http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleD...=12&IsPgd=0

The bad news: The hybrid looks to be postponed. (Probably because GM doesn't have the money)

Edited August 22, 200816 yr by FUTURE_OF_GM

About time too. As much as I hate to say it, the VE is just too damn porky and really needs to lose some weight. Losing the spare will tick off rural customers, but if the run-flats work, then it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Going to lighter construction materials should be done and the sooner the better. I don't agree with a 4 cylinder Commodore (the 4 cyl VB with the Starfire 4 was a dismal failure and tainted the car's image for years) unless its coupled with a hybrid powertrain.

Direct Injection needs to happen, and Holden needs to hasten its access to fuel efficiencies available to it from the GM empire. However fuel-saving tyres are a no-no, as they usually spoil driving dynamics!

About time too. As much as I hate to say it, the VE is just too damn porky and really needs to lose some weight. Losing the spare will tick off rural customers, but if the run-flats work, then it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Going to lighter construction materials should be done and the sooner the better. I don't agree with a 4 cylinder Commodore (the 4 cyl VB with the Starfire 4 was a dismal failure and tainted the car's image for years) unless its coupled with a hybrid powertrain.

Direct Injection needs to happen, and Holden needs to hasten its access to fuel efficiencies available to it from the GM empire. However fuel-saving tyres are a no-no, as they usually spoil driving dynamics!

Lets say the Commodore drops 200-300 lbs and uses only the 2.0 DI turbo (260/260) from the Kappa cars. Would that not work well?

Considering the 2.0 DI has similar HP and TQ curves to the non-DI 3.6, I'd say it's a no brainer to use it as a base engine.

Lets say the Commodore drops 200-300 lbs and uses only the 2.0 DI turbo (260/260) from the Kappa cars. Would that not work well?

If it works then fine. The problem is trying to sell it to the local market that still has memories of how bad the 4cyl VB Commodore was. If it can be marketed effectively, then why not? However a 4cyl engine in a traditionally large car like the Commodore is a taboo here.

If it works then fine. The problem is trying to sell it to the local market that still has memories of how bad the 4cyl VB Commodore was. If it can be marketed effectively, then why not? However a 4cyl engine in a traditionally large car like the Commodore is a taboo here.

The last time I was in Aussieland, the Euro Accord seems to be everywhere... that is a 2.4 liter K24 powered mid-size. I don't think there is a problem with a 4-pot Commodore especially when there is also a V-6 version available for the doubters. Having said that, I think one test drive will changen the minds of most. I have driven both the 3.6 liter V6 (in a Saturn Aura) and the 2.0 LNF in a (HHR SS) -- both both FWD. I can tell you that the 2.0 liter LNF is feels more powerful and sounds more refined especially when wound out past 5000 rpm. The 3.6 is dutiful and unobjectionable, the 2.0 sings a beautiful song accompanied by a muted but unmistakable whistle from the turbocharger.

Just the numbers though the LNF wins...

3.6 liter VVT (Port Injected) --> 252hp @ 6300 rpm, 251lb-ft @ 3200 rpm

2.0 liter LNF (DI Turbo) --> 260 hp @ 5250 rpm, 260lb-ft @ 2000~5250 rpm