Holden has traded fresh looks for fuel efficiency with its new MY10 - Page 2

Smoke Pursuit · 08-09-2009, 09:24 PM

VE is definately looking tired.. Theres no doubt about it. I cant believe they didnt even upgrade wheels / specs a little?? While HSV have done the opposite? It really makes no sense, hsv will have nothing when holden bring out the VF!

VF isnt that far away neways, 9 months or so...

madmelon · 08-09-2009, 09:29 PM

It's interesting to read that Caradvice think the overtaking acceleration is just fine in the 3L when Drive says it's noticeably lacking...

Swordsman88 · 08-09-2009, 09:30 PM

Based on the few first drives i've just read its a case of good and bad news for Holden. The lack of any real styling change will hurt, but probably not as much as the dating interior which really is not holding up well. The minor suspension changes are largely to compensate for the lower rolling resistance tyres which probably don't grip as well.

Engine wise, well its pretty much as expected. No doubt a major improvement compared to what they have now (that wasn't hard), particulary the 4sp auto bieng swapped out for the 6sp.

The 3.0 is really the more impressive, which come as a bit of a surprise, most likely because when compared to the base engine used up till now it looks ok. The reviews of course were not against competitors, so its hard to say how the falcon would stack up. Go auto noted that the 3.6 while improved doe not really out grunt in any way 'competitors' (read falcon) top level engines. Being 40nm down on FG probably doesn't help any.

The 3.0 certainly is better than many may have predicted (6spauto helps there) but once again it was not compared to its rivals. If anything the 3.6 shows just how pointless the 3.0 is since the smaller engine was only 0.5L/100km better on the highway and within a litre on the slower stuff.

Also of note was the quoted numbers which didnt' really seem any better than FG was achieving on test drives early. maybe some of the FG owners could get on here and let us know what sort of fuel burn the FG achieves on the highway because i think it was doing in the 7s at times which is what this 3.0 gets according to early reports.
.................................................. ..........................................
EDIT: Found this about FG XT fuel economy in a go auto review from when FG was launched in mid 2008.

A trip down the highway from Campbellfield to Geelong, which included some heavy traffic, resulted in a simply stunning fuel economy figure of 7.4L/100km. Of course, the figure was higher around town, but ended up averaging 10.4L/100km after a mix of city and highway running.

Of course, different drivers, different roads etc. etc. i understand. Just pointing out that based on what the scribes have outlined (country roads, some windy stuff, 100km/h etc.) the VE MY10 is not really doing anything a FG XT hasn't done OVER A YEAR AGO. I think the Falcon/Commodore comparions will be interesting to see just how much advantage (if any) the Holden really has RE fuel economy. Performance wise i think Falcon still has it easy.

XRtowcar · 08-09-2009, 09:36 PM

When your daddy is broke, theres not much room for a pocket money allowance.
Lucky they got the engine.

GT69 · 08-09-2009, 09:38 PM

I have a picture somewhere, Of my centre thingo on the FG T, was getting 10.1L/100km of combined (read good 50/50 mix) of highway and bumper to bumper brissy traffic, i'll see if i can find the picture, That was after 7000km's too....not just over 200km's.

Apologize all around, its 10.2L/100km.

Damn, i thought i was saving the planet :(

Wretched · 08-09-2009, 09:40 PM

I think they could have cleaned up the interior a little. Exterior is fine especially in SSV form. The change is no different than say EB-ED, VR-VS, VY-VZ or BA-BF2.

Ratmac · 08-09-2009, 09:43 PM

Im surprised anyone here would make fun of holden for not updating the look of the ve.
The BA was released in 2002 and barley changed in appearance until 2006 thats 4 years.
The ve is only 3 years old and a physical update is most likely going to be next year.
Holden seem to have a new strategy of releasing updates as opposed to series and they will have to wait until they sales figures are released to see if this works or not.
I wouldn't call it a flop just yet....

XR6-VCT-2000 · 08-09-2009, 09:58 PM

From the topic thread , 'ARE YOU SERIOUS ! " , the last 2 to 3 years worth of holdens imo have all looked pretty much the same no matter what model it is, and they still all have small interiors as usual. Holdens were cool back in the 70's & 80's ( the old slr 5000's , old Monaros etc etc ) , but these days they realy lack individuality imo, they're all the same these days. Give me an Ford anyday.

vee-eight · 08-09-2009, 10:00 PM

On the gm forums, theres a topic on the 3L being almost pointless because in all except 2 or 3 models its in, it uses more fuel and is usually put in cars not suitable, too heavy and 4wds and therefore suffers performance wise... The interiors in the V models is holding up fine i reckon, its that junky cheap one in the base ss and omega models that is just horrible from day 1!

Good on them for changing the engine though, just hope the 3.6 sidi ends up as good as they say.

At the end of the day fords and holdens tactics are the same, they just go about it in different ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Based on the few first drives i've just read its a case of good and bad news for Holden. The lack of any real styling change will hurt, but probably not as much as the dating interior which really is not holding up well. The minor suspension changes are largely to compensate for the lower rolling resistance tyres which probably don't grip as well.

Engine wise, well its pretty much as expected. No doubt a major improvement compared to what they have now (that wasn't hard), particulary the 4sp auto bieng swapped out for the 6sp.

The 3.0 is really the more impressive, which come as a bit of a surprise, most likely because when compared to the base engine used up till now it looks ok. The reviews of course were not against competitors, so its hard to say how the falcon would stack up. Go auto noted that the 3.6 while improved doe not really out grunt in any way 'competitors' (read falcon) top level engines. Being 40nm down on FG probably doesn't help any.

The 3.0 certainly is better than many may have predicted (6spauto helps there) but once again it was not compared to its rivals. If anything the 3.6 shows just how pointless the 3.0 is since the smaller engine was only 0.5L/100km better on the highway and within a litre on the slower stuff.

Also of note was the quoted numbers which didnt' really seem any better than FG was achieving on test drives early. maybe some of the FG owners could get on here and let us know what sort of fuel burn the FG achieves on the highway because i think it was doing in the 7s at times which is what this 3.0 gets according to early reports.
.................................................. ..........................................
EDIT: Found this about FG XT fuel economy in a go auto review from when FG was launched in mid 2008.

A trip down the highway from Campbellfield to Geelong, which included some heavy traffic, resulted in a simply stunning fuel economy figure of 7.4L/100km. Of course, the figure was higher around town, but ended up averaging 10.4L/100km after a mix of city and highway running.

Of course, different drivers, different roads etc. etc. i understand. Just pointing out that based on what the scribes have outlined (country roads, some windy stuff, 100km/h etc.) the VE MY10 is not really doing anything a FG XT hasn't done OVER A YEAR AGO. I think the Falcon/Commodore comparions will be interesting to see just how much advantage (if any) the Holden really has RE fuel economy. Performance wise i think Falcon still has it easy.

uranium_death · 08-09-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratmac

Im surprised anyone here would make fun of holden for not updating the look of the ve.
The BA was released in 2002 and barley changed in appearance until 2006 thats 4 years.
The ve is only 3 years old and a physical update is most likely going to be next year.
Holden seem to have a new strategy of releasing updates as opposed to series and they will have to wait until they sales figures are released to see if this works or not.
I wouldn't call it a flop just yet....

For me, it's all that massive advertising about the 'billion dollar baby', along with the media adulation the Commodore receives.
The BFII was also able to compete damn well with the VE, despite it being from the AU platform and apparently outdated...

I prefer the look of the VY/Z over the VE. VE looks ghastly in Omega form...like an East German model beefed up with steroids.

**PepeLePew** · 09-09-2009, 12:49 AM

Hmmm Caradvice article reads like a advertisement. The coverage of the 3.0L is like a marketing blurb focussing on its 'strengths' and glossing over its weaknesses.

Sacrilege or not, I'd like to test drive a SV6 with the 3.6 SIDI in manual form, could be a hoot.

Swordsman88 · 09-09-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Hmmm Caradvice article reads like a advertisement. The coverage of the 3.0L is like a marketing blurb focussing on its 'strengths' and glossing over its weaknesses.

Yes having read that it is pretty much a first off the rank, copy and paste of the holden press release. This happens from time to time and the first bunch of reports are always light on drive impressions because the manufacturer limits both availability and the test route. And media outlets push to be the first to press. The inconsistencies in the launch reviews so far is pretty much proof of this problem.

Also don't discount the reviewer. Different scribes have different bents...its not bias per se just bug bears they may have. I know of one go auto reviewer who is very pro Ford because he loves how they drive and the euro direction....but others at the same website have praised Honda because of interior fitment and turned a blind eye to somewhat lesser handling. Its personal preference and when you are talking early impressions like this you get a fair bit of that.

In the long run i trust caradvice (and go auto, carpoint etc.) to generally get to more of the truth of the situation in the longer term. As for Wheels and others well these days sadly i'm not so sure. Drive/Caradvice are pretty useless and biased respectively, as most on here realise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Sacrilege or not, I'd like to test drive a SV6 with the 3.6 SIDI in manual form, could be a hoot.

Well its important to know thy enemy...so go for it!! BUT, the problem isn't whether a SV6 3.6 SIDI is a hoot, its if it is more of a hoot than a manual XR6 FG. Time will tell but i think old Henry will be up to the task.

Need_a_V8 · 09-09-2009, 02:20 AM

How is it a new model? Its still VE and its not called VE II either. Its just a model year update. I didn't see a MY07 to MY08 or MY09 change either.

prydey · 09-09-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

I dont see a point is starting ANOTHER Holden thread as as this is meant to be apart of the MY10 model.

E85: Commodore’s next big thing

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25762A0019991C

thats all well and good, but where's the e85 infrastructure?? where do i fill up my e85 powered vehicle. until that really takes off, sales off alternate fuel vehicles will struggle.

ltd · 09-09-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Yeah, it's true. It'll always look cr@p

That's a golden comment right there.

ltd · 09-09-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

thats all well and good, but where's the e85 infrastructure?? where do i fill up my e85 powered vehicle. until that really takes off, sales off alternate fuel vehicles will struggle.

That's a good point. In Sydney I think there's one place which is on Victoria road in Drummoyne. I found this out because a mate of mine thought he was getting a bargain when he bought a 2008 SAAB on graysonline for 12k - only difference was it was a test vehicle and can only run on E85.
Poor bloke now has to carry jerry cans (lucky its a station wagon) whenever he goes anywhere more than 300K's from his house.
Nup, E85 = poo.

Need_a_V8 · 09-09-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

thats all well and good, but where's the e85 infrastructure?? where do i fill up my e85 powered vehicle. until that really takes off, sales off alternate fuel vehicles will struggle.

Enffue were selling it in SA, but they've pretty much shut up shop (sold to MOGAS) so im not sure if you can still get it here at all.

The cars will struggle without the infrastructure, and the infrastructure struggles without the car. Bad combination :p

Joe5619 · 09-09-2009, 02:32 PM

No change outside or inside has got to hurt privates buyer volumes in coming year(s).. Same way it hurt BF Falcon & the current Tert...

FalconXR6 · 09-09-2009, 04:56 PM

"Real world" comparisons between the 3.0 litre Commodore and 4.0 litre Falcon will be interesting and hopefully inevitable and well publicised.

Looking forward to seeing the 3.0 litre's 0-100, 0-400 and 80-120km/h credentials.

I really hope Joe Public doesn't get sucked in by the inevitable Holden marketing hypnotism...but I, unfortunately, suspect they will...

Can not believe that Holden aren't even giving styling a tweak. VE has, in my opinion, looked dated for a long time now. It really is an ordinary, boring looking car.

Smaller engine will not put bums in seats (and you can put Ford's upcoming 4cyl TT Falcon into the mix here).
See Toyota's Camry / Aurion sales strategy to see how you sucessfully market your small and large(er) engined vehicles.

jweb · 09-09-2009, 05:20 PM

Hate to be one of the marketing jerks,but....it has been found in countless focus groups and academic journals that fuel consumption has a substantial influence on consumers within the market.Also arguably it has the highest weighting currently.Compare the weighting of styling changes among other criterion,and there is a higher likely hood of a larger return when fuel consumption is focused on.
This is a great move marketing wise,as there is far more differentiation among the models,and it targets what buyers are most concerned about currently.It would have been even more effective with styling changes yes,but it seems it was not justifiable.

Antwon · 09-09-2009, 05:42 PM

Theres a Mobil down the road from me that sells e85.

I dont understand why everyone is having a cry about them not changing the styling? Its still a VE, not a VF. I dont understand why HSV did change the styling, not only does it look worse, there was no need to until the VF came out.

Ratmac · 09-09-2009, 06:41 PM

The motors will also have the marketing department chomping at the bit.

The Holden commodore now has the most fuel efficient and the most powerful V6 motors available in an Australian built car.

No need to mention that there different motors in different models either, its just about smart marketing, deceptive maybe but average joe wont know the difference.

The advertising basically writes itself.

R-Design · 09-09-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarPoint

The VE Commodore has been an egregious case of a pig's ear derived from a silk purse base. Promising so much at its inception in 2006, the base model V6 Commodore frankly under-delivered. Its lacklustre Alloytec V6 -- especially driving through its clunky and ancient four-speed automatic transmission -- was the single element that held the Holden back, even when compared with the contemporaneous BF Falcon.

http://www.carpoint.com.au/reviews/2...-ve-my10-16603

I just love the way a journo tell you what was wrong with a car... on the launch of the next model!

Conclusion

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarPoint

There is one qualification in all this. We do recall instantaneous fuel consumption read-out for the FG Falcon equipped with the ZF six-speed auto falling as low as 7.5L/100km on an open-road stretch during the Ford's media launch. So, in our view, the Ford is still in there as a serious choice for six-cylinder sedan buyers.

But... Where the Falcon was clearly our choice of the two cars since its introduction in May last year, the gap has narrowed a very long way between these two cars. It's a much tougher decision now. Where the VE could be dismissed before for its NVH issues, an ancient four-speed automatic and for being underpowered, that excuse is no longer available.

We couldn't even say at this point that the Commodore is definitely better than the Falcon or vice versa. Each has its weaknesses still. Commodore's ergonomics are lacking, for example. The Falcon is not five-star ANCAP-rated across the range, to use another example.

One thing is for sure though, whichever car you buy, you'll be well rewarded.

Bossxr8 · 09-09-2009, 08:36 PM

Falcon is 5 star right across the sedan range.

GT69 · 09-09-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Falcon is 5 star right across the sedan range.

SHHH dammit! Holden has to be the first here for crying out loud, its the only thing they've got....even if it is only by re-writing history.....

chevypower · 10-09-2009, 01:21 AM

I don't know how they take their averages. But I could get my old Gen III Berlina down to 7.9L/100 on the freeway, so 7.5 for a 3.0 isn't that impressive. But if it stays at 7.5 after a few traffic lights, and other stop/starts... then it's probably not so bad. A realistic average of the Gen 3 is about 13L/100