Ford Falcon XT v Holden Commodore Evoke 2013 Comparison

Ford Falcon XT vs. Holden Commodore Evoke: Comparison

Ford FG II Falcon XT EcoBoost
Price: $37,235 (MRLP) / $38,120 (as tested)
Engine: 2.0-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 179kW / 353Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Wheels / Tyres: 16 x 6.5 / 215/60
Fuel / CO2: 8.1L/100km / 192g/km
Safety: Six airbags / Five-star (ANCAP)

Not so much:
>> Eco tyres don't help handling
>> Lacking a lot of the Commodore's kit
>> Price is simply too high

What we liked:
>> Stronger front-end grip
>> Electrically-assisted steering is among the best
>> Great value for money

Not so much:
>> Prone to kick down more often
>> Ride comfort is close to ideal – but no cigar
>> Strange pulsing noise from rear of the car

The rise of SUVs, changes to import tariffs for imported passenger vehicles and the recent volatility of oil prices – to say nothing of changing commercial needs among fleet buyers – have laid low the traditional sales base for those affordable family cars.

Local manufacturers have endeavoured to maintain sales and profit by diversifying. For Ford's Falcon that means a 2.0-litre turbocharged and direct-injected 'EcoBoost' four-cylinder engine selling alongside the traditional 4.0-litre six. And for Holden's new VF Commodore, weight reduction, new technology, an improved interior and discounted pricing are aimed at offering high-end small-car virtues in a car that never feels cramped inside.

We pitted the previous VE-series Commodore Omega against the EcoBoost Falcon and Toyota's Camry Hybrid a little over a year ago.

At that time, we gave the win to the petrol/electric Camry, and placed Falcon ahead of the Commodore. For this comparo the Camry's enjoying a well-earned rest and we're confining ourselves to the silver-winning Falcon and its latest opponent, the VF Commodore Evoke.

Can Holden turn up the wick this time?

Commodore's power play or Falcon's turbo torque?
Neither of these engines will win awards for their aural charm. Both are fairly quiet – and Holden has certainly done a lot to tame the 3.0-litre V6's harshness – but these aren't engines that will thrill you as you run them up to the redline.

The Ford 'four' does its best work in the mid-range, but also delivers plenty of punch away from the lights, without the need to keep one foot on the brake pedal and build up the revs. That does achieve great results too, of course.

At rest, with the engine idling, the Commodore offered up a quiet 'murmur' from the rear. While it wasn't engine-related, it might have somehow concerned the car's fuel pump. Whatever the case, it left both reviewers scratching their heads, but could not be heard once the car was on the move.

The V6 in the Commodore seems to benefit from the lighter weight of the VF-series, but still needs to be revved harder than the Falcon to summon up those extra neddies. Both engines provide strong step-off, but in a straight line the Falcon is simply the easier to drive.

Six-speed synchronicity
An automatic transmission boasting six forward speeds is the default for both the Falcon and the Commodore.

The Falcon's is the more sophisticated and more capable box, being sourced from German automatic transmission specialist ZF. Its calibration is in sync with the EcoBoost engine's power delivery. The ZF six-speeder will short-shift for conservative fuel use on a light throttle, but is also highly adaptive to driver input and other environmental conditions.

Although one of the reviewers didn't like the way it changed up to a higher gear when left in Drive – sometimes leaving the Falcon with reduced torque available to tackle the next corner or uphill climb – he was won over by using the transmission manually and holding the gear required.

The other reviewer found the ZF transmission, left in Drive, would select gears appropriate for optimum engine braking on descents. In fact, he thought for a moment that it was in Sport mode at one point, as the engine's revs climbed to 4000rpm on a downhill grade and stayed there through a succession of bends.

In contrast, the Commodore's automatic showed more of a tendency to kick down a gear – in response to the driver's demands for additional torque from the V6. And ultimately it didn't impress as much for its cleverness as the Falcon's ZF transmission did, but used manually for faster attacks on corners it provided the necessary braking that helped keep the Commodore's line clean and tidy.

Great steers, without the raw hide
What we've experienced driving these two cars back to back is like a time travel experiment. Just like their counterparts from 1979 – the XD-series Falcon and the VB-series Commodore – the Falcon XT and the Commodore Evoke on test are distinguished by different dynamic characters and will likely appeal to different target buyers.

Ride quality is outstanding in the case of the Falcon – and nearly as good in the Commodore. The Holden's damping is a little stronger than the Falcon's. One reviewer felt the rebound in the Holden's rear end resulted in a slightly sharper response over bumps, but it's still a good ride and appropriate for our country roads. If the Falcon's double-wishbone-type front suspension offered a supple ride quality beyond that of the Commodore's, it came at a cost.

In corners the Falcon was more inclined to stray towards the outside of the bend. This was almost certainly a consequence of the XT's low-rolling resistance tyres, which were prone to 'skate' as cornering speed increased. We've driven EcoBoost Falcons in the past (the XT is the only grade that comes with the fuel-saving Goodyears) and not experienced the same degree of understeer.

In contrast both reviewers felt more confident punting the Commodore through corners. Get on the go pedal at the right moment and you could feel the rear suspension squat and the car's turn-in improve further. It felt more 'planted' than the Falcon. And there's no denying the Holden's native front-end grip is tenacious at any point in the corner.

Again, we stress that different tyres on the Falcon would reduce the margin between the two, but on the original equipment tyres fitted the Commodore is the driver's choice.

One reviewer found the Falcon's steering to be over-assisted, but acknowledged that the hydraulic system still provided meaty feel at low speeds. The other reviewer formed the opinion that the Ford's steering remains better than the Holden's, for feedback and straight-line stability. There was no rack rattle evident in the Falcon, which is an improvement from FG Falcons of the past.

The Commodore's electric system shows very clearly what can be achieved by engineers who know what they're doing. The Commodore was heavier through the tiller than the Falcon, one of the reviewers preferred that, although he did also note the Commodore's strong self-centring action.

Both reviewers noted the Commodore's much improved brakes. Almost immediately buyers stepping out of a VE into a VF will feel the faster response and the softer stopping.

Swings and roundabouts leaves a contender on the ropes
If you've read up to this point you'll be thinking that there's really not much to pick between the brand new VF Commodore and the FG II Falcon. What differences exist merely serve to place each respective car in a different camp of buyers.

But once talk turns to each car's equipment and value the Commodore scoots ahead. It's a newer design that has excised two of the VE model's oft-criticised elements – parking brake and electric window switchgear locations. With added kit for the VF series, the Commodore moves well beyond the Falcon by also asking a purchase price over $2200 less.

That extra equipment includes Automatic Park Assist, an electronic parking brake, ISOFIX child safety seat anchorage, remote engine starting, rain-sensing wipers and MyLink with embedded infotainment apps.

The Falcon benefits from being a mature design in so far as it was well put together and the doors (heavier than the Commodore's) closed with a clichéd but literal drum-like quality.

Fit and finish was good for both cars, although one reviewer observed that the knitted fabric on the passenger side of the Commodore's dash looked like a tacked-on afterthought. The other reviewer was pleased to note that the charcoal-coloured trim worked better in the almost mono-tonal Evoke cabin than in higher-contrast schemes seen in other VF Commodores.

All that said, the Commodore's interior was a newer style with more flash and bling than the Falcon's. The stitching for the fabric combined with the Cruze-style bright-finish bezels and decorative trim provide the Holden's cabin with a bit of a lift. Infotainment systems in both cars attracted some criticism for small, fiddly switchgear.

Rear seat accommodation was excellent for both cars, but the Falcon retains a lower roofline and the seat itself is mounted higher, making the Ford's rear-seat access slightly compromised. It also lacks pockets in the rear doors.

Front seats in the Ford are better than we recall of the original FG model from 2008, but still feel a little too soft when compared with the Commodore's pews.

The Falcon's split-fold seat is one area where the Ford takes back the advantage from Commodore. While the aperture is relatively small, it's still considerably larger than the ski-port that is the sole through-loading option from the boot of the Commodore.

Both cars came equipped with space-saver tyres, but offer full-size spares as options. The boot of the Falcon is larger than the Commodore's, but the flat floor of the Commodore makes it ultimately more practical for loading and carting bulkier objects.

Sink or swim for Commodore; Falcon in a dive
We've come this far largely ignoring the elephant in the room – Ford's decision to end local production from 2016. For many buyers that is a major mark against the Falcon before any true assessment of the car begins.

But – and noting that it's too late to change the future for Ford's large car – a vehicle as basically good as this one (with the EcoBoost engine and the ZF transmission) should never have been allowed to fade away. To paraphrase some advertising slogan: this is not your grandfather's taxi.

However... while the Commodore Evoke is part Omega, part Berlina, and therefore should maintain reasonable resale value, the Falcon XT will likely drop in value even more rapidly now that the word is out you won't be able to buy a Falcon after 2016. By virtue of being a fleet queen built in small numbers only, the Falcon XT will suffer more than other variants in the range – such as the turbocharged XR6 and G6E models, for instance.

Holden's value-packed VF should massacre the Falcon in the large-car segment. There's no reason why it wouldn't. It's cheaper but more modern, has a longer equipment list and generally drives better. That's how we saw it, characterising this as a nominal win for the Holden... but wouldn't the Commodore be better still with the Falcon's engine and transmission under the bonnet?