Commodore becomes more gutless in the name of economy

[fpv_gtho]

Originally Posted by 2ndclasscitizen

Have you driven a VE? They're not really that gutless. The V6 picks up and goes just as quick as the old 235kw V8s.

I havent driven a VE but 3rd party acceleration figures suggest theres already a ~2s gap in acceleration between an FG XT and VE Omega from 0-100km/h, and it blows out past 3s when you load the car up.

Originally Posted by AERO_HDT

As for the Commodore being embarrassingly cheap, I guess we'll see who's talking when the Falcon goes to a Brazilian built V6 engine and becomes front wheel drive...

I certainly hope youre not assuming what a V6 FWD Falcon would be like based on how GM/Holden produce a V6 and how Toyota produce a FWD chassis.

[AERO_HDT]

It certainly isn't going to be anything like the platform it is now. And I think Toyota produce brilliant chassis for the Aurion/Camry and GM do a decent job of the 3.6 litre engine they have now.

The XT and Omega have about a 10 percent difference in power output and about the same in torque, no wonder then that the difference in engine capacity is also about 10 percent.

The difference in acceleration though is surprising and Drive.com tested both cars and found that the Falcon ran the triple digits in 7.1 whilst the Commodore did it in 9.1

If by that margin you mean "gutless" then yes, you're right. It really is a pathetic time for a car with 180kW and I'm sure it isn't going to get any better when it loses 7hp.

:|

[SlickHolden]

9.1.. MY VT does that in 8.8..

The 195 alloytech is in the 7's with 5 speed in Calais.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Originally Posted by fpv_gtho

I havent driven a VE but 3rd party acceleration figures suggest theres already a ~2s gap in acceleration between an FG XT and VE Omega from 0-100km/h, and it blows out past 3s when you load the car up.

Outright acceleration figures =/= gutless. I was never wishing I had more power or torque whilst driving the VE, and I didn't nanny the car about either.

[Waugh-terfall]

Howcome they can't manage to do both simultaniously..?
The Germans manage it easily, take the Audi's 177bhp 24v 2.4 v6, it's combined figure is 28.2mpg. Take that, and compare it to the replacement 210bhp 24v 2.8 v6 FSI, this has a combined figure of 32.4mpg. Even the new 286bhp Supercharged 3.0 v6 manages 30mpg on a combined run..! The 2.8 (obviously) is bigger than the 2.4, it's got a 23bhp advantage over the it too yet betters it in economy! The 3.0 is bigger still, significantly more powerful than the 2.4 and still pips it by a very respectable 1.8mpg considering the size and nature of the unit.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Waugh-terfall

Howcome they can't manage to do both simultaniously..?
The Germans manage it easily, take the Audi's 177bhp 24v 2.4 v6, it's combined figure is 28.2mpg. Take that, and compare it to the replacement 210bhp 24v 2.8 v6 FSI, this has a combined figure of 32.4mpg. Even the new 286bhp Supercharged 3.0 v6 manages 30mpg on a combined run..! The 2.8 (obviously) is bigger than the 2.4, it's got a 23bhp advantage over the it too yet betters it in economy! The 3.0 is bigger still, significantly more powerful than the 2.4 and still pips it by a very respectable 1.8mpg considering the size and nature of the unit.

It's all about the price and engineering/cash potential.

[SlickHolden]

Originally Posted by Waugh-terfall

Howcome they can't manage to do both simultaniously..?
The Germans manage it easily, take the Audi's 177bhp 24v 2.4 v6, it's combined figure is 28.2mpg. Take that, and compare it to the replacement 210bhp 24v 2.8 v6 FSI, this has a combined figure of 32.4mpg. Even the new 286bhp Supercharged 3.0 v6 manages 30mpg on a combined run..! The 2.8 (obviously) is bigger than the 2.4, it's got a 23bhp advantage over the it too yet betters it in economy! The 3.0 is bigger still, significantly more powerful than the 2.4 and still pips it by a very respectable 1.8mpg considering the size and nature of the unit.

In real driving it will be between 28-30mpg... 10-11l/100km.

Highway trips it will be more towards 40mpg 6-8l/100km.

Compare this 2009 model, With my 2000 model.

Mine
Engine 3.8lt V6 Power 147kw Torque 304Nm Weight 1550kg Auto 4 speed.

VE
Engine 3.6lt V6 Power 175kw Torque 325Nm Weight 1700kg Auto 4 speed.

My Fuel. Factory rating: Fuel Urban (l/100km) 12.0...
Real World is more like 13-15l/100km Right now I'm running 12.5/100km.

VE Fuel. Factory rating: 10.6l/100km

Real world the VE will be better. But testing methods have changed, I would very much like to know how this test is done.

[motorsportnerd]

Originally Posted by AERO_HDT

As for the Commodore being embarrassingly cheap, I guess we'll see who's talking when the Falcon goes to a Brazilian built V6 engine and becomes front wheel drive...

Fordota Falmry anyone?

I doubt there will be a genuine Australian built and designed FWD Falcon. Either the next Falcon will be RWD, or it will simply be a rebadged Mondeo/Taurus and assembled here. If the later, preferably its the Mondeo - as its a decent car even with FWD.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Originally Posted by Waugh-terfall

Howcome they can't manage to do both simultaniously..?
The Germans manage it easily, take the Audi's 177bhp 24v 2.4 v6, it's combined figure is 28.2mpg. Take that, and compare it to the replacement 210bhp 24v 2.8 v6 FSI, this has a combined figure of 32.4mpg. Even the new 286bhp Supercharged 3.0 v6 manages 30mpg on a combined run..! The 2.8 (obviously) is bigger than the 2.4, it's got a 23bhp advantage over the it too yet betters it in economy! The 3.0 is bigger still, significantly more powerful than the 2.4 and still pips it by a very respectable 1.8mpg considering the size and nature of the unit.

Torque is the answer.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Waugh-terfall

Howcome they can't manage to do both simultaniously..?
The Germans manage it easily, take the Audi's 177bhp 24v 2.4 v6, it's combined figure is 28.2mpg. Take that, and compare it to the replacement 210bhp 24v 2.8 v6 FSI, this has a combined figure of 32.4mpg. Even the new 286bhp Supercharged 3.0 v6 manages 30mpg on a combined run..! The 2.8 (obviously) is bigger than the 2.4, it's got a 23bhp advantage over the it too yet betters it in economy! The 3.0 is bigger still, significantly more powerful than the 2.4 and still pips it by a very respectable 1.8mpg considering the size and nature of the unit.

the 2.4 V6 was quite old

[SlickHolden]

This proves fuel testing has changed. My car rated overall 9l/100. That's combine town/highway. From Redbook. Better then anything made today going on that.

[crisis]

Apart from everything else-
"Families who drive 20,000km a year paying today’s $1.46 per litre stand to save just $1.68 per week, or $87.60 a year."

[SlickHolden]

I think it's image. IF those traveling 20,000km drive 50% highway, And the car is 5% better off on the highway, That will rise. But i doubt these new cars could run as good as say mine on the highway today.