The AU series. - Page 2

buickman · 02-10-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BA GT-HO

AU 1 Forte

Could you really imagine waking up to that every morning?

AU 3 Forte

I don't mind the AU3 Forte, and for what they are worth these days you get a fair bit of car for your money. Having said that I would only buy one as a run around, not something I could be proud of sadly..

I think if Ford had the AU3 Forte straight up instead of the AU1 they would have sold a lot more of them..

Nothing a grill ,bonnet,rear lights & clear indicatersplus a bit of paint couldn't fix..

On the reliability of the BA last year I was picking up a friend at Tulla airport & a BA had cutout for no reason in front of me at getting the parking tickets out of the machine. Me & another guy helped push the car out of the way. The driver tried many times to start it but no go. So I think the S1 BA's might have had a few gremlins in them.

buickman

b2tf · 02-10-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 012

Can I ask a couple of question? Ok.. I will anyway :1syellow1 .

1/ If someone walked up and said "BA Falcon" to you, what model do you instantly picture in your mind?
2/ If someone walked up and said "AU Falcon" to you, what model do you instantly picture in your mind?

My answers?? To the first question is a BA GT or XR. And for the second, it's a AU Forte. It's the way both cars have been marketed, very differently. This is exactly how most people see it as well. Tell me something, how many ads did everyone see for AU XR and FTe back in 99-02, and how many ads have people seen for the BA XR and FPV range 02-05?

You're dead right - same cars for me too.

vztrt · 02-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 012

My answers?? To the first question is a BA GT or XR. And for the second, it's a AU Forte. It's the way both cars have been marketed, very differently. This is exactly how most people see it as well. Tell me something, how many ads did everyone see for AU XR and FTe back in 99-02, and how many ads have people seen for the BA XR and FPV range 02-05?

Funny how with the FPV advertising that they've actually started outselling HSV. Also the GT is meant to hold it's value better than the new monaro.

But my godfather had an FTE a while back tried selling it and he says it was the hardest thing to sell because of it's look. Praised the car as great to drive and reliable. Ended up having a guy from tassie travel over to buy it.

shane3 · 02-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Sorry to side step but can some one tell me if the AU3 has the same flat air filter as A BA XR6 as my friend has an AU3 and is looking at getting a K&N filter, but the guys at his local AUTOBARN didn't have a clue if they were the same part

XR_Strider_GuY · 02-10-2005, 08:58 PM

I will admit the AU was ahead of its time shape wise. Everytime i look at the AU1 XR's with the full tickford kit today I feel it has more presence on the road and definitly stands out against the BA XR. Having said that the BA XR is elegent and looks beautiful at first glance.

The problem with the AU is the Forte and Futura. Back in 1998 it was these models that was the company rep car not the XR's like we see today. The AU1 forte/futura looked cheap, and it was $3k cheaper than an entry level VT. So much so that when you park it next to the VT it really showed.

At my work I have driven both back to back (had a VT Acclaim for almost 2 months). While handling, highway speed power went the Falcons way, it must be said the Commodore won on interior appointment, I liked the centre HVAC arrangement and the intrument illumination at night. About my only complaint was the low centre console arm rest.
It wasn't until you pointed both on highway hills (the infamous Blue Mountains great western hwy) that the falcon demoinstrated superiority in road holding, power and cross wind stability. A quick test drive will not reveal the AU's strengths, however it will immediately show the good points of the VT.

So for the year 1998-1999, base models in my opinion went the VT way over the AU. However in the sport varients my conclusion is somehow not straight forward. In the entry level sports 6 model the xr6 hp wins hands down over the Commodore S. However Holden were very smart with their premium 6 model. They offered a full blown pucker SS with a 3.8L s/c which was indeed faster and lighter than its 5.0L sister. Big call this, but against a full optioned au1 xr6 vct (which i really love) i would seriously consider the SS. In the tussle between the XR8 and SS, i would take the Xr8. It was a storming performer for a 5.0L, so much so it was quicker than the 195kw 5.0L optioned Commodores.

HP Dude · 02-10-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 012

Agreed that it almost sent Ford Australia bankrupt. But on the looks, each to their own I say.

Can I ask a couple of question? Ok.. I will anyway :1syellow1 .

1/ If someone walked up and said "BA Falcon" to you, what model do you instantly picture in your mind?
2/ If someone walked up and said "AU Falcon" to you, what model do you instantly picture in your mind?

My answers?? To the first question is a BA GT or XR. And for the second, it's a AU Forte. It's the way both cars have been marketed, very differently. This is exactly how most people see it as well. Tell me something, how many ads did everyone see for AU XR and FTe back in 99-02, and how many ads have people seen for the BA XR and FPV range 02-05?

You are spot on. As Ford Australia saw it in 98, the Forte was the hero car of the range, not the XRs. How times have changed!

FWIW, all my AU-hating friends (bar one) like the AU XRs... go figure!

XR_Strider_GuY · 02-10-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shane3

Sorry to side step but can some one tell me if the AU3 has the same flat air filter as A BA XR6 as my friend has an AU3 and is looking at getting a K&N filter, but the guys at his local AUTOBARN didn't have a clue if they were the same part

Filters in AU2/3, infact all AU's are the same as EF-EL 6.

TURBOTAXI · 02-10-2005, 09:00 PM

My first car was a 351 FMX XD wagon, oh yeah - it was brown with an orange stripe. Someone thought that was a good idea at some time in the past.
The AU looks OK, I dont think any model of the AU's is better than the other, I have seen some good looking cars from the whole series.

shane3 · 02-10-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR_Strider_GuY

Filters in AU2/3, infact all AU's are the same as EF-EL 6.

OK but are they the same as a BA XR6 panel filter?

Smoke Pursuit · 02-10-2005, 09:09 PM

No Shane they arent.

XR_Strider_GuY · 02-10-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shane3

OK but are they the same as a BA XR6 panel filter?

In stock form, the BA filter is very different from the EF-AU filter. BA's have a cotton filter standard unlike the regular paper ones.

shane3 · 02-10-2005, 09:34 PM

Sorry guys I'm not asking the right question,

Question. Is an AU3 panel filter the same size as a factory BA XR6 panel filter?? in regards to replacing the AU3 panel filter with a K&N panel filter.

As I can't find a thing to tell me what size the filter is in the AU3, and if it's the same size as a BA XR6 panel filter I will get one for my mates AU3.

*****I have changed my wife's EL gli panel filter for a BMC panel filter, but I know nothing about the AU3 panel filter size

b2tf · 02-10-2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shane3

Sorry guys I'm not asking the right question,

Question. Is an AU3 panel filter the same size as a factory BA XR6 panel filter?? in regards to replacing the AU3 panel filter with a K&N panel filter.

No. An AU spec filter will not fit a BA - BA airbox is smaller.

XAGSV8 · 02-10-2005, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HP Dude

Mercedes has been losing sales (especially repeat sales) because its starting to get a bad reputation for quality amongst current owners. I know of a number of people who won't buy another Merc once they get rid of the ones they have now. A lot of Merc fans are longing for the build quality of the 70s, 80s and early 90s, when Mercs were probably the best built cars on earth.

In regards to looks, I've heard nothing but praise for the CLS, but I have heard some criticism of the new S-Class, which doesn't share any obvious cues with the AU (unlike the CLS).

My Dad got such a lemon Merc that Mercedes gave him a new one after about 6 months of problems. The new one also had a free set of golf clubs in the boot when he picked it up.

As for the AU if the BA looks came out first and the AU was realised after I personally think it would have fitted the times better and sold it's ar$e off. Looks wise I think it was 10 years too early. First AU I ever saw was a forte in the brown poo colour which nearly had me dry reaching. I couldn't believe Ford got it so wrong and I think that gave them the big wake up call saying how out of touch they were. I remember a comment in Wheels or Motor from Ford just before AU was released saying if you think VT is good wait until you see the new AU.

buickman · 02-10-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSWXA

My Dad got such a lemon Merc that Mercedes gave him a new one after about 6 months of problems. The new one also had a free set of golf clubs in the boot when he picked it up.

As for the AU if the BA looks came out first and the AU was realised after I personally think it would have fitted the times better and sold it's ar$e off. Looks wise I think it was 10 years too early. First AU I ever saw was a forte in the brown poo colour which nearly had me dry reaching. I couldn't believe Ford got it so wrong and I think that gave them the big wake up call saying how out of touch they were. I remember a comment in Wheels or Motor from Ford just before AU was released saying if you think VT is good wait until you see the new AU.

Wheels mag was the one that had that statement as well as saying why Holden should be worried.

In the end the Holden was the victor in sales even though the Falcon was a better product but sold bad because of its bold design.
Also Ford spent more on tennis than car racing so the poor AU lost out there as well.

buickman

vztrt · 02-10-2005, 11:33 PM

It wasn't until stone brothers racing came along that the motors had some power. FPV's motor's (from england) just didn't have enough grunt. The only time they done well was one wet weekend were Lowndes destroyed the field to come second.

Does anyone know how many teams use SBR engines?

XAGSV8 · 02-10-2005, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

It wasn't until stone brothers racing came along that the motors had some power. FPV's motor's (from england) just didn't have enough grunt. The only time they done well was one wet weekend were Lowndes destroyed the field to come second.

Does anyone know how many teams use SBR engines?

You in the right thread ? Anyway 888, Orcon Racing use the SBR engines. For the time before SBR, DJR had pretty powerful engines.

JC · 02-10-2005, 11:53 PM

AU filter is the same as the EL filter. K&N part number is 33-2015.

12 · 03-10-2005, 12:09 AM

Stone Brothers were around way before the AU. In the current V8 format they built DJR's race engines back in the E-series days (1992 - 1995). The engines weren't the major problem for the AU race car. There were a couple of major factors as to why the AU was not very succesful on the race track.

One was, as pointed out by buickman, Ford funding, or the lack of it. There weren't as many Ford backed teams and drivers as there is now. Then there was THE biggest issue of all, the aero package. It was not equal to the VT/VX aero at the time. AVESCO refused to let Ford fit the revised aero kit to the AU, even though time and time again the Ford teams were asking/demanding for it. And when AVESCO finally said ok, after the BA had been introduced mind you, the AU showed it's true potential in the Konica series. Kicked major ***, atleast 7 AU's in the top ten almost every race. This is how it should have been in the first place if AVESCO played fair. Marcos and Craig did pretty well considering what they were driving around in.

There were also unconfirmed rumours that Holden cheated on the VT aero kit, getting a better front downforce balance to the AU. The XR quad headlight front was not a good idea for the race car, as under wind tunnel testing, there proved to be air turbulance where the headlights sunk into the front bar. It was so bad apparently Ford asked AVESCO if they could fit the headlight protectors to the AU XR front to stop the turbulance. They said no, as it was not how the original design was signed off on.

Then there was the Holden super team under the Tom Walkinshaw umbrella (still is in one way or another). With money to burn, and F1 technology *cough* traction control *cough* behind the super 6 car team, the AU had no chance in hell of matching HRT ect.

vztrt · 03-10-2005, 12:18 AM

I know the AU is meant to be the most aerodynamic aussie car. But I remeber a story on RPM where they were saying the AU had a crap front spoiler and them and Holden worked together to get a better package.

XAGSV8 · 03-10-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 012

Stone Brothers were around way before the AU. In the current V8 format they built DJR's race engines back in the E-series days (1992 - 1995). The engines weren't the major problem for the AU race car. There were a couple of major factors as to why the AU was not very succesful on the race track.

One was, as pointed out by buickman, Ford funding, or the lack of it. There weren't as many Ford backed teams and drivers as there is now. Then there was THE biggest issue of all, the aero package. It was not equal to the VT/VX aero at the time. AVESCO refused to let Ford fit the revised aero kit to the AU, even though time and time again the Ford teams were asking/demanding for it. And when AVESCO finally said ok, after the BA had been introduced mind you, the AU showed it's true potential in the Konica series. Kicked major ***, atleast 7 AU's in the top ten almost every race. This is how it should have been in the first place if AVESCO played fair. Marcos and Craig did pretty well considering what they were driving around in.

There were also unconfirmed rumours that Holden cheated on the VT aero kit, getting a better front downforce balance to the AU. The XR quad headlight front was not a good idea for the race car, as under wind tunnel testing, there proved to be air turbulance where the headlights sunk into the front bar. It was so bad apparently Ford asked AVESCO if they could fit the headlight protectors to the AU XR front to stop the turbulance. They said no, as it was not how the original design was signed off on.

Then there was the Holden super team under the Tom Walkinshaw umbrella (still is in one way or another). With money to burn, and F1 technology *cough* traction control *cough* behind the super 6 car team, the AU had no chance in hell of matching HRT ect.

Yep the Stone Brothers in my word can cetainly take credit for DJR's performances when they were there.(They were the leading Ford team for a while) The AU years were certainly BS when it came to the politics in V8 supercars. Everybody could see it got a flogging and nothing was done about it.

OzJavelin · 03-10-2005, 12:15 PM

If *ALL* AUs had the XR fronts and a rear spoiler as standard they would have probably given VTs a good run for their money. I don't think Mr and Mrs Average Australian knew/cared about mechanical issues with AUs (or VTs) .. it was all about the look. The argent, waterfall grille, 4x4 ride height, droopy rear and horrible wheel trims on the average AU put everyone off. Having said that, I actually don't mind a body-coloured waterfall grille?

However, my BIGGEST gripe with AUs isn't the exterior (which you can fix), its the god-awful dashboard ... what were they thinking!!!

XAGSV8 · 03-10-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzJavelin

However, my BIGGEST gripe with AUs isn't the exterior (which you can fix), its the god-awful dashboard ... what were they thinking!!!

Portrait of a baboons bum.

**DJM83** · 03-10-2005, 12:31 PM

does any1 have the opinion this arguement is going now where or gonna turn into and arguement over how ugly the AU is? Anyway long live the AU

vztrt · 03-10-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 00VenomXR

does any1 have the opinion this arguement is going now where or gonna turn into and arguement over how ugly the AU is? Anyway long live the AU

It looks like everyone is arguing the same thing that the AU look wasnt to alot of people's taste (but the ones that bought it love them), The XR improved the look and that the car was reliable but that didn't matter because people woint buy a car if they think it looks ugly.

philstoj · 03-10-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennAUII

I hate how people write the au off so easily. They are great cars.

I guess it all depends on which forum you're on...........

- HERXR8

$AUDude · 03-10-2005, 03:23 PM

If it weren't for ther AU1's I wouldn't be on fordforums! Ugly car = Low price = Bad resale value. Worked out well for a uni student (I'm sure I'm not the only one!). I luv my AU! I reckon the release of the AU2 instead of the AU1 would have done better in sales but would have made little difference, the VT just had the edge.

dmat2391 · 03-10-2005, 04:32 PM

I've got to agree that much of the problem was marketing and too much ambition in the design. Ford is doing the right thing marketing the xr's so heavily. The base model will be bought by fleet managagers regardless of looks. The base AU looks are controversial, the sporty models still stand out and even though I've got an XR6 BA my head still turns to look at a neat AU xr. Marketing has to be about making the private purchaser happy and retain resale value for the fleet buyers. My mate was talked into getting a white lpg BA futura because the bean counters told him they would get a better price at the auctions from prospective taxi purchases. That said though here in Sydney taxi drivers are still using the AU almost exclusively, might be a dog ugly car but they still go. I've got an uneasy feeling that when my BA xr is long gone I'll still see AU models going about their daily grind.

03-10-2005, 07:41 PM

IMO the AU looks better than the BA,the only others that come close are EA,b,d. I have a series II xr and wanted to trade for a BA xr, but I feel the interior of the BA looks cheap and some what lacking stlye,the front headlights dont stand out as does an Au xr and the rear of the BA is...well Big **** is what I think BA stands for,and the chrome strips around the tail lights are just plain tacky.In the end, the only aspect of a the BA I was looking at that I liked was the bonnet bump. Not enough to give up my beloved Au.

bulldog · 03-10-2005, 11:07 PM

I often wonder what the public reaction would have been if the BA came first!
I am of the opinion that the main reason the BA was so well received by the public was because it had 4 years to get used to the basic shape of the AU. The other thing Ford did with the BA of course was to market the thing well. I wouldn't mind finding out what the marketing budget was for AU compared to BA.
FTE could have been a strong marketing base however most people that like their Fords don't even know what FTE was or what a T-Series is (apart from these forums).
I am not saying that the AU is an ugly duckling or a beautiful swan however I also think it looks better on the road these days than it did 4/5 years ago.