TMR: Holden Berlina 3.0 SIDI Sedan 1000km Challenge

[mikmak]

2010 Commodore Berlina 3.0 SIDI Road Test Review - The 1000km Challenge

The Motor Report

IT’S LATE, IT’S COLD, the light is fading and I’m standing on the side of the Hume highway funnelling petrol into a car. To be honest though, this is a good result.

The day started at 6:00am in Melbourne with two cars and one objective: to see how far we could drive Holden’s new SIDI 3.0 litre Commodore Berlina before it spluttered to a halt.

We specifically wanted to verify Holden’s claim of a 900km range on a single tank, and just maybe give 1000km a nudge. After 14 hours of solid driving we had our answer and the results may surprise some.

But before we delve into the numbers, let’s take a look at our test subject.

Go to the link for the full review

[BBDOS CV8]

Finally someone does something that has been called out for - just an honest test of Holden's claim. No stupid stunts.

That's ~ 29.6 USmpg or 35.5 Imp MPG from a 3800lb fullsize, 5- passenger sedan with two people in it - probably close to 4200lb fully-fuelled.

I like the comment about losing time having to refuel the support vehicle - seeing as the Skoda Superb is not supposed to be uneconomical to start with.

Good - I'm not going bonkers. I really did see '900km to empty' when the cars were fully fuelled.

I would guarantee, with a little finessing, I could get 1,000km or 600 miles out of a tank on a trip. No problems at all.

[Rick_VT]

Good review, hope they do something nice to the interior when the update comes next year hopefully, its starting to look dated, still nice just starting to look old especially compared to new Cruze interior.

Finally a review where somebody liked the 6sp auto and said the 3.0 was not a slow engine either, guess like most things it comes down to their own personal opinions.

But wow $43,000 for the 2nd level Commodore, sounds expensive.

[Beau]

30mpg highway? Not very good.

[BBDOS CV8]

I like the 3.0 - it's a little ripper. It is no torque monster and with the old 4-speed would have felt like a 1980's Corolla. But the sixspeed is so smart, as they say it's hard to fool it. As long as you have 2,000 revs up, it fair flies and it shrieks.The 3.6 roars by comparison and is even faster, but the 3.0 is a little honey of a motor. Plus, if you drove in town mostly, I would estimate you would get consistenly better consumption.

When you roll down a hill it shifts down, then locks like a manual. So you can roll down a mountain switchback without having to stand on the brakes while the car tries to shift up and go faster! And going up hills, it detects you flexing your foot and even in drive holds gears rather than hunt up and down. Plus it blips the throttle in sport when you lift and brake for corners as it downchanges.

I haven't been in a ZF-equipped car for a while, but I'd be surprised if it's any better.

[mikmak]

Originally Posted by Beau

30mpg highway? Not very good.

Compared to what?

[DUCK]

That's outstanding; 1000km per tank!!! Forget the tiny and cramped hybrid brigades (prius et al) and get yourself in a proper large family sedan with the lot!!!

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by Beau

30mpg highway? Not very good.

It's a real world test of a fullsize car, 5-adult car - bigger than a Lacrosse, bigger than a CTS, over 4,000lb, being driven with a practical load in the real world. And it's better than the claimed consumption of most V6s on the road. And the route they chose is not boring straight dual-carriageways, either. It's not hilly, so there's few overtaking zones, But there's lots of slow caravans and traffic as it's the main north-west road and really a glorified



That's a range on one tank of ordinary cat's-piss ULP of 600 miles. In a vehicle large and comforable enough to carry 5 people and their gear without any complaints.

[TKR]

A kiwi (kew-we) mag did a similar test. They drove from Auckland to Wellington, back to Auckland and then up North and all over including city driving etc. The car stopped at 823 km's with an average speed of 78km/h (iirc - will check tonight). That is pretty darn good.

[Beau]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Compared to what?

My old 2.0T FSI 6MT Passat which was a 5 passenger vehicle that got 34-35mpg highway. It dynoed 192WHP bone stock. Which would probably only be 5-9WHP shy of what this 3.0 would dyno. Only it had more torque, although weighing much less.

Maybe I'm just imagining only 65+MPH highway driving which is what I'm basing it on.

[mmciau]

Very good numbers indeed



Mike McInerney

[mikmak]

Originally Posted by Beau

My old 2.0T FSI 6MT Passat which was a 5 passenger vehicle that got 34-35mpg highway. It dynoed 192WHP bone stock. Which would probably only be 5-9WHP shy of what this 3.0 would dyno. Only it had more torque, although weighing much less.

Maybe I'm just imagining only 65+MPH highway driving which is what I'm basing it on.

Whilst the Passat is "supposedly" a 5 seater, I'm sure you remember the actual space it had. I have trouble fitting in a Modern passat much less the last generation. The Belina is a full six inches wider than the last gen Passat and three inches wider than the current model. The Berlina also has an eight inch longer wheelbase. I don't doubt the capability of the Passat and I like them a lot too (especially a 6MT!) but I wouldn't rate it in the same category.

[BBDOS CV8]

Originally Posted by Beau

My old 2.0T FSI 6MT Passat which was a 5 passenger vehicle that got 34-35mpg highway. It dynoed 192WHP bone stock. Which would probably only be 5-9WHP shy of what this 3.0 would dyno. Only it had more torque, although weighing much less.

Maybe I'm just imagining only 65+MPH highway driving which is what I'm basing it on.

A Passat 2.0 is bloody tiny compared to a Commodore, not only in weight but in size and carrying capacity. In practice it's a Golf GTI sedan with a different badge - that's a medium car - 7" shorter in wheelbase. 5 large passengers, they'd have to be good friends to travel 600 miles together in one, with shortish legs. Premium fuel, too.

And you couldn't sit on constant-cruise 65+mph in the route they took. You hit constant towns every 30-40-minutes with 45, 30mph zones and it's barely dual-carriageway outside town limits. Lotsa cops, radar, speed guns. There's no bypasses and miles of solid white lines up in the Mallee. Lotsa trucks sitting on 55, lotsa Grey Nomads in diesel SUVs towing caravans behind them slower than the speed limits.

For an economy run, not dreadful but it's not the sort of road you can sit on constant speeds returning the best economy for hours.

Here's a local test of the FSI:

Volkswagen claims a 7.8-second 0 – 100 km/h but we doubt that could achieved in normal conditions. Volkswagen also suggests 8.9 litres per 100km fuel consumption (ADR 81/01) (25 US mpg) but the trip computer indicated consumption in the 11s (11l/100km=21 USmpg) during our test, which included a large proportion of gentle country road driving. Ninety-eight RON fuel is recommended to satisfy the turbocharged high compression engine.

Autoweb FSI test

[Beau]

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

A Passat 2.0 is bloody tiny compared to a Commodore, not only in weight but in size and carrying capacity. In practice it's a Golf GTI sedan with a different badge - that's a medium car - 7" shorter in wheelbase. 5 large passengers, they'd have to be good friends to travel 600 miles together in one, with shortish legs. Premium fuel, too.

And you couldn't sit on constant-cruise 65+mph in the route they took. You hit constant towns every 30-40-minutes with 45, 30mph zones and it's barely dual-carriageway outside town limits. Lotsa cops, radar, speed guns. There's no bypasses and miles of solid white lines up in the Mallee. Lotsa trucks sitting on 55, lotsa Grey Nomads in diesel SUVs towing caravans behind them slower than the speed limits.

For an economy run, not dreadful but it's not the sort of road you can sit on constant speeds returning the best economy for hours.

Ok, guys if you're gonna be jerks about it...
I think the Passat was too big. You think that people need a LARGER car than the B6 Passat? That was plenty plenty big, enough for 5 passengers.

I'm sick and tired of bloated cars.

Let's put it this way. You guys call the Passat a SMALL car ( I think you're all F'ing nuts, I'd hate to see what you think a LARGE car is, would a LIMO suffice? ) but it's a car size that was a bit too big for me because they don't make anything in between, but it's a car that worked for me so I CAN compare it however I want so there.

[mikmak]

I wasn't trying to be a jerk about it, but dimensionally, I'm a freak if that makes you feel any better.