Holden Commodore v Ford Falcon 2007 comparison

Entry Revel

The defining moment in this much-anticipated Commodore VE versus Falcon BF comparison emerged on Wheels' infamous 'ride road'. This craggy, lumpy, five-kilometre slice of exacting blacktop in the NSW Southern Highlands is an integral component in this magazine's road-testing regime, and it's no respecter of exulted reputations, either.

A BMW 5 Series (on the standard run-flat tyres) has trouble coping with its constant punishment, and a Mercedes A-class gives up, while your average Japanese, French or Korean hatchback is judged close to hopeless.

As a decisive exercise, few roads compress the same scope for dynamic analysis into so short a distance: grip, body control, ride comfort, steering feel, brakes and suspension travel are all up for scrutiny. Our two local heroes, however, shrug off its challenge to consign it to the 'so-what?' category.

Here, the new Commodore and not-so-new Falcon underscored again that the strength and suitability of Australia's indigenous cars to its often-crappy roads should never be underestimated.

Put to the test, the Commodore took this stretch effortlessly, absorbing the punishment, its body and suspension soaking up the jagged potholes and erratic undulations. It's the combination of isolation with precision that most impresses -- that, and its ability to deliver agility, excellent body control and stability.

The VE feels planted, its steering light, progressive and informative, its chassis balance close to perfect in the way it communicates the car's innate harmony and obvious structural rigidity.

No previous Commodore ever behaved with the same benign predictability and finesse, and the disparity between the tired old VZ and the VE shows the gulf in time and ability.

Twice, the stability control system helped sort out the new car's attitude, imperceptibly tweaking the engine torque to match the situation, and subtly braking a wheel or two, as required. Few, if any, ESP systems are as driver-friendly, or as effective. Our much-rippled 'rack-rattle' corner invoked a hint of noise, but no reaction through the steering wheel.

Before setting off from our staging post down the 'ride' hill, I'll admit to having been expecting the VE to post an easy win here, and to claw back some points after being surprisingly easily beaten by the Falcon in performance (more of which later).

We also came into this comparison fully expecting the VE to leapfrog the Falcon, as is the normal way  of things -- although there are no guarantees, as the AU Falcon proved when it flopped against the VT Commodore in 1998, only for the BA to reverse that pecking order in 2002. Four years on, however, and the Falcon BF (and, presumably, even more so BFII  still proved surprisingly competitive.

After the VE, the driver is immediately aware that the Ford's steering is slightly heavier, and quicker around the straightahead, and this -- in addition to a smaller, more pleasant steering wheel and supportive bucket seats -- create the ultimately misleading perception that the Falcon is the more sporting.

Softer suspension helps account for the Falcon's ride comfort and its impressive bump absorption. However, this softer chassis tuning -- helped by significantly lower (32psi versus 36psi) tyre pressures -- also make its handling less decisive, and both lateral and longitudinal body control inferior.

This trait is most obvious  under hard braking, when the BF feels nose-heavy  and under-damped. However, understeer is contained and the Falcon is almost as quick and impressive as the Commodore, although it lacks the fail-safe advantage of standard ESP.

More than anything, the Falcon is let down by 215/60R16 Dunlop SP Sport tyres that howl in protest in tight corners, where the VE's 225/60R16 Turanza Bridgestones remain undisturbed.

Good as the Falcon is -- and, on this road, believe me, the Ford is notably superior to the current BMW 5 Series -- the Commodore is better, because it delivers virtually the same level of ride comfort, with distinctly superior body control and grip.

It's a revealing test, critical to our points  decision, but one in which the surprise lies not so much in the VE's overall brilliance, but in just how close the Falcon runs the Commodore.

King-of-the-Hill, Falcon-versus-Commodore comparisons are to Australian motoring journalism what The Ashes are to test cricket. Nothing matches the hype, expectations or significance of a shootout between the two locally developed family sedans.

Our test cars,  the best-selling fleet-oriented models -- Omega and XT -- may lack the excitement and thrills of the muscular sporting versions, or the status and equipment of the luxury models, but their relevance can't be denied, especially when they are expected to make up almost 40 percent of all Commodore and Falcon sales.

Where the Falcon can't compete with the VE is in looks. The Commodore is truly new; in its styling, its dramatically changed proportions and beautifully crafted surfaces. The impact of the VE's visuals is even more dramatic when placed next to the now suddenly dated Falcon, which looks conservative, if tidy, and a tad boring.

No doubt, this perception has much to do with sheer familiarity. The Ford is more a traditional three-box shape with a longer boot, notably lower waistline, deeper side windows and more vertical windscreen.

Seen in isolation, the Omega looks compact, but lined up at Oran Park for our performance testing, it seemed to tower over the XT. It is taller (by 32mm) and wider (35mm), but also 22mm shorter than the Falcon, yet the VE's wheelbase is 86mm longer, which accounts for the Holden's ultra-short front overhang.

Sadly, the impact of the Omega is devalued by its black door handles and exterior mirrors that instantly reveal it to be a fleet VE.

Holden has used some of the Omega's extra wheelbase to the benefit of interior space. Access is easier through wider-opening front and rear doors, and the interior feels roomier, especially in the back, where the VE offers significantly more leg and knee room.

The Omega has comfortable seats, of course, but its buckets lack the lateral support of those in the XT. Holden swears that its rear-seat mounting point is unchanged, so it must be the higher waistline that reduces visibility for children and shorter adults.

The driver's view, too, is inhibited. Behind the wheel, the width of its windscreen pillars becomes a real issue, particularly on twisty roads, and at roundabouts. By our measure, the VE's A-pillar is a massive 39 per cent wider than the thin-pillared XT. Both cars offer electric cushion-height adjustment and four-way steering wheel movement to deliver terrific, fit-all driving positions.

Holden's decision to adopt a symmetrical dashboard for the Omega simplifies right/lefthand-drive conversion by placing the power windows' switches and mirrors' controls between its seats.

In contrast, the Falcon's central console is biased towards the driver and seems more bulky. Ford's BA redesign cleaned up the Falcon's dashboard, but by the standards of the more harmonious, better-crafted and ergonomic Omega, it is now a messy, less well-integrated combination of colours, materials and finishes. Understandably, the VE feels far more modern, at least in the cabin.

Ford can trace the origins of its faithful, if constantly rejuvenated, 4.0-litre straight-six back to late 1959 and the original Falcon. It is staggering, then, that the now-ancient dohc six has the legs over the Omega's 21st-century 3.6-litre V6. There remains no substitute for cubic capacity.

The output numbers give the Ford a small on-paper gain, which is exaggerated because the bigger, safer Omega now weighs just 4kgs -- rather than the VZ's 127kg -- less than its rival. The Ford produces 190kW at 5250rpm against 180kW at 6000rpm, but, more importantly, it makes 383Nm of torque at 2500rpm, versus 330Nm at 2600rpm.

Its extra grunt accounts for the Falcon's performance advantage, but not the fact that it is more convincing aurally than the vaguely tense-sounding Commodore.

The Falcon clearly has more power, and not just because the test Omega proved unable to match the times we obtained at Lang Lang. At Oran Park, on the same day, the XT's 7.5sec to 100km/h beat the Omega by 1.1sec, the Ford's 15.3sec zero to 400-metre time undercutting the Holden's by 0.7sec.

Both cars are gutsy performers and effortless cruisers, so neither leaves a feeling of being shortchanged. Although both engines are electronically limited to  6100rpm, the Holden is slightly more peaky by nature, though the VE feels considerably more responsive than the VZ, powered  by essentially the same engine.

The Omega's 5.5sec from 80-120km/h is 0.9sec slower than the XT, mostly because the shortergeared  Omega refuses to kick down to first above 60km/h and covered the segment in second and third.

Despite this, it is the Falcon's gearbox that comes across as the more lazy, though the XT is alone in offering a tip-shift. By all but the standards of the new six-speed autos, the rejuvenated four-speeders do an acceptable job. Revised electronics mean they are smooth-shifting, but still tardy to kick down, and often slow to respond to the driver's command if changed manually. Best to select Drive and forget.

Nothing beats these cars for value. In terms of performance, ride and handling, spaciousness and even equipment, the fleet versions of our domestic family sedans still set the car-for-themoney benchmark. The massive advance that came with the VE is, in part, an indication of just how far the VZ had fallen off the pace.

That the BF is competitive is a tribute to the effectiveness of Ford's BA facelift and subsequent BF upgrades.

The Holden, however, wins because the VE clearly benefits from a modern, cleansheet base that, in most areas, provides greater refinement, comfort and superior dynamics. These really are the best cars for this big country.