Talk:Holden Ute

Lack of pictures

It would be good if people could lend some more ute pictures into this article Pezzar 05:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And information about the earlier 1 tonnes like the hx hz ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.136.40 (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Information on these models should be, if not already be located at Holden Kingswood. Holden utility vehicles did not officially bear the name "Holden Ute" until 2000. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

File:2002-2003 HSV Y Maloo R8 01.jpg

R8 Clubsport HSV 260

Here's a not bad HSV I shot in Feb. 2004 in Melbourne; not sure where best to put it in Tim Bray (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice shot. I inserted your HSV Maloo photograph (it is not a Clubsport) into the Holden Special Vehicles and HSV Maloo articles. I have also uploaded the original (Image:Holden-R8-Clubsport-HSV.JPG) to the Wikimedia Commons as Image:2002-2003 HSV Y Maloo R8 01.jpg, so your original will get deleted within the next few days. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Chevrolet

Could someone explain why Pontiac received the Ute and not Chevrolet? 76.126.15.78 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that Chevrolet already had enough models, and the fact that Pontiac got the G8 it makes a lot of sense. Why market the utility (pickup) version of one car under a different brand? Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

First Holden utility

please not also that the first Holden utility was in fact a variation of holden's first car the 1948 'FX' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.155.50 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The FX (50-2106) to WB models were not called the "Holden Ute", but rather the "Holden utility" or "Holden Kingswood utility", hence their exclusion from this article. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But what about all the others since the WB? This article isn't complete bullshit only if the vehicles in it are not in fact commodores. Is that the case? Are commodores and utes now completely separate? Is a change in marketing approach really a good basis for splitting the articles?--Jeff79 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The VU (based on Holden VX Commodore) was the first official Holden Ute. The previous VS series was known as the "Holden VS Commodore utility". Likewise for the previous Commodore-based utilities (VG, VP and VR). OSX (talk • contributions) 07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think a similar such explanation should definitely appear in the article then.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Holden VG Ute

Its worth noting that the brochure for the VG (AD10433, Printed Aug 1990) uses the term Holden Ute numerous times throughout its twelve odd pages without once mentioning the name "Commodore". However, in typical GMH fashion, the words on the front page read “HOLDEN V6/V8 UTILITY” rather than Holden Ute. No model badges of any description are apparent in any of the photos in the brochure. Furthermore the GMH Press Release of 22 August 1990 was headed “Return of the Holden Ute” and used the terms Holden Ute, Holden Ute ‘S’ and Holden VG Utility , again without any reference to “Commodore”. The official Recommended Retail Price sheet at the time of release listed the available models as Holden Ute and Holden Ute ‘S’.

I really don’t know whether they wanted us to call the thing a Holden Ute or a Holden Utility but I’m pretty sure about what they didn’t want us to call it. I suggest that we need to revisit our use of the term “Holden Commodore Utility” for all pre VU Series Commodore-based Utes in our article. GTHO (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Worse again, Red Book classifies the "VG" and the "Holden VG" ([1]). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional support for the “Holden VG Ute” theory can be found via Terry Bebbington & Michael A Malik, 45 Years of Holden, 1994, page 140 which reads: “The VG series was really a subseries, being simply the utility version of the VN Commodore. The Holden Ute, as it was officially called, not Commodore Ute, was the first locally made Holden utility since……”. Looking beyond the VG Series, the following brochures use the term “Holden Ute” without any mention of the name “Commodore”: The New V6 and V8 Holden Utes (VP brochure AD10477 of March 1992), The Legendary V6 and V8 Holden Utes (VR brochure AD10510 of July 1993), The Holden Ute Series II (VS brochure AD10609 of March 1997) and The Holden Ute Series III (VS brochure AD10682 of May 1998). An amazing twist is that the photos in the VR and VS brochures show the Holden ‘S’ Ute with Commodore badges just behind the front wheel arches. However there is no sign of such badges on the base Holden Ute. Looking at all this I think we can safely say that the Holden Ute as a model dates back to the introduction of the VG series in 1990 but that there was also a Holden Commodore ‘S’ Ute in both the VR series and the VS series, even if Holden didn't want to tell us about it. GTHO (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So from this, it looks as if the VG was officially called the "Holden Ute", but the VR and VS series were not. This kind of seems like a contradiction really. Maybe an email to Holden may be able to help us, but I would like to add that the "Holden Heritage - 13th Edition (Part Two)" outlines the following VN models:

• Commodore Executive sedan
• Commodore Executive station wagon
• Commodore Berlina sedan,
• Commodore Berlina station wagon
• Commodore S sedan,
• Commodore S station wagon
• Commodore SS sedan,
• Calais sedan
• VG utility
• VG ‘S’ utility
• VQ Statesman saloon
• VQ Caprice saloon.

Note how "sedan", "station wagon", "utility" and "saloon" are all written in lower case. Because of the shaky circumstances, I believe we can do only one of two options. Assume all utility models (VG–VE) are either "Holden Utes" or "Holden Commodores". Choosing the former would however leave the older series (pre-WB) under the Kingswood article which would be somewhat misleading. I believe that this article should be merged in with the Holden Commodore article as the range mirrors the Commodore range almost exactly except for the body style and the absence of Berlina and Calais models. It's not like we have a dedicated article for the Commodore station wagon. Also as an unrelated side-note, I have noticed how you have expanded articles on the Holden Special and Holden Standard et cetera. We really only need one article to cover this, but I'll leave that for another time. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And if Holden couldn't make it any more confusing, they now call the "Holden VE Ute" the "Commodore Ute" here. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the page at the end of that link is quite as official as this one Here which most definitely does not use the term "Commodore" Ute. GTHO (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be a shame to hide the Holden Ute away under Holden Commodore. Taking into account

• the divergence of Ute history from Commodore history with the VG and VU model designations
• the differing model lineups between the two over the years
• the separate marketing of the Holden Ute range and the Holden Commodore range (which was not generally the case with the wagon)

I think we are only adding to the confusion which some sections of the media have created with their "Holden Commodore Ute" headlines by combining the two into one article. GTHO (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose to expand the article to include VG, VP, VR & VS Holden Utes. GTHO (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The VG, VP, VR and VS utilities are too similar to warrant their own article. They should be merged in with the Commodore articles like VU-VE models. However, if this article was to be merged, it would have to be done very effectively in order for everything to be clear. That would mean that images of utilities would be used in lieu of sedan and wagon variants in some cases. This whole issue is very similar to the "Holden Sportwagon". All the ads, and even the Holden website refer to the Sportwagon as the "Holden Sportwagon", yet there is a badge at the back calling it a "Commodore/Berlina/Calais", with no "Sportwagon" badge. Anyway, let's merge the article and so it properly. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Redline edition (VE)

The redline edition of the VE ute does not use the FE3 suspension, it shares the FE2 with the other 'sporting' VE utes.

I don't know that the redline edition can be called the performance version, the outputs are the same as the other V8s. The only real difference is the Brembo brakes (still worth the $2,500 price difference if you drive hard). The SSV also has 19" alloy wheels, albeit with a steel spare. The redline edition has a different pattern 19", with a polished finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.79.137 (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not make those changes to the article yourself? You can do it. --Falcadore (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

stet the FE3 - MY12 has been announced and now the FE3 is across the range for redline editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.79.137 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger with VX to VE articles

{{merge|Holden VX Commodore|discuss=Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal|date=October 2012}}

• Despite the ute being given its own model designation by Holden, it is essentially a body style variant of the Commodore range, just like the station wagon (which does not warrant a separate article)
• Having the ute split to a separate article creates a lot of duplication (such as engine, suspension and interior details)
• The current system of having only post-2000 Commodore Utes in this article is counter-intuitive (ie why are the earlier Commodore utes somewhere else). It seems to be based on a change to Holden's naming policy, which is of little interest to the reader and just results in a confusing structure.

Therefore I propose that the contents of this page gets merged into the pages for the respective sedans that each ute is based on (eg VX, VY, VZ, VE). 1292simon (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Commodore wagons are not separated, and the Ute is no different. Even the trim levels are the same, except the "base" model used to be unbadged (as opposed to "Executive") and featured silver steel wheels instead on black hubcapped wheels. Not enough differentiation to warrant a separate page. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

April 2015

Undid Merge - There was no merger of the content from this article - just a redirect. That plus the fact that only 2 people consented to the merger, I undid it for now. We need to either merge the content properly or propose the merger again so we get broader input on whether they are really the same. 97.68.14.218 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a new discussion on the merits of a separate article, but please do not override a decision from three years ago unilaterally. That only two people cared to participated in the discussion is just the way these things play out. Some topics are followed more widely than others. The page was redirected to Holden Commodore, but the content was placed in sub articles of the Commodore, e.g. VY information moved to Holden Commodore (VY). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your decision from 2012 was just one person above a unilateral decision. The article had been removed just 3 days after starting the removal, meaning it did not stay up long enough for commenters that disagree to arrive, it is not just the way things play out. TheFIST (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Restoring the article

the page redirects to a site on which nothing about the Ute is mentioned, not even its existence, when there was a full article here. it seems the removal without any merger was a mistake, and i suggest restoring the page here, along with adding a link to it from the section it was supposed to be merged into. looking forward to your responses TheFIST (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Restored

after over two months of noone disagreeing, a month of that being linked on the Commodore talk page, i restored the article. reasons:

* none of its information was added to the Commodore article
*  the previous removal was done after only three days of the discussion being open, with only one other user adding his opinion
*  even in previous discussions that second user, OSX, was the only one to support merging the article into the Commodore article

TheFIST (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)