Cars"guide" VE2 Omega vs Falcon XT comparison - how ridiculous is the score?

**Silver Ghia** · 18-09-2010, 11:13 PM

Link to this comparison:

http://www.carsguide.com.au/site/new...comparo_review

**Giant Cranium** · 18-09-2010, 11:24 PM

i now have a ve omega ute and having had a fg falcon also i can say that the falcon is so much better than the commodore!
that review is a joke written buy a holden fan

deesun · 19-09-2010, 01:34 AM

I thought he said more good things about the FG but then when it went to a score it was arce about fase.

DJL351 · 19-09-2010, 02:13 AM

Wow..... A new model out ranks the current... something new there... not!

Not sure what people are getting worked up about - seemed to be a close run thing with the VT Mk XXVIII getting the cookies. I'd say that the extra standard safety items where what got it over the line.

FNQracing · 19-09-2010, 09:19 AM

I didn't realise the FG body shape harks back to the BA? Wasn't the FG all new? Maybe he's talking about the looks? I'm always mistaking FG's for BF's at 20 paces.

Gaz · 19-09-2010, 09:56 AM

lol at It's consumption figure.. over 2L/100km worse than the falcon. They said ethanol blend, didn't even say if it was E85 or E10...

Bzzzzt, try again carsguide.

Stoney! · 19-09-2010, 10:31 AM

It CLEARLY stated it was E85....

Do you guys need to have it pointed out to you like children, why the Falcon didn't get it, you guys look at power and think that;s all their is too it, if this is what the boffins in ford head office are doing its no wonder falcons dropping the ranks. At the end of the day the Commodore is the better all round package, with better equipment levels and better safety gear, and whilst the 3.0 may not be competitive the 3.6 certainly is.

Stoney!

Deco28 · 19-09-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

lol at It's consumption figure.. over 2L/100km worse than the falcon. They said ethanol blend, didn't even say if it was E85 or E10...

Bzzzzt, try again carsguide.

I'd sa it was E85, so technically the fuel consumption is good. E85 burns 25% more fuel, so if you use that as a rule, using normal petrol it'd use abou 10.3l/100km.

Both cars are good, but of course the Commodore is now better, it just got updated...

dannyhilton · 19-09-2010, 01:21 PM

Having not looked at a VEII Commodore, I'd say on paper it does look to be a better car than the FG XT Falcon. Of corse the meatier engine, much better transmission and better dynamics appear to make it a better drivers car. The article has bias, they all do, just in this case it's a little pro Holden. Bring on FGII.

**Dave R** · 19-09-2010, 01:35 PM

Well the Omega now comes with a colour touch screen and alot more standard kit in a more visually appealing package than XT, it might drive like crap but that's not what these base models are about...

Pedro · 19-09-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain awesome

i now have a ve omega ute and having had a fg falcon also i can say that the falcon is so much better than the commodore!
that review is a joke written buy a holden fan

I'm with you captain awesome.
Let me say from the start, if I thought a Holden or any other make was better I'd buy it.

When my BF was written off and I was looking for a replacement, I rented a near new Commodore for a week to see what they are like. I was shocked at how bad it was and that's comparing it to a BF!

I then test drove an FG and there was no contest ... the FG was in another class. Ford advertising should tell prospects to "Go drive a Commodore first!"
I don't know how improved the VE 11 is, but it would have to be by a country mile to be anywhere near an FG.

Ryan · 19-09-2010, 02:21 PM

Why are people getting so uptight over this?

The article seems quite fair if you ask me. It's not always about power.

Remember the type of people who buy Omegas, and XTs don't give a stuff about the way they perform.

bluebloodxr8 · 19-09-2010, 02:27 PM

good point Pedro,
I had a VE Commode rental for a month in January, and was shocked at how poor the driving experience was.
Yes I know it is a rental, but it only had 14,000km on the clock.
Engine had no torque, transmission always guessing, never in the correct ratio, and dropping down 2 gears at the slightest hint of a hill. My BF was all over it in every respect.
People who are undecided between the two, should definitely hire one for a week.

Wretched · 19-09-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney!

It CLEARLY stated it was E85....

Do you guys need to have it pointed out to you like children, why the Falcon didn't get it, you guys look at power and think that;s all their is too it, if this is what the boffins in ford head office are doing its no wonder falcons dropping the ranks. At the end of the day the Commodore is the better all round package, with better equipment levels and better safety gear, and whilst the 3.0 may not be competitive the 3.6 certainly is.

Stoney!

Quoted for the truth.

It is sad that too many here can't look past the badge on a car.
Some of the comments on this board are so immature, I really have to wonder the age and mental state of members.

The VE2 isn't perfect but neither is the FG. For the $$ the standard equipment offered by the VE2 far out does the FG. Ford have lacked in this area of a long time. If they're smart Ford would start offering some value for $$. Not everyone needs a neck snapping turbo 6. Some want a decent ride and a few gadgets. C'mon Ford, FG2 better offer something to EVERY buyer.

anto · 19-09-2010, 03:05 PM

people are immature because they dont agree ? I think you need to get off the high horse for a sec..

how does the ve far "out do" the falcon ? a gimmicky touch screen and a $300 airbag option available in the ford are the only real equipment level difference.
Oh and the e85....no thanks !

Joe5619 · 19-09-2010, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anto

people are immature because they dont agree ? I think you need to get off the high horse for a sec..

how does the ve far "out do" the falcon ? a gimmicky touch screen and a $300 airbag option available in the ford are the only real equipment level difference.
Oh and the e85....no thanks !

A) Tounch screen is not just a gimmicky & will very soon be std across all cars!! Personally for my, this is a HUGE advantage Commodore has over Falcon....
B) the $300 air bag is not std in the the Falcon, this is probably why Holden socred better here!! It is not about what is an option, but about what is std!!

**Dave R** · 19-09-2010, 03:59 PM

I just saw the story in the paper, pretty stupid how they have the Redline SS and a G6E (poorly photoshopped) on the cover and they're only testing the base models.

Ford should drop the XT. It's ugly and cheapens the image of Falcon, plus it doesn't sell. Particularly these days when the Omega has been spiced up to shed that base model feeling. Arghhh it makes me so mad that Ford persists with the POS XT. How can they be selling XR6s with leather & 18s for $35k and still have XT's RRP set at $40k. Either change the RRP to 30 grand & change those ugly red tail lights or kill it with fire.

flappist · 19-09-2010, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

A) Tounch screen is not just a gimmicky & will very soon be std across all cars!! Personally for my, this is a HUGE advantage Commodore has over Falcon....

A touch screen?

You mean an electronic device that requires you to look at it while using it therefore taking your attention of the road?

Like a mobile phone does?

Surely such devices are illegal.........

This could get interesting.....

Gaz · 19-09-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

The three-litre V6 is running on an ethanol-blend and it's a little smoother - the sweeter fuel has not roughed the V6 up. It still feels a little undergone through the mid-range compared to the Ford and the trip computer ended the same loop showing 13.7 litres per 100km, which corresponds to Holden expectations of increased fuel use on E85.

says an ethanol blend.. doesn't say it WAS E85. I'll wait and see some extra tests when it is definitely E85.

Falcon quoted is 9.9, was using 11.1 - Lets assume their test route uses 12% more than ADR average (Seeing test drives have actually seen the falcon figure being a little more accurate than the commodore).

VE uses 9.1, mark it up 12% like the falcon = 10.2 to get that up to the 13.7 they showed is more like a 34.5% increase - bit more than 25%.

I agree the Omega has it over the XT, easily. I don't see curtain airbags as a big selling point to differentiate, that said at $300 Ford should just be including them. The touch screen is also a big positive. Ford's mono screen is a joke in this age and when looking for cars I knocked back many xr6t's over it.

Considering some other comparisons carsguide have done and the end rating, those scores are very odd. It may have been justified at 1 or 2 points, a gap of 6 makes an uneducated reader think the falcon is crap compared to the omega.

gtfpv · 19-09-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

A touch screen?

You mean an electronic device that requires you to look at it while using it therefore taking your attention of the road?

Like a mobile phone does?

Surely such devices are illegal.........

This could get interesting.....

this is part of the new safety standards australia , not to mention finger prints on the screen all the time , it would be hard trying to explain you werent fooling with the screen when you run up the back of that volvo , when youR left index finger has been severed and is somewhere in the ICC .

Joe5619 · 19-09-2010, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

A touch screen?

You mean an electronic device that requires you to look at it while using it therefore taking your attention of the road?

Like a mobile phone does?

Surely such devices are illegal.........

This could get interesting.....

Yes, that would be the one!!!

I was thinking the other day as I drove along in my FG, that every button in the center dash (except for the round one & the ones on each side) require me to take me eyes off the road to find which one I want. Even the 4-5 ones at the top near the screen need me to look so I get the right one. Might as well make it a touch screenn!!!

Lets make radios, air conditoners illegal!!

Windsor220 · 19-09-2010, 05:40 PM

I dont think people really care about the result its just the article doesnt match the score. There was no real area where the VE outdid the FG yet the score is an easy victory to the Commodore.

**Dave R** · 19-09-2010, 05:47 PM

Speaking of the interior, I just noticed that Carsguide used an image of the SV6 interior instead of the Omega's interior... Morons.

The G6ET Spot · 19-09-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anto

$300 airbag option available in the ford are the only real equipment level difference.

If you are being slugged $300 by Ford as an option for the airbag when the car is built, you can bet that it is only really costing them $50 or so for it.

It should be in the car as standard in the first place. But as with Ford of late things just seem to be a cost cutting exercise and IMO to their detriment.

Nikked · 19-09-2010, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Why are people getting so uptight over this?

The article seems quite fair if you ask me. It's not always about power.

Remember the type of people who buy Omegas, and XTs don't give a stuff about the way they perform.

Spot on, every time a Commodore gets a better review all these online "experts" seem to think that they are wrong

70773 · 19-09-2010, 06:41 PM

ANCAP Ratings

FG Falcon 34.61 out of 37

VE Commo 33.16 out of 37

Does this mean that the Falcon would far out do the Commodore if it had the side air bag.

anto · 19-09-2010, 06:44 PM

yes I agree it should be standard but for 300 lousy bucks, its a non issue to me. In fact for the 300 bucks you get the safety pack inc curtain airbags, electric pedal adjustment and an alarm

I was mereley questioning the claim that omega has it over the XT.
and Im sorry, touch screens are gimmicky ,what is the benefit of having to touch the screen to adjust volume as opposed to a button.....? none. All you end up with is a smudged dirty screen, no thanks.
On the other hand a voice command system ala mondeo wouldactually be something usefull.

dannyhilton · 19-09-2010, 06:51 PM

The airbag debate raises its ugly head.

My 2c. If the base Mondeo can offer seven airbags as standard, and every other safety feature, then why can't the base Falcon? Then again its a $300 option, if you can't spare $300 for side airbags on your brand new car then you really don't want them.

The review. It's biased towards Holden. That's obvious. But the VEII seems to be an overall better car than the FG XT, it packs much more equipment and like it or hate it, people respond to that with their wallets. FGII should correct this, and hopefully Ford will bring Ford SYNC and My Ford, with some minor changes, that'll put us back in front.

vztrt · 19-09-2010, 07:07 PM

Well the articles says that it won on features and the safety stuff.

Quote:

VERDICT

Both the Commodore and the Falcon are comfortable, spacious and capable family cars but the VEII has - as you'd expect - overtaken it in terms of features and safety gear. The latest version of the top-selling Commodore hasn't changed much but it has improved some of the areas that prompted complaints (the centre stack in particular).

Mind you for people saying that buyers don't care about how the car goes and handles, then why take it thought the Adelaide Hills?? Shouldn't the test have been in heavy traffic?

InfernoSR · 19-09-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Both cars are evolutions of long-running body shapes, the VE being the more recently and majorly overhauled in 2006 while the FG's body shape harks back to the BA.

BA XT

FG XT

VZ

VE

Quote:

The Ford is still a handsome machine but neither is on the cutting edge of styling.

sheesh... picky...