Hahaha
Yeah, I haven't looked at any of them in the flesh, just a quick google for this thread, but even that was a strain as i don't like these trucks. I find them all rather boring and couldn't even bring myself to look at one a year ago when getting my car serviced at the dealer... Sad there was absolutely nothing of interest in the Holden show room back then... Yet people still pay $70K for these trucks.... Stupid, maybe but I guess some see a need for buying one
Anyway, I've gone through such "new for old" arguments with insurance companies in the past. Obviously they want to minimise their claim costs and will try anything they can but they can't expect you to take a product with a reduced feature set because it's cheaper for them. They have to follow the wording and also the "new for old" intent of the product they sold...
The fact is car based utes are no longer available, one can't look at something directly similar as it doesn't exist. If one still wants to be able to carry large objects in a tray/bed, then one has to look at a truck based ute (if you call them that).
Frustratingly vehicle variants are packaged in odd ways by manufacturers so they make money by steering people into the more expensive models. That's just how the market works. That was the case in the VF ute and that's the case for the Colorado and that will continue to be the case.
Maintaining the SV6 Black's feature set must be the goal. Any extra features like 4x4, ACP/AA, massaging seats, etc aren't relevant as they can't be excluded since the manufacturer has structured their model variants in a particular way. It's all part of the upsell. Maintaining the SV6 Black feature set is the driver here. If it means one has to step into an LT-Z (in the extreme), so be it. If Holden has packaged the Colorado in a way that makes it a LS-X $50k or LT-Z $70k + ORC proposition so one can maintain sat nav, leather seats, hud, climate, alloy wheels, go fast strips, etc, well that's what I'd be pushing for. The insurance company should just suck it up as they wrote the "new for old" policy.
As more ammunition, i'd factor current used 2016 SV6 Black prices and uplift that based normal depreciation rates to calculate a corresponding hypothetical new car price (which is around $50K). That would act as another lever to convince the clerk that maybe $50k isn't so extreem.
I think $50K payout may be achievable as a settlement and that's what i'd be pushing
I may or may not get that as I may indeed settle for less but I'd never state my bottom line to an insurance company. That would be like showing ones cards in a round of poker before bets are all down (not a good idea if your holding a royal flush)