Holden Commodore engine updates revealed

Article
Gallery

By Matt Brogan | August 04th, 2009

Live (Updated 12:25pm):

Following on from our story yesterday, the CarAdvice team are this morning attending a press conference at Holden’s Fishermans Bend engine facility to discuss changes to the powertrain line-up for the VE Commodore and WM Statesman range.

Although the conference has just begun we can bring you news already as follows:

3.0-litre SIDI V6: This new engine will produce 190kW at 6700rpm and 290Nm at 2900rpm and will manage a fuel consumption figure of 9.3L/100km (combined). The 3.0-litre unit will be available in Omega and Berlina sedan, Sportwagon and Ute models.
3.6-litre SIDI V6: The existing 3.6-litre unit will gain SIDI technology and will be available across the remainder of the VE range (SV6, Calais & Calais-V), as well as six-cylinder WM models. The engine will see a performance increase to 210kW at 6400rpm and 350Nm at 2900rpm.
Transmissions: All SIDI V6 engines will now be mated to a six-speed automatic transmission as standard.
LPG: LPG powered V6 engines now achieve a fuel economy figure of 13.4L/100km (combined) as well as being the most CO2 emission friendly car in its class.
Price: Most VE and WM models will not see any increase over the current recommended retail price.
E85: Next year an E85 fuelled alternative will also be made available with this engine to be exported globally. Export vehicles to be powered by the Aussie V6 include SAAB’s new 9-5 model.
Design: Exhaust manifold integrated into cylinder head to advance quality, save weight, reduce construction cost and increase efficiency. 3.0-litre engine some 10kg lighter than 3.6-litre unit.
Market: 3.0-litre engine claimed to be “sweet spot” for the current VE model range although a 2.8-litre unit was available. Holden may utilise this engine in the future as powertrain and vehicle weight changes come about or if the market calls for it.
Export: Opportunity exists for Chinese export of engines in the near future.

Fuel Efficiency, CO2 and engine specification tables below (click on image to enlarge):

Stay with us this morning for further updates as they come to hand.

MD-88

The announcement thus far is good news, some feature updgrades and zero price change would top the announcement off nicely.

Good work GMH.
Owen

So, will the Omega and Berlina models also get the 6 speed auto, or will they get stuck with the 4 speed?
ChopstaR87

so no DI 3.6Litre V6?? so 210KW with how much torque and where??
Tony M

What about the torque figures and at what revs they come in at. I hope we don’t have a motor that gets its maximum torque at about 3500rpm.
MD-88

6sp Auto is to be standard on all models.
Insider

To put those Direct Injection performance statistics into perspective a BMW 525i egine only produces 160kw and struggles to achieve a combined consumption of 9.4L/100km yet that vehicle costs twice as much as an Omega in base model form. Well done Holden!
silverfox

All get six speed auto’s and both the 3.0 and 3.6 litre engines are SIDI (Spark Ignition Direct Injection Technology)
Tim

I’ll bet money to say that the 3.0L “real world” consumption will be about 10.4L/100km at best.
Insider

Could we please get some CO2 statistics on the DI Omega? CO2 is a very important stat for fleet managers. Thanks guys.
JPMaster

How about dual variable cam phasing? no turbo? With that, and being a compromised design, it\’s gonna be cr@pola when it comes to torque. No good Holden. Looks like Ford have really got all based covered with their future lineup and options.
Dude

Instead of creating new engines why dont they concentrate on fixing the main issue…. weight.
Im sure they could of got better fuel consumption figures by shedding a couple of hundred kilos from these porkers
bobby

I cant believe we call Aussie cars dinosaurs. Just look at the the fuel consumption ratings of front wheel drive poxy Accords and Maxima V6s… Even a 4.0l rear wheel drive Falcon uses less.
Tezzz

And of course, no mention of the torque figures for any othe engines. Hmmmm, they must obviously be most impressive! Will they even bother releasing that info at all? Maybe in ultra small fine print somewhere so no one notices…

And as for the guy comparing the 2.5L engine in the BMW 525i, your’e congratulating holden because its 3.0L engine has more power than a smaller 2.5L engine. Wow what an achievement, well done Holden in deed!
Insider

Hi Tezzz,

You can also add that the Beemer is artificially expensive because of LCT and import tarrifs but I think as a round-about comparison I did fairly well. How do you explain the higher fuel consumption on the Beemer? Maybe more torque? I guess we’ll soon see.
bobby

Tezz, the point is the Holden is MORE POWERFUL and uses LESS PETROL than the BMW which costs an extra $50 grand. Actually I think the Holden uses less fuel than the smaller and gutless Mazda 6…
http://www.caradvice.com.au/ alborz

Torque figures, CO2 emissions and Fuel Economy Tables all added
Cherry Picker

Insider, the 3.0L inline 6-cylinder in the 335i produces 225kW, together with 400Nm of torque from as low as 1300rpm. Makes the numbers for the Holden 3.0L SIDI look a bit insipid doesn’t it? But hey, let’s all cherry pick an example to prove our points and make a day of it!
Motorhead

Sounds like worth while improvements across the range.
Less weight would be nice but it’s hardly a localised problem, all cars have gained massive weight over the years, todays mini weighs about as much as an early Commodore.

Does intergrating the exhaust manifold into the head mean the end of aftermarket extractors? Could make aftermarket turbo kits difficult as well.
DesignEng©™

WOW 290 Nm @ 2900rpm. What a screamer, well that’s what it’ll be doing just to keep up with traffic flow anyway.
DAVID

the 335i also has two turbos.

this is great news for holden, well done for envoking the spirit of the VL commodore.
Tony M

The torque figures for the 3 litre are disappointing, 290Nm at 2900rpm, but the torque figures for the 3.6 litre, 350N at 2900rpm look great. I wonder what sort of kws you get at 2900rpm. These sort of figures are what leasing companies want to see. It makes their decisions regarding leasing easier. Are these figures based on premium unleaded? and if so will the new VE2 run on standard unleaded?
Can’t wait to see the first test reports in September.
Tony M

Just saw the fuel grade, 91 RON. Looks good.
Greg

A great update, very impressive power/economy combinations. This should shut up the critics for a while. Well done Holden.

Does the LPG version still make 175kW from 3.6L? I assume Holden will have a 3.0 LPi version within the next 1-2 years though.

I think it says a lot that BMW’s 2.5 engine burns more fuel and makes less power than Holden’s new 3.0.

The 3.6 DI makes 225kW in the CTS so maybe that’s an upgrade for VF next year?
Goodfa

I was in the market for a SV6 6 Speed Manual.I cannot help but be disappointed that the 2010 Model looks exactly the same as my neighbours 2006 Model with a 7% economy improvement.As much as I want to I cannot bring myself to buy one of these unless they can match the Falcon’s $36k driveaway.The Falcon XR6 should be just as quick as The MY10 Commodore with better fuel economy.(3.6l version)
Insider

Cherry Picker – Different segment mate. 335i is a medium sized car that weighs 180kg less than the Omega and is strapped with two turbo’s. 525i is of a similar size to the Commodore and similar engine capacity with a similar role in the model line-up – affordability. 335i is a premium/sport version of the 3-series.
Simon

The 3.6 with 210Kw 350NM and a 6 speed box sounds impressive so long as we get a decent 6 speed. Holden are not known for great gearboxes.
VW Freak

Pretty impressive effort GMH. Only a matter of time now before Toyota decided to slap direct injection onto the 2GR-FE V6 so they can supposedly keep “Changing the Game”. LOL!!!
OMG

Seems that Cherry Picker was cherry picking some examples of his own ROFL
DesignEng©™

Greg, don’t hold your breath waiting for a VF.
Reuss admitted that there probably won’t be any more “new” Commodores, just “updates”.
So in the future when we talk of VE 11 it will be VE ELEVEN not TWO.
sean

The 3.6 SIDI figures leave some room for improvement when the facelifted model goes on sale in about eight months time…..might see that magic 225/370 combo. Probably some room to move on the 3.0l as well.

Good to see the 3.6 Calais matches the XT Falc 6-spd on economy. Even the other 3.6 models are pretty good too.

I wonder if Holden will be preparing a diesel for the V-car, or even a twin-charger 4?
OMG

Always count on DesignEngCTMsponsoredbyford for some fair, impartial and balanced perspective when it comes to Holden.
http://zuboora.com.au Mohamad is right when he

This better give the general a head start before ford uses real technology in its falcon….
OMG

Nice to see BOTH our Australian manufacturers offering quality product in their large cars.
Brand prejudice aside (as it should be), Holden and Ford should both be proud of their efforts to revive the large car segment.
Go Australia!
lpg

Like to see how 290Nms would tow a loaded trailer or caravan. That torque figure is usually seen in 4 cylinder hatchbacks not large family cars.
Aussie Cars

6 speed standard across the range. Nice work, finally the 4 speed slusher is dead. About bloody time.
DesignEng©™

OMG just the facts.

Personally I think that this is all good stuff from teams red, blue and grey (Toyota). Holden just happen to be in front of the leapfrog game, and that’s good for the industry that they drag each other along.

And where have you been when I support Holden’s local design and manufacturing?
Acfsambo

It looks to be good on paper, but how will the low amount of torque and high RPM for max power for the 3.0L go in the real world? I dont think 290NM is enough to move 1.8 tonnes of metal. if the Commodore was say 1.5 to 1.6 tonnes, maybe, but atleast its low in the rev range.
Motorhead

11.7:1 is sky high compression for 91 octane but I guess that is one of the advantages of direct injection.
Golfschwein

Lpg……..seriously, who cares? Few people will give a golden rat’s ar$e whether the 3.0 will tow, or not. I can guarantee you one thing: it absolutely will tow. Our old Belmont station wagon had a 186 red motor, 5 unbelted kids sprawled through the cabin with Mum and Dad, no synchro on first gear (an option ticked, but not delivered) and that thing towed us and the caravan across the country, many times over 22 years.

It’ll tow. Don’t you worry about that.
Falc

These figures are average for todays power/torque levels, nothing special.

There are two concerns:

How well do the economy figures stack in the real world??

And how effective will the 290Nm be with 1.7 tonnes of metal?

About time they got rid of that 4sp, but I hope the 6 sp is smoother than the unit in the V8s.
Tezzz

Golfschwein Says:
August 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
It’ll tow. Don’t you worry about that.
—————

LOL so will a donkey with a cart attached but that hardly tells you anything about how desirable the whole situation will be.
lpg

Golfschwein, what I was referring to was the 3 litre has no torque. 290Nms in today’s market is not good enough. FG Falcon craps all over it with torque yet fuel consumption is less than 1 litre per 100km difference.
DesignEng©™

For those looking for comparisons:

Step back 20 years to ’89, EA falcon & VN Commodore:
Both achieved 9.0 l/100 km combined cycle.
Weight 1300-1400 kg
3.9l Falcon: 140kw@4250rpm & 338Nm@3500rpm
3.8l Commodore: 125kw@4800rpm & 288Nm@3200rpm

You see plenty of VNs towing other broken down VN’s so VE II’s 290Nm@2900 shouldn’t be too bad, except VE weighs a lot more.
I6orNothing

Whilst a step in the right direction, Ford’s I6 still trumps both of these SIDI engines in the real world (on paper at least), with 391Nm (on 91RON) from low in the rev range. Be interesting to see them in the real world though, all the same.

We can all say what we like about the product but one can’t deny that it is a very good marketing strategy from Holden, who continue to produce the right sound bites at the right times. Certainly outplay ford on that front. The only thing we will hear from now on about the Commodore is that it’s “9.3 l/100″. Well played.
OMG

Here’s a novel idea: Wait to see how it is reviewed by mags and websites first
colin

The new base engine ( now 3.0 litres) produces 10kw more power but 30Nm less torque than the larger outgoung base 3.6 at 300rpm higher (2600rpm vs 2900rpm). Cannot see how the economy is going to be as good as quoted with real on road driving.
http://caradvice onepoppa

Before everybody gets too carried away with self congratulation, consider that the lowest figure for CO2 is 221 g/km. In 2010 these figures will be a joke in a world aiming for, and achieving, figures of under 150 g/km for real world usable cars.
Golfschwein

Another way of saying what I was saying could be: if you had to tow, you might choose another engine or car besides this one. But if you had one of these, once you’re up and cruising at your limited 90 or 100 with a van hitched on the back, what difference does it make?

Come on, show me pictures of your caravans that are so important. DO IT NOW!!!!!
OMG

Colin, the gearboxes are now 6 speed across the board.
XR6T GOD

3.0-litre SIDI V6: This new engine will produce 190kW at 6700rpm and 290Nm at 2900rpm and will manage a fuel consumption figure of 9.3L/100km (combined)………HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA what a joke!
DesignEng©™

XR6T GOD, I appreciate what you are saying, and I agree that the Falcon will already be close in the real world, but don’t forget that the VE is a fat b@stard.
Aussie Cars

@Colin.. Not sure if your aware but between the engine and the drive shaft there is a thing called a gearbox…..The VEII has a new one with 6 gears now not 4…..
Really do 1/2 of you even know how a car works or do you like to just read the pretty little charts and compare figures.
Chris

I’m with you OMG.
I would say that the VE revision is now competitive with the Falcon in terms of drive train.
The previous V6 for Holden was hang your head in shame worthy. This one will give it a fighting chance. Ford’s
Twin Turbo 4Cyl and TT Diesel will own when they are released and they still have the I6 to refine in what is already a cracker of an engine.
lpg

People keep comparing to how it was 20 – 30 years ago when 290Nms was huge. If it wasn’t so bad then, why complain now. The point is in 2009 not 1979, 290Nms in a large family car regardless of towing or not is not good enough! Point is to fill all 5 seats with something in the boot would see it struggle up hills with A/C on without having to rev the crap out of it. Honda VTECS anyone……….
DesignEng©™

Aussie Cars you make a good point. How much of this gain is engine related and how much is transmission.

Sounds like a good advertising smoke & mirrors job, in your opinion then?
Splatcat

Holden need to go to a smaller engine with less power and torque just to match the fuel economy of the 4.0L falcon motor. Well done Ford! Considering Holden’s claim of fuel economy figures with the Series 1 VE were excessively optimistic, I dare say these figures will be the same. No one has been able to match Hodlen’s claimed fuel figures in any tests yet, this will be no different.
Sonu

9.3L per 100kms. I dont think soo. The way they test these figures is nonsense. 10 bucks fuel in the car, a guy the weighs 50 kgs and drives like a 80 year old. THe realistic figures would be around 10L to 11L. But the addtion of a 6 speed auto is good thing. The VE is looking a very very dated package now. Extremely dull and plastic interior is poor also. The new breed of honda accord, maxda 6 and nissan maxima have much for to offer i think.
Tony M

I believe the VE2 3 litre DI motor and the 2 litre eco motor for the Falcon FG2 will be for lease purposes. The majority of people will be buying the VE2 3.6 litre DI and the FG2 I6 or the 2.7 diesel. This of course gives Ford a diesel of world class level in its FG2 range which Holden doesn’t have.
Recently I read an interesting fact about diesel engines when compared with petrol engines of similar capacity. That is the time taken in overtaking between 80-120 kph in a diesel is HALF the time of a petrol. So I suppose when we will compare a 2.7 litre diesel Falcon FG2/Territory with a 3.0 litre VE2 Commodore/Wagon; well you wouldn’t compare them would you, it might be embarrassing for Holden. And please note that currently diesel is about 8 cents a litre cheaper than petrol.
Golfschwein

Everyone’s getting so serious. Thanks for the jayco link, DesignEng.
lpg

Golfschwein,”once you’re up and cruising at your limited 90 or 100 with a van hitched on the back, what difference does it make?”.

The difference is, do you live on a salt lake? have you heard of hills? Not enough torque means a kickdown (or even 2) is required just to maintain speed. Not my idea of relaxed family cruising.
Aussie Cars

@Design
Look its there on paper to keep the greenies and fleet buyers happy. It also gives holden marketing something to throw at the competition. I dont doubt that the 3.0 will do the job to push the average family around and I dont doubt DI/enigne capacity helps on fuel savings. But it is obvious 1/2 those savings has to do with it has more gears to play with and I think Holdens claimed figures this time will be alot closer in real world driving than the previous commodore.
JEKYL & HYDE

i’m a bit pissed that the 3.6 is not 225kw(as per caddy).i suppose that is for next year.the ratios of the 6 speed auto look good,and should launch the car a fair bit better,as well as better economy when cruising.i read somewhere in the gm media release(which anybody can read now)that there is a weight reduction/bettter aero’s and low rolling resistance tyres(hope there not the mich’ies,they look half shattered when their new).hate the sidi stickers on the side…

on an unrated issue(pls don’t can it)the word out is cruze is selling at 2000 orders per month.now who said it wouldn’t sell…
Greg

The 3.0 is there to get the headlines and get fleet sales. If you want to tow, or more power there is a 3.6 with lots of torque. Is the 3.6 an option on omega maybe?
Golfschwein

Lpg, I never advocated the 3.0 litre for towing. It will tow. That’s a fact. That’s why I said it. It won’t be best for towing. That’s a fact. That’s what you’re saying. I agree with you, actually.

I’m also saying most people won’t care whether it tows or not. That’s also a fact. I’ve only ever towed a trailer to the tip, 15 years ago. I look outside my window and I don’t see caravans, boats or hordes of people driving 4 cylinder cars who regret they didn’t buy something with more torque, just so they could, I dunno, tow…something. This pre-occupation with towing is a huge puzzle to me. My father and brother tow. The latter’s Captiva’s 3.2 V6 (with 169kw and 297Nm) tows their camping trailer admirably, apparently. All I see here is Holden introducing a smaller, sweeter and more economical engine for those to whom it will appeal. Brilliant!

If towing is so important, there’ll be a Territory, Falcon (hrrrmph! MUST have the wagon with the cart springs!) Prado or Pajero with your name on it.
Mark

HAHAHAHAHA 290 Nm is less torque than a VN Commodore!! How sad. The Commodore now has one of the smallest and least powerful V6s on the market. The Accord, Maxima, Aurion, etc. all have bigger & more powerful engines.
Cargo

Bloody hell!!!!! Is this the big news we were waiting for? It looks the same and with all the hooha about fuel economy gains this is all they could come up with? A gutlees 3 litre V6 which barely beats a 4 litre Falcon in economy……and has heaps less useable power and torque……another Holden joke. And dont forget how Hlden always lie about their fuel economy figures…….all i can say is Ford will kill this with the 2litre Turbo, Gas injection and even the updated petrol I6 will be better than this gutless VibraTech…..
Cargo

The bankruptcy of GM has affected Hollden to a great degree….obviously there is a serious lack of money if this is all they could come up with. Real world economy will be well over 10litres per hundred without a doubt…….
Buck

FPV F6 565nm from 1950-5200 r.p.m. 310kw’s and 12.1 litres per 100km’s.

Holden have no answer to this incredible motor and by the looks of it, never will.
Golfschwein

Shock, horror, Mark. The Accord, Maxima, Aurion etc all have bigger and more powerful engines. Hmm. Let’s give that another stir. They all have bigger and more powerful engines. Well, yes. I assume you’re not taking account of Nissan’s 2.5 V6 with 134 kw and 228Nm of torque.

None of them use 9.3l/100km. Isn’t that why Holden gives you the choice?
Luv Local Industry

I will hold judgement until I have driven one.

If the motor/trans is a big improvement on the current set up, then I would rather drive a Commodore, than a Aurion or Falcon.

IMHO, the Commodore chassis eats the others.
OldieHoldie

Hooo haaa indeed !

What always amazes me is how much Holden manages to HYPE up the most incremental of changes in their cars. They immediately start printing new slogans, and plaster a car with claims like ‘ drive from melbourne to sydney on one tank! ‘ with big ‘ 9.3′s ‘(never mind the real world figures of an engine low on torque in a heavy car) and create as much of a marketing media frenzy as they can possible throw money at so that regardless of what the reality of their offerings might be, people will also be caught up in the madness and follow along like sheep.

If there’s one thing you cant beat them at, its B@llsh*tting the Australian public time and time again.
Cargo

Obviously nothing has been done to the worst interior of any car on the market. The VE interior black slab of cheap plastic is an absolute disgrace.
The Realist

I look forward to seeing the real world fuel consumption figures.

BTW have the V8 engines been upgraded, or only 6 cylinders?
Phill

To those people saying 290nm is not much torque,290nm at 2900rpm is good torque for a 3L,its just the body is too heavy.
OMG

I take it you all have actually driven the car?
Andrew

Hmm…whilst these updates definately are what the Commodore needed, clearly the previous VE must of been TERRIBLY behind because a Falcon with 391Nm with a 6 speed auto uses claimed 9.9L/100km which in the real-world will mean they would (you’d think) use similar amounts. The Falcon XT with 6-speed would of course also be in a competitive price bracket to the Commodore although more expensive. So in my view Ford is still essentially ahead just Holden is catching up a bit but of course Ford are due to release their significant update next year which will once again put them well ahead on paper no doubt. Good job Holden, but not good enough. That 290Nm @ 2900rpm with a direct-injected 3.0L V6 seems a bit weak, my mums previous Camry 3.0L V6 which would now be 9 years old produced almost the same torque albeit at 4400rpm. That camry also weighed about 1440kg as opposed to what 17xxkg’s?
Golfschwein

If it couldn’t achieve 9.3l/100km in the real world, wouldn’t Holden land themselves in some sort of strife? Wouldn’t all manufacturers? The test is uniform. I achieve 5.6 and a bit in my Golf, close to the stated 5.5l/100km, and I live on the city outskirts. Some trips are 4.6l/100km, some are 8.5l/100km, but the average is attainable, particularly if I gave it less of a belting to the shops.
Falc

Why drop the capacity to 3 litres when Ford is achieving sub 10L/100km with a 4 litre??? Why can’t they do that with the 3.6?? Poor form, Holden.
Phill

Look at the relationship between engine displacement and torque(non turbo),a good engine will have close to 10% of its displacement figure as its torque figure ,2L=200nm,3L=300nm,4L=400nm,that puts the 3.0-litre SIDI V6 engine up there.Its torque/displacement figure is better than the 3.6,but they need to make a midsize rwd car to go with it.
Trump

Do you pronounce SIDI as seedy? Kinda how the VE interior makes me feel!
Dude

C’mon guys im sure the actual engines/transmissions themselves are quite good ….. its just a shame they have to haul all that weight. Thats what will blunt their performance.
http://Caradvice.com.au Baddass

290Nm sounds a bit gutless.
Jack

Thanks for the torque and figures and where they will be located. The Holden 3.0 6cyl at 290Nm @ 2900rpm will be bested in this regard by the Ford EcoBoost 2.0 4cyl at 380Nm @ 1950rpm(?).

I am happy to see the new drivetrains – choice is good!

As an aside, the 3.0L could be a great motor to keep into the future. It will have to work hard (with 1800+kgs of VE to haul) and will be under load almost constantly, if the overall gearing remains tallish. This should ensure that the rings seal nicely, and stay sealed. Voila, engine life.

(Spam word: Ford That’s where my money is when it comes to drivetrains!)
Shak

Reuss stated that the Commodore wouldnt recieve styling updates until the next gen in 2012, but did say that very minor modifications to improve drag would be visible. Although 290Nm is trumped by the Falcon, the newish six speeder should if calibrated correctly mask this deficit. He also stated that a VF wasnt on the cards till the next gen, and that this update would be VEII. i dunno VF has a nicer ring to it.
Shak

Just visited the Holden site and it states that power and torque figures were acheived with 91 octane. imagine what would be acheivable on 95 or 98.
Andrew M

Shak,
on 98 octane you would probably achieve about the same its competitors gain which is…….more
Shak

Andrew go have a look at its competitors and you’ll see they quote power using 98 octane. I did my research.
phase3

shak, both ford and toyota quote their power figures with 91 octane fuel, except for the turbo falcon, which they quote using 95 octane.
Andrew M

Serialpest,
Although I agree with most of what you say, to say the commodore needs to get 7L/100k before its considered acceptable is rubbish.

you can get back to me when small cars achieve 7L/100k

10L in a large car is acceptable. Take a look at the competitors coming from reputable countries such as europe and Japan. 10L spanks most of them.
For a battling little country like OZ, our vehicles are quite economical.

The biggest thing is will this be achievable with low torque, not whether or not 10L is acceptable.

My opinion is the car will struggle to achieve stated. somepeople are saying the new 6speeder will get it there, but it too can only contribute so much.

I think the stock I6 will still run down the 3.6SIDI, but this is an improvement.
The 3.6 already got dusted by a second didnt it???
Captain Nemo

I love the way the Ford fanboys think the ecobomb 4 banger is going to be some kind of manna from heaven massive power,low fuel economy, super smooth what a load of BS. Rember this is a Ford if BMW/MB were quoting the so called 200kw/380mn of power i would believe them but not Ford. Remember the ecobomb 4 is going to require expensive PULP and then theres my personal favorite TURBO! mention that magic word to insurance companies & KAH-CHING higher premiums. Seeing the $h!tty 4 banger Falcon is meant to be a fleet special i can’t imagine big companies will want to pay extra for expensive PULP not to mention higher premiums.A 3.0l Commodore looks like a much better deal.
Andrew M

Shak,
check your sources.
The competitors in Ford and Holden quote using 91
The Falcon on 95 gets over 400nm
DesignEng©™

Shak, who use 98 to quote power figures from?
Other than those that need it all the time, I thought it was just Holden’s V8s that did that.
Shak

Captain Nemo you hit the nail on the head. Although the falcon may match the commodore. For its intended purpose, the commodore will spank it for gold. The high cost of fuel and the premiums for insurance will surely snatch the fleet vote, effectively the falcons main market.
Andrew M

Captain,
the fleet buyers looking to lower costs use the E-Gas falcon
Cant argue with the cost savings there.

Speaking of which, why no further details on the actual changes to the LPG commie if any???
Shak

Just putting a question out there. If an Auto will be standard on all DI models as stated on the Holden site, then prices have to go up. I just dont see a way in which Holden can maintain any profit by flogging an auto as standard.
DesignEng©™

Captain what makes you think that insurance companies will charge more for the Ecoboost4 Falcon? They charge more for performance cars not economy cars. I think that you will be wrong on that count.

And the Ecoboost4 does NOT need PULP. It runs just fine on ULP.

Talk about uninformed scare mongering. Are you that worried that Holden can’t keep up with Ford?
Andrew M

Also DesignEng, dont forget to remind the girls and boys that a 4cyl is cheaper to register, and certain eco models recieve further stamp duty tax exemptions

When the truth comes out, the story is different than the Shak and Captain version
Cargo

Captain Nemo….direct injection and turbo charging is the way alot of car companies are going to go……Holden wont because they are into cheap engineering and GM have no money for future development. 9.3 l\\100 isnt very good, its hardly better than Ford 4lt I6. Ford will better this figure with the petrol I6 let alone the 2litre Turbo.

Ford would be laughing now because they were probably expecting something special from Holden but as usual its half baked ……..
Andrew M

DesignEng,
wonder if the ute will still start out in a manual???

Peviously on both the ford and holden sides, the base utes could have a manual box even though the base sedans did not allow it
Shak

DesignEng any car with a Turbo regardless of it economy benefits will attract a premium thats higher. Thats the way this over governed world works.
DesignEng©™

AndrewM, I suspect that Holden might be in a tight spot with the base Ute. It’s very conspicious by it’s absence from the tables. I suspect that they know that 290Nm isn’t going to cut it, but puting your premium engine into a base ute is a corporate problem. Maybe that’s their answer to the left over stock of the old 3.6s??
DesignEng©™

Err shak, no it doesn’t. Turbo deisels are about economy by using a smaller capacity engine. Don’t you think that insurance companies might just recognise the intent (not just by ford either) and price acordingly?

Anyway in most states you’ll save more in registration than what comprehensive insurance “might” cost extra.
Andrew M

Shak,
and on the otherhand rego is formulated on cylinders, not capacity, and doesnt factor turbo chargers.
The ecoboost will be cheaper to rego.

Insurance varies depending on the company. The model you drive can be a bigger factor in whether or not its dearer or cheaper.

Its not really clear how the ecoboost will be classified. VW was able to get P platers into their turbo charged cars as they pleeded that the turbo was for the economics of it
Andrew M

Beat me to it D
Shak

DesignEng i meant petrol turbos. And andrew i dont think the stigma of large car small engine is going to work too well in the minds of ford fans. They wont be able to convince punters let alone the RTA.
Andrew M

Shak,
so the stigma of large car underpowered V6 is better than large care plenty of power 4cyl???

Also why did you mention the RTA???
They dont govern Insurance prices unless you were agreeing that the rego costs are cheaper on 4cyls

The biggest factor in insurance prices is the insureds age and which insurance company is being used.
Stevothedevo

Commodore drivers are in for a shock when they get behind the wheel of a Falcon – Torque and a lot more than they’re used to.
Chris

Shak,

You’re still off the mark. Turbo doesnt necessarily = Performance Car. SAAB and Volvo both use low pressure turbo’s in their Family Cars to improve economy and power without packing on cubes. Does it necessarily attract high premiums? No. Not at all

Think about it. VW have a Turbocharged AND supercharged engine (Golf GT…TSI) ZOMG…Insurance premiums skyrocket? Fuel Prices huge? Running cost massive? False on all counts. Even my XR5 turbo is cheap to insure at $900 per year for a 24 Year old.

Ford will be running a 2.0L Twin Turbo that will probably put out similar figures to the LPG Falcon but most likely more torque of course.

Watch as Forced Induction eco-engines goes full mainstream. Insurers and Governments will be looking at carbon footprints and power to weight ratios. When you look at a small block twin turbo engine in a 1.8 Tonne car, 156Kw/380NM with the sustained torque of two turbo’s across a majority of the rev range isn’t so scary, in fact, it’s pretty cool!
Phill

Shak – The Ecoboost 4 will beat the 3L v6 for performance,but it wont quite have the durability(a turbo is not the best thing for durability),the place were the commodore looks better is on the high KM secondhand market.
Shak

I highly doubt that Phil, but we’ll just have to wait for the inevitable comparo’s.
Captain Nemo

DesignEng please tell me where you got your info that the ecobomb 4banger will run on ULP & not PULP and if its a fraud website…sorry Ford website i would not believe a word they say just there usual PR bull. And what makes YOU think they won’t all insurance Companies charge more for turbos do you think just because its a falcon they will give you a discount?
Cargo how can you say the ecobomb 4 banger will have better economy than a Commodore it hasn’t even released in OZ yet stop believing Ford’s PR bull.
kds

I wish everyone would stop calling this VEII. It’s not. It’s VE MY10. Holden don’t do the Series II thing anymore. Some of you may not know, but the VE Has been through small updates ever since it came out with the MY06 MY07 MY08 MY08.5 MY09, the current MY09.5 and the soon to be launched MY10.
tbb

So it’s only taken holden 2 years to catch up with the aurion? let’s see Aurion released in 2007, 200kw,6 speed auto and less than 9.9l/100km in a car that drives way better! well done holden way to go!
Devil’s Advocate

To put a fairer perspective on the BMW comparison above here are some more pertinent figures. Instead of comparing the 3.0L SIDI Commodore to the 2.5L 525i, wouldn’t it be better/fairer/more logical to compare it to the 530i with the same capacity engine? For info the 3.0L I6 in the BMW produces 200Kw/6650rpm and 315Nm/2750rpm of torque with the same ADR fuel economy rating of 9.3L/100km. So in the scheme of things Holden haven’t done too bad a job considering BMW are renowned for making some of the best 6cyl engines in the world. Kudos to Holden for at least giving direct injection a go and not sitting on their hands. I just hope the change to direct injection has gotten rid of the ‘uncouth’ mid to high rpm nature of the current ‘vibrotech’ engine. I still wonder to this day how Holden managed to make such a high tech specification engine just as unrefined at mid to high rpm as the decades old push rod Buick V6 that preceded it.

LOL: Anti Spam = BMW!
Shak

Instead of putting a diesel in the Commodore for the next update, they should try and chop at least 100kg from the beast. They could easily replace the seats and use some aluminium in the roof to improve roll and COG. Maybe also some weight from those fridge doors.
Chris

Capt. Nemo,

Please read my last comment before this one.
Just because the Falcon is Turbocharged doesnt mean it will ask for a hight premium. It will be slower than the I6.
Chucky

Andrew M Says:
August 4th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Insurance varies depending on the company. The model you drive can be a bigger factor in whether or not its dearer or cheaper.

Its not really clear how the ecoboost will be classified. VW was able to get P platers into their turbo charged cars as they pleeded that the turbo was for the economics of it
———————————————————————————————————————-

A P plater in NSW cannot legally drive a turbocharged VW Golf unless they apply for a special exemption, and we’re just talking about a 118kW engine here. The engine in the Falcon will be a lot more powerful than that.
Tom

Chucky, before the Golf it was typically considered that P-platers would not be allowed to drive turbo cars, despite all the protesting from euro car manufacturers. When the Golf came along, the RTA were forced to admit that the system was floored and have since expanded the list of which turbo cars P-platers would be given permission from. If a still fairly niche car like the Golf can make the RTA concede that much, surely a 2L Turbo Falcon, which still would be less powerful than the 4L NA I6 Falcon, will be exempted from the turbo ban. The fact is, the banning of a very popular car like the Falcon for a 2L Turbo engine when the NA version which is allowed is more powerful will expose the uselessness of the ban to all Australians. At the moment, when most people think Turbo they think WRX’s and EVO’s hence why RTA can convince people Turbo = hooning. When an economical Falcon comes in and is banned for being Turbo despite being less powerful than the version that had been allowed since day dot, even RTA won’t be able to fool people into believing that nonsense.
Shak

Thats what i was trying to say. A falcon which is thought of as a performance car by many Australia will find it very hard to try and convince the RTA just because it has a turbo. The RTA will ban it to make it look like they are doing something, when in reality it is less of a hoon car then a camry.
Devil666

Guys, I think what we are all forgetting here, is that while 290NM is rather low, especially considering it is a downgrade from the previous 3.6 litre, in terms of actual engine design, 290NM from a 3 litre engine is actually very impressive, and a better figure per litre of displacement than Ford’s I6. Ford boys have been saying for years the only way the General can win the HP wars is adding displacement, finally the shoe is on the other foot and ‘Oh but it’s got no torque!’.

Can’t have it both ways guys. NM per litre is very impressive on that 3.0 litre.

More importantly, peak power at 6700? What is fuel cut out then? This engine could be quite the little screamer! Considering the high compression ratio, I expect a few benefits from burning Premium….
Tom

Devil666, check your maths. Ford’s 4L I6 produces 391Nm of torque, or 97.75Nm per L, Holdens 3L V6 produced 290Nm, or 96.7Nm per litre. Holden’s engines were remarkable in that they required more displacement and yet still had less torque than their Ford rivals. Case in point, 6L V8, 270kW and 530Nm, or 88.3Nm per litre, 5.4L V8 290kW and 520Nm torque, or 96.3Nm per litre.

So no, its not that impressive, its just Holden has finally caught up to Ford. End of the day, revvie low torque engines are fine for the lightweight Honda Civic Type R’s of this world, but a 1.7 tonne 4 door sedan needs a nice torquey engine. HP isn’t everything.
Jason@Holden

Anyone thinking this is a “red v blue” thing has got the wrong idea … we’re up against everything. Other big cars, small cars, SUVs. Euros, Japanese, US, Korea, Thailand. As for how it drives … I’ve driven the 3.0L and the 3.6L SIDI engines and the carping will stop when these cars hit the showroom. And real world? We got 7.5L on the Sydney to Melbourne trip in a sedan and a sportwagon. The ADR is just a measurement standard – no-one actually drives like that!
http://skyline The Salesman

Holden have just signed the Commodores DEATH WARRANT. Most fleet purchases in Australian now have a NO V6 POLICY! Not only is the V6 not economically viable, it is not environmentally viable. In addition, what message do fleet businesses want to send out to their potential customers? In a word “GREEN”. And all this before I even mention the carbon emissions trading scheme. Then you have private buyers, the Holden faithful are turning to more economic and green cars in their droves.
Ningbo

&&

This engine is heaps large enough, the VL had a 3L/6 and it went very well and was frugal [remember him?:-)] on fuel if you did/nt hammer it.

No mention on the turbo 6, leave that for the future [shhhhh, mums the word!]

LPG looks the business, Ford want to get a hurry on with its LPi.

What about a test on Falcon LPG v Commodore LPG?

B//

Do i smell a rat, NO informations on the baseline Ute in the above graphs?

Once again [not just lack of safety kit] us commercial vehicle owners get screwed…..

Just think, another 10% reduction in fuel use, 15% less emissions if they fitted MultiAir……

C//

Before you go all gaagaa here is what outgoing CEO M/R of Holden mentioned on the new 3L/6:

“Annual fuel savings of $325″…….BIG DEAL!

All this hoopala to save just $325 dollars p/a.

Just get LPG fitted and you can save THOUSANDS per year…

Get back to us Holden when your @ UNDER 7L/100km

0 0
Luv Local Industry

“Annual fuel savings of $325″…….BIG DEAL!

Thats big money for fleet companies, 1,000 cars x $325 = $325,000 per annum.
Deco

To follow on from luv local industry, if you say $325 big deal, well you are making an ass of yourself even talking about fuel economy. That is all you save buying the most frugal of petrol powered small cars, so why bother then if it is no big deal?
OldieHoldie

The most frugal small petrol car is the Suzuki Alto at 4.8Litres per 100km. $325 is all you save over a large car? My ass!
Simon

Golf are you letting people get to you? Your normal, worthy comments have become heavily laden with sarcasm. Stop it! It doesn’t suit your style. You have let the halfwits grind you down.
Motorhead

I wouldn’t say most fleets have a no 6 policy but many certainly do & that number is still increasing but at a slightly slower rate then it was when fuel prices were sky high & the global warming hysteria was in full swing.
Holden have been doing a pretty good job tho of getting out to the fleets to educate the decision makers on the facts & what they’re doing about it now & in the future.
Andrew M

Devil,
once you firstly check your maths, you must then realise the argument of torque per litres doesnt matter squat when you need a certain amount to move something.

Would you say a 1.0L V6 would also be adequate if it pumped out an “impressive” 97nm for that litre???

maybe they do have the nm per litre balance right, but that just means they need more Litres then
nesa

Great!!! but where is the manual cars??? why can’t i get a good family car ( holden or ford) and enjoy driving it. i just want a manual.
http://www.globalpremiumcars.com/ Rob Cook

Nice looking small car, also good to know about his fuel efficiency.