Media largely responsible for failing large car segment

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Try the same vehicle around town where there is actually some traffic and you will cry when you visit the pump. I got sick of how much fuel the Falcon ate - it was fine when I drove mostly on the highway but such large cars in the traffic we get around Brisbane (which granted is relatively average) and it just doesn't make sense...

Yeah but it was a Hyundai .

I don't see why Australians have such a problem with the size of their cars - people in the UK, which is arguably about as 'fat' as we are, seem to get by just fine with small cars?

Try carrying a heavy load and doing a lot of overtaking in a small car.

Even when I spend a weekend in Melbourne my fuel economy doesn't change all that much.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

If you had kids ?
Wait until you do and see how much room you have.

Well I was a kid once (as we all were) and my folks had big cars before my time but then we had a tiny little Corona wagon (81 model I think). It was just fine for us and we were a family of 5... Even loaded to the hilt at christmas it was just fine...

I didn't realise Falcons were aimed at "familys of fat-*****" or "michelin men ".

Well who are they aimed at?

I thought there aimed at the average Australian (many are over 6ft"2 like me) that don't need to sit on a telephone book to see over the wheel. :

I'm 185cm... so not exactly short but not massive either... in fact I'm pretty much on the 'average'... my cousin who is a *lot* taller (probably over 200cm) than me drove one of those little suzuki hatches for many years. He fit just fine in it and the thing was marginally bigger than a go-kart...

Remember the AU? Remember how little room it had in the back? I can remember when they first started using them as cabs and thinking "WTF" - some how Ford managed to make the back seats in such a large car terribly small, even for me.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Try carrying a heavy load and doing a lot of overtaking in a small car.

Yeah which is why, if you carried big loads all the time you'd get a bigger vehicle... I never said Falcons and Commodores weren't needed at all, just that most people don't need one. You know how often I drive my Falcon now? Once a week to keep the engine running fine and to make sure it still works... I'm going to need its capacity once in the near future and that's to take green waste to the dump...

Originally Posted by Rodp

You're not going to benefit from rural driving if you're going to compare fuel consumption with a smaller car. Stick both cars in the city and you'll see a significant difference - that's where the majority of cars are driven.

Precisely. When I first moved closer to town and stopped doing so much driving (I used to drive 64km a day to work when I lived in the boondocks) I thought there was something wrong with the Falcon when my fuel consumption jumped to 16L/100km average (worst I ever got was 28L/100km on E10). I checked everything and everything was 'ok'. ECU didn't report any probs and the sensors all tested fine. Engine still ran fine. Decided to run it on a 50/50 highway/city test. And what do you know my consumption went down. Did the same test again but 90% city... and back up to 16-17L/100 km again.

Plain city driving, my XR8 was getting ~17l/100km. I've been driving a lot around the city in my new Golf and I'm getting 9.6l/100km. That alone translates into about $80/week less to run my car just on fuel. Colleagues that run a company BA/BF have suggested they're getting anywhere between 12-14l/100km on the same sort of routes.

I get about 9.2 in our auto mazda 3... and that's with me being very heavy with the right pedal and using manual mode all the time. As with you, I save heaps on fuel now : I think it cost about $70 to put in a 'full' tank (about 45L out of a 55L tank), the Falcon costs me about $90 to put in 58L. I get almost 600 km out of the tank in the 3, and about 400km if I'm lucky out of the Falcon. :

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Try carrying a heavy load and doing a lot of overtaking in a small car.

Even when I spend a weekend in Melbourne my fuel economy doesn't change all that much.

Rubbish. One eyed nonsense. A Hyundai Getz will quite easily return about the 6.5litre/100km mark, whereas I can't get any better than 15 in the BA XR8.

A Hyundai Getz is a FAR better car around town, provided you don't need a lot of space or pulling power. You have to drive a few of these small cars to realise just how much better they are than the ones made 10 years ago.

Not everyone carries heavy loads either. I tow a trailer all the time and do, hence why I have the XR8. But if I didn't have a trailer, a small car would suit my needs perfectly. For most people, the heaviest load they generally carry is an extra 2 people in the back.

Jeez, with all the fuel economy money you've saved from the small car, you could probably just hire a ute for the rare occasions you carry a heavy load.

This is all coming from the guy who drives an XR8. I would quite happily own a small car, it's just that it doesn't suit my needs at the moment. I do a fair bit of highway driving and load pulling, but once I no longer need to, a small car it is.

[3vXT]

+1 for small cars.

They aren't as bad as they were, even the Hyundais are have improved a lot in the last 5 - 10 years. Unfortunately my work car is a 199? excel with half a million K's but i'm just unlucky I use it for 200k's of stop/start city driving every day and on the one occasion i've used my BA for the same job, i was extremely disappointed in how bad it was at that type of thing compared to a 10 year old, oil guzzling piece of crap.

Thats no big surprise really but it made me realize that i won't need a large car forever. I won't be getting rid of mine this week but it will happen within the next year or so, and it'll get replaced with a late model small car. (Suzuki swift sport hopefully )

For some reason lots of us still feel the same way about small cars as americans feel about salad, and we hold onto our big aussie six's and eights, the way they hold onto their guns. Driving a bigger, faster car is definitely a better feeling, but its not something MOST people need, we just think we need it because we are a little stupid.

[StAndArdAU]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Did I say how much less fuel it uses?

no you didn't actually

Originally Posted by Hunter

Yes the new FG is quite nice but is it practical? Not really. Unless you are a family of fat-*****, you could get by with a smaller vehicle...

you're being very closeminded with an arguement like that. IMO practicality shouldnt be judged as being something you 'could get by with'. The practicality of a car means you should be able to load it up whenever you want and take off to where ever you want. Having to buy a plane ticket to somewhere because your car cant handle the capacity is NOT practicality. and neither is having to own two cars, or having to hire one for the 'odd job'.

[Darkr]

-1 for small cars.

Would I spend an extra $10 on fuel per week and actually have the power to overtake and pull out on busy roads? Hell yes I would!

I drove a newer small car last night, while my car was being borrowed and it's painful and purely embarrassing. Redlining every gear and trying to overtake an old lady taking off in a commodore almost results in failure.

It should be illegal to have less then 150bhp.

The extra you pay on fuel is well worth it if you ask me, and that's not even to mention the practicality advantages.

Edit: The notion that fat people need to drive falcons because they cannot fit in small cars is absurd and offensive, and this is coming from a guy who's probably underweight.

[Citric GT]

I have to admit the legroom in the drivers seat of a BA is terrible for an 1800kg sedan. So is the entry/exit room in the back seat. Many of the smaller cars have better interiors in comparison.

The E series was so much more practicle. Good space inside. Good vision. Not too heavy. Much better all round in my opinion.

[ltd]

Another -1 for small cars here.
Me personally, I think the falcon is small compared to the LWB; why would anyone want a car that means people have to be uncomfortable. I like the fact that I can take an LTD anywhere, and my friends all prefer my car over one of my mates for its comfort. Further, the fact that an LTD fully loaded still has the power and presence to handle a whole lot better on the road speaks volumes in itself - drive from Sydney to Melbourne in a fully loaded mazda 3 or focus following a fully loaded Fairlane or LTD; see who has the better riding, handling, performing car. Also, check the fuel consumption when you both fill up, you'll be surprised. On a recent trip such as this, my BF fairlane with 4 people and luggage drank less petrol than an LX focus with 2pob.
Yes, around town little buzz boxes will come into their own, but anywhere else where there is not sitting and idling away the bigger cars own. For those who like to travel, a large car is a must and the higher fuel consumption around town is something that we wear for the freedom and value for money that only a large car can provide.

Oh, and Australian cars rock.
They are great value for money and they do everything that larger marquees do. This is coming from a guy that has a W220 sitting under a cover in his garage. Also, Aussie cars keep aussie families in work, and they help our economy. So what if they have some foibles, they are excellent provided what they are, and far more dramatic.

[DoreSlamR]

If the media is responsible or not, I think they're trying pretty hard to sway the average buyer.

MSN Article

FFS. Apples and oranges.

I hate hearing people living in the middle of the urban jungle, justifying their V8 ownership with how good it is on the highway and its pulling power. When realistically, they make use of neither.

The only justification you need for a V8 is the feel of driving it. If you're willing to pay the extra for it, well and good. If you're not, stick to a smaller car.

For people to say that V8's give similar urban fuel consumption to buzzboxes is horsecrap. Most V8's will use more than double a buzzbox in fuel, without a doubt.

Of course V8's are better suited to highways, going quick, pulling stuff and having room. But generally you have to live a bit further out to justify a V8 for its utility.

As for the media, yes to an extent but I would say economics is what's making people downgrade. If you were given 300 free phone calls, you'd probably call a lot more than you would if it cost you money. If you had to pay, you'd cut down your calls to the amount you need.

Many familes don't need big Commodores/Falcons, but because it was relatively cheap they went with it. Probably consuming more than was socially optimal. Now that it's not as enticing, they're more closely aligning their needs with their cars. For your average Mr. Homemaker in the suburbs, a V6 really doesn't offer that much extra benefit over a mid sized car, but will usually give 2/3 of the fuel consumption.

People aren't driving long distances as much as they did before, probably due to fuel costs. This is another reason why big V6's are really not as necesary anymore.

I'm not saying V6's are useless, just that many people don't make full use of it and are therefore changing their decisions.

Also ltd, your reason to buy Aussie cars is the worse one ever. I'm not going to give my money to someone, just because it helps them keep their jobs. I'll buy the best possible value for the lowest possible cost. If two butchers were side by side, one of them importing foreign goods, another domestic, both identical quality. I wouldn't pay double the price just for the warm fuzzy people. I'd expect the lower performing one to shape up, or do something they can actually compete in.

I'm an economics major, so I'm pretty anti protectionism. Australian car manufacturing is in a poor state. The cars are good, but what's behind making them isn't.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Darkr

-1 for small cars.

Would I spend an extra $10 on fuel per week and actually have the power to overtake and pull out on busy roads? Hell yes I would!

I drove a newer small car last night, while my car was being borrowed and it's painful and purely embarrassing. Redlining every gear and trying to overtake an old lady taking off in a commodore almost results in failure.

It should be illegal to have less then 150bhp.

The extra you pay on fuel is well worth it if you ask me, and that's not even to mention the practicality advantages.

Edit: The notion that fat people need to drive falcons because they cannot fit in small cars is absurd and offensive, and this is coming from a guy who's probably underweight.

Well I have a small hatch, cost a lot less than a falcon new, holds its value a lot better, uses less fuel (9.8l/100km), is turbocharged (non diesel), carries 4 large people comfortably, has reasonable boot space and will leave pretty much most standard NA 6 falcons for dead in over taking and take off. Bonus its built better than any falcon on the market.

I can see some people needing a large car and that is understandable, but how many people carry large loads everyday over large distances? I can't imagine many would and in that case I would rather something more practical, i.e Hilux/Navara/Ranger diesel. Too many narrow minded one eyed people on here.

Ford and Holden didn't react good enough to a changing market and are now suffering. Too bad for them.

Agreed above, also why the hell don't Holden/Ford get into diesels? They're not the big, loud and sluggish engines they used to be. Modern day diesel engines are refined, give awesome economy, don't have the sluggishness and have a bucketload of torque.

A Falcodore 6 on diesel could easily tow 4 tonnes and give much better economy than an equivalent petrol engine ever would.

[05MkIIFutura]

Ahh look i dont mean to be the negative bloke here, but who really cares. The world economy will do what it does, and it will affect the way we spend money. People becoming richer, a lower import tax and more expensive fuel has seen a shift away from locally produced cars to smaller, globally based vehicles which may or may not be superior.

At the end of the day a couple of die-hard Ford fans are not going to change this. SO i suggest you crack open another beer, take a seat and enjoy life for what it is rather than worry about if they are going to be making Falcon's in 10 years time.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Shounak

FFS. Apples and oranges.

I hate hearing people living in the middle of the urban jungle, justifying their V8 ownership with how good it is on the highway and its pulling power. When realistically, they make use of neither.

OK, so being an economics major (sic) makes you an authority on how everyone drives, what their driving habits are and where they go does it?

Originally Posted by Shounak

The only justification you need for a V8 is the feel of driving it. If you're willing to pay the extra for it, well and good. If you're not, stick to a smaller car.

For people to say that V8's give similar urban fuel consumption to buzzboxes is horsecrap. Most V8's will use more than double a buzzbox in fuel, without a doubt.

Where did I mention urban fuel consumption in my comparison? I clearly highlighted the trip was from Sydney to Melbourne. Yes, you may have been comparing notes to another but your use of the word "buzzboxes" refers directly to my post as no one else used that word.

Originally Posted by Shounak

Of course V8's are better suited to highways, going quick, pulling stuff and having room. But generally you have to live a bit further out to justify a V8 for its utility.

What do you mean "further out"? I drive between 50-80klm per day depending on airports and often encounter traffic, but still manage quite reasonable fuel economy. Or perhaps you are referencing the V8 allowing me to have extra room. Does my extra room diminish the closer I live to the city?

Originally Posted by Shounak

As for the media, yes to an extent but I would say economics is what's making people downgrade. If you were given 300 free phone calls, you'd probably call a lot more than you would if it cost you money. If you had to pay, you'd cut down your calls to the amount you need.

I'd agree but there is always the hidden costs such as greater depreciation for cars out of favour as well as changeover fees such as stamp duty etc which make even a smaller car quite expensive. I think that the OP was referencing the media and their seemingly endless editorials that are only falcon specific when in fact, there are a number of other large cars out there, and the falcon is the most frugal on fuel of them all.

Originally Posted by Shounak

Many familes don't need big Commodores/Falcons, but because it was relatively cheap they went with it. Probably consuming more than was socially optimal. Now that it's not as enticing, they're more closely aligning their needs with their cars. For your average Mr. Homemaker in the suburbs, a V6 really doesn't offer that much extra benefit over a mid sized car, but will usually give 2/3 of the fuel consumption.

Replace cheap with value for money and I'd agree. What is more irritating though is the myth that smaller or midsize return anything other than fuel benefits regardless of load. What an absolute crock. Take the Camry vs Aurion, one returns 10.2 and the other 9.9; the latter being the V6. BTW, the 10.2 is also the same consumption figure given for the falcon. Just a sidenote too, the Aurion in testing has not returned anything better than a 10.4.

Originally Posted by Shounak

People aren't driving long distances as much as they did before, probably due to fuel costs. This is another reason why big V6's are really not as necesary anymore.

I'm not saying V6's are useless, just that many people don't make full use of it and are therefore changing their decisions.

Commodore is still number 2 behind toyota and was number 1 for many years, I wouldn't say the trend has been bucked yet. Additionally, the kind of people who are buying the smaller cars aren't the kind who would drive 300klm to go to a track day; especially when budget airlines recent emergence has seen most interstate travel done via plane.

Originally Posted by Shounak

Also ltd, your reason to buy Aussie cars is the worse one ever. I'm not going to give my money to someone, just because it helps them keep their jobs. I'll buy the best possible value for the lowest possible cost. If two butchers were side by side, one of them importing foreign goods, another domestic, both identical quality. I wouldn't pay double the price just for the warm fuzzy people. I'd expect the lower performing one to shape up, or do something they can actually compete in.

Your defense is the worst one ever. As an economics major you should know better; that the death of manufacturing will eventually lead to price fixing like you have not seen before as one or two countries decide to get as much as they can on their products. Just look at Britain, the Kia Cerrato cost them 11,000 pounds which equates to about $25,000 here; we can buy that same heap of junk for $13,990. Don't you actually think that by manufacturing here we are forcing global competitors to reign in their pricing to be competitive?

Once you lose an industry such as automotive manufacturing you will never get it back, and once it's gone prices on imported models skyrocket. This has been proven time and time again in other non car manufacturing countries around the world. Whatsmore, by your own admission you couldn't care where things come from, this on its own is a dangerous premise considering the standards which are guaranteed to be the same, but often aren't. The recent food poisoning of thousands due to Indonesian fish should serve as a recent reminder, not to mention the agricultural land that has facilitated many towns existence outside the major cities. Furthermore, what do you propose this countries populace does without manufacturing? Should all of them be IT experts or economists? How about we all become bureaucrats and live off others taxes until everybody does it, and we have no taxes to live off?

Originally Posted by Shounak

I'm an economics major, so I'm pretty anti protectionism. Australian car manufacturing is in a poor state. The cars are good, but what's behind making them isn't.

WTF is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about with what's behind making them?
If you're anti protectionism then you sir are a myopic ignoramus.
Free trade only works when all other countries offer the same freedom; most don't. As someone anti-protectionism you are basically saying that you think it's fine that China taxes the crap out of everything we produce to make it uncompetitive, yet we should just allow them to dump their product here at the behest of the interests of the nation. What utter rot.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Darkr

-1 for small cars.

Would I spend an extra $10 on fuel per week and actually have the power to overtake and pull out on busy roads? Hell yes I would!

I drove a newer small car last night, while my car was being borrowed and it's painful and purely embarrassing. Redlining every gear and trying to overtake an old lady taking off in a commodore almost results in failure.

I agree mate, my g/f has an 01 pulsar Ti, it has almost all the features of my TE.
While its good on fuel and easy to park (we drive it when we go to the shops etc). Im not a real fan of driving it, very underpowered, hard to overtake and i feel a little cramped.

I'm not professing to be a mind reader and know everyones individual habits, nor am I saying I'm reading into your habits. But for most people, a small/mid sized car will do just as well as a V6 for them. As for buzzbox,it's a word I use.

If you drive on the highway a lot (like I do), I see the sense in owning a larger car. But for the scores of people who don't, I don't.

I'm also not suggesting everyone go out and sell their Falcodores to embrace the permanent revolution, just that people are being more conscious about their needs when going to purchase a car. We're probably seeing less mums going out and buying 4wd's just for their trek to the school and back.

Look at the USA, I doubt they'd be driving around in huge pick up trucks and muscle cars if the fuel price rose. It wouldn't kill it, but I'd imagine the prevalence would decrease.

As for the Camry debate, yeah fair enough. But familys are beginning to buy Corolla/Getz'/Micra's etc. Those cars often return <7l/100km fuel. Btw, I've never got 10l/100 in a Falcon before. The testing is done in ideal conditions, real world conditions are far different. As I found out when I bought my XR8.

About the protectionism argument, global competition is our best friend here. I don't think Australian manufacturing is what is reigning in the prices of foreign makers, it's competition. If Toyota increase the price of the Corolla, I'll just go out and buy a Pulsar. I doubt the car manufacturers would form an oligopoly to artificially inflate prices, we have interventions against that.

Btw, I'm not against protectionism completely, I simply think the car industry is getting too great a share. It creates an inefficiency where you're paying people who can't find their own shoelaces, like the EU farmers, it's subsidising an industry with no future. Competition is the crux of the globalisation, it's what makes the world go around.

Everything is being increasingly commoditised also. Just like Australian cars are complying with Euro3 standards, manufacturers are playing on a global playing field. With the proliferation of information, manufacturers are forced to produce high quality goods.

I knew about the drawbacks of the iPhone before it even got released here. If I didn't like it, I could've just bought a Blackberry or something. I HIGHLY doubt we'll see these companies colluding to issue low quality products, they'll just undercut each other until the bar is raised.

As for what should people do, that depends on them. What did people do when computers came into use and millions of people lost their jobs? Typists etc no longer had jobs. Does this mean we should never have adopted computers because they involved job loss? What about the clothing manufacturing industry? The scores of people in clothes shops are not now unemployed destitutes, they moved on. Australian workers should move to industries which they specialise at, if it's better for the economy as a whole I'm all for it.

It's unsustainable and inefficient to keep propping up industries that just can't compete. Within reason of course it's necesary, I'm not suggesting a far right complete free market, but the level of protection offered should be curbed as it encourages moral hazard an uncompetitive practices.

I'm not suggesting completely opening up the borders, but embracing the global world. It's going on all around you. I bought an engine hoist for $250, an Australian made one of similar quality would probably have cost about a grand.

I read somewhere that without subsidies, a Commodore would cost well over $100,000, with the taxpayer footing the difference. The protectionist views are becoming antiquated with the global world. A phone charger that costs $15 here, I can have delivered to my door for $6 within a week, the price is being dragged down, competition is becoming for fierce and that's what the world is about. As for your China example, if there is no global market for a good, China being the only buyer and then taxing the crap out of it. Perhaps it shouldn't be produced then, unless they can find a market to sustain it.

The world is changing, the rules of the last century are fast becoming irrelevant, that's not to say we should completely abandon them, but a lot of good can come from changing them to rules of the new millenium.

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by Shounak

I'm not suggesting completely opening up the borders, but embracing the global world. It's going on all around you. I bought an engine hoist for $250, an Australian made one of similar quality would probably have cost about a grand.

I read somewhere that without subsidies, a Commodore would cost well over $100,000, with the taxpayer footing the difference. The protectionist views are becoming antiquated with the global world. A phone charger that costs $15 here, I can have delivered to my door for $6 within a week, the price is being dragged down, competition is becoming for fierce and that's what the world is about. As for your China example, if there is no global market for a good, China being the only buyer and then taxing the crap out of it. Perhaps it shouldn't be produced then, unless they can find a market to sustain it.

The world is changing, the rules of the last century are fast becoming irrelevant, that's not to say we should completely abandon them, but a lot of good can come from changing them to rules of the new millenium.

Don't you think that would result in a decrease of skill within the country? From the way I see it, we wouldn't be able to do anything other than supply iron ore and coal to China/India/Japan. Within a few generations we would be worse off - well thats what I reckon. I'd rather see subsidies handed out to keep more skills here if thats what is needed.

Originally Posted by Citric GT

Don't you think that would result in a decrease of skill within the country? From the way I see it, we wouldn't be able to do anything other than supply iron ore and coal to China/India/Japan. Within a few generations we would be worse off - well thats what I reckon. I'd rather see subsidies handed out to keep more skills here if thats what is needed.

I would argue the exact opposite. Creative destruction. When the world markets really opened up and we started receiving cheaper garments of same/similar quality from China, we embraced it. Because it meant the consumer could purchase a similar item for 1/2 the price.

Now the people in the factories couldn't compete with their Chinese counterparts, at all. Chinese did a better job for less and Australian consumers (+ sellers) were more than willing to send their money over to China.

The government had two main options.
1. Subsidise the goods by giving Australian textile manufacturers millions
2. Tax the hell out of Chinese goods

Either way costs the taxpayer a crapload. What happened was that these workers found jobs elsewhere, rather than build a skill that had no use to the rest of the world (don't forget, other countries will buy Chinese over Australian). They went elsewhere, they developed skills that were more easily marketable to the globe and Australia.

Being dependent on charity is no way to run a business. Australia has one of the most sophisticated farming technologies used in the world, our farmers can do it more cheaply and efficiently than the Chinese in many areas. Our management and service sector is a highly desirable commodity around the world.

You can only prop up a flailing industry for so long, before it becomes too costly and the money used could be put to much better use elsewhere.

So it builds up a skill base that can actually be used and exported in the future, rather than just being able to survive in the present due to government handouts. You cant stop global economic forces, people want a bargain too badly for that to happen.

To put another way, everyone but the inefficient workers are better off. If we protected jobs like we do the car industry, computers would never have been introduced because the steal the jobs typists, type setters, mail men, book keepers, etc. Those peope who lost their jobs found more productive jobs elsewhere, hence creative destruction.

Just my views on the topic, mainly a theoretical argument because governments pander too much to the voters to care about what happens 10 years from now. They're more interested in securing re-election in 3 years.

[Falcon Coupe]

Theorise all you want about the global economy, it does not stop families wanting an Aussie 6 family wagon/sedan.

I note many of the outspoken people about this don't have kids, wait until you do and see how much gear is carted around, it will be a reality check, something you don't learn at school.

I would love to get my wife an Hyundai I30, but it ain't gonna happen.

[NIK516]

brand new falcon xr8 $45,000
2007 falcon xr8 $32,000
loss of $13,000 around 20% loss in a year
fuel econamy 14L/100km
performance to 400m = 14 sec

brand new subaru liberty 2.5 $ 44,000
2007 subaru liberty 2.5 $ 35,000
loss of $ 9,000 around 15% loss in a year
fuel economy 9.3L/100km
performance to 400m = 16.9

there is a direct comparison no bias just what it is.
i would pick the subaru personally.

[prydey]

its obvious the same people who don't have kids are the ones who say its cheaper to fly than drive.

when you are shelling out for 4 or more airfares and then maybe a hire car at the other end, the holiday/trip becomes a lot more expensive than being able to drive.

this is not about big cars v small cars. if you can't afford to continue running a large car then by all means downsize to suit your budget.

obviously things also differ from state to state and person to person but when i look at the sales, i don't actually see the large car numbers decreasing as fast as what the media will have you believe.

for the record i have a ba wagon and a eb v8. neither are dissappearing anytime soon.

[stewyg]

this isnt a comp to bag out a particular class of car. all cars have an appeal for a different market. otherwise we'd be driving boring-mobils all the time.

small car's dont mean less comfort, im a pretty tall bloke and i drove a new rolla the other day. i couldnt have the seat right back though, something i was amazed by, i had to have it foward a little.

on the other hand id never buy one. id never drive anything smaller then a falcon. or if i wanted a coupe maybe a soarer. why? simple, i LIKE larger cars. there is more room for your mates and gear and i FEEL safer, i know the numbers say the new smaller cars are just as safe. but that said at the end of the day i just feel better in a bigger car.

you drive what YOU wanna drive for me having something thats "adequate" doesnt cut it. but if thats what does it for you then go. we need to be asking why a person goes for a paticular car not tell them why they shouldnt have

[ltd]

Like I said before, I'll stick to my big fords thanks.
Yes it costs me a premium to be in a v8, but I don't care. Every time some dumb phuc pulls up next to me at a set of lights in a corolla or wants to do 60 in the right lane, I celebrate the fact that I have power.
Also, protection should only be abolished when other trading nations abolish theirs. Otherwise, natural efficiencies are tainted and whilst we do all we can to be competitive, it aint no level playing field. Meanwhile, for the non V8 owners out there, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[prydey]

whats funny is the media have moved on from the 'big bad thirsty v8' thing and are now questioning the need to own a 6cyl.

i find it amusing as i don't buy a lot of the spiel i hear and read but apparently there is no shortage of sheep in this country.

[DanielXR8]

My wife worked in the garment industry. One intersting trend was as the Australian factories closed and the company she worked for become dependent on foreign factories, the costs went up and they began refusing to do small orders. We aren't talking a few percent either. Turned out at least for small orders, the Australian workers were quicker and cheaper.

Of course they got rid of them anyway as it wouldn't be seen to be good as a manager to admit you got the sums wrong and you were being screwed by the same people you claimed a couple of years ago were going to increase profits and be the companies new best friends.

Now we don't have the people and factories to make certain garments and are held to ransom by those who do. Supply and demand.

Its just not a simple black and white case for protectionism. These operators also collude and don't give a dam what Australian law has to say about it. Lets not even start on stealing I.P.


Dan

Originally Posted by Shounak

I would argue the exact opposite. Creative destruction. When the world markets really opened up and we started receiving cheaper garments of same/similar quality from China, we embraced it. Because it meant the consumer could purchase a similar item for 1/2 the price.

Now the people in the factories couldn't compete with their Chinese counterparts, at all. Chinese did a better job for less and Australian consumers (+ sellers) were more than willing to send their money over to China.

The government had two main options.
1. Subsidise the goods by giving Australian textile manufacturers millions
2. Tax the hell out of Chinese goods

Either way costs the taxpayer a crapload. What happened was that these workers found jobs elsewhere, rather than build a skill that had no use to the rest of the world (don't forget, other countries will buy Chinese over Australian). They went elsewhere, they developed skills that were more easily marketable to the globe and Australia.

Being dependent on charity is no way to run a business. Australia has one of the most sophisticated farming technologies used in the world, our farmers can do it more cheaply and efficiently than the Chinese in many areas. Our management and service sector is a highly desirable commodity around the world.

You can only prop up a flailing industry for so long, before it becomes too costly and the money used could be put to much better use elsewhere.

So it builds up a skill base that can actually be used and exported in the future, rather than just being able to survive in the present due to government handouts. You cant stop global economic forces, people want a bargain too badly for that to happen.

To put another way, everyone but the inefficient workers are better off. If we protected jobs like we do the car industry, computers would never have been introduced because the steal the jobs typists, type setters, mail men, book keepers, etc. Those peope who lost their jobs found more productive jobs elsewhere, hence creative destruction.

Just my views on the topic, mainly a theoretical argument because governments pander too much to the voters to care about what happens 10 years from now. They're more interested in securing re-election in 3 years.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by StAndArdAU

you're being very closeminded with an arguement like that. IMO practicality shouldnt be judged as being something you 'could get by with'. The practicality of a car means you should be able to load it up whenever you want and take off to where ever you want.

That's not a 'need', that's a 'want'. You need to ask yourself: "Can my life still continue successfully if I don't have item x?"

Could my life go on normally if I don't own my Falcon? Yep, you bet. Would most people's lives go on normally if they didn't own a Falcodore? Probably. I see a *lot* of big cars (not just Falcons or Commodores but Aurions and Magnas which are also big cars) with just one person in it. I find it quite absurd a person commuting to work in a 1500-1800 kg metal, rubber and iron box just to shift 70kg odd of weight (the avg is about 70-80 kg these days, which is what airlines bank on). I used to do it and when I did it was on the highway where it was not a problem. I went from a very small car (a bomb of a Gemini) to a big Falcon. I bought the Falcon because I wanted a big engine a big car and lots of 'balls'. When I bought it fuel prices were around 80-90cpl. Then they skyrocketed. I still enjoy the Falcons 'go' but its not NECESSARY to my existence.

If I woke up tomorrow and found some moron had decided to steal it I would probably jump for joy because the insurance payout would be more than its pitiful market value... But my life would go on. And I wager that if this happened to 90% of people who owned Falcodores, they'd probably just keep on living.

Having to buy a plane ticket to somewhere because your car cant handle the capacity is NOT practicality. and neither is having to own two cars, or having to hire one for the 'odd job'.

Then if you have 10 kids and want to go on a holiday then obviously a big car might be needed but if all you do is drive to work and go around town, it ain't. How many people do you know that drive more than 200 km for a holiday these days?

Originally Posted by Citric GT

I have to admit the legroom in the drivers seat of a BA is terrible for an 1800kg sedan. So is the entry/exit room in the back seat. Many of the smaller cars have better interiors in comparison.

Exactly. I have ridden in cabs more times than I care to remember and I must say, while the AU was tiny inside, its interior was much much better than the BA. The last BA taxi I rode in was literally falling apart inside (and the rear end made some very disconcerting noises) but was also very cramped for such a large car. The interior room in the back was basically as much as my Mazdas...

The E series was so much more practicle. Good space inside. Good vision. Not too heavy. Much better all round in my opinion.

Agreed, the E series visibility is very very good - exceptional in fact. No car I have driven before or since has had such good visibility.

Originally Posted by Darkr

I drove a newer small car last night, while my car was being borrowed and it's painful and purely embarrassing. Redlining every gear and trying to overtake an old lady taking off in a commodore almost results in failure.

What car did you drive? Because my Mazda has no trouble passing on the highway... above 100 its quite responsive, more than it is down low in fact.

Edit: The notion that fat people need to drive falcons because they cannot fit in small cars is absurd and offensive, and this is coming from a guy who's probably underweight.

Have you ever seen a person who is very overweight trying to get in a small car? It isn't pretty... nothing against fat people but yeah if I were fat I would be concerned about small cars...

[bathurst77]

I just traded BA SR on new mondeo (std non turbo petrol engine)
It was time to trade and I couldnt afford FG with the options i wanted, and i didnt want a BF after BA. i felt like something Different and new feeling. i wantede to feel and look like i was in anew car! BF was too BA inside.

My driving style is fast cruising. about 50% freeway, rest is either mountains (i live in blue mountians) or sydney peak hour city - often go to cbd for work.
i keep records of fuel consumption and km covered for tax.

Falcon gave me 500-550km.. average fill was 60-65 litres around 12 l/100km
30,000km per year at 1.60 per litre is about $5700)

Mondeo gives me 725- 775 .. on 65- 70 litres (std ulp too not premium) around 9.5l/100km so for 5 more litres i get about 225 more km
or $4600 per annum..

mondeo is jsut as roomy, has HUGE boot, is comfy quiet and smooth, has all the gizmos i want, 7 airbags, al sorts of traction controls, etc etc. feels big and solid. its lovley to be in, you feel like your in a big luxury car.

mondeo is sluggy off the line (ok at freeway) . u have to use the gear box lots to overtake etc, and is not really "fun" to drive hard. But that saved $1100 can buy a lot of fun

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Shounak

Rubbish. One eyed nonsense. A Hyundai Getz will quite easily return about the 6.5litre/100km mark, whereas I can't get any better than 15 in the BA XR8.

A Hyundai Getz is a FAR better car around town, provided you don't need a lot of space or pulling power. You have to drive a few of these small cars to realise just how much better they are than the ones made 10 years ago.

Not everyone carries heavy loads either. I tow a trailer all the time and do, hence why I have the XR8. But if I didn't have a trailer, a small car would suit my needs perfectly. For most people, the heaviest load they generally carry is an extra 2 people in the back.

Jeez, with all the fuel economy money you've saved from the small car, you could probably just hire a ute for the rare occasions you carry a heavy load.

This is all coming from the guy who drives an XR8. I would quite happily own a small car, it's just that it doesn't suit my needs at the moment. I do a fair bit of highway driving and load pulling, but once I no longer need to, a small car it is.

The Hyundai Getz got damn average fuel economy when I drove it, but that was probably because I had the foot on the floor half the time whilst I waited for the rubber band that powered the car to wind up. It sure didn't like sitting on 110 km/h, nor did it appreciate passing B-doubles.

It also sucked to drive around town as it had so little power and it had extremely poor visibility. As far as driving older cars, I far preferred to drive the Holden Gemini because it had great visibility and nice road manners.

[Daymoe]

I'm in a family of 4, Mum, Dad, Me and Sister and we've got by in small cars. You don't NEED the Falcon, I'm sure you could all get by in a Mazda 3 or Toyota Yaris. My dad even tows a 6x4 Trailer on his Mazda 323, sure you wouldn't be able to tow massive loads on the thing, but it still does the job for smaller loads.

[Perana]

Add LPG (especially the new Liquid LPG injection) to a Falcon and the argument becomes redundant anyway.