Ford Falcon XR6 v Holden Commodore SV6 2014 Comparison
Ford's most popular Falcon takes on Holden's big-six sports sedan for the last timeComparison Test
Ford’s top-selling Falcon, in its final FG X form, jostles for a front-row position with Holden’s equally significant Commodore SV6. In their final days, how do these entry-level sports sedans fare in a rapidly changing world?
Hard facts can, sometimes, be translated across to on-road realities.
Our recent exercise comparing Ford’s latest and last Falcon XR6 with Holden’s VF Commodore SV6 demonstrates there are times when it’s possible to get an idea of how a car will perform on the open road by simply checking the specs.
In terms of accelerative abilities, the figures suggest Holden’s lighter and more powerful (though less torquey) Commodore SV6 would be quicker over the tarmac than its Falcon nemesis.
And they’re not wrong: The SV6 does in fact have a general accelerative edge over the XR6. But what surprised us was how virtually insignificant that edge really is in the real world.
Granted, circumstances dictated that we ended up comparing a manual-transmission Commodore with an auto Falcon, but how closely both cars measured up showed the extent to which the two manufacturers benchmark against each other when setting up their biggest-selling sedan models.
For example, both cars ran to 100km/h from zero in precisely 7.8 seconds, while the SV6 dispatched the standing 400 metres in 15.5 seconds as the XR6 auto snapped at its heels, just 0.2 of a second behind.
Intermediate acceleration times were similarly lineball, with the Falcon scoring fractionally better in the run from 50 to 70km/h (1.7 seconds against 1.9 seconds) and the Holden sneaking ahead from 80 to 100km/h (2.3 seconds against 2.4 seconds).
All the figures were run without special preparation (track surface, tyre temperature etc) and essentially proved one thing: If you are looking for a performance advantage in either Falcon XR6 or Commodore SV6, you’re unlikely to find it in standard factory specification.
One thing that did stand out on the road was the strong, easy torque of the XR6 that seemed always ready to deliver a surge of power when asked. The Holden was strong, too, but had to be worked a fair bit harder, higher in the rpm range, to produce results.
Some more obvious differentiations between XR6 and SV6 started to creep in when it came to general on-road behaviour.
Pitted against each other on winding, narrow tarmac with a mix of flowing and tight bends as well as some lengthy straights, we found the XR6 generally the more settled and confidence-inspiring.
The Ford's hydraulic steering was quicker-responding – but not nervous – on centre and offered a well-weighted, communicative feel in all circumstances.
This is not to malign Holden’s electrically assisted steering which, in itself, is also nicely weighted and communicative and is really only inferior to the Falcon in its slight on-centre vagueness and, maybe, a tad less positivity in mid corner.
Incremental differences only, and something a driver quickly adjusts to when switching from one to the other.
What we did like about the Falcon though was its generally more planted feel. It tracks well and is 'calmer' on the road even if the actual ride comfort – apart from a subtle tendency to react more to small bumps – is lineball with the SV6.
And the transmission of road, driveline and wind noise into the cabin is so close as to be virtually indiscernible. Although there may have been a tad more road noise coming through to the XR6’s cabin, the Holden gave vent to a little more wind noise: the result was that both cars recorded identical in-car dBA levels.
Against all these similarities there remains a distinctly dissimilar in-cabin experience: The XR6, particularly from a driver’s perspective, feels high and commanding from inside, where the SV6 is more low-set and embracing. One peers up and out from inside the Holden, where Falcon passengers are more loftily perched in their relationship with the world outside.
This translates to the driving position: Some drivers felt the Ford’s seat was too high and the steering wheel too low-set for comfort, while others thought the Holden was maybe a little too enclosing.
Who has it right comes down to personal preference, although the interior feel could well be a deal-breaker for those who might find themselves cross-shopping XR6 against SV6.
In terms of cabin presentation, there’s no doubt the Holden is altogether more contemporary when compared with the essentially unchanged Falcon.
The SV6 dash looks more high-tech, and there’s a raft of gear – such as auto parking, blind spot alert, reverse traffic alert and an electric parking brake – that is simply unavailable in the Falcon.
The Ford’s main claim to fame, inside its somewhat dated interior, is the adoption of the new SYNC2 connectivity system that simplifies access to functions such as audio, phone and climate functions. Like the SV6, it also offers a reversing camera.
The inevitable interconnectness between Falcon and Commodore is evident in things like luggage carrying ability: The Ford’s boot is a tad more commodious than the Holden's – 535 litres plays 496 litres – and both provide a load-through back seat.
A significant factor that partly explains the small discrepancy in boot space is that the SV6 Commodore comes with a full-size alloy spare, where the Falcon offers just a temporary space-saver.
In terms of safety, there is little to separate XR6 and SV6 apart from the latter’s blind-spot and reverse traffic alert systems. Both come with six airbags, plus the usual array of electronic safety aids to qualify for five-star ANCAP ratings.
The three-year, 100,000km warranty with one year’s roadside assist for both Falcon and Commodore are virtually interchangeable – although Holden asks for nine-month/15,000km service intervals where Ford stipulates 12 months/15,000km.
Ford sneaks ahead with its capped-price servicing program. At seven years and 135,000km, it trumps Holden’s three-year/60,000km deal.
Our fuel economy testing threw up some interesting results. Although the manual Holden’s on-test 9.8L/100km came respectably close to the official ADR combined figure of 9.0L/100km, the automatic Ford fared less well with an on on-test figure of 11.3L/100km that was well in arrears of the official 9.5L/100km, which Ford says is slightly lower than before.
Interestingly, the quoted fuel consumption figure for the new six-speed automatic in the self-shifting XR6 is better than the unchanged 11.1L/100km quoted for the six-speed manual version. Conversely, Holden claims its 9.0L/100km figure is identical for both auto and manual SV6s.
Similarly, the manual XR6 is less environmentally sound than the automatic version, with a claimed 264g/km against 225g/km for the clearly more efficient auto transmission. Holden quotes 215g/km for the manual SV6, and 216g/km for the auto.
So, what’s the final decider?
In our view, the crunch – and it’s not a heavy crunch – comes when you consider the pricing.
At an opening $35,590, the XR6 brings a little more on-road finesse, a surging 4.0-litre six that delivers similar performance but does it in a more relaxed manner for $1200 less than the Holden.
It’s not a lot to swing favour from one direction to the other but, in the buying public’s eyes, it is often the things that are most apparent that inspire the final decision.
We go for the Ford.
2014 Ford Falcon XR6 pricing and specifications:
Price: $35,590 manual, $37,790 auto (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 4.0-litre petrol inline six
Output: 195kW/391Nm
Transmission: Six-speed manual and automatic
Fuel: 11.1L/100km manual, 9.5L/100km auto (ADR combined)
CO2: 264g/km manual, 225g/km manual (ADR combined)
Safety rating: Five-star ANCAP
What we liked:
>> Confident ride/handling compromise
>> Generous standard equipment list
>> Improved value for money
Not so much:
>> Seating position not to all tastes
>> Interior looks outdated already
>> Unavailable from 2017
Also consider:
>> Holden Commodore SV6
>> Toyota Aurion Sportivo SX6
2014 Holden Commodore SV6 pricing and specifications:
Price: $36,790 manual, $38,990 auto (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 3.6-litre petrol V6
Output: 210kW/350Nm
Transmission: Six-speed manual and automatic
Fuel: 9.0L/100km manual and auto (ADR combined)
CO2: 215g/km manual, 216g/km auto (ADR combined)
Safety rating: Five-star ANCAP
What we liked:
>> Powerful 210kW V6
>> Ride and handling
>> Interior comfort and refinement
Not so much:
>> Too-low manual transmission gearing
>> Too-muted engine note
>> Unavailable from 2018
Also consider:
>> Falcon XR6
>> Toyota Aurion Sportivo SX6
Reviews
Ford Territory TS Diesel AWD 2014 review
News
Ford committed to October 2016
Ford V8 Supercar future in discussions
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.
