inertia...

[saber]

Found another article, seems to verify holdens claims of 900km range per tank.

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/452...0km-challenge/

Comments???

[EDManual]

the eco challenge had 75 km of suburban driving in adelaide and 25 in darwin!! That is all. Says so in the results PDF. They averaged 75km/h including in 130zones! 55km/h under the limit!

Anyway, the Bathurst challenge is interesting because both cars were driven around together, that is so they both accelerated together and kept up with each other. What could be fairer than that?

I always get annoyed by tests in the Mags where there will be for example a more powerful faster falcon and a slower less powerful commodore and they are both driven around to their performance abilities. Obviously to make more power the falcon will use more usually. If the faster car always had to follow the slower car on these tests that would show the difference. So the faster car only uses the performance it needs to keep up, you are actually comparing apples with apples.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

I think we should all stop trolling Wally, I'm pretty sure people are entitled to their opinions, doesn't mean we have to believe them but still, post a rebuttal to his argument but don't just go "Oh thats BS" without backing it up with facts.

Anyways about the Bathurst test not being "real world", sure it isn't for most people but the key thing was that there was two cars and two drivers doing the exact same thing. It might not be real life for you guys, and its not for me either because instead of doing 60km/h, I'm doing 100km/h climbing medium/steep hills on my commute, 95% of my driving is all country highway.

I don't think we have enough posts from Joe5619 to know if he was being unpleasant or otherwise. I'll prefer to think he was giving a backhanded compliment. :voldar02:

Being a country driver I suspect economy is secondary to comfort for you? The Falcon would be a good choice in your situation compared to a townie car like the 3.0.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

If you strat putting caveats on how the drive should be carried out you are negating the comparison. The test should be from Sydney to Melbourne or whatever, but the driving should be the choice of the person at the wheel. If he breaks the law, he breaks the law, but the only way to get a real world comparison is with real world everything.

We don't know if the Bathurst test was a cynical exercise, but we do know it was a follow the leader test, which would have been very unfavourable to a less powerful car simply by the imposition of impractical acceleration times up grades to maintain a mean 60kph.

The proper test should have been the two cars independentlty completing 1000km with normal driver attitude for the car. Tying a less powerful car to the same time base a larger more powerful car on a circuit that favours tractive effort is irrelevent to the guy who buys a car for economy and merely meanders up to the speed limit, sans mean/average speed over the trip.

Very few of us drive from point A to point B with dedication to average speed, we use the pedal to suit our desire for the prevailing need for acceleration and/or speed. I have a big V8, but on average I probably accelerate slower than when I'm driving my wife's low powered 4 banger. I'm sure there are people out there who have 4 bangers who accelerate even slower than me and it's the combination of all those different driver variables and attitudes that determine what the public will judge and decide by word of mouth. I don't think any woman/man in the street is seriously going to look at the Panorama trial nor Global Challenge and consider either valid indicators of driving to work on weekdays and to the kid's sports on weekends.

So basically you are saying that say, the holden driver is aloud to do a 110kph over Bathurst, & the ford driver do a 40kph over the mountain with his A/C turned up to full if the driver desired as this is more real world for you? Sorry i cannot agree with you as you will not achieve any sort of standard unless you apply some sort of rules in a test, with out rules it is not a test. Maybe holden should of instisted on using the 3.6v6 not the 3.0v6 as it might have done better, But they didn't so this is the end result & they have to live with it.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by EDManual

...Anyway, the Bathurst challenge is interesting because both cars were driven around together, that is so they both accelerated together and kept up with each other. What could be fairer than that?

..

Well to answer that visually you would need to look at a manufacturer's running performance map and see the discrepency between tractive effort (driving force) for the two cars and the running resistance curves. It called gradability and the Falcon has it all over the Holden in this instance. In this test the larger engined car will become the index, operating around it's peak VE, whereas the smaller engine car being forced to keep the same acceleration will be operating well outside it's peak VE, thus chewing more fuel for the same effort.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

So basically you are saying that say, the holden driver is aloud to do a 110kph over Bathurst, & the ford driver do a 40kph over the mountain with his A/C turned up to full if the driver desired as this is more real world for you? ....

Err no I'm saying what I wrote. It's basic stuff, you try to haul the same mass using a smaller power plant for the same acceleration you will run the smaller plant less efficiently. The disparity is made even greater with differences in specific power output of each engine. Torque is time squared, acceleration is time squared, they are inter related and the results are highly predictable.

I'm not arguing the Falcon did a good job at Bathurst and that is does a good job overall. It may well be the best car for daily driving, but to date we haven't seen any real data to support that, given the newness of the 3.0. I wouldn't buy a Holden six if you pinned me to an ant hill, but I'm not the type of driver who is looking for a family car that is economical, I'd buy a Jap car for that purpose..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Maybe holden should of instisted on using the 3.6v6 not the 3.0v6 as it might have done better, But they didn't so this is the end result & they have to live with it.

this test had nothing to do with holden. drive did it off their own back. the fact that they did use the 3L over the 3.6L is the reason many are saying they new the verdict even before the event and it was mainly a stunt to discredit holden.

Originally Posted by swordsman88

As for ADR...there is alot of incorrect information getting around about it. ADR 81/01 basically uses the european ECE standard now. So rolling road, 95 ron, set temp etc you start up the car and 'drive' it through a test cycle. This is mostly highway based on distance (which is a problem straight off) but more importantly the car has no load (well i think it accounts for a driver...not sure of the fine print) and NO HILLS. Clearly not real world....also there is not wind resistance..... See below graphic:

cars are now tested under ADR 81/02 however i couldn't tell you the difference. its also not as simple as adding the urban and non urban figures and dividing by 2 to get the combined figure. its a bit more involved than that.

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Holden was sort of stuck between a rock & a hard place on this one, if it advertised its ADR as being lower then in the global challenge it would not have looked like it had made so much ground in its consumption, & it had put it's ADR up any higher it would have been criticized buy the mags, and lost sales, however the same applies to ford as well but the torque of the 4litre six was just enough to keep the motor at a better average as the smaller sixes not having as much torque would have saved more in some spots but used more in others.

manufacturers don't set the ADR figure. holden build the car and then it is tested using a set procedure. they can maybe alter the tune a little but this is all done well before production and they certainly don't have some eco challenge in mind when doing so.

[79bluexd]

even with fuel economy . if you sit in the back of new commodores and open 1 window you almost get car sick because of the aerodynamics never had this problem since my parents 91 magna... was a bad experience but something they proberly dont test for ...

give me a new car for a week and i will pick the sh%t out of it...

dont worry about fuel economy worry about power / drive / comfort and safety because how often do you monitor the fuel per 100kms and who drives around bathurst for a whole day ........

[4Vman]

The ADR testing is carried out under controlled set parameters and conditions, its a "clinical" laboratory test.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Holden (and others) optimise the "tune" of their cars to get the best results when tested under that ADR, as opposed to get the best results when driven "normally"..
All cars tested under that ADR are treated the same.

"IF" for what ever reason the ADR doesn't really or accurately reflect the way most people drive their cars in the real world results will differ greatly from the official "sticker" results Holden publish on their windscreen to what the journo's and public actually get, the Bathurst test is a clear demonstration of this....

[prydey]

Originally Posted by 79bluexd

dont worry about fuel economy worry about power / drive / comfort and safety because how often do you monitor the fuel per 100kms and who drives around bathurst for a whole day ........

funnily enough, that is what i keep an eye on the most. with all my cars, i always fill the tank and record the kms, zeroing the trip meter (not trip computer) each time. i believe this to be an accurate way of knowing how your engine is running. if for some reason you notice a gradual or sudden change, then you know something is responsible for it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The ADR testing is carried out under controlled set parameters and conditions, its a "clinical" laboratory test.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Holden (and others) optimise the "tune" of their cars to get the best results when tested under that ADR, as opposed to get the best results when driven "normally"..
All cars tested under that ADR are treated the same.

"IF" for what ever reason the ADR doesn't really or accurately reflect the way most people drive their cars in the real world results will differ greatly from the official "sticker" results Holden publish on their windscreen to what the journo's and public actually get, the Bathurst test is a clear demonstration of this....

correct, and if they do 'fiddle' to alter the ADR figure, they sure aren't going to make it read worse, so that they can win some useless eco challenge.

also regarding ADR figures, i have also been able to get quite close to the highway (extra urban) figures as there aren't as many variables. the city (urban) cycle is open to a lot more variables and they are just a guide anyway.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by prydey

this test had nothing to do with holden. drive did it off their own back. the fact that they did use the 3L over the 3.6L is the reason many are saying they new the verdict even before the event and it was mainly a stunt to discredit holden.

Well, when was the last time Drive did a test that wasn't GM Holden biased? I honestly cannot remember.

I even remember them giving the win to the VY over the BA with 3.5stars to 3stars. Yet depending on model, Wheels and Motor gave the Falcon 3.5-4.5 stars to the Commodore 2.5-3.5 stars.

Lastly, the result in the Bathurst test was a "SHOCK" to Drive and the 10 drivers tha took part in the 21hour test.

PS Prydey, i'm not saying you believe the test was a setup.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by prydey

funnily enough, that is what i keep an eye on the most. with all my cars, i always fill the tank and record the kms, zeroing the trip meter (not trip computer) each time. i believe this to be an accurate way of knowing how your engine is running. if for some reason you notice a gradual or sudden change, then you know something is responsible for it.

I do exactly the same.

[saber]

Originally Posted by http://www.themotorreport.com.au/45213/2010-commodore-berlina-30-sidi-road-test-review-the-1000km-challenge/

2010 Commodore Berlina 3.0 SIDI Road Test Review

IT’S LATE, IT’S COLD, the light is fading and I’m standing on the side of the Hume highway funnelling petrol into a car. To be honest though, this is a good result.

The day started at 6:00am in Melbourne with two cars and one objective: to see how far we could drive Holden’s new SIDI 3.0 litre Commodore Berlina before it spluttered to a halt.

We specifically wanted to verify Holden’s claim of a 900km range on a single tank, and just maybe give 1000km a nudge. After 14 hours of solid driving we had our answer and the results may surprise some.

But before we delve into the numbers, let’s take a look at our test subject.

Styling

For the 2010 VE Commodore update, Holden hasn’t touched a single thing body-wise.

Save for the addition of a few SIDI badges, the removal of some chrome around the windows and another exhaust outlet, there’s nothing new to see on the Berlina’s exterior.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_12

For some that’s a good thing, but many were expecting to see a new take on the VE’s three year-old form for 2010. Holden insiders tell us a comprehensive styling overhaul is currently being finalised, but a launch date for a facelifted VE range has yet to be confirmed.

The Berlina’s exterior differs slightly from the base model Omega, with a unique grille, 17-inch alloys and foglamps all standard features. Other than that, it’s a pretty anonymous looking car.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_03

That siad, the Berlina still looks a handsome - if slightly unremarkable - machine. The sharpness and dynamism that wowed the crowds when the VE debuted in 2006 may have faded a little, but the Commodore’s bold lines and chunky form still look good, and modern, today.
Interior

Like the exterior, nothing much has changed inside the doors of the Berlina.

All cabin plastics, switchgear and fittings carry over for 2010, meaning the same complaints about quality do too.

The plastic panels around the centre console are particularly hard and unpleasant, and Holden still has not solved the issue of the dashboard trim reflecting against the instrument cluster.

The A-pillars remain as bulky as ever, and impede visibility when approaching a corner.

These complaints aside, the Berlina’s interior is still a reasonably nice one. The leather-wrapped steering wheel is adjustable for reach and rake, the driver’s seat can be moved in six directions and there’s acres of room and storage space.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_30_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_18a

The front seats are comfortable and offer a good level of support (a fact verified by our 14 hours of seat time in this particular car). The rear seat cushions are firm but pleasant to sit on, and three full-sized adults could easily fit in the back with minimal complaint.

Cloth seats are standard, but our tester came fitted with the optional black leather trim. It’s not the highest-quality hide, but it does give the Commodore’s cabin a more up-market feel.

Unlike the base model Omega, the Berlina scores a six-inch monochrome information display in the centre stack.

The instrument cluster features clear and legible markings, but the reflection issue does impact readability under some light conditions. At night the green backlighting looks a touch dated, but it does make everything easy to see.

The boot holds 496 litres of luggage with the rear seats up, however beneath the floor lurks a tyre inflator kit – a full-size spare wheel is an optional extra.
Equipment and Features

Although just one rung up from the base model Commodore Omega, the Berlina still boasts a respectable equipment list.

Dual-zone climate control, Bluetooth phone integration, cruise control and a trip computer are all standard features – not bad for a $43,000 large car. The Berlina gets rear parking sensors too, a worthy addition considering the VE’s high bootline and less-than-ideal rearward visibility.

Tunes are courtesy of a Blaupunkt AM/FM tuner with six-stacker CD player, that will also read your MP3 music files.

Steering wheel mounted controls and an auxiliary input for portable media players also feature, however there’s no iPod integration for the stereo.

Safety equipment is excellent and, with the VE Commodore range scoring a full 5-Star ANCAP rating, a great source of pride for Holden.

Electronic stability control, traction control, ABS and electronic brakeforce distribution are all factory-issue. Should they not be enough to keep you on the tarmac, a full suite of front, side and curtain airbags (six in total) will help keep passengers in one piece.
Mechanical Package

And now we come to the meat of our review. Although the exterior, cabin and spec levels remain largely the same for the 2010 model year, the Berlina’s mechanicals have undergone some radical changes.

The old 3.6 litre V6 has been turfed and replaced with a newly-developed 3.0 litre V6, codenamed LF1.

It’s no ordinary bent six either, with Holden equipping it with a sophisticated Spark Ignition Direct Injection (SIDI) system that produces more power from less fuel.

The LF1 is only used by the base Omega and Berlina. The rest of the VE range uses an SIDI-equipped 3.6 litre borrowed from the Cadillac CTS, internally known as the LLT.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_20

Thanks to high-compression pistons and a new cylinder-head design that allows the fuel injectors to fire directly into the combustion chamber, the LF1 can extract more power despite its downsized dimensions. Fuel economy is also improved as a result.

Not since the VL Commodore has Holden’s large car utilised an engine of this size, but it’s certainly no handicap for the Berlina. Although 600cc has been slashed from the engine’s displacement, power is actually 10kW up compared to the outgoing Berlina’s 3.6 litre motor.

That brings total power output to 190kW – a healthy number for a 3.0 litre. Torque peaks at 290Nm, which is 40Nm under the old 3.6, but Holden has another trick to help the Berlina overcome this deficiency.

A six-speed automatic gearbox replaces the antiquated four-speed that burdened the 2009 Berlina, and because of its greater spread of ratios and more intelligent shift mapping, the LF1’s torque shortfall can be compensated for.

It’s the only gearbox offered in the Berlina, but a tiptronic system enables manual shifts when required by the driver.

Taller gearing and a lock-up torque converter improves mechanical efficiency, as does a lighter and more freely-spinning alternator. Low rolling-resistance tyres also play their part in assisting the Berlina drive further on each drop of fuel.

Combined fuel consumption is claimed to be 9.3 litres per 100km traveled, giving the Berlina – with its 73 litre tank – a theoretical range of 785km on a combined urban/highway cycle.

Holden also claims the 3.0 V6 can travel from Melbourne to Sydney (a distance of some 900km) on a single tank, claiming a highway fuel consumption a lot less than the combined 9.3 l/100km figure. By how much? You’ll find out shortly.

The rest of the Berlina’s mechanical package is the same, with the exception of more rigid bushing in the rear suspension.

Braking is still handled by the same ventilated disc set-up, and the suspension layout still consists of MacPherson struts up front and a multi-link rear end.
The Drive

This was first and foremost a real world economy test. We didn’t drop our (non-existent) kids to school, we didn’t drive to the milkbar, nor did we take it for a quick fang along some mountain switchbacks.

We did however make every effort to drive just as the average Aussie motorist would, keeping up with traffic and sticking to the posted speed limits. As fate would have it, we also chose a day that had blustery weather and strong winds buffeting most of Victoria.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_10

Holden has made some pretty big claims about what its new 3.0 litre V6 can do with a single tank of unleaded; our objective was to verify them: how far can this car be pushed before it runs out of juice?

With that in mind, we planned a trip that would most certainly see the Berlina run dry: a 1015km odyssey that would have us travelling north-west to Bendigo, up to the Victoria/NSW border at Swan Hill, east to Cobram, then back to Melbourne via a quick detour to Wangaratta.

At a constant speed of 100km/h, that works out to between 10 and 11 hours of solid wheel-time. The necessities of eating, bladder maintenance and refuelling our Skoda Superb support car added a few hours to that.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_13

It was plainly apparent at the 6:00am start time that it was going to be an incredibly long day, so after a hastily-scoffed breakfast we adjusted the tyre pressures back to factory spec, topped up the tanks and set off.

An hour or so in, it looked promising. We’d traveled well over 100km yet the needle refused to budge off the ‘full’ mark of the fuel gauge.

Meanwhile, both myself and TMR’s Kez Casey (acting as ballast/entertainment) were still comfortable and enjoying the ride.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_16

Seats and suspension are two of the most important areas of any long-distance hauler, and the Berlina didn’t disappoint in either respect.

The ride is soft, yes, but it doesn’t pitch and wallow over undulations in the pavement, nor is it perturbed by the occasional pothole or large bump.

The seat cushions are a near-perfect mix of soft and firm foam, and the built-in lumbar support on both front seats helps keep spines straight.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_04The cabin is also reasonably quiet. Despite its low-friction Bridgestone tyres and their stiffer sidewalls, road noise is low inside the Berlina’s cabin.

By Swan Hill it was apparent that the Berlina is no slouch. A few overtaking manoeuvres confirmed that although somewhat lacking in torque, the 3.0 SIDI V6 was certainly capable of propelling the Berlina past slower traffic.

Between Kerang and Cobram, the new six-speed transmission also earned our respect. It’s intelligent enough to shift down when approaching hills, and doesn’t waste time (and fuel) hunting between ratios like the old gearbox did.

It also places the engine in the meat of its powerband whenever the throttle is stomped. The extra two ratios meant there was rarely a moment where the engine was caught off guard.

Under strict instructions to drive the car as we normally would, there were no hypermiling tricks employed. The throttle wasn’t caressed with a delicate foot, nor did we avoid braking when approaching corners.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_08

Despite this carefree attitude towards economical driving, the Berlina just kept going. We were on the Hume highway and heading back towards Melbourne (well past the Violet Town turn-off), when the tripmeter clicked over the 900km mark, verifying Holden’s claim.

2010_holden-commodore-berline_3.0_sidi_road-test-review_economy-run_17

Then 950km came and went with the fuel gauge still hovering over the empty mark. It wasn’t until we’d passed Seymour that that SIDI engine finally spluttered to a stop and we coasted onto the gravel verge.

We’d traveled 983.13 kilometres and burned 78.02 litres of 91RON unleaded.

Our average fuel economy registered at 7.94 l/100km, proving that Holden’s claim was achievable in real world driving.

The 3.0-litre SIDI equipped Commodore can and will travel 900kms – and beyond – on a single tank.
The Verdict

We know the new SIDI Commodore range is capable of some impressively frugal numbers (we steered a 3.6 litre SV6 to 7.2 l/100km at the model’s launch).

That the well-equipped and smaller-engined Berlina is capable of returning the fuel economy it achieved under real-world, and less than ideal, driving conditions is remarkable.

We’d go so far as to suggest that employing a few basic driving techniques to improve fuel efficiency, and more conducive weather would see the Berlina clock more than 1000kms on a single tank. Another nine minutes travelling at the legal limit would have done it. But that’s a test we’ll leave for another day.

The engine might be smaller, but there is no arguing that it is a change for the better. The 2010 Holden Commodore Berlina offers big car comfort, 5-Star safety, comfortable cruising for a family of five and now exceptional fuel economy as well.

At $43,490 it’s an excellent value package.

What do you guys think??

[burnz]

suspension is wishbone not MacPherson struts

[GTpilot]

Swiss Cheese article.
Dependent on which route they took to Bendigo. Looks to me like they circumvented any real hilly terrain. Most of the roads they travelled on are pretty flat highways. Would like to see them take the same route backwards. I dare say they wont get the same economy. Also, From their results, it seem they never actually measured the amount of fuel they used, other than what the trip meter displayed.

What Do I think?? GM sponsored the article.

[outback_ute]

Personally I think the Bathurst test is pretty relevant to average real-world driving - climbing up the hill would give similar load on the engine as taking of from traffic lights 5-10 times, particularly with an auto.

Wally I would disagree with you on driving to an average speed - I try to average ~100km/h on the highway, including hills etc.

I bet some of the aspects of the Eco Challenge change for next year now that the weakness of the rules have been exposed (having a non-efficient car win).

[prydey]

if you focus on the L/100km figure, its nothing to write home about. guys are doing similar numbers on here in G6ET's. even in my ba on a trip to adelaide from brisbane i averaged just under 8L/100km for the 2000km journey and in my ef i averaged 8.4L/100km for the trip.

speaking in terms of km/tank is very misleading as tank sizes vary.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jgb

Also, From their results, it seem they never actually measured the amount of fuel they used, other than what the trip meter displayed.

What Do I think?? GM sponsored the article.

We’d traveled 983.13 kilometres and burned 78.02 litres of 91RON unleaded. Our average fuel economy registered at 7.94 l/100km,

thats not a trip computer reading, work it out. also tank size is 73L so they obviously brimmed it to get maximum km's. I'd say its a pretty fair article. once again, 8L/100km on the highway is easily achievable in a range of 6cyl cars, new and not so new!!

[Carby]

Originally Posted by ltd

Judging by the responses you're getting to your insightful post (sic); I put it to you that you are indeed an expert when it comes to the polishing of excrement; particularly Holden press release excrement.

Another expert - tell when was the last time you drove for 1000km's not stopping for traffic lights, slowing for roundabouts and stuck to a 60km speed limit?

The test was ludicrous - it's not a Falcon Vs Commodore thing as I'm the first to recognise that the Falcon has many strengths and in 6 cylinder form is a better car than the VE, but really this test is of interest value only.

[GTpilot]

Originally Posted by prydey

thats not a trip computer reading, work it out. also tank size is 73L so they obviously brimmed it to get maximum km's. I'd say its a pretty fair article. once again, 8L/100km on the highway is easily achievable in a range of 6cyl cars, new and not so new!!

Read the comments below the article.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Carby

Another expert - tell when was the last time you drove for 1000km's not stopping for traffic lights, slowing for roundabouts and stuck to a 60km speed limit?

how often do any of us nail the throttle to the carpet in a straight line for 400m? and yet a lot of people base everything on those figures. even 0-100km/h episodes are few and far between and still those figures hold a lot of importance to a lot of people (generally not the ones that actually buy the cars).

on my daily commute to work, i average around 45km/h and due to the odd times i travel because of shift work i rarely stop for traffic lights. whats 'real world' for one is not for another.