Comments on: Holden Commodore engine updates revealed

By: nesa

nesa — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:14:32 +0000

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.

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:45:06 +0000

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

By: Motorhead

Motorhead — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:38:57 +0000

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.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:09:51 +0000

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. :P

By: OldieHoldie

OldieHoldie — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:29:13 +0000

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!

By: Deco

Deco — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:47:44 +0000

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?

By: Luv Local Industry

Luv Local Industry — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:50:04 +0000

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

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

By: Ningbo

Ningbo — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:12:24 +0000

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

By: The Salesman

The Salesman — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:20:47 +0000

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.

By: Jason@Holden

Jason@Holden — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:59:42 +0000

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!

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:47:07 +0000

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.

By: Devil666

Devil666 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:23:30 +0000

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….

By: Shak

Shak — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:11:31 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:03:04 +0000

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.

By: Chucky

Chucky — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:29:36 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:49:48 +0000

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.

By: Shak

Shak — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:41:07 +0000

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.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:14:59 +0000

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!

By: tbb

tbb — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:55:28 +0000

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!

By: kds

kds — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:35:20 +0000

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.