I will never buy a new Holden again "ever"

[blackve76]

As others have suggested, drive both. The V6 is a much smoother and alive to drive, I don't know where you heard the V6 needs high revs, at 115 it is doing less than 1500rpm and if you need to accelerate to pass at any speeds it just goes with no lag.
The RSV interior is also much nicer and I find the infotainment system good to use, fm radio reception is surprisingly good over long distances, the screen resolution is much better than LT and RS. Fuel consumption is also pretty good on trips , 7 to 7.1 L per 100km, much higher on short trips.

I like others found the v6 uninspiring, seems torque less to me and extra 4wd weight makes it feel slow. That fuel quote you have I got nothing close to that with my loan car for 3 days was in the 12l range on higway I got it to 10l for a bit.

The sa police arnt happy with the fuel economy and tyre wear from awd ZB's .

 

[blackve76]

Links please. I've driven both the four and six-cylinder engines in both liftback and wagon variants and the six is far more drivable, the fact there's no torque-steer on take-off makes a huge difference.

I found the torquey 2l the far better to drive, the v6 feels a gear to high all the time, just lackluster and overtaking feels safer in the 2L

 

[arsevee]

As others have suggested, drive both. The V6 is a much smoother and alive to drive, I don't know where you heard the V6 needs high revs, at 115 it is doing less than 1500rpm and if you need to accelerate to pass at any speeds it just goes with no lag.
The RSV interior is also much nicer and I find the infotainment system good to use, fm radio reception is surprisingly good over long distances, the screen resolution is much better than LT and RS. Fuel consumption is also pretty good on trips , 7 to 7.1 L per 100km, much higher on short trips.

Exactly...

 

[arsevee]

The LT is very very smooth and very alive to drive too. It’s overtaking is scintillating and all you need, and you notice the benefit of much less ‘Fat’ (kerb weight) of the car compared to the six. I call that sweet spot joy, and great balance. As I said earlier the 9 speed transmission is seemless and whisper quiet. In my humble opinion, there is no greater existential experience in having more bells and whistles, indeed what makes life better in having them? What are they, over and above the LT? I am fortunate in not having a back issue, and the seats are excellent with heaps of electric adjustment.
I’ll conclude by saying again that the 4 cyl 2 litre petrol turbo is a goldilocks car, and in fact a true saloon despite its modesty at first glance. I was staggered and overjoyed to find the car was loafing along with a mere 1400 revs at 112 kph. This factor, together with the available ‘pop’ of the 2 litre make it a great choice, a great drive, superb value for money.

There's no 'fat' - the kerb weight of the V6 is 157Kg more than the four - that includes the extra two cylinders and an AWD system, better equipped interior, bigger wheels etc.

So, 157Kg increase of the V6 is 10% more mass than the LT, but the V6 puts out 23% more power, so your argument is fallacious.

It seems that you haven't driven two variants back-to-back.

My existence is improved (at least while driving the car) with (far) better seats, better infotainment, HUD etc. etc. even more so with the improved handling characteristics provided by the AWD - which is immediately noticeable.

And you're consistently paying more for fuel in the four, every fill, year in, year out.

Same gearbox, same shift points, so same "seamless & whisper-quiet" shifts on both cars. In fact, the RS-V has interior noise cancellation, so it's a quieter drive too.
.

Sounds like you're trying to justify buying the base-model to yourself as much as anyone else...

 

[arsevee]

I found the torquey 2l the far better to drive, the v6 feels a gear to high all the time, just lackluster and overtaking feels safer in the 2L

Same gearbox - how is it in 'too high a gear'?

Thanks for your comments RSV.
How does my local independent go with the ZB AWD at 120,000kms? That's whats in the back of my mind. FWD are everywhere -simple mechanics understand it.
The V6 revs to a ridiculously high rpm number. Where does it develop its torque.
I like to drive on maximum torque 2000/3500 rpm which the 4 provides. My days of wringing cars out to 5000+ rpm are long gone.
Having said that your comments on the V6,s driveability its ability to take 91 or e10 is a big plus and your comment about seats in the RSV noted.

The oft-repeated misconception that the V6 is 'high-revving' is a complete fallacy. The gearboxes are the same, the shift points are the same.

Mine does 1500RPM at 115Km/h, just like TeePee53's does.

Look to Ford - the Twinster system is used (and raced) in the Focus RS and there's no reliability issues. Other manufacturers also use it and there's no systemic failure in any of those.

Go and ask your independent mechanic what he thinks rather than trying to second-guess what may happen - if you'd bought a Subaru, would you be having the same questions?

And ask him whether he'd prefer to rebuild a turbocharger or a transmission...

 

[kos]

Yeah good points RSV.
However my current turbo 4 not a zb 106000 made in Germany no issues whatsoever.
Prior car another 4 turbo sold it at 278000kms no issues apart from timing belt brakes shocks.
My local auto tranny shop reckoned this gm 9 speed auto is fine.
It’s an interesting argument 4 vs 6 seems more car enthusiasts on this site have the argument for the 6.

 

[Tezza's ZB]

I noticed massive tyre wear on a ZB VXR Demo with only 7500Ks on it. Asked the sales guy, he evaded the question (saying not sure..). The Mustang forums are also getting poor tyre wear from these MPSS tyres - My VFII has Bridgestones, already done 27000Ks on it and only around 50% wear.
Definitely look at a reputable tyre shop to check the camber and options for longer life tyres. Bridgestones have 3 for 4 deals _ I usually grab these when they come around.

the vxr .. very very ordinary reviews ..

 

[arsevee]

Yeah good points RSV.
However my current turbo 4 not a zb 106000 made in Germany no issues whatsoever.
Prior car another 4 turbo sold it at 278000kms no issues apart from timing belt brakes shocks.
My local auto tranny shop reckoned this gm 9 speed auto is fine.
It’s an interesting argument 4 vs 6 seems more car enthusiasts on this site have the argument for the 6.

Don't get me wrong, the four-pot was genuinely impressive, but the six put a smile on my face.

Like you, I've had a series of four-pot Euros and the performance and economy in all cases was excellent, but there's an awful lot to be said for a lazy V6 with an overall simpler design - theoretically there's less to go wrong. But I agree, no issues with a modern turbo as long as it's properly maintained.

Nor do I buy into the 'torque is king' argument; turbo fours like that in the ZB produce a lot of torque, granted, but imagine you're in a 2.0l Diesel dual-cab and that you're trying to overtake a 2.0l petrol ZB on an incline - all things being equal, the ZB will easily win that race because the diesel will 'run out of puff'. Now imagine the same 'race' and you're in a V6 - which is going to get to the top first?

Yes, I realise this is an unscientific argument, but it's just for the sake of comparison.

Push the FWD and AWD around a corner briskly and there's a noticeable difference in the cornering. Even more so in the wet. For me the argument for the AWD is simply one of greater safety. If you're just going to putter up the road to the shops once or twice a week, the four will do - but if that's the case, do you really need a large car? An Astra would do a better job for short runs...

Look, if you're after something 'cheap and cheerful', you can't go past the LT for value, but if you actually enjoy driving, you'll appreciate the six. The other downside of buying the LT is that there's usually more low-spec variants of any car on car sales, so you have to price yours more competitively when it's time to sell.

As I, and others have said, drive the four & six back-to-back and compare for yourself.

That's what I did.

I was looking for a cheap, reliable car with warranty to drive between Brisbane & Hervey Bay every weekend so I drove a couple of fours in Brisbane, saw there are V6s for the same price in SA & Vic., actually drove a V6 and I was sold on it immediately.

But if, like others on here, you don't like or want the 'toys', save your money, buy the RS - it's just as quick as it's bigger brother... (and think of how much money you'll save on fuel over the next five years using E10 rather than Premium ULP!)

If you end up going for the six and really enjoy driving, consider spending the extra $5k over an RS ad get an RS-V; they're next-level...

Having had plenty of 'luxe Euros' in the past, I greatly appreciated the leather heated seats - the side & thigh bolstering is better and there's a tilt & extend function on the seats. And all the 'enhanced toys' greatly calm my 'existential crises'. The sports steering wheel & flappy-paddles don't hurt either

Whichever way you go, I'm sure you'll be happy

 

[arsevee]

the vxr .. very very ordinary reviews ..

You honestly saying you'd rather have an LT over a VXR..?

 

[Skylarking]

... ask him whether he'd prefer to rebuild a turbocharger or a transmission...

I’d think whichever makes him the most money