Expand Ad


While the engines in the Holden VF Commodore have carried over largely unchanged from the VE, the introduction of lightweight technologies and improved aerodynamics help to deliver fuel consumption and emissions reductions across the range.

The all-new entry-level Holden Commodore Evoke sedan is the most fuel efficient in the line-up. Its claimed combined cycle fuel consumption of 8.3 litres per 100km represents a 6.7 per cent improvement over the MY12 VE Omega, and puts the new price leader within 0.2L/100km of the four-cylinder Ford Falcon EcoBoost.

The Evoke’s 3.0-litre direct-injection V6 produces 185kW of power and 290Nm of torque – down 5kW on the VE Omega, which is a side effect of the shift to a lighter single exhaust system. The Commodore Evoke also gets a smaller differential in a further weight-saving measure. Efficiency of the Evoke Sportwagon improves by 3.4 per cent, now measuring 8.6L/100km.

Holden VF Commodore Evoke

Aluminium replaces steel for the bonnets and bootlids of all VF Commodores, contributing to weight savings of up to 43kg, while an improved drag coefficient (down from 0.33 to 0.31) and an electric power steering system (saving approximately 0.2L/100km) all play a role in making the VF more efficient than its predecessor.

VF Commodore variants equipped with the larger 210kW/350Nm 3.6-litre V6 experience the greatest economy gains, with Holden’s engineers delivering improvements of between 5.1 and 8.2 per cent across the SV6, Calais and Calais V grades. Sedans and Utes powered by the 3.6-litre consume 9.0L/100km, while Sportwagon variants are slightly thirstier at 9.3L/100km.

Holden VF Commodore SV6

Efficiency of the 6.0-litre V8-powered performance models also improves as much as 7.3 per cent. Previously rated at 12.2-12.4L/100km, the SS, SS V, SS V Redline and Calais V grades now range between 11.5 and 11.8L/100km, with the SS and SS V sedans and utes leading the way.

Consumption of the 6.0-litre Caprice V improves 4.9 per cent, falling from 12.3 to 11.7L/100km.

As in the VE, six-speed manual V8 Commodores produce 270kW of power and 530Nm of torque, while their six-speed automatic counterparts are capped at 260kW and 517Nm.

Holden VF Calais V

Holden’s 180kW/320Nm 3.6-litre LPG V6-powered models offer efficiency improvements of between 2.0 and 4.9 per cent. Available in Evoke and SV6 sedan and Sportwagon grades, as well as the standard Caprice, the gas burners consume between 11.5 and 12.1L/100km on the combined cycle.




  • gtrxuone

    11.5/100kms for the 6.0. V8 is fantastic.8.6 for the Evoke is close to the small 4 cylinder car without the space.

    • Dave

      My four cylinder Honda Jazz gets 5.5/100kms and has more interior storage space than most sedans.

      • Barry

        However the space is useless in a hatch.Put your foot on the brake a get hit in the head by something loaded in the back.Only the items loaded below the seat level are safely stored in a hatch.

      • Trevor

        Your name is Dave and you drive a Honda Jazz.

      • Poison_Eagle

        lol u just got burnt by Trevor.

      • ShaneMcGrath

        Try towing a trailer in that jazz then get back to me! ;)

    • 2BFrank

      Cheaper to run than a Cruze 1.6L Turbo

  • norm

    I’m not sure economy numbers tell the whole story. I’m pretty sure the Ford Eco Boost is going to be a more satisfying drive than the 3 litre Holden. There are some reliability issues with the eco boost motors surfacing in the U.S however.

  • slap

    Real world economy of the evoke and falcon ecoboost would be very different due to the commos complete lack of torque for such a heavy car and having to put you foot down 2 compensate. Still small improvements are better than a kick in the balls!

    • Zaccy16

      i agree, i was just about to say that myself, the ecoboost falcon would be able to come close to its claimed figure because of its plateau of low down torque and 60 more nm than the sidi 3.0, if the 3.0 is anything like it is in the VE it won’t match the claimed fuel consumption and won’t even come close to the fun of driving the ecoboost ford! as a private buyer you would have to be dumb not to buy the much more powerful and torquey 3.6 in the SV6 that on paper uses barely any more fuel than the smaller engine but in real life might use less because it will be less strained

      • Hung Low

        They have mentioned numerous times that the improvements in the transmission recalibration have made a major difference to on road behaviour. Either way I believe that they should just scrap the 3.0 all together, it is just a strategy engine with the lowest on paper consumption to attract fleets, where in reality they should have followed the Falcon path with a turbo 4cyl not that it is helping Falcon sales at the moment though.

        • Zaccy16

          i agree, that engine is a fleet special just for the on paper figures. The 3.6 should be the base model because it is far superior

    • Smart US

      i drive base Maxima V6 250… nice car CVT tranny – my first CVT tranny – cant complain – daily grind traffic average speed 30km/h, base petrol 91… and now the fuel use… 10l/100km – when I hit some M4 20% (m4) 80% daily traffic – 8.6l/100km… thats .9 less than claimed from Nissan… my other cars V6 were never less than 14l/100km – territory over 15l/100 – same traffic same route…

      • Andy Whitby

        Territory is inline 6 and a much, much bigger and heavier car I believe.

  • Rick

    Their very economical for the size and power of the vehicles

  • mo

    These are very impressive numbers. 8.3 litres per 100km is excellent for a 3.0-litre 185 kW RWD automatic sedan. The 43kg weight saving is great news. People might bemoan the electric steering, but I’m amazed the hydraulic version wasted 0.2 litres per 100km.

  • LowRezFez

    I’m interested in urban cycle figures. I think shifting 1700 Kg of Commodore in stop start traffic will suck down lots of juice. I agree freeway figures are fantastic, but that’s not where this car will spend most of its time.

    • guest

      Freeway figures for the old 3.6 SIDI, you could get it down under 7.5L/100km. And in urban driving – you could attain around 9.0L/100km without much trouble.

      It just means driving normally and not doing full flat-out acceleration from the traffic lights as some drivers do (after they’ve sat there looking at the green light for 5 minutes while playing with their hair, fixing their make-up or playing around with a phone).

      So I think the new car could achieve better economy than the claims in the article (Holden figures). The Evoke looks like great value for the money, and the Calais V even more so.

      • LowRezFez

        I doubt 9 l/100 is realistic in urban running… If it is, I’m impressed. I should test one out to see what it does in the city. I reckon closer to 13/1 is the urban figure.

      • http://www.facebook.com/al.tungupon.7 Al Tungupon

        9l/100km urban? Are you stoned?

  • F1orce

    One issue is the 3.0L is slow , very slow for 3L and over standards.

    And it sounds dreadfully awful, and now with a single exhuast it’ll sound even worse

  • Poison_Eagle

    An LPG Plug In Hybrid would be perfect. THAT’S what would change the image of large cars, but they’re all too shy to invest.

    • LowRezFez

      Camry hybrids on gas are being used as Taxis. They cost nothing to run and last!

  • David Salter

    With the fuel use figures above, is the lower given amounts for the Automatic transmissions?

  • LowRezFez

    I want to see urban cycle figures. Average figures are only achievable if you do mostly freeway driving.

  • Damien

    the FG XT on RON98 makes 208kW and 420Nm of torque, standard 195/391 on RON95 and 201kW/409Nm on RON95.
    I’d like to see a V6 crack that torque as what a Ford’s I6 can achieve, sure it is 3984cc 4.0L but still, hey it is cheap and anyone can get one, just throw in some 20″ rims and you get a car that sticks to the road and handles like no other!