I will never buy a new Holden again "ever"

[arsevee]

Maybe it's me but V6 feels like it lacks balls especially of the line, 2 feels punchy at any revs.

The V6 produces 23% more power, has no turbo-lag - it can't possibly 'lack balls' compared to the four. Certainly didn't when I drove 'em back-to-back...

Ultimately, if the four-pot was the better/more responsive engine, that would have been slotted into the VXR, not the six.

 

[benny66]

Yes the 4 cylinder is relying on the turbo to give it power. Sure it gets the power and torque up but initially it has to kick in. When I take off from a standing start in my v6 it gives me a feeling of excitement that I am driving a beast. The 0 to 60 is eye watering and up there with the other German rivals. I came from a v6 Toyota which was great too but it has torque steer and being awd the traction on the v6 is amazing. I just wonder what the longevity is of the 4 cylinder. I keep cars a long time.

 

[TeePee53]

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 .

 

[TeePee53]

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 .

As others have said, each to there own, I first drove a RS 4 cyl over 12 months ago and decided it wasn't for me and looked at other vehicles, by chance I saw a RSV demo at a good price and decided to at least try it, I was impressed and decided to buy as it has 5 years warranty and 3 years free servicing. I am still a bit wary if it will be as reliable as my past commodores, but time will tell.
As for tyre wear I do hear the continential tyres do not last long, I have currently done nearly 16,000 km and they still look good. I find they are a bit noisy on some surfaces. The rear view camera at night is almost useless, good resolution in the day.
The awd system seems to work well, especially when roads are wet it just grips and goes without any slip.
On four long trips it has always averaged around the 7 but has been as high as 7.4, on short trips of a few km at a time it gets up to 13-14 L/km
I will try and post a photo of fuel usage on a nearly 400km trip.

 

[Tezza's ZB]

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...

The argument is not fallacious at all; you drive a 6, I drive a 4. I stuck to what the pro reviewers said. They said the 4 cyl was a better car to drive, and the 157 extra fat kg is there with the six. It’s the sweet combination of power, torque, drive ability and, in particular the litheness that is there in the slimmer 4. You never agree to that no matter the commentary. Indeed if the reviewers came down ‘ on my side’, which they do, you’d counter that too because perhaps you’d say they don’t know. I must revisit what the pros said.
Unfortunately too, old school Commodore drivers hang on like grim death psychologically to the wonder of their 6 cyl or v8. You can forget comments made by people with VE or VF cars with six cylinders in particular; they are just not anywhere near the ZB, and broadly this applies to most cars on the road. That’s the reality, and that reality is unquestionably shared by the pro reviewers. The reality covers handling, braking, power to weight and so on. Most, not all the bloggers here promoting the RS V are 6 cyl owners. I’ll drag up some pro reviewers re the ZB. I absolutely agree with the potential buyer here, stick with the plain beauty you get with the modesty and simplicity but great drive
ability of the 4 cylinder. It’s loaded with the niceties too, and not just the essentials.

 

[Tezza's ZB]

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

Yes, the vxr got poor reviews .. I’ll drag one up.

 

[Tezza's ZB]

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

Here’s one blog I found, and there are many others. All I’ll say is people want their AWD, and this and that, and very soon their tail is between their legs. RS 6 buyers then tenaciously defend a car that consumers don’t like, but they won’t admit their mistakes
“The 2.0l turbo is the sweet spot, because it has tuning potential unlike the NA V6 and is lighter over the front wheels and steers better. Even a moderate tune would do nicely say 250kW/450+Nm.”

 

[Tezza's ZB]

Yes, the vxr got poor reviews .. I’ll drag one up.

The VXR tries to look fast, it’s message or appeal when you look at it, is that it exudes being a fast car, but it ain’t:

“The VXR’s lack of grunt isn’t ideal, especially considering Australians are already having to contend with a Commodore that is no longer locally built or rear-driven.”

At $55000, or whatever, what a poor choice, so enjoy the 8 inch screen (; big deal), heated leather seats ( omg a joke. Oh dear, even if you paid 45 to 48 g, you won’t admit the truth, and it seems that the awd is disaster too

 

[Tezza's ZB]

I drove both the 4 cylinder and V6 before my purchase . The 4 cylinder was very zippy and slipped through the gears with ease. The V6 was just as zippy but had stacks in reserve . If I am overtaking at 110km/H on a single lane country road I want to be sure u can change down fast and have plenty in reserve to pass a b double or 4 cars at once. The V6 delivers here. For city driving the 4 cylinder is great but for high speed country you notice the V6 benefits .

You don’t seem to own one, so doubt the veracity here!

 

[Tezza's ZB]

Its

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

good to get that unbiased view here from a person who appears not to own a ZB.. refreshing