2006 Skoda Superb vs. 2009 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2009 Holden Commodore is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Skoda Superb. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Skoda Superb would be higher. At 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 212 more horse power than 2006 Skoda Superb. (148 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2006 Skoda Superb.
Because 2009 Holden Commodore is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 Holden Commodore. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Skoda Superb, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 80 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Skoda Superb. (210 Nm). This means 2009 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Skoda Superb.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Skoda Superb | 2009 Holden Commodore | |
Make | Skoda | Holden |
Model | Superb | Commodore |
Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1781 cc | 5976 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 360 HP |
Torque | 210 Nm | 290 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.3 L/100km | 14.4 L/100km |