Road Test: Holden Commodore Omega vs Ford Falcon XT

By Feann Torr - 6/Dec/2006

With many issues facing Ford and GM Holden, from rising manufacturing costs, to a lack of Government support, to component supplier issues, the pillars of Australian motoring are beginning to show a few cracks.

Along with rising fuel costs and a shift towards smaller cars, the two major large cars in Australia - Commodore and Falcon - have copped it sweet in the last 18 months, with sliding sales and the emergence of a new rival, the Toyota Aurion.

But with two new models on offer, the VE Commodore and the BF MkII Falcon, can the situation be remedied?

We tested the base model Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon cars back-to-back and side-by-side, and the fact of the matter is that these are very impressive passenger vehicles. And I reckon that all the hype surrounding these newly released models may help to rekindle the love affair that once flourished between Australian drivers and these big Aussie cruisers.

While I must concede that I prefer driving cars with more performance and more flair, both Ford and Holden sell more of these base model Omega and XT large cars than any other type, and with Holden's all-new VE model finally upon us and Ford's new BF update adding new features, this test was always going to be a relevant one.

So, extraneous issues aside, we've got ourselves a bona fide showdown here - base model versus base model. Who will be the winner? Will there even be a winner, or will it be too close to call? Will I ever stop with the annoyingly flippant questions...?

If you look at how much money GM Holden has invested in the new VE Commodore - more than a billion dollars - it would be reasonable to suggest that the Holden would be the better car. But the truth of the matter is that Holden is only just catching up to where to Ford was when it first launched the BA Falcon in 2002.

Both cars are of a comparable size - they're big - and are well suited to Australian conditions, with large amounts of boot space, and enough seating room for most families. They're also powered by meaty 6-cylinder engines that give them considerable reserves of power, and with their 4-speed automatic transmissions they get around remarkably effortlessly, whether in the suburbs or cruising interstate along the Hume Highway.

Both cars have long and storied histories, and both cars have legions of fans who swear lifelong fealty to their chosen brand - the Red Lion or the Blue Oval - and it's fair to say that both cars have a lot to prove. So let's have a sticky beak:

Drive: H3.5/5 F3.5/5

The VE Commodore and the MkII BF Falcon are both rear-wheel drive vehicles with 4-speed automatic transmissions and 6-cylinder engines, and getting into both vehicles was like putting on an old pair of paints - they're incredibly roomy, comfy, and there's a pervading sense of familiarity once seated.

Both vehicles have a very plush and absorbent ride and are well suited to Australia's unique (and sometimes wretched) roadways. In what these entry level cars will spend most of their time doing - urban driving, commuting, and pretty much anything other than flat-out white-knuckled driving - the Commodore is the better vehicle.

It's just that little bit more pliant over the rough stuff, and the steering has been changed too, and for the better. With a lighter steering feel, it makes the entire car feel far smaller and altogether easier to pilot than both its predecessor (the VZ Commodore) and the Ford Falcon.

The Commodore used to have a much meatier feel when acting on the steering wheel, but in my opinion the revised ratio better suits the Holden large car, and was slightly more involving that the Falcon's setup.

Deceleration wise, both vehicles have below average brakes. For cars this size and with this much power and torque, their rates of deceleration cannot match acceleration, and though the anchors work well - with disc brakes all round - there were numerous situations where I had wished for more brake pad bite, more pedal feel, and generally quicker response.

Both cars feature almost identical disc brake sizes: the Ford Falcon XT has 298mm front ventilated disc brakes, and 303mm solid rear disc brakes. The Commodore gets ventilated disc brakes front and rear, measuring 298mm and 302mm respectively. 

Of the two vehicles, the Ford Falcon XT has slightly better brakes than the Holden Commodore Omega, but it's much of muchness, and both brake pedals felt fairly spongy through the first few degrees of pedal travel.

And even though the Falcon has a tighter turning circle - 11m vs 11.4m - the Commodore felt more secure and easier to command when we took the large Aussie sedans downtown to Melbourne City, during the (surprisingly aggressive) peak hour rush. Methinks the Commodore came across as the more favourable to drive at these times because it has a slightly higher seating position, and this makes traffic navigation slightly less scary.

The Ford Falcon felt heavier to drive, and this may be due to the steering on the Commodore (which has been lightened considerably since the last model), which gives it a much more dextrous feel. However, the Falcon was the more sporting and balanced of the two vehicles when push came to shove. 

Where the Falcon felt balanced, the Commodore tended to push its front outside tyre through tightening corners. Communication through the steering wheel was also slightly better in the Falcon, but quick changes in direction seemed to fluster the Ford moreso than the Holden. I initially thought this was due to the Falcon being heavier, but it turns out the Commodore has been binge eating - tut-tut. The Holden tips the scales at 1690kg, while the Ford weighs in at 1648kg.

Driven through twisting alpine roads, both cars exhibited considerable levels of body roll when cornering at medium (90km/h) speeds, but this was to be expected, as winding roads are not their natural habitat. These are not sports cars. 

The Commodore wins out at when driven at slower speeds and through city traffic thanks to its more absorbent suspension and better seating arrangement, but the Falcon's rear suspension set up still felt more advanced when driven at higher speeds, and it has a more spirited feel thanks to it's much stronger, torquier engine. 

I must admit however, the Commodore has come a very long way from where it used to be.

The Commodore has slightly more body roll than the Falcon and the suspension doesn't feel as tight through corners, and as a driver you don't feel as though you want to push it as hard, whereas the Falcon felt more sure-footed -- and even despite it's slightly thinner 215/60 tyres, which compare to the Commodore's 225/60s. Moreover, when it comes time to replace the tyres, the Falcon may be slightly cheaper to refit as a result of it's thinner rubber.

While the Commodore had better suspension for soaking up lumps and bumps and was better in town, the Falcon was more adept on the open road, both at overtaking meandering buses out in the country and also at cornering. The Ford felt more planted and its extra engine power allowed it to punch out of corners with more alacrity. Both cars' tyres would squeal when driven in a spirited manner, but these cars aren't equipped with performance rubber.

Where the Falcon's got much more poise and slight oversteer when driven hard and fast, the Holden has a more neutral feel. I wouldn't say the Commodore has a tendency to understeer, but it certainly felt less confidence inspiring, and its chassis seemed to wallow a bit more when exiting corners. All told, it felt like the Commodore was scrabbling to keep up with the Ford both round corners and in a straight line.

Interestingly, we recorded more body roll in the Commodore through corners, yet as a passenger the Commodore was the pick of the two, at least as far as our photographer was concerned, because it didn't throw bodies around as much.

In terms of ride and comfort, the Commodore is slightly smoother in everyday driving. It possesses a more supple and compliant ride, and is remarkably smooth and oddly rewarding to drive in traffic. However, the Falcon wasn't far behind. It was a little more rigid perhaps, and gave the driver more feedback, which is a good thing in a performance car, but not quite so admirable in a daily driver.

Both vehicles come with cruise control: the Falcon has steering wheel mounted buttons, and the Commodore uses a stalk-based system, found on the right hand indicator stalk. They were both very functional systems - neither is better nor worse, but if I were to pick a leader it would be the Falcon, simply because ones hand have to travel less distance from the steering wheel to initiate cruise control.

On the open road, the Commodore again felt slightly smoother when running over cats eyes and crumbling sections of the highway, and both cars are relatively quiet, with neither too much tyre nor wind noise. But the Falcon has a much stronger engine, and therefore came up trumps in the overtaking stakes. The Ford's gearbox, too, is a bit surer when shifting between gears and features an intuitive manual override (tiptronic) system that is useful in such situations.

However, the addition of ESP (electronic stability control) in the Commodore is a brilliant safety feature, and can correct skids and out-of-control slides. It acts on the individual brakes located at each wheel, based on a number of sensors located around the car. If it detects a slide, it can usually get the car back on track. The Falcon can be optioned with DSC, which is the same thing as ESP but with a different name, but this is a cost added option, and not a standard feature.

At the end of this test, it became clear that the Falcon had a chassis more suited to spirited driving, while the Commodore was more softly sprung and delivered its promise on being a more comfortable car to drive. They are very close in terms of ride comfort and so they both score similarly. Personally, I enjoyed driving the Falcon because it had more power than it's arch-rival. But it's a strange thing; even though it is clear the Falcon is a better vehicle in performance terms, I preferred driving the Commodore for the most part. It's just a comfier car to drive.

Engine: H3.5/5 F4/5

Right from the start, it was clear that Ford's 4.0-litre straight six engine was more impressive than Holden's 3.6-litre V6. On paper, the vital statistics of these engines suggest that the Ford six has the mumbo, and this holds true when tested in the real world. Not only is it more powerful, with substantially higher levels of torque, it also matches the Commodore's fuel efficiency figures, despite it's larger capacity.

The Ford Falcon generates 190kW @ 5250rpm, while the Commodore's dual-fuel system pumps out 175kW @ 6000rpm (petrol-only Commodore's develop 180kW). As well leading the Holden engine by 15kW, the 4.0-litre Ford engine also has 383Nm of torque compared to the Holden's 325Nm, for a difference of 58 Newton metres.

The 3.6-litre V6 in our Commodore test car featured Holden's new dual-fuel LPG system. And while this system deducts 5kW and 5Nm from the petrol-only V6 mill, it's unlikely that this small discrepancy would have given the Commodore the muscle to stand up to the Falcon.

However, the dual-fuel system in the Commodore is one of most seamless systems we've ever used. Sure, it does take up a bit of boot space, but when changing from petrol to gas and back again there's barely any noticeable mechanical switch, and it can be switched between petrol and LPG fuel tanks on the run, almost instantaneously, which was surprisingly handy.

Understandably, there is a discernible difference between petrol and gas fuels in terms of power delivery, and to that end, acceleration. It's not a massive difference, but it is there and it is noticeable if you're looking. Generally speaking however, the dual-fuel system is virtually flawless.

Acoustically - and this is where I reckon these vehicles tug on the heart strings - the Commodore sounds far better from the drivers seat. The acoustics of the Holden engine were very nice when sampled from the cabin, with a more sonorous V6 thrum. It was surprisingly evocative in comparison to the Ford donk, but when heard from outside the car the Holden V6 sounds raspy and breathless.

On the flipside, the Falcon sounds far less endearing when heard from inside the cabin, but from the outside it sounds very 'manly' as fellow tester Paul Maric put it. The inline 6-cylinder thrum is not quite BMW smooth, but it's not far off, particularly at high revs.

The Ford is marginally quicker from standing starts too, by almost a car length to 100km/h, and both are capable of completing the 0-100km/h dash in about seven and half seconds, give or take a few tenths.

Both cars we tested have 4-speed automatics, and the Holden gearbox is a much nicer unit than the previous model's. The gear shifts are a little quicker and it doesn't feel as clunky as the VZ either, but again, the Ford's 4-speed auto is a superior piece of kit. Speed wise, both take about the same time to shift between gears, but the Falcon felt a touch more decisive, particularly through downshifts. The Ford 'box also features a neat 'sportshift' tiptronic mode that's a joy to use on the open road.

Both engines offer ample levels of acceleration for cars of this size and weight and both have good throttle response, but it was the Falcon that took the lead when the foot was pressed to the floor, and the tiptronic gearbox makes it a more involving drive when the road starts to twist and turn. While the Holden engine sounds better from the drivers seat, the Falcon engine is the more impressive unit overall. Granted, it's got an extra 420 cubic centimetres over the Commodore's V6, but it's just as efficient and felt remarkably muscular when revved to (and above) 5000rpm, in contrast to the Commodore's engine, which became raspy and breathless above 5500rpm.

Exterior: H4/5 F3.5/5

Both the VE Holden Commodore and the MkII BF Ford Falcon have been given visual updates, but in the Falcon's case it's more of a facelift than an all-out new model. 

In my opinion, the Commodore is a more handsome vehicle than the Falcon. Though at first I was a little unsure of the VE Commodore's new look when Holden first released photography of the car, what with its overtly flared wheel arches, European styling cues and much taller front apron. 

But, having seen it in the flesh and driven it, it's grown on me, and I quite like it.

There are a plethora of new design cues at the front of the Holden, including new look headlight clusters, a more dominant grille - bisected by a single large grey bar - and a pair a strong character lines running the length of the bonnet that begin life either side of the grille.

The majority of the Ford's changes are found in the front end, and like the new VE Commodore the MkII BF Falcon has a much sportier, decisive face. New look headlights have been stylised, with leading edges that now drop down slightly instead of being uniformly level.

The front apron (or bumper) is also a touch sportier on the Falcon, with a new lower air dam flanked by a pair blacked-out nacelles with a pair of horizontal strakes that can be linked to the sporty XR model style.

Getting back to the Holden, and along with the new(ish) look interior, I think the new sheet metal is where a lot of VE Commodore's investment dollars went. The rump appears much shorter and slightly higher and while this gives the car sportier proportions, it also gives the car a more compact appearance. And compared to the Ford this one area where the Holden design is streets ahead.

The flipside of this equation is that rearward vision in the Holden suffers due the belt line (and hence the boot) rising towards the rear of the car, and you can only make out objects above the bootline when reverse parking. 

Other new features at the rear of the Commodore include new-look brake lights, which add a great deal of fascination, and are just what the Holden needed to add more appeal to the rear end.

Very little has changed with the rear end of the Falcon, and considering it wasn't ugly to begin, it's no bad thing. It is claimed that the Falcon has new brake lights at the rear, but my eyes can't tell the difference.

At the end of the day - and even at the start of the day, to be honest - the Holden was a much better looking car. It had that instance of BMW 5 Series about the front end and the rear, too, is aesthetically pleasing. I like the blistered wheel arches, they definitely give the car a more cultivated look. The Falcon, in contrast, has only been given front end treatment, and while this is impressive in its own right, the Commodore comes out on top thanks to it's comprehensively updated design.

Interior: H3.5/5 F3.5/5

First thing's first - and the Commodore looks a lot better on the inside than it used to. It's got a much more functional feel, and everything is well within reach, and this is one of the areas that Holden's billion dollar investment can be seen and touched. 

It's quite surprising to note however, that while the interior is almost completely new, it still looks incredibly familiar. This was no doubt part of the Holden plan, to keep long-time buyers happy. Imagine what would have happened if everything had been dramatically changed? There would have been a backlash, and possibly riots in the streets...

Last year, when Holden was selling its VZ Commodore, the Falcon had the better interior. It had an LCD screen in the centre console on all models, it had ergonomic HVAC controls and a range of other easy-to-use systems. But Holden has learned much in the interim, and now the Commodore has the better interior, with two fairly detailed LCD screens (one on the centre console, one between the speedo and tach on the instrument cluster).

The centre console has a much fresher, more modern look. It's clean too, and everything is easy to read, from the stereo controls to the air conditioning dials, and tactility has been improved too, with a much higher quality feel throughout. Better yet, the dash plastics have improved from the nasty hard stuff of previous models, and is far more agreeable. That said, the Falcon's dash plastics are still of a better quality, as they made of a more malleable rubbery polymer that would be less damaging to the human skull in the event of a minor accident with no airbag deployment.

Another area where the Falcon still leads is in the instrument cluster department. The speedometer and tachometer (rev meter) are far better looking in the Falcon. While the driver's instruments in the Commodore are nice enough (though they now have no visual indicator for the redline on the tacho, which like the Falcon is just dumb) the Ford gets a dash of silver here and there and has a 3D look which adds a touch of class. The Commodore has completely flat instruments.

The electric window and mirror controls for the Ford Falcon are located on the driver's side door, while the Commodore still has window and mirror controls in the middle of the car, just behind the gear shifter and between the driver and front passenger. I preferred the Falcon's traditional layout, but the Commodore setup allows the front passenger more control over these functions.

Seats wise, I think the Commodore wins. The front seats are comfier, even though the Falcon gets lumbar adjust and the Commodore has none. The Commodore pews also offer a better view of the road ahead, though rearward vision is better in the Falcon.Also, the A-pillar on the Commodore is a lot thicker than the Falcon's, which can hinder forward vision, sometimes when turning right and looking for traffic.

Both of these entry-level vehicles have door lock buttons (a new feature on the Commodore) which automatically lock every door in the car, which female drivers liked a lot, and both have manual rear windows and electric front windows and mirrors.

Of interest to me (because I'm a pedant and I like attention to detail) the Falcon has traditional spray on the windscreen water sprayers that are affixed to the bonnet, but the Holden commodore has a different method of windscreen water spray dispersal. It has its water ejectors in the actual arms of the windscreen wipers, which I thought was really cool, and added a little bit more sophistication to the car. You'll see what I mean when you drive one.

Rear seat room seemed slightly better on the Commodore, but it's very close. Looking at the dimensions, it turns out that the Commodore does indeed have slightly more rear seat leg room, with 1001mm compared to the Falcon's 980mm. Suffice to say that both cars can carry five in comfort, with impressive leg room and head room for all five passengers and high levels of shoulder room for front seat occupants too. 

The Falcon has a better trip computer with more features and modes and the Ford also has speakers mounted in the rear parcel shelf, unlike the Commodore. But the Commodore's central digital display (in the middle of the instrument cluster) is a much more distinguished item, with a higher resolution, and all functions are controlled via steering wheel buttons and dials. Oh yes, and the Commodore also gets new steering wheel controls, including the aforementioned dials, which are far more intuitive to use than the Falcon's buttons to adjusting volume and the like. Both cars have pretty good CD stereos for entry level cars, and it's a line ball between them in terms of audio clarity.

In terms of boot space, the Falcon smashed the Commodore to pieces, but if you were to remove the great big LPG tank, it would be a hard contest to call. When both vehicles are in their normal petrol configuration, the Falcon XT has 504 litres of boot space, and the Commodore Omega has 496 litres, but a difference of eight litres when talking hundreds is minuscule, and so it's another line ball in terms of boot space.

Safety wise, and the Holden takes the cake. Both cars feature ABS brake and airbags for driver and front passenger, but the Holden also gets ESP, which is proven and tested system that can reduce the event of crash by keeping the car on the road in the event of a loss of control, such as a skid. This is especially useful on wet roads and - as I personally found out - on gravel covered roads as well.

After spending time driving both cars in a range of situations, the interior of the Falcon comes across as very good, but I liked the Holden better. There's a real sense of European-ness to the Commodore while the Falcon has just a sprinkling, and the latter felt a tad more utilitarian in comparison.

Overall: H3.5/5 F3.5/5

Overall, both cars are very good at what they do, and the win goes to the Commodore - but only by a Persian cat's whisker. It's smoother ride, more comfortable interior and the addition of ESP as standard all contribute to the Commodore sneaking ahead (though having to pay $250 for a spare tyres seems a bit rich). If most of your driving is done in urban areas, the Commodore is the pick. It's just better suited to such environments.

But if you plan of doing lots of interstate driving, highway driving and general long distance touring, and are planning on towing a trailer (or simply don't like V6 engines), the Ford is the way to go. It's got considerably more power, and is slightly kinder to your hip pocket when it comes to petrol consumption.

One thing about both these of these large Australian sedans is that they do a pearler of a job at moving large amounts of people and cargo in relative comfort across both long and short distances. With great reserves of power and huge amounts of interior space, there are few cars - imported or otherwise - that are as suited to cruising Australia's millions of kilometres of roadways in comfort. Having been distanced from Australian large cars for the best part of this year, it was great to finally get back into the saddle, and it's surprising how well these cars compare to the imported product today.

In conclusion, I must say there's something about the Commodore that seems to make it more desirable in most situations. It could be the new styling or the new suspension, and unless there's a winding road looming large, it was the Commodore keys I sought. Put it this way - my heart goes with the Falcon because it's more enjoyable in a performance sense, but my head tells me to choose the Commodore as it's slightly more composed in everyday situations.