Ford Falcon XR8 v Holden Commodore SS V 2010 Comparison

Ford Falcon XR8 vs Holden Commodore SS V

Comparison Test

Carsales Network verdict:
Performance:

The boys in blue were unequivocal; the Commodore SS is a car for those who are serious about reaching point B in the shortest elapsed time. And Ford's Falcon XR8 just doesn't compare.

Both men were members of Victoria's Traffic Operations Group, crewing a white Holden Sportswagon SS on the road from Lancefield to Romsey. Our 10-minute audience with them (at a cost of $430 for the two of us) came after they observed the black Commodore SS V and the purple Falcon XR8 travelling at a speed that warranted a chat by the side of the road.

Now we're the first to admit that if you do the crime you should pay the fine, but as far as crimes go, this was very much a case of low-hanging fruit: a straight stretch of smooth, open road, late in the morning on a sunny day, with almost zero traffic around and plenty of run-off either side. The speed detected was not a licence-losing velocity either. Easy money for the state government's coffers...

At any rate, it was an opportunity of sorts to hear a professional's opinion of the two cars. The Senior Connies were very happy with their Sportwagon, which was "just like the sedan." There were more squeaks and rattles, courtesy of the Police-issue gear being carted around in the back, but to drive, the Sportwagon is a winner -- as was the Commodore sedan.

And frankly, between the four of us, that made it unanimous. Both the Carsales staffers had already arrived at the conclusion that the V8-powered Commodore gets the nod over the Falcon in this comparison. The coppers agreed...

This was an unexpected result, considering our two previous comparisons of the six-cylinder Falcon and Commodore had concluded in favour of the Ford. So what was different about the two V8 cars then?

Impressions of the XR8 were frankly negative from the start. It drove like a V8-engined FG Falcon should, but there were immediate issues such as not being able to get the power to the ground when turning from a side street into a busy road.

The Falcon required more finesse to slot into a gap that way. Barely half throttle would spin wheels, break traction and fumble the car's forward momentum.

By comparison, the Commodore was more adept in similar circumstances. When it was called upon to deliver window-of-opportunity performance, it did. The Holden's native traction was better on wet roads than the Falcon's in the dry.

It would be easy to blame the Ford's simpler 'Control-Blade' rear suspension, but we feel that the Commodore's poise is not just a question of its multi-link rear end. It's a combination of such things as weight distribution, gearing, the way the respective engines produce their torque and even the capability of traction and stability control systems.

In feel, the Falcon is much more like an old-fashioned rear-drive muscle car. That's not to say it's lacking dynamic ability, but it wants to swing the tail much more than the Commodore does.

The Falcon's fun, but it's fun for burnouts and donuts, a point our uniformed interviewees in their Sportwagon mentioned. The Commodore is more dependable and safer for getting places quickly -- something desirable in a high-powered sedan.

Colleague Feann Torr and the writer were both flummoxed by the differences in handling and roadholding for the two cars. Feann particularly, due to his involvement in previous Falcon/Commodore comparisons…

We had been expecting the Commodore to be dressed up in the Pontiac G8-style looks of the Special Edition model, but what we got was an older standard car from Holden's press fleet.

The Falcon's ride was ahead of the Holden's around town, but the SS V offered the better grip. Despite the difference in wheel diameter (18-inch for the Falcon, 19-inch for the Commodore), the tyres were the same profile and width (245/40), so the contact patch should have been pretty close.

CORNERING, RIDE AND BRAKING
In character, the two cars feel poles apart in corners. The Falcon appears to have the heavier steering at lower speeds, but it lightens up and is almost nervous at open-road speeds.

With its cast-iron engine (and alloy heads) hanging over the front axle, the XR8 appears to be at a disadvantage where weight distribution is concerned. We recall from driving the Falcon range at its media launch that the XR8 felt heavier in the nose than the six-cylinder models.

There's also a perception issue from the driver's seat. The Falcon has the longer front overhang -- to accommodate the in-line six that powers other variants -- and there's the big bulge in the bonnet to accommodate the tall V8, so you're always aware of mass forward of the scuttle, both through tactile and optical senses.

All these issues combine to make the Ford feel like a heavy car up front, despite its willingness to step out at the rear in corners.

Both cars provide excellent feedback through the steering, although the Ford had the edge over a wider range of speeds, in my opinion. Both Feann and I agreed that the Falcon's initial turn-in was very good, in spite of the weight up front.

The Commodore's steering response seemed a little slower, by comparison. It's like the Commodore is six degrees of understeer separated from neutral, while the Falcon is five degrees of oversteer away from the ideal. That said, the Commodore can also be coerced to drift at the rear with the right sort of provocation, but it feels safer doing so.

Feann, who had compared the XR6 against the SV6 only a month or so earlier, was firmly of the opinion that the weight of the V8 in the Falcon had "completely scuppered" the excellent steering and suspension of the core vehicle. The all-alloy Coyote V8 could make a lot of difference to the Ford, if/when it arrives in the local product.

With the current car's cast-iron engine, there's that difference in character between the two cars; Ford's engineers seem to have set up the Falcon to overcome weight-related understeer characteristics with plenty of front-end grip, while the Holden enjoys a better balance from the start.

Mr Torr awarded points to the Falcon for its brake pedal feel. He's right too. In the Commodore there's an initial soft feel and some travel in the pedal before there's any sense of the pads actually clamping down on the rotors. As I drove the Commodore downhill on one section of road, feathering the pedal produced no discernible washing off of speed, whereas it would have in the Falcon.

On the open road, we pummeled both cars over a section of black-top that was rough-hewn from trucks that had passed that way. While both cars were heavily damped and followed the road surface rather than absorbing the irregularities, the Commodore coped better.

The Holden rode firmer than the Falcon but the Falcon skipped around with power on. Indeed, once again the Ford was unable to deliver that power to the road properly. It also felt much more 'taily' on a trailing throttle than the Commodore. 

PERFORMANCE AND NVH
The Falcon's V8 started life as a truck motor, which is why its stroke is so long, relative to the width of its bore. Alloy DOHC heads contribute to fuel efficiency, but the Commodore can compensate for its low-tech pushrod set-up with AFM (Active Fuel Management) -- which disables four of the eight cylinders when performance is not required. It's a case of swings and roundabouts, since both cars used fuel at exactly the same rate during the run -- 11.4L/100km, according to the trip computers.

At some point during the last 12 months, Holden seems to have raised the bar for NVH with the AFM system. On an occasion about a year ago I drove an SS V with the system and found I could pick when the engine dropped in and out of four-cylinder mode. With this car, the AFM is far less conspicuous. You might pick the change in vibration at middling speeds (around 60 or 70km/h) and on uphill grades, but it's significantly improved.

The engines in both cars drive to the rear wheels through six-speed automatic transmissions, but the Falcon's ZF box is a more refined unit than the Commodore's GM product. There's not that much in it, but the ZF just walks a finer line between fast and smooth when it comes to up-shifts, for example.

At open-road speeds, both cars were on a par for NVH. Feann commended the Falcon for its sound insulation qualities. The engine note was obvious, but when you're driving a V8-engined car, that's a virtue rather than a vice. There was some tyre and wind noise, but in the main it was acceptable. Much the same comments applied to the Commodore also.

Feann preferred the seats in the Falcon, but I felt more at home with less give in the Commodore's seats. Until you grow accustomed to them, the Falcon's seats can feel like a spring has broken in the seat base.

When it comes to different strokes for different folks, Feann preferred the steering wheel in the Ford, but I was happier with the trip computer in the Commodore. It was quite straightforward to reset the tripmeter and average fuel readout in the Holden, helped in no small part by the large remote control buttons and the clear prompts in the display.

Balanced against that, the Commodore's interior is not all that swish, whereas the Falcon's is more hospitable.

The Holden features red trim to coordinate with the base charcoal colour used throughout the interior. It doesn't scream luxury or prestige appointments at you, it's more about purpose and sports potential personified. While the plastics in the Commodore seem less inviting than in the Falcon, they appear durable enough.

Rear-seat accommodation was hard to pick between the two. Feann, taller than the writer, found almost no difference in headroom between the Commodore and Falcon, but the Commodore was slightly ahead where legroom was concerned. Despite that, the Falcon felt less closed-in than the Commodore, and that would have been a consequence of interior styling and finish rather than greater spaciousness.

While I liked the flatter seats in the front of the Commodore, the softer-sprung seats in the rear of the Falcon seemed to me a better option for passengers.

The field of vision to the rear was compromised by the bootlid spoiler of the Commodore; the Falcon was better in that regard. Both cars were easy to reverse and park, since they were both equipped with ultrasonic sensors. Since the two cars are rear-wheel drive, they could pull a fairly tight turning circle, in the process outmanoeuvring some significantly smaller front-wheel drive cars.

For boot space, the Falcon had the wood on the Commodore. Presumably a consequence of the rear suspension system in the Ford being more compact, there was additional volume available in a well set within the floor of the Falcon. In contrast, the Commodore's floor was flat and set higher.

CONCLUSION
As someone who has been a big fan of the Falcon since its release in FG form during 2008, I was surprised by the Holden's win. It has to be said though, the Commodore took the prize fair and square.

The Ford is undeniably an excellent car, but in V8 form you can't overlook its handling shortcomings alongside the Commodore.

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at www.carsales.mobi