AFTER TWO FULL DAYS at the wheel of Holden’s new 2010 VE (MY10) 3.0 litre SIDI V6 and the 3.6 litre SIDI V6, three things are apparent.
First, the new 3.0 litre and 3.6 litre direct injection V6 engines are significant advances over the old, not only in technology but also in refinement.
Second, with ADR combined cycle figures as low as 9.3 l/100km for the new 3.0 litre V6, fuel consumption and carbon emissions are also significantly advanced. Frugality of this order betters some four-cylinder contenders in the medium segment.
Third, the improved power outputs - 190kW produced by the 3.0 litre, and 210kW produced by the 3.6 litre – show that efficiency and lowered emissions need not conflict with tractability and enjoyment at the wheel.
These are traditional big sixes with the power and responsiveness Australian buyers expect, but with the efficiency and emissions output that is a genuine match for some four-cylinder competitors. This point will not be lost on family and fleet buyers.
Also of significance to fleet and family buyers are the improvements to passive and active safety features right across the new Commodore range. Importantly, for the first time in the light commercial sector, six-airbags, including side and curtain airbags, are standard across the ute range.
But the ‘ace in the deck’ is Holden’s leading-edge SIDI (Spark Ignition Direct Injection) technology.
Holden’s drive-train engineers clocked up 1.1 million test kilometers and around 11,000 dyno hours in development of the new SIDI 3.0 litre and 3.6 litre V6s.
For efficiency, throttle response and refinement, the development effort shows. This is a real achievement for Australian engineering and for Holden’s global V6 engine manufacturing operations.
After our two days at the wheel - the first assessing performance over some winding and varied sections of foothill driving, the second an economy drive to the border and back - we’re convinced that Holden has something special under the bonnet with its SIDI technology.
Mechanical Package
The launch of the two locally-built Spark Ignition Direct Injection Technology (SIDI) engines is a first for Australian vehicle manufacturing.
SIDI works by injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber. This process allows higher compression resulting in improved efficiency, greatly improved fuel economy, reduced CO2 emissions and improved output and performance.
Advanced multi-point injectors, a high-pressure engine-driven fuel pump and cam-phasing also improve both the environmental numbers and dynamic capabilities of Holden’s new V6s.
There is also a lower idle speed, now just 550rpm (down 50rpm), further reducing fuel waste and emissions when in heavy traffic or waiting at lights.
Holden claims that the Commodore Omega with the SIDI 3.0 litre V6 can travel from Melbourne to Sydney on just one tank of fuel. Such a claim for a large family car would have been a pipe-dream just a decade ago.
The 3.0 litre SIDI engine will power the Omega and Berlina Commodore sedans and Sportwagon. The 3.6 litre unit powers the premium Commodore range – SV6, Calais, SV6 Ute and Statesman.
Both engines are all-alloy (with iron bore liners), DOHC and undersquare. Both run relatively high compression: the 3.0 litre at 11.7:1, the 3.6 litre, 11.3:1, but each are perfectly happy with 91 RON fuel.
Both engines are almost entirely new. The internal block architecture for the 3.6 litre SIDI V6 (essentially the same motor as used by the Cadillac CTS) may be the same as the engine it replaces, but external castings, mounts and heads are all-new.
The 3.6 litre continues to use an aluminium intake manifold, however the 3.0 litre SIDI has a composite (plastic) intake manifold with integrated intake runners in the head casting. The exhaust manifold is also integral to the cylinder heads.
Each is paired with the 6L50 automatic transmission. The six-speed manual can be specified for the SV6 models (the Aisin AY6 six-speed), but there is no manual option for the 3.0 litre.
The six-speed auto, for both engine variants, employs a ‘turbine damper’ which sits after the torque converter to reduce vibration through the drive-train, further improving refinement.
Bridgestone Turanza tyres come with the 16 and 17-inch tyre packages. These are designed to minimise flex through changes in the structure of the tyre and thus reduce rolling resistance at highway speeds. The rest of the range utilises Yokohamas.
Also improving efficiency is a low friction alternator and new energy management software. This draws power from the battery under certain conditions rather than continuously relying on the generator, thereby reducing mechanical drag on the engine.
The old 3.6 litre, without direct injection, carries over from the outgoing model for the base ute.
The Drive
With 210kW @ 6400rpm and 350Nm @ 2900rpm, the 3.6 litre feels very strong. Those figures have it encroaching on V8 territory, and the extra power is apparent underfoot.
With a six-speed auto transmission (or six-speed manual available), the 3.6 litre will capture some buyers who might otherwise have leaned to the V8. It is a responsive, tractable and free-spinning unit and can really hustle when pressed.
Importantly, from 60km/h to 100km/h, those critical speeds for overtaking safely, it can really pick up its skirts and bolt.
The 3.0 litre, while it’s the smallest Commodore power-train in more than 20 years (you’ve got to go back to the gasping ‘Starfire’ four to find a smaller unit) produces a commendable 190kW @ 6700rpm and 290Nm @ 2900rpm.
It’s a willing unit and not at all overawed by the task. And, though shaded for power and torque by the bigger 3.6, is also a spirited drive.
While on paper the smaller 3.0 litre does not seem over-endowed with torque, paired with the six-speed transmission it can be kept nicely in the ‘sweet spot’ of its torque curve.
In the hills, new incline sensing (inclinometer) technology has the transmission shifting down early which pre-empts loads and stops speed from washing off. It also drops down a ratio on declines too, using engine braking to maintain vehicle speed.
Most importantly, it doesn’t ‘hunt’ (as some do, annoyingly) and impresses as a very well-matched drivetrain-powertrain package. As a piece of technology, the 6L50 is worlds apart from the four-speed slushbox it replaces.
As an integrated system, the shift mapping and well-spaced ratios work nicely with the 3.0’s torque and 190kW power output. It won’t excite the senses in the same way the 3.6 might, but very few commuters or family buyers would fault it.
Otherwise, for the drive, little else has changed with the new model.
On the road, both variants are typically well-balanced, with sharp turn-in and the right damping and isolation from coarse and broken surfaces for Australian roads.
A new spherical bearing has been fitted to the rear lower control arms, replacing the squishy rubber bushing used by the outgoing model and improving suspension performance under load.
Thicker rear swaybars on models fitted with 18 and 19-inch wheels help rein in body roll and understeer, but otherwise the VE’s suspension hardware carries over unchanged.
The Commodore – like the Falcon incidentally - has always been a benchmark for handling and versatility for the affordable large car sector.
Quiet at highway speeds, and with a robust and durable feel, the new Commodore performs as well or better than its imported direct competition.
For value and the totality of the product, score “one up” to Australian design and engineering for the Commodore.
Score another point for real-world fuel economy too. The first stage of Holden’s drive program focused on performance driving, but despite both engines being thoroughly spanked through some of Central Victoria’s more challenging roads, the 3.0 and 3.6 litre SIDI V6s each delivered fuel economy around the 10.0 l/100km mark.
The second stage involved a long-distance economy challenge from the outskirts of Melbourne all the way up to the NSW/Victoria border.
Ignoring the spirit of the challenge somewhat, we drove the first three legs without paying much attention to attaining the lowest fuel economy. However, although frugal driving methods often took a backseat, the worst average fuel economy figure reached was 8.3 litres per 100km.
During the final leg - which TMR decided to take a little more seriously - our 3.6 litre SV6 automatic netted a 7.2 l/100km fuel consumption figure. Not bad for a sports-oriented V6-powered large car.
Safety-wise, each model in the Commodore sedan and Sportwagon range score a full 5-Stars in ANCAP testing. The new ute range now receives ESC and front, side and curtain airbags as standard, and is due to be tested by ANCAP later this month.
Each come with a steering shroud energy absorber, seat-belt reminder, ESC, ABS, electronic brake-force distribution, electronic brake assist and traction control.
Verdict
With the new SIDI-equipped Commodore range, GM Holden is responding to the challenges in the market, and those of the environment, with a car for the times.
The new powertrains offer a technological refinement that makes an already good car an excellent one.
Commodore sales took a bit of a battering last month, but, once word gets out, these new models should return the natural order of things - as well as throw down the gauntlet on large-car fuel economy.
With Commodore’s traditionally strong resale values, and with a willing 3.0 litre offering fuel efficiency that some ‘fours’ struggle to better, family and fleet buyers who may have moved away from the bigger sixes are well advised take another look.
A longer test drive will tell, but the SIDI-equipped Commodore might just be the best buy of the moment.
2009 Holden Cruze CDX 
2010 FPV F6 E
Comments
Click here to jump to Add Comment box
How do you get a picture next to your name?
Get a Gravatar. Click here to find out more.
I don’t care how good they say it goes, 290Nm in a car that size is not going to be responsive lower down in the rev range without kicking down gears… something I can’t stand in autos. Especially when you need that little extra acceleration up a hill or over-taking. I’d want better fuel economy than 9.3 to drive a family car with that amount of torque.
I’d still take Fords beautiful, tough i6(391Nm). So it uses 0.7 of a litre per 100klms more? If the FG MkII has the ZF 6sp standard in the lower end models it would push into the mid 9s for fuel economy anyway, no competition performance wise….
If you want to only be up .7L/100km, be prepared to pay 2k extra for the auto.
Have fun.
What I want to know is, are they going to be teaching people how to drive in order to achieve those fuel consumption claims?
However broad a generalisation this may be, I have noticed over many years on the roads a tendency for the Commodore driver to drive digitally (either full throttle or full brake). As Martin has already mentioned, there is a comparitive lack of torque with the 3.0. This is going to make people even more prone to matting the pedal every time the light turns green thereby destroying any fuel consumption gains they might otherwise have.
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it.
Just put a bloody diesel engine in it already. Monster torque and amazing fuel economy.
While i admit, the Falcon engine does provide far more torque, most drivers just do not care. Right now this is the race for the fuel economy wars, and this new commodore uses 1.2L/100km less than the Falcon XT. That is significant.
I really doubt 290nm will be that strained on a 6 speed auto, the Ecotec had 310nm for years with a 4 speed auto box, which had no room at all to kick down around the 70kmh mark. For most peoples driving it will be fine, and get very good fuel consumption.
Holden could have applied the 3.6 across the board, but the fact is the 3.6 outperforms the falcons 4L, while still using less fuel. Thats a big deal.
“Two full days at the wheel”.”The first assessing performance”. “The second an economy drive to the border and back”. Yet no mention of the fuel used during the test in the article. Whats up with that?
The 3.6 outperforms the falcon 4L?? Where are these so called “facts” please?
From consumernews.com.au:
“From April 2009 production, a Falcon XT sedan with the optional ZF six-speed automatic transmission will have a fuel consumption rating of just 9.9 L/100km”
Where are you pulling this stat of the Falcon using 1.2L/100km more than the new 3.0 Holden?? It’s 0.6 more, which you wouldn’t even notice… the torque difference you would absolutely notice. Anyone with any clue would anyway. So how much less fuel does the 3.6 use than Fords i6?? Must be nothing. Fords ZF 6sp superior transmission also.
Flex, in standard forms, without options (i.e. the 2k extra auto), the difference is 1.2L/100km.
Flex, the Falcon XT auto with the optional ZF 6 speed transmission and the SV6 Commodore use an identical amount of fuel. (According to the official figures, lets see this in actual motion).
The SV6 also provides 20 more kw of power.
@ The Dog
So you don’t think when Ford bring out the 4 banger Falcon people won’t mash the pedal too just to hear the turbo whine or to be 1st off at the lights. Ford have already said the 4 banger Falcon won’t be as quick as the 4.0L motor. So expect destroyed fuel consumption too.
It’s not what you drive, it’s how you drive it.
@ Deco
The new 3.0 doesn’t come standard with the 6sp as far as I know.
@Mitch1
True, although the Falcon has 40nm more torque, which in real world conditions is a more important power measure. Maximum Kw is at the red line, how often are you there?? Why do you think the FG XR6T(270Kw) is quicker than all the 300kw+ Holden/Ford V8s? TORQUE!!
Would like to hear the fuel figures from the review please?
For those saying the 3.6 outperforms the falcon 4L, well it doesn’t. Both have the same average fuel consumption if the falcon has the ZF 6 speed. The falcon will waste the 3.6 in acceleration , with Superior torque and a a gear box light years ahead of the commodores. The more torque in the falcon would most likely mean a more economic real world fuel efficiency. Now for the 3.0 ford has no answer until the ecoboost engine or until next year when the I6 is updated.
@Flex
I am under no doubt that the Falcon still has the brilliant engine. The real surprise is for once in my adult life the Commodore actually has a class leading engine. The Holdens have always had to make do, and still sold well, if its not better, this DI 3.6 is atleast as good as.
@John, i really don’t think the Falcon will waste this engine. I don’t see how it possibly could, it has more torque, but less power, and more weight. I’d say they will probably be pretty equal with the advantaged tipped slightly in the Holdens favor, we shall see.
@Flex, the 270kw xr6t doesn’t waste the LS3 line of Holdens, the 310kw F6 is slightly ahead of the 307kw Holden, slightly. Ever since they went to the LS3 that might be a new story. Thats more a power curve thing than anything.
yes the commodore 3.6 has high power output but 15kw but fords torque advantage is over 40nm. When it comes down the acceleration torque plays a massive role and with the better gearbox its hard 2 c the commodore besting it. It wont waste it i exaggerated, they will be closer than they were before.
Quote from article
“The 3.0 litre, while it’s the smallest Commodore power-train in more than 20 years (you’ve got to go back to the gasping ‘Starfire’ four to find a smaller unit) produces a commendable 190kW @ 6700rpm and 290Nm @ 2900rpm.”
Why is this ridiculous comparison made.
The Starfire (Backfire) engine was rubbish.
Why not compare it to the last ALL Holden 3litre.
Ye old 186.
There’s a lot of people out here can relate to that.
You journos missed a golden opportunity there, could have made an interesting article.
As it is, well Boring is the first word that comes to mind.
Hi Mick, we’re not comparing the 3.0 SIDI to the Starfire at all, rather we’re merely stating it’s the smallest Commodore engine SINCE the Starfire.
Morris, the fuel economy figures attained from the economy drive are now in the article.
@Mick.
Great point Mick, why didn’t anyone else think of that glaring obvious anomaly in the article. I mean the 186 Holden engine is such an exciting boat anchor.
In fact it was much the same as the 202 and the 179 and even the 173, which with two cylinders lopped off IS the Starfire four cylinder engine.
Mick, you are a bona fide Mensa candidate mate.
@Captain Nemo
I absolutely agree with you about the 4cyl Falcon and I thought the same thing when I first heard about it. I should have included most Falcon drivers in that generalisation.
For the record I have a BF XR8 and I don’t suffer from the digital affliction.
the VL commodore was 3 litre , turbo charged it put out a whopping 150 kw, now we have a 3 litre 190kw and the knockers are out in force, surely it cant be to much of a pig with std 6 speed auto, well done holden. the 3.6 litre only puts out 20kw more than the 3.0 ltr. the 3.6 lte should have 235kw IMO.
“During the final leg - which TMR decided to take a little more seriously - our 3.6 litre SV6 automatic netted a 7.2 l/100km fuel consumption figure.” My FG XR6T gets 8.0L/100km on the highway with a good workout of the loud pedal. I know which method won’t leave me stuck behind a Camry doing 85km/hr.
Good initiative from Holden but I can’t see this standing up to the Falcon’s coming EcoBoost 4/ZF auto combo. I look forward to the comparison tests
@Mitch
I never said the XR6T wasted anything. It is as quick as the HSV range though. 0-100 is very close, everywhere else the XR6T has them covered, all while using marginally less fuel. HSVs are for yuppy types or lower class suburbia once second hand(+ the horrible clothing line).
Does anyone know if the original Alloytec these engines replace had iron bore liners?
if they didnt have iron sleeves, what wiuld they have.allyfoil?
Maybe no bore liners? Or how about steel?
I don’t know. I am no mechanic. Give me a break chump!
@ flex, Yes the auto is standard.
And so the unhealthy obsession with Commodores v Falcon continues… yawn…
The alloytec engine has polymer sleeves, like you have in your frypan, tough and smooth with really tight tolreances so less blowback and longer service intervals. Also piston cooling jets so its lubricated from start up, how about that!
Gotta love how these articles always turn into a Holden v Ford pissing contest!!!
Congrats to Holden for a great product in the 3.6L, however the 3.0L was just a waste of $$$.
@ Steve
well said lol but i gess the 3.0L will be cheaper and people not so interested in power would jst go for that.
It was only about 18 months ago Holden’s chief of engineering was on Insight saying they wouldn’t make more efficient cars unless the government forced them to…well it seems their customers are forcing them to. It seems our Detroit owned Holden is learning the same lessons already learnt in the US. Whoever does their market research must have been stuck in1970…
I gotta say im quiet dissapointed.
I thought the 2010 commodore would at LEAST get a LITTLE bit of a facelift !?
apart from the engine upgrade, theres almost ZERO distinguishing features from the previous fleet!! damn its upsetting.
Im not buying one anytime soon, I saved up my friggin money for nothing.
The 3.6 SIDI V6 delivers peak power at 6400 rpm with a 11.3 :1 compression ratio, compared to 6000 rpm and 10.3 :1 for the Ford 4.0 Inline6. No secret then which is going to last longer. Still, will be interesting to see which one wins a drag race.
I was very surprised to read the article in the Melbourne Age today that in their test the 3.0 litre SIDI used 10 percent more fuel when compared to a car of similar weight powered by an oversized ultra low tech 50 year old ex truck motor.
In addition the the rough as guts old truck motor seems to have more urge.
This test was done by people that could not be described as Ford lovers.
The article is going to hurt the Holden SIDI marketing push. I was thinking of getting a 3.0 SIDI but not now.
why dont holden just make a 3.8 v6 over head cam motor the old v6 went hard of the line but the new 3.6 is a slug .
I am at a loss, I was seriously looking at the 3.0 international edition.
It’s an upgrade from a VX Berlina that is slowly failing. Am I wrong ? I have always liked Holdens, I did feel the one I drove felt too light. That may just be i was used to the Berlina…
Many thanks
V-block Australian Car burns Gasoline as 100 years Aussie’s habits of automobile industry here. Advance technology to save fuel comes slower than rivals from European and Japanese.
Holden is Daewoo is Suzuki is Opel in many countries which lack of technical reliability and supports while huge fixing costs. That’s why Holden only pop in Australia with a Repression from strict traffic rules and regulation. Happy Tourqey Car.
the new ve look good but are a heavy car the 6.0 litre v8s are good some time they are good on fuel on the trip have heard 10 litres per 100 kms plenty of power when over taking.the new 3.0 litre would wanna do 6-7 to the 100 kms you would have give to it to over take out on the hwy good luck fuel not getting any cheaper your call.
I always find it amazing that the europeans always seem to be way ahead of Australians when it comes to automobiles. Diesel is the king in europe and you can get some pretty fast turbo diesels…….Im a mercedes man and my daily drive is a 1988 420sel, 4.2 V8 all alloy, OHC, fuel injected, only got 310,000km and it gets 10.5lts /100 on the hwy. Im mean seriously this new commodore burns 8 ish per 100 on the hwy………hello its 20 years since my merc was made and holden can only produce an engine thats 1.2 lts smaller similiar hp and only 25% more efficient…….please. Wake up holden………Commodore turbo diesel
Impressive figures on engine performance but I have to agree with Karl, when are Oz car manufacturers going to wake up and offer a decent turbo charged diesel? After being a Aussie car owner for over 20 years I am now a european convert and own a 2.0 litre 125kW diesel Passat - I can drive Canberra to Brisbane on a 70 litre tank. Sydney to Melbourne is a walk in the park. The day GMH offers a diesel I might again consider a Commodore
While this SIDI concept sounds good I doubt it actually lives upto to the hype. By the standards I am use to observing in the Commodore and Falcon they have successfully sucked in the Australian populace into believing that a Australian-built car with a Direct Injection engine and 6 speed conventional auto is of the cutting edge when really no doubt a euro manufacturer could probably make the same car for less money. I am a huge fan of mechanical simplicity and gradual upgrades but for a car to succeed in the mass market it must not just keep up but be ahead of the others in some way. Holden/Ford are relying on old loyalities and flawed ideals rather than placing themselves where they should be at the cutting edge of the automobile industry, not just keeping up but striving to be the best.
Andrew, while i commend your ability to use flash words and well constructed sentences to sound like you have a point, that statement does not indeed have one.
What hype? Are you doubting the performance numbers, the number of gears the gearbox has or the fuel economy advances? I guarantee you, from every test ive seen, it does indeed live up to the hype. The 3.6’s are actually getting just as good fuel economy as the 3.0’s, while performing significantly better acceleration numbers.
I just don’t understand how anything in the Holden is old technology? The chasis refinement and engine specification is as good as anything european, especially for the price point. Both Holden and Ford do an amazing job. We arn’t talking rear trailing arm IRS and 4 speed automatics running through pushrod engines here, everything in the VE is completely modern.
Its very hard for any car appealing to the mainstream at a low price point to be cutting edge, i think you would find it very difficult to find any ‘outdated’ technology on either the commodore or falcon.
The Turbo I6 in the Ford is arguable the worlds best engine as far as performance, efficiency, reliability, cost, etc go. I struggle to think of anything that can put down better numbers while using such a small amount of fuel.
Why is it that people always get road cars confused with race cars? The Holden verse Falcon “competition” is also a little old. I am a big fan of the Falcon XR6’s and the XR8 400 and 500Kw models that appear on our steets from time to time. I have also just taken delivery of a SV6 3.6 Sportwagon and so far I am very impressed. Holden have taken a step forward and I hope that Ford has similar ideas on the drawing board. As for the Holden/Ford debate, there realy isnt anything between them.
Allan.
@ Allan: Ford have the 2 litre EcoBoost engine coming in the not-too-distant future. Yes the constant leapfrogging by each brand is good for us, giving us better cars each time round, no matter which one you buy
The biggest customer of these cars are the fleet sales, and so these are the customers to please. Long service intervals, lower fuel consumption etc.
Toyota has become very popular in this regard.
This competition (and the company’s up and coming fleet buyer dude who doesn’t care about boring v8 supercars) is also the reason Holden and Ford are going to try technology for a change.
Toyota should really have brought out the Mark X locally, and Lexus should have brought out the IS350 to really win over some customers. I bought an xr6t because there wasn’t anything else in the market similar (local factory warranty, RWD, turbocharged, big boot, cheap insurance).
Turbo diesel is the future though, and i’m amazed Ford and Holden haven’t cottoned on - even though Holden seems to be mostly rebadged Daewoos, but Ford has such a big base in Europe; Diesel capital.
Interesting you mention the Toyota Jon. Came out around the same time as the VE I believe but so far as I know has not received any updates since then. Shows how far ahead Toyota were with that car and now Holden and Ford are playing catch-up whilst Toyota just relaxs. The Australian car industry is gradually entering into a new era of increased competition and this has the great effect of forcing us to make a greater contribution to the market to stay afloat and if this wasen’t the case I’d dread to think what we’d still be driving around in. Holden might still have the 3.8 whilst I am pretty sure Ford might of still gone down the DOHC road. Turbo Diesel though is definately worth considering for the Commo and Falcon, that strong torque and low consumption is ideal especially on the highway, not to mention for towing purposes. As its a well-proven technology it could be bought here at a affordable price I would assume and the selling power of Ford and Holden combined could help to make diesel a even more commonplace sight in Australia and therefore perhaps more affordable for the customer overall.
Andrew, Its no secret that Toyotas are for the elderly, thats why most of us choose to drive a H or F.
You also refer to low consumption for the Turbo Diesel, was that before it became more expensive that unleaded fuel? Id be surprised if there is any real saving, Its no different to people who convert their cars to Liquid LPD injection, claim it only costs them $40 to fill up, yet they fill up 2 or 3 times a week. Go figure!!
But indeed you are correct when referring to diesel cars as being torquey. Perhaps 530 od NM of torque on my 6.0L isnt quite enough to tow a boat?
You stick to your jap crap, the rest fo us will do what we can to support the Aussie Car industry, where we can…
After owning a FG Falcon XR6 6 speed auto for the last 4 months I’ve been blown away with it’s performance and fuel economy, so I don’t know what all this hype is about with the new SIDI commodore getting so called class leading fuel figures.
I’ve done a couple of long trips in my Falcon and without even trying have been getting 7.8L/100Km. I’ve driven from ballina(1 hour from the Qld border) to Sydney (Penrith) on 1 tank,and this is from a 4.0Ltr motor. Holden lovers get way too excited when they “think” they have something better than Ford,settle down guys,it’s nothing special,Falcon has and is already achieving unbelievable fuel figures from a large 6 cyl.that were only dreamt of only a matter of a short few years ago,and it’s from a 4.0Ltr not a 3.0Ltr like the Commodore.
Which would you rather drive,something with 195Kw with 390Nm or 190Kw with 290Nm that’s changing gears with the slightest incline to get the same fuel economy…it’s pretty obvious!
Scott, did you say you were blown away with it’s (XR6)performance? My oh my, arnt we easily pleased.
Obvious by your responce that you are indeed a one eyed Ford fan. Shall we start a debate about Holdens push rod V8’s, that continue to shame Ford’s BOSS engines? Talk about technology failing its customers, thats why its FRAUD, not FORD..
Game over…
Flex said,
>True, although the Falcon has 40nm more torque, which in real world conditions is a more important power measure. Maximum Kw is at the red line, how often are you there?? Why do you think the FG XR6T(270Kw) is quicker than all the 300kw+ Holden/Ford V8s? TORQUE!!
It isn’t really as simple as you seem to have implied. Power curve is the most important part of engine performance.
The new 3.6 might be down on peak torque compared to the Falcon 4.0 but direct injection engines tend to produce very good torque through the whole rev range, as well as being good at revving (unlike the Ford 4.0).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 3.6 produces a better average power across the rev range than the 4.0. Better average power over the rev range is what makes the turbo falcon faster than the V8’s, not it’s peak torque.
Steve, it’s quite obvious you have not driven a FG Falcon 6 speed, there’s no way you would have said that if you had, so until you have, your comment does not hold any weight.
Why are we going onto the V8 push rod subject,we’re talking about 6 cyl. economy here, or is it because the Falcon 6 is that good that you have to find something else on Ford, talking about one eyed.
Game over…it’s been that way for a loooong time in the Holden camp.
Scott,
I have indeed driven a FG, with its new 6 speed auto, im still unsure what your point is… I give credit where due, for example, the XR6T and the G6ET.
However, it was nice to see Tenka pop in and clearly explain to you the difference when it comes to power delivery, and where it is most important, seeing as power and delivery was the basis of your post, have you read his advice? 390nm at 6200rpm.. whats the point?
And in relation to the last bit of your post QUOTE Game over…it’s been that way for a loooong time in the Holden camp END QUOTE, i think you may find that the sales figures for Holden Commodore V Ford Falcon speak for themselves. What does hunble pie taste like?
Fuel usage - An optional six-speed automatic further improves performance and reduces fuel consumption to 10.1L/100km. - You managed 7.6.. WOW, u must have a one of a kind IL6 4.0L!!!
@ Steve: When Scott said “I’ve done a couple of long trips in my Falcon and without even trying have been getting 7.8L/100Km” I believe he is referring to highway drives, where better than 7.8L is easily achieved. My turbo returns 8.0 with overtaking at will.
Steve, You must have driven it around the block in it then. My point is, you honestly can’t say that the Falcon 6 is gutless, which is what you meant by “easily pleased”.
If you know anything about cars,and it’s clearly you don’t, torque curves always start dropping off well before red line,even in your beloved Holden,so in any car you drive up to red line is useless.
As for the Falcons 6 torque curve, it’s very flat across the rev range,meaning it reaches it’s max torque quite early and stays at max. torque close to redline where it drops off.
I quote “The latest generation [inline six-cylinder] engine has tremendous torque and driveability, with a flat torque curve and wide powerband at the top end as a result of the new engine hardware and calibration developments that have been engineered for the FG Falcon program”
Now this is the funny part, 7.8Ltrs is BETTER than 10.1 by a long shot. My 2002 BA Falcon was getting 10L/100Km.
THINK about it. It means for EVERY 100 km I am using 7.8 Ltrs compared to using 10.1L for every 100Km…understand now!
10.1 litres is MORE fuel than 7.8 Litres.
LOL..As for sales figures,Holden sell a lot of fleet vehicles, it’s not just the general public in love with Holden,you must be nieve .
Go for a walk in any city and look at what the taxi are,9 out of 10 are Falcon’s with 700,000 + Km. Which brings me to my next point of the SIDI injectors. How long do you think the injectors will last sitting inside the combustion chamber,and when it comes to replacement, it’s going to be like a diesel,very very expensive, not to mention the engine driven pump when it packs it in.
Holden are even still using aluminium inlet manifolds on the SIDI motor, now that’s really high tec.
I think you’d know what humble pie tastes like more than I.
Scott
>If you know anything about cars,and it’s clearly you don’t, torque curves always start dropping off well before red line,even in your beloved Holden,so in any car you drive up to red line is useless.
Oh good lord.
>As for the Falcons 6 torque curve, it’s very flat across the rev range,meaning it reaches it’s max torque quite early and stays at max.
I am a fan of the Barra L6, but it is totally set up for bottom end torque and only that. Long stroke, long, narrow inlet runners and a low lift cams.
If you check your math you’ll find that Holden’s detuned 3.6 is making equal or more torque towards the end of the rev range than the 4.0 does.
>Now this is the funny part, 7.8Ltrs is BETTER than 10.1 by a long shot.
Anecdotal and incomparable.
>LOL..As for sales figures,Holden sell a lot of fleet vehicles,
As do Ford Falcons.
>Which brings me to my next point of the SIDI injectors. How long do you think the injectors will last sitting inside the combustion chamber
What?
The technology has been in wide use for some time in both economy and high performance applications, it is well proven.
>Holden are even still using aluminium inlet manifolds on the SIDI motor, now that’s really high tec.
The 3.6 does, the 3.0 has plastic. So?
The SIDI weighs 170kg dressed, the Ford has an iron block. wanna guess how much that weighs?
This has turned into a pissing competion,all I said was I don’t know what all the hype is about when the Falcon is already acheiving this economy and all the Holden fans decided to turn it into a pissing competion with power at redline, who sits on redline?? …not me,don’t need to .
Read the following
I quote “In the luxury G6E model (what would previously have been known as the Fairmont Ghia) fitted with a sophisticated 6-speed auto, the trip computer calculated the average consumption at 7.7 litres per 100km, significantly under the official rate of 10.1 L/100 km.
This was calculated over a 50km stage that included a variety of winding, flowing roads with varying speed zones up to 100 km/h. Before we took to the wheel, the previous driver had achieved 12.9L/100 km. In a four-kilometre section governed by a 90 km/h zone, the fuel reading dropped to 6.8L/100 km.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-new-ford-falcon/2008/04/09/1207420486007.html
Say no more!!
In my opinion…
The differences between the two engines is rather trivial to persway a buyer to either side. It would more come down to other factors, like styling and value.
But!
When it comes down to the performance orientated engines, the Falcon has Holden licked when it comes down to six cylinders (we are talking about turbos here) and Holden have Ford licked as far as eight cylinders are concerned.
So this whole entire argument is pointless, unless you really are smashing your skull against your wall when making a choice between the two brands. Which by the sounds of it the majority of the persons posting on here are probably not.
So well done Holden.
I watch with some amusement and fascination the debate (cant really be said to be anything else) that has unfolded here. I think its quite healthy too. I guess I cant really take either side as both cars in my opinion have their merits and downfalls. Whilst the Holden could be marketed honestly as being slightly more modern and for the future, the Falcon probably is a bit more Australian in that it sticks to a existing formula and does their best job with it. Similar to what Holden has done with their V8s except that they aren’t Australian. So whilst these cars may target the same market segment (fleet buyers and family buyers with some sub-niche sports and luxury models thrown in) they are quite different in their philosophies which only makes for a relevant and endless debate as neither are likely to change their paths drastically. The loyalists of the oval and the lion are alive and well battling it out for the endless battle of the best opinion and best car. Honestly though I hope that more competition comes in time and the Australian car industry can be much further enriched and grow in stature on the world stage along with our nation as a whole as it is.
Scott said:
>This has turned into a pissing competion…
Started by you with “my Falcon …(anecdotal economy report)..Which would you rather drive”.
>all the Holden fans decided to turn it into a pissing competion with power at redline
I don’t believe anyone has done this, pointing out that the V6 remains strong in the top end is not starting a “pissing competition” about redlines.
Even without an arse dyno test you can tell the SIDI engines have strong bottom end torque because of the very low idle speeds.
>Read the following, I quote (Review from The Age)
Heasley’s 50km drive is not comparable to a genuine combined cycle test. It just isn’t.
As he says himself, driving style has more to do with economy than technology.
I actually hired a G6 for a week while in QLD and it was a great car, handles superbly, plenty of poke but in all honesty the great big cast iron straight 6 is an anachronism. Much like Liza Minnelli, the Ford L6 has been kept alive and unnaturally vigorous by luck and expensive re engineering.
Andrew says:
>Honestly though I hope that more competition comes in time and the Australian car industry can be much further enriched and grow in stature on the world stage along with our nation as a whole as it is.
I agree, wouldn’t it be great if Holden gave us a new performance 6, instead of slightly improved taxi engines, or if Ford managed to engineer the Falcon with LHD for export?
I think we have 2 really good products here that we are practically keeping all to ourselves, (Holden’s on again off again status in the US and novelty value in the UK notwithstanding).
This has proven to be an interestng read! I go back to my comments on 16 Oct though, Ford and GMH need to be looking at a diesel power plant as a viable alternative. My 125kW VW diesel has 350Nm of torque and returns figures on the highway (Syd-Canberra, Newcastle-Canberra, Brisbane-Canberra) of about 5.2 l/100 kms. As for Steve’s comments about the cost of diesel vs ULP, the price differential needs to be in favour of ULP by around 30c a litre for an equivilent petrol engine to become a cheaper option.
Look you can theorise Ford vs. Holden all you like and talk pretentious detail stuff , but I have driven 2,500k in the last two weeks in the SiDi Berlina, on New Zealand North Island roads, and I am disappointed. The seats are not as comfy as the earlier models, it is very revvy and almost seems confused at times on cruise control. Hit the Bombay Hills from Pokeno, cruise set at 108km/hr - she winds down to 102km/hr, has a wee moment, then kicks the gears and revs (lurches) back up to 107/108 all the way to the ridge, sounding like a hair dryer. Sport is Ok, flick it around in “manual” yeah not too bad, until it decides to take over and drop a gear on your behalf, just before you are ready. Really the XR6 still outdrives it. Doing the kms I do, the earlier model I think left me less weary after a drive from Wanganui to Auckland.
hi all i have a 1987 toyota camry 5 speed 280.00 ks on the clock and getting 700ks to a tank. still going well and no its not burning oil and no rust i think that says a lot for the toyota brand in that era anyway happy and safe driving to all from brett in toowoomba qld.
“Bretty Parry” Yea we had a 2000 4 speed V6 Camry not so long ago, and we did many longish trips in it as well as the usual day-to-day stuff and at 160,000k’s the engine was still barely audible in the cabin. Being a auto with a high rpm torque peak the car moved pretty well but not exactly amazingly quick. Very comfortable too. I know you can get the V6 with a manual and they also had a touring edition with the sports suspension and some nice sporty garnish, that’d be quite a combo I reckon without resorting to Commodores or Falcons. Also with the weight being around 1440kg, a 70L fuel tank and a 3.0L engine they are good on range and fuel economy too.
Scott said “How long do you think the injectors will last sitting inside the combustion chamber,and when it comes to replacement, it’s going to be like a diesel,very very expensive, not to mention the engine driven pump when it packs it in”
Hate to play the european harp again but………..1978 Mercedes benz W123 300d diesel injectors…..$35 each, rebuild the nozzle at home 30 min per nozzle. 1988 Mercedes benz 420sel, fuel injectors $55 each, 90min job to change 8….only got 280,000km out of the last ones…..
Holden/Ford……..Turbo diesel
You can run them on diesel,kerosene, small bits of coal.
Karl, to pick up on your point of injectors,you are talking diesel injectors for a start,this is a petrol motor that we are talking about which has a lot less oil in the fuel.
I also have owned a few diesels in my past, the last one was a Land Rover TD4 which ended in greif with the injectors becoming seized into the cyl. head. To replace these electronic injectors it was going to cost me $1200.00 EACH !!! So that will give you an idea of what you’d expect to pay. What you are talking about are NOT electronic injectors, you are comparing apples with oranges. We are not in 1978 anymore, things have gone electronic now.
Who cares…
The Falcon has a low fuel economy engine and now Holden does too, of course the marketting is going to herald one being better than the other.
They’re both good, and they both compete with each other constantly and that’s a good thing because without the Falcon, the Commodore brand wouldn’t be where it is today, same with the Commodore. They both steal their design cues from each other you can see that just looking at the changes in the shape over the years.
All of u guys r idots! I drive a nissan r34 skyline and it rulz over ne ford or holden. ford makes the worse i6 engines out there! nissan rulz that shizzz!
like they say just holden 2gether.
Morgan,
Thankyou for your enlightening posts. I hear that today you have face painting at pre-school. That sounds like fun. Perhaps they might teach you how to spell too?
I do believe you mean Renault R34 Skyline? Seeing as Renault owns Nissans ass..