ge5268845158865284911
ge5600473725890310339
ge4873300531321788196
ge5185625106932464663
ge4632093126349495054
Feann Torr11 Feb 2010
REVIEW

Holden Commodore SV6 vs Ford Falcon XR6

These volume-selling sporty sixes look and feel the part, but is Holden's new tech V6 more frugal than Ford's I6?

Holden Commodore SV6 vs Ford Falcon XR6


Comparison Test


Carsales Network verdict:
Performance:

Ford Falcon XR6
Handling:
Ford Falcon XR6
Comfort:
Holden Commodore SV6
Value:
Ford Falcon XR6
Overall: Ford Falcon XR6


Six Cylinder Sports Sedan Showdown
The skies are grey over the Sydney skyline and there's a light drizzle that hangs in the air -- not the ideal weather to be testing a pair of almost two-tonne sports sedans.


But we're on a mission and like a carefully planned military operation the window of opportunity is narrow. We want to find out which car is more fuel efficient while at the same time determining which is a better drive in a range of real world conditions.


As you may have read in the first part of the Carsales Network's large car economy challenge, Holden has been spruiking its new SIDI V6 engines as automotive dromedaries.


So in the red corner is the Holden Commodore SV6 and in the blue corner we have the Ford Falcon XR6 -- both vehicles that take pride of place in many suburban car ports. With the recently revised engines being fitted to the Holden, we wanted to find out for ourselves how it performed.


Holden's new SIDI (direct injection) V6 engines are being touted as the next big thing by the people at Fisherman's Bend because, until now, direct injection engines have generally been the reserve of high-end European and Japanese luxury cars.


Holden now offers two such engines, a 190kW/290Nm 3.0-litre V6 found in entry-level Commodore models and a 3.6-litre V6 unit generating 210kW/350Nm packaged with high-end variants, including the SV6 on test here. Though smaller than the Falcon's 4.0-litre six-cylinder engine, Holden's 3.6-litre SIDI V6 generates more power -- 210kW versus 195kW -- but the Falcon has more torque.


Our plan? To traverse an extended loop starting in Sydney's CBD in peak hour traffic, but also taking in a long ribbon of faster winding stuff away from town. Over this course we'd test fuel economy, but also comfort, performance, handling and value. Also, check out our companion piece for an idea of the conversations that took place during the testing of these sports sedans.


Combining real world urban conditions with a good deal of foot-to-the-floor open road sprinting thrown in for good measure, let's find out which of these contenders is the most efficient, and the best to drive.


More details on the Holden Commodore SV6.


More details on Ford Falcon XR6.


The Test
Stepping into the Holden first (colleague Steve Ottley taking the Ford), I dropped the hammer on lightly damp roads and the SV6 responded with gusto, the updated six-speed automatic handling the increased torque and power levels with aplomb. The new direct injection technology might be aimed at reducing consumption, but one handy side-effect is increased torque and power.


The updated VE model SV6 hustles away from standstill with more eagerness than any V6 Commodore before it -- except perhaps for the supercharged VY Commodore S from 2004. And settling into a commuting rhythm during Thursday afternoon stop-start traffic in the heart of Australia's busiest city, it was the Holden that started out as slight favourite in our assumption. It was, however, the Falcon that drew first blood, using almost a litre (per 100km) less fuel than the Commodore at the first driver change.


Stepping into the Falcon it strikes you as a more modern and appealing interior design. How quickly the Commodore is looking and feeling dated.


Plant your right foot firmly to the floor and the Falcon XR6 motivates very swiftly. The Falcon is 15kW down on the Commodore SV6s 210kW, yet the Ford pulls with more vigour, compensating for its lower power output with a 41Nm surplus over its rival.


When it comes to the little things, the repetitive everyday tasks, the Commodore's lighter steering made for easier lane changes and tight-space manoeuvring, and its stereo and air-conditioning controls are slightly more intuitive than the Falcons. But whenever we stopped at traffic lights or stop signs, operating the Falcon's handbrake was preferable. The Holden VE Commodore's nasty old handbrake has to go down in history as one of the worst designs. It's chunky, has sharp edges and can do damage to the unwary.


After emerging from the CBD relatively unscathed, we pottered around the suburbs for a handful of kilometres and a few photo ops. Narrower streets with cars parked on either side made for slow going (one sometimes forgets how wide these cars are) but the big Aussie sedans were easy to manoeuvre.


Holden's SV6 had comfier seats with slightly more seat supportive cushioning and touch more shoulder width. Getting out of the SV6 and into the XR6, you feel as though you sit 'in' the Falcon while riding a little lower, so the Commodore also has a better driving position.


However in many respects the Falcon was a more impressive vehicle. From the quality of plastics used in the interior to the weighting of the steering wheel, the XR6 was slightly ahead in presentation, tactile feedback and overall seat-of-your-pants feel.


Ride quality was hard to split between the two, both of which are quiet, composed vehicles [given their sporting aspirations] that soak up most of what the road throws at them. Only really deep potholes and hard ridges really shake them or cause an audible intrusion in the cabin. This performance is all the more impressive given both models are equipped with uprated sports suspension packages to give them a sportier feel and allow them to maintain grip through corners at higher speeds.


The claimed urbanbcycle fuel consumption figure for the Commodore SV6 is 14.1L/100km and 14.0L/100km for the Falcon XR6, but after almost an hour in the saddle (stopping, starting, merging, head checking and sometimes cursing) both vehicles were reading in the high 11s -- a pleasant surprise.


But it wasn't to last…


When we approached the fast (and thankfully traffic-free) winding section of our test loop, the difference in the cars became more apparent. Both the Ford and Holden sedans felt confident and responsive through the fast sweeping corners but after changing from the Holden into the Ford, the XR6 felt more composed.


Simply put, the XR6 is the superior vehicle in terms of driving dynamics. That is, it feels smoother when changing direction, as the vehicle's weight shift is more progressive.


Ultimately the FG Falcon is a newer car with more advanced suspension, which would go some way to explaining its dynamic advantage. By and large both cars were always fairly close through the fast stuff, but the Falcon tracked more cleanly through corners and was easier to drive hard, requiring less effort to get the most out it.


The Commodore SV6's steering is a little lighter with more power steering assistance than the XR6's (more suited for tight manoeuvres and commuting) but this lightness masked feel and feedback somewhat, such as when attacking corners at full tilt.


The Falcon's brakes were the pick of the pair with more bite and better pedal feel. Simply put, the Commodore SV6's brake pedal had to be buried deep for best effect, while the Falcon had strong bite with less effort.


Tyre grip was too close call, but both cars held on remarkably well during our test drive despite the drizzle. After working some heat into the rubber we were able to push the cars harder through corners. Both the XR6's Dunlop SP Sport 01s (245/45 R17) and the SV6's Yokohama S-221 (245/45 R18) squealed like a toddlers on giant swings.


Power delivery on both cars felt good, with the Falcon somewhat smoother. The 3.6-litre SIDI V6 in the Holden has a strong top end and is quite a revvy unit while the Falcon's midrange was superior, giving it slightly better roll on performance.


Changes made to Holden's 6L50E six-speed automatic gearbox made it a more refined piece of machinery to work with, with smoother take off and less jerkiness than its predecessor, but yet again the Falcon's six-speed ZF transmission was the better unit, with quicker shift times and a more responsive tiptronic mode.


By the time we'd finished driving, both Steve and I had come to the conclusion that the Falcon was more satisfying to drive. By now it was back into heavy traffic and once again both cars performed equally well.


But the burning question remained -- which was the more efficient car?


Expecting the Ford to come out on top at the end of the test loop -- based on the fact that it didn't have to rev its engine as hard to achieve similar performance -- the end result drew some furtive glances between the drivers.


The brawler in the red corner took it to the fighter in the blue corner and the judge's unanimous decision was simple and somewhat anticlimactic: a draw. The car's finished dead even in terms of fuel economy.


Both vehicles recorded an average fuel consumption of 12.5L/100km across our test loop. Driving styles were kept to smooth, even-handed driving while commuting, with both cars staying in relatively close proximity to ensure fairness. During the fast stuff we let rip.


In retrospect, the result indicates that Ford's bigger engine is not necessarily thirstier, and makes us wonder what it would be capable of given a dose of direct injection technology a la the Holden. But that's a story that will probably never get told...


However, when it comes to performance, the Ford FG Falcon XR6 edged out the Holden VE Commodore SV6 with its more accomplished chassis. The blue-badge was easier to drive harder and felt more composed while doing so.


At the end of the day, both cars are solid performers that used the same amount of fuel. Taken as a whole, however, the XR6 is the better sporty...


Further reading
Ford Falcon reviews
Holden Commodore reviews

Share this article
Our team of independent expert car reviewers and journalistsMeet the team
Stay up to dateBecome a carsales member and get the latest news, reviews and advice straight to your inbox.
Disclaimer
Please see our Editorial Guidelines & Code of Ethics (including for more information about sponsored content and paid events). The information published on this website is of a general nature only and doesn’t consider your particular circumstances or needs.

If the price does not contain the notation that it is "Drive Away", the price may not include additional costs, such as stamp duty and other government charges.
Download the carsales app
    AppStoreDownloadGooglePlayDownload
    App Store and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc. Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google LLC.
    © CAR Group Ltd 1999-2024
    In the spirit of reconciliation we acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their Elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.