Talk:Holden Commodore (VE)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Holden Commodore (VE) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 16, 2007.

What.....huh?[edit]

Where did those great images? Put them back on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Senators (talkcontribs)

The images included in the article were not free and have been removed from the Wikipedia servers. Does anybody have any pictures of the VE Commodore that they have taken them selves? If so can you please upload them. Regards OSX 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple tips to improve your article[edit]

The tips that are listed below you can read them at your on will and accord; they are not criticizing the creator or any contributors of this article in any way:

  • To much information on the opening paragraph this will confuse and discourage you readers.
  • Need a picture at the top of the article so the reader can automatically see the car without scrolling down.
  • There is a big space after the Specifications section please fix that.

In final, there is some edits to do but most are easy fix, a like all the pictures you have on the commodore, good work. Senators 06:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gearbox comment[edit]

In my opinion "tired old gearbox" has no place in a encyclopaedia, it's not exactly true either it has been worked over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.27.136 (talkcontribs)

Generations[edit]

This is the forth generation commodore. Generations generally refer to new models. Therefore we would have VB-VL as 1st gen, VN-VS as 2nd gen, VT-VZ as 3rd and the VE as forth - Cartman02au 10:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the word 'generation' and just leave "VE Commodore is the fourteenth, and current model of the Holden Commodore." VectorD 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who first edited in the first version of the Introductory sentence, and you are both very right about this. I did not take body shape or mechanicals of the different generations of Commodore into account at the time, and I have only now found out that groups of models had the same machinery, and so on and so forth. Thankyou for helping me to see the light, Cartman02au and VectorD. Stealthman 14:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Add the price in the intro paragraph[edit]

Thank you. Zephead999 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Theres no need for that, since we are not a sales guide. Redbook Asia Pacific is the place to go for that find of information. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

Good work on making the best Feature Article ever, from an Aussie/revhead POV. Fully sick.

Westralian 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the support. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to concur, very nicely written, great example of wikipedia, cheers to all the editors! sseagle 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Engineering[edit]

Am I the only one who finds this sentence awkward? "These initial stages of development saw Holden face a dilemma." Congrats nonetheless, for the success of the article. Jlaramee 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trademark? I don’t think so[edit]

In one of the pictures in the article the caption underneath the picture states that the handbrake in the VE Commodore is a trademarked icon for the VE but it is really a trademark for SAAB because that is where the design came from. I believe that someone should take this out of the article because it is false information. What do the others think?SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording so it now says interchangeable, rather than trademark. By the way, I originally used that wording because I thought that the handbrake system was actually unique to the Holden. Regards OSX (talkcontributions) 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Handbrake design was taken from SAAB, it is clearly stated in one of the Wheels magazines.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Recalls[edit]

This page could do with a recall section (ie: the new recall on the VE by Holden over the fuel line rubbing with potential to spring a leak and cause fire). Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling those advocating the removal of this section have a vested interest one way or another in this car/company? It's completely valid, cited, relevant, and there is no WP:POLICY that says it doesn't belong in an FA article. What utter hogwash. Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please maintain approproiate style at least - it wasn't me who added the section, I was simply defending it's wholesale removal. Feel free to reword as much as you want PrinceGloria. Also, do you realised you just removed part of a quote rather than wording? I've readded the quote but removed the hyphens and replaced with commas. Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, the fragment mentioned should not be quoted. Suddenly breaking into first person doesn't quite fit the structure of the paragraph - please reexamine yourself. Quoting is not preferred anyway, but I'll let some other users deal with this section and hopefully successfully get rid of it. Regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoting is not preferred? Where on earth do you get your WP:POLICIES from? Is it a full moon today? Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures incorrect as they include VZ[edit]

The sales figures listed towards the bottom of the article are incorrect, because they include the VZ wagon as well. Davez621 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Click on the footnote in the heading of the "Australian sales" table and it will direct you to the note stating: "Sales figures cover shifted units of VE sedans and VZ Commodore station wagons, along with Commodore-based HSV-modified vehicles." OSX (talkcontributions) 11:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

The VE Commodore was well received in the Australian market, where it has consistently outsold rivals in the large car segment. Its position as Australia's outright best selling car was challenged in 2007 by the Toyota Corolla in the face of increasing petrol prices, and later by the launch of an all-new model. However, as petrol prices have stabilised, the Commodore has generally maintained a consistent lead over the Corolla and sales are nearly double that of its closest segment competitor, the Ford Falcon.

This text in the Launch, Sales and Reception section in the paragraph sounds quite biased to the Holden Commodore. For example:

1. Australian petrol prices (let alone Global petrol prices) have not stabilised, and have not been stable for roughly a decade.

2. Because of the new FG Falcon coming out, you can not say that the sales are nearly double, rather than saying they have been nearly double with the previous BF Falcon model, or something along the lines of that.

HarrisonB - Talk 04:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to make the appropriate amendments, provided that they are correctly formated and referenced. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I would not call it "biased", but rather outdated. After all, it was added about a year ago. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Peacock Phrase[edit]

I won't waste my time trying to edit this as the Owner of this page will resist, but I would point out that the phrase superior handling is a peacock phrase - superior to what, in any case, and demonstrably not superior to its main rival. eg (these aren't necessarily very up to date, they are merely the more authoritative representatives of the first ten hits for the google search : commodore falcon handling) '"By almost every measure, the Falcon steers, stops, rides, and handles somewhat better than the Commodore. " http://editorial.carsales.com.au/car-review/2757479.aspx "While it's true that the Falcon can navigate the apex of a corner slightly better than its rival, both vehicles fire out of corners with colossal force, yet a good deal of poise. The independent rear suspension on the Ford was always top notch, and now the Holden has a new rig which gives it a much better feel while cornering under higher throttle inputs." http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/holden-commodore-ss-v-vs-ford-falcon-xr6-turbo-review.htm "Faced with the sort of road that asks the most of a car's dynamics and drivetrain – tight corners, humps, potholes and the requirement to dive from throttle to brakes – and the results are a mixed bag. The superiority of the VE Commodore's chassis is absolute, with finely honed steering that is accurate and loaded with precision feedback, huge rear-end grip even on choppy surfaces, and seemingly limitless amounts of suspension travel.....Otherwise, the Falcon's dynamic abilities are difficult to fault. The BFII steers as well as the BA ever did, meaning heavy at parking speeds but beautifully weighted on the move. The rear is responsive to throttle inputs, understeer is minimal, and bodyroll sufficiently contained. In all, the XT reacts like a classic rear-driven, but slightly soft sedan without the overt power to get into trouble." http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/D515D1CA3DED79D1CA257338000CD9DF

SO that is 2:1 in favour of Falcon. So, SUPERIOR?

On a technical level I would point out that exactly 50/50 weight distribution is not invariably the optimum. It is certainly better than 30/70 in most applications. Not many cars are 30/70. For example in this simulation http://members.optusnet.com.au/greglocock/5050.htm the exact optimum is NOT 50/50, and is not the same for different power to weight ratios. The programs I used there were not full-on professional products, but the results seem quite robust.

I realise that Holden were pushing the 50/50 weight distribution line in their launch material, that is why the journos keep banging on about it. Incidentally, challenge for young players. What IS the actual weight distribution of a Commodore?

That is rather a long section to write about one word, but there ya go. Greg Locock (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise I haven't commented sooner but I've only just noticed your post on the talk page here. 50/50 weight distribution means even weight over the front and rear. If a greater proportion of weight was placed over the front or rear, it would lead to a greater tendency to under/oversteer. Even weight balance would theoretically lead to neutral handling characteristics. Lap times are a whole different kettle of fish however and introduce a variety of different factors. A 47/53 F/R weight distribution could very well lead to better lap times but trying to achieve this in a family 4-door sedan would most likely mean compromises in packaging and/or cost. Anyway, the main point was not to define an optimal weight distribution and I'm sure you're aware there is no such thing as an absolute optimal weight distribution under all conditions.
I think you have misconstrued the point of the phrase. In this case, "superior" is not used to mean 'the best' but merely 'better than.' The article is explaining the engineering developments of the VE over the previous VZ Commodore, so the logical comparison for the "superior handling" phrase is the VZ (or possibly compared to a car with a large proportion of weight over the front wheels since the article mentions weight being moved rearwards for VE). No mention is made of the Ford Falcon or any other rivals in the 'History of development' sub-section. In any case, I thought we had reached an agreement on revised wording. VectorD (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Trouble is one would assume that every aspect of a car is at leats equal to if not superior to its predecessor, so it still doesn't pass the sniff test. At least, every car I have worked on that has been based on a previous model (Esprit, Montego, Rover SD1, Omega (wink), Corvette, Falcon) has been faster, cheaper, quieter, better handling etc, otherwise our managers would string us up. Greglocock (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
True, cars tend to be better with each generation (with a few exceptions), but an article should specifically mention which areas are improved and why. If the article just said a new model was improved or assumed the reader knew, it wouldn't be very informative. VectorD (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Harsh wording[edit]

Quote: "The SV6 shares its appearance with the SS (pictured) and up-spec SS V, but misses out on the high-performance powertrain."

In my opinion saying the SV6 "missed out" on the V8 drivetrain is a bit misleading, that model was never intended to have the V8 so how is it missing out? The SV6 is giving the sporty design of the SS to the buyers of the more practical V6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.127.34 (talkcontribs) 01:31, December 4, 2008

Sorry about the misleading caption. I have now changed it slightly to say, "The SV6 shares its appearance with the SS (pictured) and up-spec SS V, but is fitted with the High Output V6 engine as opposed to the V8 fitted to the SS and SS V." OSX (talkcontributions) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Thanks, congrats on writing probably one the highest quality articles on wikipedia. Novastorm (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sales[edit]

There seems to be a discrepancy between VFCATS's yearly sales and those of mine (see complete table).

  • 2007: 57,306 (my data); 57,307 (VFACTS; [1]) Wheels magazine published a wrong figure (5751 instead of 5752; [2]).
  • 2008: 51,094 (my data); 57,093 (VFACTS; [3])

I cannot however, see where we (or VFACTS) have gone wrong in 2008 though. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some sort of error on VFACTS part. Either one of the monthly totals is wrong or the yearly figure is wrong. Perhaps VFACTS double counted in one month and corrected it for the yearly figure. The difference isn't large. VectorD (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

E85 Flex Fuel[edit]

Shouldn't the engine table in the Powertrains section mention that the newer engines are flex-fuel capable? All I can see is petrol and Autogas. --Pineapple Fez 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but I have not updated this article in a while. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Exports to Middle East[edit]

Is the article still accurate? According to GoAuto 589 p6 "QUALITY and service problems played a large role in undermining what had been a successful GM Holden push into Middle Eastern markets, according to one of the company’s senior purchasing executives.

“We had the Middle East business, anchored in Melbourne, and we lost that; we lost it because of poor quality,” said GM Holden’s Michael Filazzola. “It was also in the way we way we actually executed the program. That gave us a bit of a realisation that the rest of the world has passed us by.” He said GMH executives thought they were doing a good job when they were not."

Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Lumina model information[edit]

Hi, I have removed this from the Lumina article since this information pertains to the rebadged as a Holden Commodore VE (Chevrolet Lumina). If you could incorporate this into the article that would great. Thanks!VX1NG (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"In the middle-east, the Lumina was offered in four different trims: LS (Omega), LTZ (Berlina), S (SV6) and SS (SS). The LTZ and S comes standard with a 3.6L Alloytec V6 and a 6-speed automatic transmission for the S and 4-speed for the LTZ, while the SS comes standard with 6.0L Alloytec V8 with the option of Active Fuel management. A 6-speed manual is standard with the option of a 6-speed Automatic on SS. The LTZ was the luxury model, while the S and SS models focused on sportiness."

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Holden VF Commodore which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)