Holden Sportwagon Review & Road Test

Pros: Space, comfort, rear parking sensors, ride

Cons: Fuel economy, gearshifts, interior quality, lack of torque, price

By Karl Peskett | January 09th, 2010

Add to shortlist

Price: $21,240 to $34,920

Our Rating:

Performance, Ride & Handling	3.5
Comfort and Interior	4
Quality & Design	3.5
Value & Features	3
Safety	4
Green	2.5

SIDI and the City don’t really mix

Model Tested:

2009 Holden Sportwagon Berlina; 3.0-litre V6 petrol; six-speed automatic; four door station wagon – $45,490

Options:

None fitted

CarAdvice Rating:

You’re a sales rep, so you need something with a little more load-carrying capacity. You don’t want a ute, though – your wares being exposed to the elements won’t help to shift them, and you’ve got to carry the family on the weekends. So, a station wagon it is. With Holden’s 3.0-litre SIDI V6 now available in Sportwagon guise, you also have the benefit of lower fuel consumption to help you with your weekly cross-city deliveries and appointments. At least on paper, anyway.

The new Spark Ignition Direct Injection (SIDI) engines produce more power, use less fuel and are said to offer a smoother drive than the previous Commodore engines. And while this is true when you look at the figures, in practise it’s a different story.

This week’s test car came in Berlina specification, meaning it’s one rung up from the Omega base model. Larger wheels (17-inch rather than 16-inch), front fog lamps, leather-wrapped steering wheel, six-disc MP3 CD stacker, dual-zone climate control, Bluetooth and a larger display screen for the centre console are what you pay the extra for. The drivetrain, however, is the same.

A 3.0-litre V6, producing a respectable 190kW but a rather limp 290Nm, coupled with a six-speed automatic is what motivates the Sportwagon. Of course, everyone is raving about how little fuel this new engine is using. Some are even trying to squeeze as many kilometres as possible out of a single tank by doing long country drives, but I’m not sure how this is going to help. The previous larger engine (3.6-litre Alloytec) lacked direct injection, had two fewer speeds in its gearbox and yet delivered almost identical long-run economy.

The SIDI engine has its ‘extra urban’ economy listed at 7.6 litres/100km. The Alloytec engine with four-speed gearbox was 7.9L/100km. With a usable tank capacity of, say, 70 litres, this equates to a range of 920km with the new engine and 885km with the old. That’s just a 35km difference. Not much, if you’re honest. But where the real difference between the old and the new lies is in torque. The Alloytec had 330Nm, plus it came in at a lower 2600rpm.

The SIDI engine’s 40 fewer Newton-metres definitely affects its driveability. For example, when exiting a corner, you’ll find yourself putting your foot down to begin accelerating. The engine’s less torque means it can’t sustain a higher gear to power out of the corner. So it drops a gear. But that’s still not enough. So it drops back another gear. Sometimes that’s also not enough and so it goes down again. By this stage you start getting a staccato effect from the engine as the gearbox hunts for the right ratio.

The same effect happens if you’re sitting on a constant speed and you need to get in front of someone. It drops down again…and again…and again, and then decides to change back up. It really is a gamble when you put your foot down – you never know what gear you’ll end up with. It’s rather annoying too, especially knowing that with more torque it could just ride the torque-curve and gently accelerate away. With all its hunting and indecision, you have to wonder if it’s really helping fuel economy at all.

Sure, it may do fairly well in the country, but with day-to-day city driving, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Have a look at the photo above and how much range there is on three quarters of a tank. We ended up with an average of 14.1 litres/100km for the test. There were no special long trips, no max-pressure tyres. Just normal city traffic and driving style.

Don’t forget, this is a very heavy car. At almost 1.8 tonnes, with only 290Nm to move it, you can see why it’s fuel hungry. The engine itself is quite smooth, and only if really revved does it get thrashy. The automatic’s shifts won’t ever compete with ZF’s brilliant six-speed, though.

It doesn’t get much better inside, either. With cheap silver and hard dark plastics, the quality is not the greatest. The door trims are covered in fabric that feels like it’s on sale at Spotlight, and the A-pillars are dangerously large enough to block your view of a motorbike when entering a roundabout.

On the plus side, the seats are extremely comfortable, especially for larger-built people, though more bolstering would be nice. The space is also very good, like the rest of the VE range. The steering has plenty of feedback, although on smaller-wheeled models, it can get a little woolly. The Sportwagon Berlina also strikes an excellent balance between decent handling and a nice ride.

However the best feature of the Sportwagon is something that might not strike you at first. The rear parking sensors. Let me explain.

If you’re reversing up to a wall, or a roller door, you’ll still want to be able to open the tailgate. If you rely on the parking sensors you’ll get it perfect every single time. While there’s repeated beeping you’ve still got room. But as soon as you hear a solid tone from the sensors, you’ve gone too far. If you listen out for the shortest gaps between the beeps, that’s as close as you can get to an object while still being able to open the rear. Brilliant.

The Sportwagon Berlina is a car that will fill a niche. Since it’s not a poverty-pack model, you can feel good about the equipment level on offer for the money, it’s got plenty of space and it drives fairly well. Being a station wagon it’s very practical, too. Holden has also endowed it with enough safety gear to have ANCAP award it five stars. However, its uninspiring interior, confused automatic and disappointing fuel economy really lets it down. In fact, with in excess of 20 per cent more torque the 3.6-litre SIDI V6, offered from Calais upwards in the Sportwagon range, offers a better drive without incurring a significant fuel economy penalty.

Let’s hope whoever buys this car has deep pockets if they’re running around the city. The fuel card is going to get a real workout.

Ratings:

CarAdvice Overall Rating:

How does it Drive:

How does it Look:

How does it Go:

Reader reviews of the HOLDEN BERLINA

Write a review for the HOLDEN BERLINA

Do you own this car? Share your opinion and add your own review below.

Add a New Review

The competition

FORD FALCON

Rating:

fxh555

I’d look at leasing a Sportswagon to replace my current SV6 in a few months time, however do have some concerns around Karl’s comments on the gearshifts and fuel consumption. Perhaps it’s just a one-off problem with the test vehicle? Otherwise, an FG G6 looks like a good replacement.

Mark

mate get the falcon, the Aussie I6 never disappoints. Its fantastic engine + economical considering the performance ( 195kw and 391nm ). Plus even if u dont option the ZF 6 speed gearbox, they say the 5speed in the G6 is still better than the 6 in the commodore.

crouchy

Mark, you are right on the 5 speed. Ive been driving a 5spd auto xr6 and it is a great box. The 6 speed in the VE is nothing to write home about…
fxh555

Thanks Mark. The last Ford I leased was a 2003 BA XT – I enjoyed it for the 3 years I had it and it never skipped a beat. After all the positive motor reviews/posts of the FG over the last 18 months, I think it’s time to revisit the Falcon again. Cheers.

Baddass

At last someone says something that goes against Holden’s sickly sweet marketing spin. In a car this size, I’d take torque and reasonable performance (Flacon anyone?), over a few less dollars spent at the servo, tied to a gutless motor.
Frenchie

I ‘m driving a Oega Sportswagon with a 3.0L SIDI engine and getting around 12.5l/100km (city driving)with five occupants. Yes,when you put your foot down it drops down a gear or two but nothing like your stating Karl.

I think its want you want to get out of the vehicle. On paper it ticks all the boxes. In real life (as far as fuel economy goes) its alittle better than the 3.6l. All depends on how you drive it!

Dennis

I agree, must of had a heavy foot.
Mad Max

I agree. I have had a VE Berlina Sportswagon for 14 months and 39’000kms. Around Melbourne it averages 11.9/100 and on a long run this drops to 8.1/100. At first I thought the fuel readout was wrong and measured it by checking kms and fuel used when re-filling and it is spot on. It uses the older 3.6 V6 and 4 speed. We have a rep who has the newer SIDI engine and 6 speed and it uses 11.2/100 around Melbourne and 7.7/100 on long country runs. Neither have had any problems and neither have gear hunting as described in your article. I can only think that your writer has a heavy foot…

Yonny

Torque is everything – and the lower down it is produced the better (that is why diesels can be so rewarding to drive).

I like the look of the Sportwagon, but I reckon I’d opt for the 3.6 litre motor. At 1789 kilos, perhaps 290 Nm isn’t enough to provide a seamless driving experience.

Frenchie

If “torque is everything” buy a diesel!

Yonny

That is precisely my point.
Andrew M

Or an I6……
it has diesel matching Torque
Dave

but what if you dont want your car to sound like a tractor?

Whitbomb07

When is Holden going to throw an equivalent of the Mazda 2.2 MZR-CD or Hyundai 2.2 ‘R’ into something like this?

It might be smaller but I’d take a Mazda6 Diesel Wagon over this, about 8k cheaper aswell, 6.0l/100km with 400nm torque (power means nothing), and it looks alot better than this!

Regards

Whitbomb07
Robin Graves

This is exactly what I’ve been saying about the 3.0lt sidi engine. But all the Holden fanboys keep harping on about how its only the ADR figures that matter. The ADR figures do help to compare models, but the real world is where we drive, not on a dyno. This 3.0 engine is a marketing ploy, and a bad one at that. I cant see why anyone would option the 3.0? The 3.6 has more oomph to spare if you need to overtake or tow a trailer, and gets the same if not better economy in real life. Imagine how much worse the commodores already shocking resale is going to be when the bogans realise its even more gutless than the 3.6. Another Holden BS campaign. And all you fanboys saying that ‘he must have had a heavy foot’ yeah he needed it just to get the heavy gutless POS moving.

Callous Aussie

That applies to the falcon as well. They are both thirsty when pressed.

Robin your post borders on absolute hatred for the Holden so your opinion is somewhat useless. I reckon these testers give all of these cars a boot full and there is also the possibility this guy hates Holdens as much as you do.

We’ve already seen in the Liberty test that they are sometimes biased. Personally I wouldn’t by either of the local RWD 6′s. They are both past their use by date. They are screaming out for diesel engines. Yet Ford is going for some 4 cylinder engine which is doomed to fail . Remember the 4 cylinder Commodore? Yes it was a crap motor but people never got to find out because they snubbed the concept from the outset and that was during a fuel crisis.

Holden’s 3.0ltr SIDI is too small for a large car. Period.

Bent 8 Brigade

Callous Aussie, you learn to just skip over Robin Graves’ literary efforts. Reading his hate posts is time out of my life I would never get back.

Robin Graves

Burying your head in the sand and pretending issues dont exist seem to be a common trait among Holden/GM people. La-dee-daa all is well keep building rubbish people will buy it la-dee-daa la-dee-daa.
Callous Aussie

I see what you mean. Cheers Bent8.

Robin Graves

I rest my case

Mark

Tho unlike the 3L SIDI the 2L 4 cylinder ecoboost can produce 205kw and 380nm (15kw & 90nm more than the commodore and from 1500rpm). I think that’s enough power & torque 2 get the falcon moving. All the while returning an estimated 8L/100km whats not 2 like?

PaulB.

My only worry with that Mark is that to access those torque figures the engine has to be on boost – meaning rich air/fuel mixtures alot of the time. That could throw the real-world fuel economy right out. See the CX-7 for what happens to fuel economy in a heavy vehicle with a small capacity turbo petrol. The answer is turbodiesel.

Mark

All we can do is wait and see, tho even if it was hugely successful and didn’t use bugger all fuel i would still get the Aussie 4L I6 its such a fantastic engine i love it

Robin Graves

I agree with you Mark, it will be much more drivable and deliver better economy than the “fail 3.0″ PaulB you have a point but if mixtures are controlled and dynamic CR is taken into account for spark advance, mixtures dont necessarily need to be overly rich to make the engine work at boost. Generally rich mixtures at boost are used to prevent detonation and engine damage. If a big enough intercooler and good engine management is used hopefully this wont be the case. The ecoboost engine seems to be designed to work at boost thru a large rev range so this issue is hopefully properly addressed at the design stage.
Golfschwein

What’s not to like is that it’s not here yet. And will your quoted figures really apply to the Falcon?

Mark

well yes its not here yet but its not like the falcon needs it. The ecoboost engine is only for fleets and private buyers who dont want to speed an extra $300 bucks a year on fuel.
Andrew M

Since the quoted figures are similar to falcon sized cars and bigger used in the US, I reckon it adds up as a good estimation

t

HAHAHAH!!! lmfao at anyone who compares the starfire ( misfire ) engine from a 4cyl 80s commodore to ANY modern engine, and say its doomed to fail.

The 4cyl falcon will weight similar to a CAMRY, be bigger, AND have more power AND torque as a 6 cyl falcon.

if it produces the same power AND torque, the results will still be the same.

afterall a big heavy 4cyl camry isnt as slow and horrible as you would expect…. BUT they arent as good on fuel as youd hope??? so lets hope being direct injected etc… that the ford ecoboost does deliver..

if it does…. this will be huge… if not.. ah they better have a diesel back up plan!

The Oracle

I agree, it is ludicrous to compare the old Commodore “Backfire” engine to the EcoBoost. If Ford can ever get their marketing message organised, they would promote the hi-tech, low consumption and power and torque of the EcoBoost. It is a big ask for Ford to do a proper marketing campaign in Australia though. Maybe they should speak to their UK colleagues. They do a brilliant job there.
Back to the Backfire Commodore, in the mid 80′s I was working at a company that leased several of them and they were all dogs. The reps flogged them to get them moving and they were always in the workshop. The flogging made the fuel consumption go through the roof and some of the drivers even turned of the A/C when overtaking as the difference in performance was noticable! I can’t imagine the EcoBoost having those problems.

Sam 300TD

Depends who is driving. 290nm sounds like plenty. I’m happy with my 58nm of torque!

Benjamin

Its all depends on the weight

1.8 Tonne is quite a lot for 290Nm, hence the problems with fuel usage

Sam 300TD

Mine is 1.7 tonnes, has 58nm, and I get 11 litres/100 km on the city cycle(9 on the highway). That’s diesel too. Terrible figures when compared to the Commodore really, but mine is 30 years old after all. I agree with the comment that if you don’t like the power buy a V8, but from where I’m sitting 290nm looks like more than enough!

DD

You’d be surprised just how badly 290NM is when it is delivered high up!

It’s not just about the amount of Torque produced, but where it is produced in the rev band. Most diesels have a huge amount of low RPM torque, which is where you spend most of your driving time on the road. The Ford undersquare inline 6 also delivers a lot of off idle torque.

I have an ED with the first generation of the 4L motor, and it’s torque peak is at an astonishing 3600rpm! BUT, because the motor is producing so much low RPM torque, I don’t need to rev it beyond about 2400rpm (1st gear only) in daily driving.

This SIDI engine delivers less torque at 2900rpm than my 15 year old car, and then relies purely on rpm beyond that to keep moving. Hence the poor fuel figures, if you don’t want to drive at glacial accelerations.

Davo

Me,I am happy with 180nm & 100kw max,but it only has 1200kg to move then me at 90kg,must lose a few kilo’s.The market Falcodores accomodate are hard to satisfy with 3.0l of six,it will never be enough for them & the typical reaction is not to learn to ride the torque available but just plant the foot in true bogan style then complain about the economy.
Work colleague has one with the 3.6,economy is complained about.The near 1.8tonnes plus passengers will dent fuel economy of anything.
Valet Dabess

after seeing the LFA’s tacho, everything else sucks
Tom21

Do holden not give enough sponsorship money or something?

Im yet to hear a positive review on the new commodores on this site, you constantly stack them up unfairly (ie you had a v6 calais against a turbo g6e in the last sedan comparison i read) and the reviews sound completely impartial.

Mark

Wasn’t that because they cost the same, tho the g6e turbo was a few hundred less?
ChopstaR87

I think holden commodore is it own worst enemy as it was built up so much to be such a great car, and it was going to change the Australia car industry as they spent a billion dollars, so when you are approaching a Commodore you are expectiong greatness and in return you just same old same old and you feel betrayed and not really having a positive feel about the car.

yes they put a G6E turbo vs a holden calais but the prices were not to different and remember it also got beaten by – a Nissin,toyota, Honda and subaru as well!
Robin Graves

This isnt Wheels magazine Tom21. They will speak highly of any polished turd with a Holden badge on it for a few $$$
Simon

Expect a good review when Holden release a good car…….

PaulB.

As weight increases, peak power becomes less relevant and torque becomes more relevant.

At 1.8 tonnes, the Sportwagon is essentially using 1.66L engine capacity to lug every tonne of weight. With passengers and luggage, about 1.5L per tonne. Go back to the mid 90s with a 1550kg wagon and 3.8L of engine, and it was about 2.45L/tonne, which gave those cars effortless off-idle grunt despite the agricultural drivetrain. Think about the difference between a Toyota Echo with a 1.6L engine and one with a 2.5L engine and you’ll get the idea.

IMO, if you’re worried about the difference a 3.0L vs 3.6L has on fuel economy, you’re buying the wrong car. Ease of towing and the effortless “grunt” that characterised the big Holden six are going to be lost with this engine.

Jack

Good comment.

Add to that the torque curves; picture a mere 1550kg of (3.8 Holden or 4.0 Ford) wagon from 1993-2004 with the big motors torquing strongly off low in the rev range. These Sportwagon results do not match a 2003 VY 3.8 auto wagon we own – 9.4L/100km in combined cycle. Or an ED Falcon previously.

Historically, think of a 1200kg HR Holden with ‘red’ 186 motor making peak torque at 1600 revs! (No coincidence they are used in series Land Rover conversions, the low down torque is like a diesel…) Think of the XY Falcon with the 250 1V, holding third gear to about 10-15mph, peak torque at 1800 revs! The old GM-H and Ford Aus. engineers knew what made a good drivetrain. Ford still do.

ChopstaR87

One thing about the 4cylinder ford is that it will not be a just an NA 4 cylinder, it will be a Turbo powered 4 which proves same amount of power and torque as avg 6cylinder.. i remember hearing 205Kw and 350Nm torque ( around that any ways ) which is better then this 6.

* Yes i am a ford fan but i shocked with the lack of power they have given a car this size, so yet if you are doing many kms outside of stop start traffic it will save you fuel, if you are in a stop – start traffic situation the lack of torque is going to hurt as the car will need to Rev which means more fuel is used.

* its amazing that GM/Holden havent improved their auto box yet to match or better the autos in the Ford product? but again why would you if you dont need to. the problem with the whole ford v holden thing is that the loyal fan doesnt test drive the other brands vehicle so they dont know what they are missing out on.

* also the VF cant come soon enough for the holden commodore by looking at that interior. very plain indeed… very cheap looking. the exterior is not a real issue but that interior is disgusting. but holden is doing what they have to do to sell cars and nothing more. the general public doesnt really car what it has as long as they can say they have a new car, and most people just purchase blinding by going by the badge on the front of the car. a lot of poeple still thing a Holden Barina is made in australia because it has a Holden badge on the front!

ChopstaR87

the promotion will be: would you like to drive a 4cylinder car with the same room, features etc as a full sized 6cylinder family car with the same amount of power and drinks less fuel then a 6?? then the new Eco boost Falcon is for u!

Dennis

The thing is the ZF Auto isn’t a Ford product. Thats why it’s so good.

Andrew M

Yeah fair comment, but at least when the out source they find something decent.
Holden out source engines and gear boxes and come up with average units

Devil666

How can you out source engines and gearboxes from within your own company?
Shak

they only outsource the gearbox, the Engine is built in Port Melbourne.
Bent 8 Brigade

Are you saying the 3.6 SIDI is not a good engine? Are you sure about that?
And how can it be outsourced when they come from GM?
Andrew M

they are not holden products though
Phil C.

Spam Word = Daewoo!

The gearbox is a North American built GM unit and the engine is ‘assembled’ from imported component in Port Melbourne.

Tinman

The,”I was once indecisive,now I’m not so sure” nature of the automatic indicates a transmission ECU calibration problem.Holden should let it know that it only has 290Nm of torque to work with.
Whenever holden has offered two engine capacities in the past, the bigger one tends to get the majority of sales.
It’s still a good looking wagon, but then I am biased because I’m Australian!
Simon

Ahhh the Holden SILI, sorry SIDI. I’m actually really happy Holden made it.
After the fleets are done with them, the Bogans will buy. Bogans driving an underpowered car is a great idea in my book.

Paul H

Most bogans won’t buy them, they will just buy an older 3.6 or 6 litre Commodore for the same price.

Simon

Well that could be a real problem for Holden. Who will buy a crappy underpowered wagon?

bob

Caradvice, the last interation of the port injected low output had a torque output of 325Nm, not 330Nm as stated.

Remember when Holden “updated” the engine and it dropped 5kw and 5Nm, all for the name of saving a bit of Co2?
FORD MONDEO

Give me the Ford Mondeo wagon over this push rod dinosaur anyday..

Interior in this Holden wagon looks horrible, “old and cheap”..

Exterior is boring as,,, time to update me thinks..

Ford have a much better lineup, always will..

Tinman

What push rods? Where?

Watto

Agree Tinman. Assuming the Alloytech has pushrods because the LS V8 engines do is ignorance.

Golfschwein

Like the Falcon wagon, you mean? Mmmmm, SCRUMMY!!
Dave

I think Ford would prefer the car to die than to try something different.
Eg; Ford LTD, not enough sales – lets not bother. Goodbye LWB models, Holden says Thanks. Falcon wagon, same again slow sales, Ford drops it. Holden says Look at our sports wagon. Lastly Everyone loved or at least admired the work holden put into giving us the Crewman, and Cross8 (ute and flat try) models. lets not forget the Monaro.

Looks to me like a much better line up.
Deco

The V6 engine is a world-class DOHC engine which was on Wards top 10 engines for 2009.

Shak

Holden should stuck with bucketloads of torque and gone the Ford route and given them both the same engine. It works. People will buy more models of each type. Charge an extra $1000, for a big engine in the Berlina and Omega, and outsource the ZF an chagre an extra $2000 for it. Make it an option like Ford so the journos dont critcise a high price. But because of the Old GM’s incompetence they have to use GM products through and through.

Watto

Your idea has merit. I’ve been buying I6 powered Fords for years because of the abundant torque in a petrol engine. It is so usable. And the ZF is just sublime.

o

I hope Ford will put the new 8 speed ZF in the next falcon

Andrew M

Probably too expensive at the moment to bring it main stream, but in the high end models to start with would be great

Jack

Completely agree Watto. Same here. We are so lucky to have the choice of an Aussie made product that offers this drivetrain in the Ford!

Rocket

My old girls VP commodore wagon has more grunt and better fuel economy than this barge arse mobile. The rear cargo area is next to useless for a wagon.
t

I personally HATE the VE

it looks like it was designed by the same ruler loving person who designed late 70s volvos… it has no shape!! the grille is mounted far too high, the bulbous wheel arches look crappy, AND the a pillars block your view so much!! BUT thats just MY opinion, there plenty of people out there that like them. ive heard of 2 guys who wanted the FG but their wives HAD to have the commos, and they both hate the commo too…. their wives like them funnily enough.

the interior ( especially the flimsy plastic glove box) reeks of lego / fisher price.

mechanics are starting to see the v6 models ( non sidi ) chewing timing chains up and rattling too.

i prefer the look and drive of a vz, which is not too bad considering its based on a woeful VT!!

ah well the VE will make a lovely future Bogan machine thats for sure, at least future bogans will have 5 star crash safety to look after their mullets
Andronicus

These guys can’t catch a break – the CA reviewers I mean. They write up a review that is positive for a car and they get lambasted on the comments as having bias or giving a favourable review for other reasons. They give a not so crash hot review and again they cop it for their driving style and other rubbish. Some people on this comments area need to pull their head in.

As for the Sportwagon, looks great. Didn’t realise how heavy it was so naturally would need more power than what it’s got. Back when I was a Rep everyone in the company had Outbacks. Brilliant rep car and copped an absolute flogging.
TheNameless

Wow that is disappointing. I do a 62km round trip to work and back daily in my XR6 Turbo in western Sydney and acheive 13.1L/100km. It shows that torque matters.
Kuz

Only way you would get 14l/100km out of the 3.0l SIDI in the city is with a flogging, or the engine isn’t worn in it, (which is a MUST for the SIDI)

Caradvice like always and their bs journalism. Small things like “will never compare to the ZF” show how much bias they really are.

I drive a 3.0l work car around the city and get much better fuel economy. Notice, no mention of the equivalent FG XT on the same day to compare it with either.

Benjie

We took one of those over the weekend as we were looking at buying it.

We had the exact same experience. The fuel economy was atrocious!! Holden’s claims are – as always – absolute rubbish.

We ended up settling with a TDI Passat wagon, very happy with the purchase.

Brett

TDI passat, much better purchase and quality with more usable boot space. Commodore is again Australia’s top selling car, says a lot doesn’t it? As for this sites reviews, at least they are more like the real world.
Damian

That’s a really good choice, Benjie. If everyone exercised your level of rationality, Holden would suffer the same fate as Mitsubishi Australia.
Kuz

You do know that holden hasn’t claimed anything right?? Its a seperate body that does the ADR consumption.

If you dont like the 3.0l, get the 3.6l, simple really, the V8 has heaps more torque, but really who needs THAT much torque for daily driving, unless ur towing all the time.

Simon

The 3.6 Isn’t receiving good reviews either apart from the GMH publication “Wheels”.

Kuz

I’ve seen plenty of good reviews, look around more. The 3.6l SIDI does exactly as it was intended to, more power over the non SIDI and better fuel economy, beats the FG 1/4 times also.
Mad Max

Really? Most reviews I have read (print plus electronic) give it really good reviews. But then most of the reviews I have read use professional journos and car reviewers (you know the ones with experiance and some sort of trade background) unlike this particular blog site.

Shak

The thing is they are not claims. they are proven by Government Acredited tests.

Gazza

The easiest solution to the lack of torque is buy the V8, 517Nm, nearly double the V6.
Had a look at an SS recently, great looking vehicle from the outside but let down by the scabby interior.
Dennis

NRMA rated it… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1-mdPn7T0

Phil C.

Of course NRMA would be happier to have their insurance customers in a 3.0L. They are THAT much slower than an Aurion, 3.6L VE or 4.0L FG.

Wouldn’t say the review was all that glowing. Just a brief tech overview and concluded with, it has enough to satisfy most people.

This 3.0L is going to further destroy Commodore resales. Seriously, the 2nd/3rd hand market P-Plate crowd won’t want it. They’ll take longer to hit something too. So that will further reduce demand.

Jack

So will it make a bargain surf wagon purchase, like the old 161ci HG Belmont wagon / 173ci HQ Belmont wagon? These were slow, but cheap and full of ‘character’ by the time we could afford them, and had escaped the ‘boganisation’ and crashing into trees of the more powerful versions!

If only the base 3.0L sportwagon had column shift, vinyl front bench seat and rubber floor mats so you can drive home in a wettie!

filippo

Once Ford oz get their finger out of their @rse and finally release the Mondeo TDCi wagon, it would be hard to justify buying the Commodore.
Eddiepooh’s

I work in the car rental game and currently get to sample the VE in most of its guises Omega/SV6/Calais and the FG Falcon XR6/G6/G6E , I tend to be unbiased as I have owned two Falcons and two Commodores myself and generally the two have always been pretty even, but as it stands at the moment the FG is far far superior to the VE in every department except for maybe the styling which is subjective anyway.

The inline 6′s torque and the superior auto trannie clinch the deal before you even factor in the dreadful blindspots and low (rent):P quality of the holdens interior.

Im not a Holden hater, but the gap between these two cars has never been so wide.

Jack

Having been in FG and VE, agree with your comments concerning the new cars. Based on years of being sent over Australia and given both Commodores and Falcons as hire cars and a decade and a half of owning Holdens and Fords in the extended family – the Ford has been ahead most of the time since 1993, and both companies have produced good cars. Sales, however….

LOL

The best thing you can talk about the sportswagon is the rear parking sensor???

Good one Holden…..
Eric

I read somewhere that Holden is working on putting a VM Motori diesel into the Commodore. VM Motori supply quite a few Euro cars and their 3ltr V6 turbo-diesel knocks out over 500Nm. Now that would be a review I’d like to read (not to mention a car I’d like to drive.

Golfschwein

Me too.

JEKYL & HYDE

one thing really bugs me here,

the “expert” car journo here quotes “extra urban” (read pure hwy) fuel figures,and then drives purely “urban”(no special long trips,day to day city driving),probably hitting the loud pedal all the time,as evident by the concern of the transmission changes,and gets 14l/100kms.the “urban” figure is 13.1 ltr/100kms.then everbody who really drives them writes in getting 10/11 ltrs/100kms.go figure…
Gaz

Just got the international wagon for work .Quite good features and I personally like the design.The 6 speed Auto is smooth and highway economy fair.It is then i get unhappy.The lack of torgue shows up terribly with any sniff of a hill.It will kick back usually back to 4th at 110km/hr until the hill flattens then its back to top.I could be super critcal in other areas but all cars have weak points.This cars weak point is its not to subtle standard suspension and severe lack of torque,and real world economy not at all what Holden advertise.Areas the Falcon does better but it alas has no wagon.