Holden seem to have done well with their new v6.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I don't know what you're implying, the 180B was far ahead of the commy of the day.

[vztrt]

SV6 Review, seems the writer doesn't like the Auto but thinks the manual is better suited to the SIDI.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/47377/ho...iew-road-test/

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by ltd

Uhm.. I wasn't kidding

Originally Posted by vztrt

SV6 Review, seems the writer doesn't like the Auto but thinks the manual is better suited to the SIDI.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/47377/ho...iew-road-test/

Would have been interesting to see acceleration times with the manual; I think a mid to low 14 is on the cards.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Would have been interesting to see acceleration times with the manual; I think a mid to low 14 is on the cards.

Indeed. I was talking to a colleague (total Holden nut) and while like many Holden fanboys he was totally fooled by the supposed SIDI fuel burn improvements, he was 'concerned' that the V6 cars were now able to take down his VT SS (potentially). I pointed out this should come as no shock really, because if you look at the quoted KW the current large car s are all over 200 easy (when on decent RON fuel) and while lacking up to 100nm they all employ much better gearboxes (auto or manual) with more gears. Not to mention they probably don't lose quite as much % wise in the drivetrain niether (god knows that % loss he has in his 4sp auto GM crashbox....).

Fact is the 'debate' over the 3.0 litre commodore and 2.0 I4T falcon is so ridiculous when you hear people say 'but they wont' have the grunt'. Well, even the dodgy 3.0 Alloytec is not really any slower than the 4sp auto omega that preceeded it and i don't doubt a I4T FGII would take down an AU or similar falcon so what's the problem? The horsepower of modern cars is quite astounding when you consider the fuel savings achieved witih much smaller engines. Only problem we have now is (particularly when loaded) the comparitively high weight of new cars......which hurt both acceleration and efficiency....

[greenfoam]

Originally Posted by vztrt

SV6 Review, seems the writer doesn't like the Auto but thinks the manual is better suited to the SIDI.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/47377/ho...iew-road-test/

Ahh that's the colour my wife has been perving on, she's been telling me for a few weeks about the nice green that Holden have on the new Commodore at the local dealers. That must be the one, it is nice :0

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Ahh that's the colour my wife has been perving on, she's been telling me for a few weeks about the nice green that Holden have on the new Commodore at the local dealers. That must be the one, it is nice :0

Ford used to have a similar colour....at least i used to see it on the territory. It was maybe a shade darker but close. As usual Ford leads the way with colour selection and others follow it. How about the number of 'blue' colours Holden has pinched from Ford....its pretty much their entire colour lineup now is what Ford ran in BA-BF days...

[Falcman0o7]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

You're a classic burnz.

You implied I was an idiot in that thread for saying that the Alloytec block and heads were cast overseas, and that I knew nothing about local industry, despite 10 years of experience with Ford. You then provided numerous posts about how we were wrong and that the alloytec block and heads were cast here. You specifically said cast here, not assembled. Don't think we're that dumb.

When proven you were wrong you then dissapeared from the thread.

Just covering your eyes and ears and pretending it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't. BS may work on the sheep over on LS1, but it won't work here. The way Holden fans gobble up Holdens BS makes you wonder wether they actually can think for themselves rather than just take what they are told as pure fact. Bahhhh Bahhhhhhhhh.

Well said mate!!! Couldn't of put it better myself. ^

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Ahh that's the colour my wife has been perving on, she's been telling me for a few weeks about the nice green that Holden have on the new Commodore at the local dealers. That must be the one, it is nice :0

Ford have a new green called Mystic that I think is pretty sweet. From some angles it looks dark blue, others a dark emerald green.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Fact is the 'debate' over the 3.0 litre commodore and 2.0 I4T falcon is so ridiculous when you hear people say 'but they wont' have the grunt'. Well, even the dodgy 3.0 Alloytec is not really any slower than the 4sp auto omega that preceeded it and i don't doubt a I4T FGII would take down an AU or similar falcon so what's the problem? The horsepower of modern cars is quite astounding when you consider the fuel savings achieved witih much smaller engines. Only problem we have now is (particularly when loaded) the comparitively high weight of new cars......which hurt both acceleration and efficiency....

Yep. With oodles of torque, and coupled to a 6sp DSG box I don't think the I4T will struggle to out-muscle the sidi 3L where driveability is a concern.

However, a big unknown at this point is what kind of power Ford *choose* to give it at top-end, to further embarrass the 3.0. I'm guessing they'll aim to have it sit snugly, and smugly, somewhere between the I6 and 3.0 in terms of acceleration. In today's dollars that's about a mid 15, or close to 180kW.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Yep. With oodles of torque, and coupled to a 6sp DSG box I don't think the I4T will struggle to out-muscle the sidi 3L where driveability is a concern.

However, a big unknown at this point is what kind of power Ford *choose* to give it at top-end, to further embarrass the 3.0. I'm guessing they'll aim to have it sit snugly, and smugly, somewhere between the I6 and 3.0 in terms of acceleration. In today's dollars that's about a mid 15, or close to 180kW.

Probably Falc'man. I'm sticking to my estimate of 175kw at 6000rpm and 350 nm at 1500-4500rpm. Of course you could easilly call it 180kw at 6200rpm or 185 at 6500rpm etc....depending on how much you want to rev it. Either way its the torque value (and spread) that matters...the rest is just marketing. It would help down the strip though if you wanted bragging rights but i doubt Ford is too worried in that area....

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Uhm.. I wasn't kidding

Sorry mate, missed the "of the day part".

[fordAU]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I'm sticking to my estimate of 175kw at 6000rpm and 350 nm at 1500-4500rpm. Of course you could easilly call it 180kw at 6200rpm or 185 at 6500rpm etc....depending on how much you want to rev it. Either way its the torque value (and spread) that matters...the rest is just marketing.

Your on the money there, I dont get wraped up with their stated power outputs, cars are getting more powerful but they are a lot heavier as well.

My old EL XR6 manual was without doubt a quicker and better overall package than my BF 6, they tell me the BF has in round figures about 30kw's more power but in real conditions its a slower vehicle.

Be interesting how the new generation 6's perform as an overall package.

[lestone91]

I believe holden has done the wrong thing but bumping the kw's up to 210kw, from last year onwards the have cut all p platers out of the buying goup.

Sure it wont really affect them now but as the resale figures drop into the realm of what p platers can afford they wont be able to drive them...

which in my opnion will let the price drop even more through lack of buyers not great for the owner.

As well as the fact that if parents buy them thier children cant drive either so you might aswell have a v8 in that respect

but thats just my opnion who knows what will happen

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by vztrt

SV6 Review, seems the writer doesn't like the Auto but thinks the manual is better suited to the SIDI.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/47377/ho...iew-road-test/

I don't know why people/journos keep saying the Commodore's styling is dated. The interior, yes. But the exterior is hardly dated, in fact it hasn't really aged at all and I dare say it is somewhat of a timeless design. I know it hasn't changed in a while, but it still looks very slick.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I don't know why people/journos keep saying the Commodore's styling is dated. The interior, yes. But the exterior is hardly dated, in fact it hasn't really aged at all and I dare say it is somewhat of a timeless design. I know it hasn't changed in a while, but it still looks very slick.

the Ve looks dated because it has wheel flares that BMW had 10+ years ago and the headlights lifted from the BA...

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Nikked

the Ve looks dated because it has wheel flares that BMW had 10+ years ago and the headlights lifted from the BA...

It doesn't hide it's size very well, either.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Nikked

the Ve looks dated because it has wheel flares that BMW had 10+ years ago and the headlights lifted from the BA...

I'd probably liken the flares closer to something like a Hummer

But seriously, the VE has a b-e-a-utiful body, that's what I love about it. The lights and bumpers can be changed, but the body is there to stay and the VE's body is A+. It has perfect proportions.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I'd probably liken the flares closer to something like a Hummer

But seriously, the VE has a b-e-a-utiful body, that's what I love about it. The lights and bumpers can be changed, but the body is there to stay and the VE's body is A+. It has perfect proportions.

Are you Kidding? It's butt is absolutely hideous, & the nose is a rounded off version of the 1st gen BA falcon, which is kinda good but if wanted something that had that then I would buy a BA Falcon.

[Windsor220]

Its not hideous but it is looking dated. Very boxy looking especially around the rear.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I'd probably liken the flares closer to something like a Hummer

But seriously, the VE has a b-e-a-utiful body, that's what I love about it. The lights and bumpers can be changed, but the body is there to stay and the VE's body is A+. It has perfect proportions.

What the VE has is beautiful proportions....which is not quite the same. The one benefit Holden got from literally going back to square one on the VE was the abiliy to design the entire car ground up to suit the latest styling trends. At the time VE was desgned (now some 8-9 years ago when early studies began) the rage was 'short nose', angular, high rear design for RWD sedans. Witness late 90s/early 00s BMWs. Holden took the projected 'short' alloytec V6 engine and engineered a car by their own admission that was much larger/more angular outside, but only marginally bigger inside. In effect they wasted space on purpose. They did this to get the right proportions...someting most (even high end) manufacturers can't regularly do becauase a 'wholly new' platform/car, with new suspension etc. does not come around very often. For falcon for example it has almost never happened....something is always carried over and there are only 3 major platform changes in its 40+year history. That and the I6 has always been there with its very long length.

In so far as proportions generate a nice 'stance' the VE will always look quite good....this is without doubt. HOWEVER, the surfacing of the car is very simplistic....juvenile even by modern standards. The highly agressive lines also only work on certain models....the Omega was horrid from day one because of this...with wildly inappropriate flares and the Calais models while clean...are far from interesting or expressive. The SS is the only true VE...it was designed wholly for that car and it works well as a sport model.

Moreover, the nature of styling is now quite outdated. Audi started the trend away from its teutonic look right as the VE launched....and the similarities to the BA show how 'outdated' its styling language really is. I saw a base holden cruze next to a VE omega...both white. The Omega couldn't have looked more boring......

Finally, the VE is very hard to 'modernise'. Upon seeing a VE in the metal for the first time i told a mate of mine....'these guards will cause problems later'. Why? Because they are huge, and they are metal. You can't change metal cheaply...its harder to change front quarter panels then it is bonnets....and rear quarters are virtually impossible. The graphicly unresolved hatchet job that is the HSV E2 (maligned by one an all...including LS1 HSV fanboys...) is a clear illustration. Attempt to integrate an elongated nose witih a square body alone was a disaster...let alone the attempt to 'shorten' the huge VE rear end by putting on a very high rear difuser :togo:

Don't get me wrong, the VE is quite a looker from some angles. Its certainly a more no-compromise attempt than the FG (or just about any other mass produced family sedan). But it comes at a price. Compared to its rivals, it's huge, despite being no bigger inside. Its also outdated, over simplistic, inflexible, un-alterable and worst of all....BORING. They need a change but they can't afford it. That's their own fault IMO.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

What the VE has is beautiful proportions....which is not quite the same. The one benefit Holden got from literally going back to square one on the VE was the abiliy to design the entire car ground up to suit the latest styling trends. At the time VE was desgned (now some 8-9 years ago when early studies began) the rage was 'short nose', angular, high rear design for RWD sedans. Witness late 90s/early 00s BMWs. Holden took the projected 'short' alloytec V6 engine and engineered a car by their own admission that was much larger/more angular outside, but only marginally bigger inside. In effect they wasted space on purpose. They did this to get the right proportions...someting most (even high end) manufacturers can't regularly do becauase a 'wholly new' platform/car, with new suspension etc. does not come around very often. For falcon for example it has almost never happened....something is always carried over and there are only 3 major platform changes in its 40+year history. That and the I6 has always been there with its very long length.

In so far as proportions generate a nice 'stance' the VE will always look quite good....this is without doubt. HOWEVER, the surfacing of the car is very simplistic....juvenile even by modern standards. The highly agressive lines also only work on certain models....the Omega was horrid from day one because of this...with wildly inappropriate flares and the Calais models while clean...are far from interesting or expressive. The SS is the only true VE...it was designed wholly for that car and it works well as a sport model.

Moreover, the nature of styling is now quite outdated. Audi started the trend away from its teutonic look right as the VE launched....and the similarities to the BA show how 'outdated' its styling language really is. I saw a base holden cruze next to a VE omega...both white. The Omega couldn't have looked more boring......

Finally, the VE is very hard to 'modernise'. Upon seeing a VE in the metal for the first time i told a mate of mine....'these guards will cause problems later'. Why? Because they are huge, and they are metal. You can't change metal cheaply...its harder to change front quarter panels then it is bonnets....and rear quarters are virtually impossible. The graphicly unresolved hatchet job that is the HSV E2 (maligned by one an all...including LS1 HSV fanboys...) is a clear illustration. Attempt to integrate an elongated nose witih a square body alone was a disaster...let alone the attempt to 'shorten' the huge VE rear end by putting on a very high rear difuser :togo:

Don't get me wrong, the VE is quite a looker from some angles. Its certainly a more no-compromise attempt than the FG (or just about any other mass produced family sedan). But it comes at a price. Compared to its rivals, it's huge, despite being no bigger inside. Its also outdated, over simplistic, inflexible, un-alterable and worst of all....BORING. They need a change but they can't afford it. That's their own fault IMO.

I'll definitely give a lot of what you've said here the thumbs up. I agree from a design standpoint Holden always had a lot more flexibility than Ford would ever have with FG due to designing the architecture brand new from the ground up. I've often wondered how much better FG would look (proportionately) with a slightly longer wheelbase than what was inherited from B series. VE's long wheelbase is also a dynamic advantage as they can place the engine further behind the front suspension instead of having it hovering over the top.

However, in regards to the VE being no bigger inside.. it certainly is bigger! I've previously had a VE and it was alot roomier inside than my FG is.

I also cannot justify comparing VE with BA. People tend to simplify things by nature and looking at VE-BA, the lights are the same rectangular style so people immediately say they are similar. This has been the basic shape that both Holden and Ford have used since the 90's though; and if you put a VE next to a BA they are really nothing alike. Put the VE next to a VZ, VY, VX and so on - you notice the VE is the epitome of Commodore's design evolution over the past two decades.

And the design itself? I don't think it's boring at all. If the VE is boring, then FG belongs in a nursing home because as far as the body goes, what FG does well, VE does better. Wheelbase? Check. Glasshouse? Check. Overhangs? Check. Bootlid? Check. A-Pillar/windscreen integration? Check... Proportions? Check. Regardless of what Audi or anyone else is doing, the VE still looks great and doesn't need a new styling direction. Holden really don't need to significantly alter the VE's core body elements or surfacing to have it continue to look up to the minute. Personally for its mid cycle refresh, I'd mould the bonnet contours into the A pillars and smooth out those outrageous front flares - and you have the basis of a different looking machine. It wouldn't be too hard to morph the VE into something similar to the Torana concept, considering the Torana used many VE design elements.

I think we've been seeing VE for so long that it's starting to look boring compared to the new cars, but really I believe it has hardly lost its design edge. As an overall package, everything works together to create a fantastic looking car. The same goes with FG.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

..........................However, in regards to the VE being no bigger inside.. it certainly is bigger! I've previously had a VE and it was alot roomier inside than my FG is.

I don't doubt the VE is roomier in some dimensions (as noted in the raw figures) than an FG. But that doesn't exlpain its huge size outside. For example, there are several measurements for a mondeo that are just as big if not bigger than the VE.... Of course FWD helps here but a big part of it is the nature of the styling. The FG hides its size well...its clearly a big car but when you put it next to an EF it isn't much bigger in key dimensions but is HUGE inside in comparison. A VE is hardly much bigger than a VT inside...particulalry in the front (rear is another story) yet it is styled to appear even bigger than it is. the VE is a tank. Fits with Holden's 'agressive style' though.

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I also cannot justify comparing VE with BA. People tend to simplify things by nature and looking at VE-BA, the lights are the same rectangular style so people immediately say they are similar. This has been the basic shape that both Holden and Ford have used since the 90's though; and if you put a VE next to a BA they are really nothing alike. Put the VE next to a VZ, VY, VX and so on - you notice the VE is the epitome of Commodore's design evolution over the past two decades.

I don't agree with the BA comparison either to be honest but its there nontheless primarily because the BA dates from a earlier time where styling was much 'simpler'. Its funny because the 'proportions' make a car look appealing, but what people use to 'diferentiate' is stuff like lights, glasshouse, surfacing etc. VE doesn't have any real subtle surfacing, its all just so simple. which is great and im' sure makes for a wonderful lecture at the design unis but fact is that is not the way the market has gone. So it looks a bit basic, particularly in base form.

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

And the design itself? I don't think it's boring at all. If the VE is boring, then FG belongs in a nursing home because as far as the body goes, what FG does well, VE does better. Wheelbase? Check. Glasshouse? Check. Overhangs? Check. Bootlid? Check. A-Pillar/windscreen integration? Check... Proportions? Check.

This is where we fundamentally disagree (which is no shock given the subjective nature of the issue). One thing that really irks me is this constant idea that 'conservative' is the same thing as 'boring'. Or converseley that 'agressive' is the same thing as 'appealing'. When i say 'boring' i mean 'detailess', i.e. featureless. The VE doesn't have anything really going for it other than it's proportions. Where the HSV E2 is too out there, the VE isn't there at all. It is, quite literally, a brick. Like a sculpture that is only just started.

FG is conservatie, no doubt. The fundamental design is about sufacing on a sleak yet restrained body. Some like it, some say its too much the walflower. Well either way at least it has some sense of style. Not much style in a VE...apart from tacked on guards and a wedge style an 8 year old could pencil....

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I don't know why people/journos keep saying the Commodore's styling is dated. The interior, yes. But the exterior is hardly dated, in fact it hasn't really aged at all and I dare say it is somewhat of a timeless design. I know it hasn't changed in a while, but it still looks very slick.

I guess it's a personal thing. I don't own one and probably never will and I'm bored of the shape. How it still gets praise as a beauty when it's parked beside an FG is an absolute mystery to me.

[Wally]

Well it is a personal thing and people shouldn't be seriously caned for liking the looks of one, none or both. Car enthuisiasts will always take their cues from their manufacturer of choice, pretty much defending ugly ducklings if necessary (on the rare occasion some are indefensible). Reading a post yesterday over the Korean car, someone noted that if it had a blue oval on it the knockers would become promoters and there is probably a lot of truth in that.

[ltd]

I think it only looks good in HSV configuration. Without all the dress kits it looks very boxy and plain. The interior though is an adventure in cheap plastics and conforming to a budget. Pity the accountants pulled the pin on interior design.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

A-Pillar/windscreen integration?

you're kidding on this bit ... right? the ve would just about have the biggest blind spot of any car on the road in this area.

Originally Posted by wally

Well it is a personal thing and people shouldn't be seriously caned for liking the looks of one, none or both.

exactly, looks are subjective. obviously adrenaline likes them! personally i think it looks like a toad. that doesn't make either of us wrong or right.


getting back to the topic, what i find most annoying is the hype holden surrounds everything with and the way it is absorbed by joe public and the media. at least with the latest claims they are finding some opposition in the media regarding their claims.

without the outrageous claims of the 3.0L version's economy, the engines are actually pretty good. they may not have the torque of the 4L but they are a def improvement over the previous options.

a lot of people that buy cars couldn't care 2 hoots about the numbers, esp performance orientated. one thing that is true is that the sidi engines are more economical than the predecessors and thats all a lot of people will hear. as a kind of example, most people on here don't have a kind word to say about the egas falcon, yet my wife says she can't tell the difference between it and our previous petrol ba. my mum is the same. you and i know there is a noticeable difference but for a lot of people it is the last thing on the list.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

FG is conservatie, no doubt. The fundamental design is about sufacing on a sleak yet restrained body. Some like it, some say its too much the walflower. Well either way at least it has some sense of style. Not much style in a VE...apart from tacked on guards and a wedge style an 8 year old could pencil....

Swordy, that was probably one of the best constructed arguments i've ever read on here. Very well put. If i could vote for you again, i would!

Back to the SIDI v6, well, it's still a 'sub-optimal' design, but now with better technology. It is still not as good as the 4.0L i6.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

This is where we fundamentally disagree (which is no shock given the subjective nature of the issue). One thing that really irks me is this constant idea that 'conservative' is the same thing as 'boring'. Or converseley that 'agressive' is the same thing as 'appealing'. When i say 'boring' i mean 'detailess', i.e. featureless. The VE doesn't have anything really going for it other than it's proportions. Where the HSV E2 is too out there, the VE isn't there at all. It is, quite literally, a brick. Like a sculpture that is only just started.

FG is conservatie, no doubt. The fundamental design is about sufacing on a sleak yet restrained body. Some like it, some say its too much the walflower. Well either way at least it has some sense of style. Not much style in a VE...apart from tacked on guards and a wedge style an 8 year old could pencil....

Well, I can definitely agree with your side of the argument here. Beauty is of course subjective, so where you find the VE to be brick like, I quite like it. Although I think as time goes on, more and more people have begun to lose their taste in VE's styling. I remember back in '06 it was the bee's knees, "revolutionary" was a word thrown around often (even though it was closer to evolutionary, hardly revolutionary in style).Now just three years later, the whole design is being called dated. For me, it still works very well. The great thing about the design is that everything is integrated - it all works together. So while it may be a wedged box on wheels, it was executed perfectly and achieves the look perfectly, even if the look might not be as appealing as it was in 2006.

However while I like so many VE design elements, I like my FG better as a whole. When you look at it as a whole, you forget about the length of the overhangs, the wheelbase, the glasshouse flow interrupted at the C pillar because like the VE, the design works well.

Originally Posted by prydey

you're kidding on this bit ... right? the ve would just about have the biggest blind spot of any car on the road in this area.

From the inside, the A pillar is a monster. I had to live with this for over a year! However, it is only large from the inside because Holden used larger, cheaper materials for strength as opposed to more expensive compact material that would provide the same strength. So the thickness is a function of Holden's cheapness, not their design. Because you will find that the pillar could be a fair bit thinner from the inside without really touching how it looks on the outside. It flows beautifully, in fact it's one of the best I have ever seen from any car, including the Germans. Compare this to FG, which has the bonnet meet the A pillar at a 90 degree angle.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Wally

Well it is a personal thing and people shouldn't be seriously caned for liking the looks of one, none or both. Car enthuisiasts will always take their cues from their manufacturer of choice, pretty much defending ugly ducklings if necessary (on the rare occasion some are indefensible). Reading a post yesterday over the Korean car, someone noted that if it had a blue oval on it the knockers would become promoters and there is probably a lot of truth in that.

Most definitely, or a large disparity in performance would also get the same defenders.

It's not that I don't like the look of the VE - I don't mind it. But to me it does look dated and old, I can only imagine how I'd feel if I'd owned one for 3 years.

In the days of the AU, I just couldn't bring myself to buying one based on looks, again, a subjective thing. I ended up getting a Gen3 VT. I still like the look of the VT and I still dislike the look of the AU (except the S3 T models). I have a bred Ford bias but it doesn't outweigh my respect for the value of money if that days Ford doesn't tick all the right boxes.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

What the VE has is beautiful proportions....

I Agree, mainly on the shape of the turrent and the C-piller and the wheel base. The Way the bottom window line leads up to the boot is nice too...but the wheel arches , rear end etc are are bit hit and miss.


One of the few things i dislike about the Fg is the wheels are too far in, the rear look a bit, um, fat...if the wheels were back a few inches, sorta inline with the C-piller the FG would be even better.