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.

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.

That sadd, 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.
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.

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.







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.
How does the fuel tank go from being 73 litres to you guys burning off 78.02litres in the test, surely there is not that much extra in the filler tube and fuel lines?
Hi Zandit. The trip computer indicated a total fuel burn of 78.02 litres, and we suspect there’s a small difference between Holden’s stated fuel tank capacity (73 litres) and what the the true volume of the tank is.
Even so, if the trip computer is indeed wrong and we only burned 73 litres of petrol, that simply makes the outcome even more impressive.
Good review,
However i’m wondering since most Commodore will be driven to the milkbar, used for dropping the kids off at school and driven on weekend across mountain switchbacks what the real worl fuel economy is. God knows I won’t be driving driving it in 14 hours stints everytime
Just a few things:
Your pictures show the Omega interior, which has a different dash design to the Berlina you tested.
Although the car comes with a Tyre Inflator Kit a steel spare is a no cost option and an alloy spare is only $350.
Actually ‘Kds’, the interior is of the Berlina. The Omega has the central multi-function display at the top of the dsahboard, in between vertical air vents….
Kds was correct, we had the wrong interior pics up and changed them to the correct ones.
Appreciate you sticking up for us though sp23.
Despite our best efforts we sometimes stuff up.
How much do low rolling resistance tyres affect handling and braking compared to normal tyres? *hint for a future article*
I will agree that it is an impressive feat on one tank but as MRG said I would like to see a ‘real world’ test done. How about dropping the keys off to me for a week since I do the “drop kids off, grocery shopping and weekend picnic thing”
I remember that SMH test around Mt Panorama and the SIDI came out worst I think, beaten by the Falcon.
G’day Grumps,
By ‘real world test’ we mean that we did not at any stage baby the car, sit on 80km/h (in a 110 zone), slip stream or do anything tricky.
If your ‘real world’ is the burbs, then granted this test will have less relevance for you, but there are plenty of people who travel the highways on a daily basis as well.
Beside which, we tend to test most of our cars in the burbs and report the fuel usage in our tests and we wanted something different for this one.
Holden’s claim of 900kms from a tank just had to be tested!
Next one we get will get the usual treatment, and we’ll be able to report on its urban fuel efficiency for you.
Not sure about giving you the keys though…
Cheers,
Steane
I forgot to say what a great test this was and it’s nice to read a balanced review unlike the supposed ‘real world’ test carried out around Bathurst by drivel.com.au
Kds: this review and the review done by drive.com.au both have their positives and negatives. Different types of tests, not one better then the other.
Good review though
Cheers Steane
Yeah I have to admit that there are people who would appreciate the consumption on huge distances - like sales reps.
I may have come across a bit negative towards Holden but I don’t appreciate their marketing slant that this is new tech and everyone will get 900k’s from a tank, regardless.
Will be interested to see the fuel use on a ‘normal’ type week of driving though.
Bummer about me not getting the keys though lol
I must ask.
How full was the tank? Ie did you fill it to the Brim? And refill it to the brim at the same angle as the first fill?
And the trip computer is probably reading optimistically. Other reviews are saying it is as far as 5 % out, which would drop your range by near 50km. Did you confirm the odometer by GPS?
The Speedo is also probably reading optimistically, reading a few % out and so means you are driving slower than the speed limits.
Thanks for your reply.
Perhaps next time, you could take it across the Nullabour…I’d like to see you do the same test, but in reverse, Come on, you took the flattest roads possible in the first half of the test.. saving the pass through the great Dividing range untill last, after you have dried up the tank.
IMHO, 900ks from a tank of that size with that kind of driving is nothing new.
The Drive article showed that the distance displayed by the Commodore was 5% more than the Falcon read. The kilometers needed to be GPS’d to be confirmed as actual.
That same article showed that the GM Holden was also optimistic in its consumption (as they have for more than 10yrs).
Refilling it to the brim for your test should’ve been done too.
PS Why did you choose the flattest route?
Also it says you took 14 hours to do 1000km when these roads are all 100 and 110 zones, how is this possible? Thats an average of around 70. You say its solid driving! hmm.. What gps confirmed speed were you really doing?
That 8 litres consumption has been available for years by cruising at 100ks and hour even in vn’s ea’s etc!
The VE has a huge tank! Thats all. Fuel use isnt even that good.
I’ve seen better than 7L/100km in my AU Falcon sedan… (mind you the engine was well and truly run it at over 100,000km… Still does pretty good at over 200,000km)
These comparisons are best done back to back (like falcon / commodore) with removes most of the niggles.
I’d like to see if the wagon is better or worse… as I need a wagon or at least a split fold seat… lack thereof being my biggest issue with the commodore sedan. As a curiosity… how did the Skoda compare?