Most buyers lap up the schpiel that a turbo is more efficient than a V8 and has new technology that makes it just as good.
I agree with (most of) the rest of what you said, but I've just snipped this little bit because ... I think most buyers still think turbo = thirsty, except for teeny-tiny cars. I just asked the young lady across the desk from me here with no vehicular interest at all, her impression is that unless you're talking stuff like a 1.2L engine, a turbo car is a thirsty car.
She doesn't know a Stinger from an office-block, so that question went nowhere ... but I think most buyers looking at a 3.3L turbo car aren't expecting to get decent fuel economy.
On VF being just a facelift on VE ... while this is true, a lot of the stuff that makes you feel good in a car was missing from VE vs VF. I couldn't have stomached dropping $55k on a VE, because the interior looks & feels like it's out of an 80's Corolla; the clicky-clacky action of the minor controls isn't unlike my 1979 Volvo! And the NVH difference is very noticeable. If you
know a VF is just a facelift, then yeah, but judging them without that foreknowledge the VF
does seem those 7 years newer.
Off on another tangent, back to fuel usage ... what
I keep seeing, and even from enthusiasts, is that Commodore was overweight. Yeah, I guess at ~1800kg that's pretty correct. Except the brand new generation of bloody expensive mid-large sized cars from other manufacturers have dropped in the last year or two, and they're all just as heavy despite all the high-tech materials & bonding etc thrown at them (eg. the brand new M5 isn't quite as roomy as a Commodore - and weighs more).
In fact, Jaguar's new E-Face gerlytruk (baby non-gender-binary sibling of the Pee-Face), which is only the size of a CX5, weighs as much as a Commodore FFS!!
They had a great opportunity to add some good fruit out of the catalog, like; adaptive cruise, autonomous braking etc... Even my Chrysler had heated/cooled drink holders etc... these things would’ve made it a better proposition.
OMFG I hate drink-holders in a car!
If anyone brings anything more sticky & staining than water near my car ... well, that's why I always hire hookers to take to any test-drive, because I need to measure the boot-space for how many dead hookers can fit; if a dead hooker fits, then so does someone who tried to bring a Coke, juice or Red Bull into my car ...
But I digress ... do we know that Holden didn't start down the path of adaptive cruise? It seems odd they have all the sensors (the anti-tail-ender alert) & actuators but didn't put the software in between them. Without any knowledge at all about what went on, it seems to me that all the incorrect alerts & warnings you get are an indication that
maybe they didn't spend much time on trying to get active cruise working because the sensors (or the gubbins interpreting the sensors) they had to work with are rubbish ... ?