Media largely responsible for failing large car segment

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are ignoring servicing costs.

For instance - Major Service on BF Falcon, about $300. Major Service on a Peugoet 207 is $800. Not to mention price of spare parts, and number of dealers (especially in the country)

[sleekism]

-1 for small cars

I could probably save a few bucks of petrol a week by buying a small car but then I could save even more by not having a car at all. I don't do things half-arsed if I'm going to have the cost of buying a car than I might as well as buy one that is fun to drive.

Falcons and Dunnydoors are do everything cars. You can tow all your belongings in a trailer and still overtake little Hyundais on the highway and you drop big dirty skids around roundabouts.

I'm sorry but small cars (excluding the BMW 1 series) are boring as bat$hit to drive no matter what anybody says.

Also that article is rubbish. Nobody is going to pay 11 grand for an AU Classic when youc can buy an AU XR6 or Ghia at that price.

[NIK516]

Originally Posted by 05MkIIFutura

You are ignoring servicing costs.

For instance - Major Service on BF Falcon, about $300. Major Service on a Peugoet 207 is $800. Not to mention price of spare parts, and number of dealers (especially in the country)

sure not a total comparison didnt include insurance and rego but the savings are already in there tens of thousands so i just cant get my head around owning a xr8 for any other reason but the feeling you get from driving the thing.

i think its fair to say just do what you want you live with the consequences good or bad.

[Electric]

Originally Posted by Perana XR8

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

Yep we converted the wifes AU Fairmont wagon to LPG a few years ago....

Took it for a drive out in the country the other day, with current fuel prices it equates to a petrol car that uses 4.2L/100km....so cheaper to run than a Prius.

[EDManual]

We took a Hyundai GETZ, 3 people and luggage around cairns. Would you believe 14 litres per hundred!!!!!

Now if a falcon didnt get 10 to 11 for the exact same driving I'll eat my shoes.

If you are by yourself in your car a little car is ok, but put any more than 2 people in it and your fuel bill will be as bad or worse.

The best I have had from auto camrys is 14 as well it just so happens!! That was by myself. Its so slow you have to put your foot so far down to get it moving. That was mainly highway driving passing a few cars, not really hooning. Now a falcon would get 10 in the same conditions. And I'd say a new 6 speed even less.

[Citric GT]

Originally Posted by EDManual

We took a Hyundai GETZ, 3 people and luggage around cairns. Would you believe 14 litres per hundred!!!!!

Thats a bit over the top mate. I'd believe 10, but 14...come on!!!

[Whitey-AMG]

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.

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

The B series cars are heavier than their E series predecessors due to all the inherent safety equipment , bulkier and more rigid chassis , bigger brakes / rotors , bulkier trans etc etc............An E Sries car specced in similar fashion would weigh the same............Having owned and driven sevaeral E series cars in the past, the B series cars are definitely much better dynamically..........in fact , I think you'll find that despite their additional weight, they may also be better on fuel............

[GreenMachine]

Just from my point of view, we went through this about 6 months ago. My partner and I only run one car, and we had a 5.0litre Fairlane by Tickford. It was driven about 20k's a day through heavy city traffic, plus shopping trips/places on weekends. We were getting about 18L/100k's, and spending over $100 a week on 98 octane fuel. This really sucked, but my partner and I loved the car, loved the space, loved the gadgets, loved the look, loved the effortless driving. Despite finding this huge big Aussie thing awesome, I wouldn't class the two of us as a family that really needs a big car - no kids etc.

With a recently-acquired 400+ grand mortgage and the cost of living rising much faster than our wages, we decided the easiest thing to relieve pressure on our household budget was buy a car that was cheaper to run, register and insure. We sold the FBT for $13k, and wanted to keep some of this in our pocket while replacing it.

I figured if we were going to kill a pig, we may as well kill a big one, and started looking at used Getzes, Swifts etc - 6L/100k's consumption, reasonable reliability, rah rah.

This proved unfeasable for several reasons:

- Cost
Even a 2nd hand, 4 or 5 year old Getz with 100,000+ k's was going to cost the best part of 8 or 9k. Which isn't a lot for a relatively new car, but once we factored in the servicing I couldn't do (easily $1200+ a year with the amount of k's we drive) and the cost of parts/maintainence etc, it didn't seem that much of a bargain...

In addition, I wasn't convinced that these things were built to last, and I didn't put much faith in a 2000 model Swift with 140,000k's on the clock - reliability is critical to us. This put us in the position of having to look at 2 or 3 year old, low-k cars that still had warranty, which were up over the $13k mark. Not forgetting that the $14k, immaculate Swift we buy at 2 years old will soon become an 8 year old, knackered one needing replacement and worth $nothing.

- Practicality
We're in the process of renovating a house, I've had project cars since I first got my licence, we often take friends out to various places, our main leisure activity is going on weekend drives, we want to get a dog fairly soon and my family has a weekender 200k's from Brisbane. A tiny hatchback didn't seem to support any of these things particularly well.

Sure, we could've "got by" and done all that with a small car, but it exponentially adds to the wear and tear, thereby creating more cost & reliability issues.

- Safety
Yes, Getzes etc have airbags all over the shop, ABS, blah, but I sat in one, shut the door and it felt like a small, bright yellow coffin made from Coke cans bashed flat and glued together. Given the state of QLD (and everywhere else) roads and drivers, if Alyson has to do a 200k drive on a Friday night, I don't want her doing it in something I can pick up with one hand.

So a micro-car was discounted. We then started looking at the Mazda 3/Focus market, but these cars didn't address any of the above concerns particularly well either, and cost even more.

In the end, we saw a really tidy, low-k's EL XR6 manual in a car yard and bought it. We paid too much for it, but it still cost well under our $10k limit, it costs bugger all to insure, less to register than the V8, and driven sensibly will return 11L/100 in town and 9L/100 on the highway. I can tow a trailer with it, we can load it with luggage and drive to Sydney without fear, it's a reliable model that will last another 10 years if we look after it, I service it myself every 5,000k's for under $100. Our fuel bill has dropped under $55 a week. Depreciation is a dead issue, because I've basically decided that this car will last us another 5-10 years with proper care and barring misadventure, at which point we've got our $8k's worth out of it and I can throw it in the bin if I want to.

We're not a 4 kid + dog + parents family that NEEDS a big car, but it made financial sense for us to go with an Australian sedan. 6 months down the track, we haven't regretted it for a second. Actually, not true... Every now and again we miss climate control and trip computers and V8 auto goodness, but it's a decision we had to make.

The only thing I might have done differently is spend the same money (possibly less) on a low-k's, immaculate base-model AU Forte, which would give us a newer model that might have a few more years in it, and look a little less dated.

So there.

[Hunter]

If you can get 11L/100 km in pure city driving out of an EL Xr6 then something has been done to it because that is even lower than what Ford themselves quote it as getting. I highly doubt that it would get thatfor 100% city driving. Several people I know with E series Falcons wouldn't even get close to 12L/100km!! (that's the optimistic figure Ford claim the EL 6 with a manual tranny can get around town).

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by Hunter

If you can get 11L/100 km in pure city driving out of an EL Xr6 then something has been done to it because that is even lower than what Ford themselves quote it as getting. I highly doubt that it would get thatfor 100% city driving. Several people I know with E series Falcons wouldn't even get close to 12L/100km!! (that's the optimistic figure Ford claim the EL 6 with a manual tranny can get around town).

Read the many articles which are published by magazines, and alot of posts on this site, all which say they easily beat the published figures.

[GreenMachine]

Well, Hunter - your unnamed E-Series friends must be doing it wrong. Only mods to the car are an exhaust and a high-flow air filter. It'll get 11L/100 all day long. Ford manual in the glovebox says 1-2 change at 20kph, 2-3 at 40 and 3-4 at 55, car never revs over about 1500rpm.

I can email you fuel consumption data since the beginning of the year, if you'd like. I wouldn't be surprised if I could get that kind of economy out of ANY well maintained 4 litre manual - driving style is the key.

[prydey]

if you don't drive like you stole it it's amazing what can be achieved. i had a ef xr6 wagon that used to regularly dip under 11 round town. i fitted a trip computer to it and it would often read around 10.7. i'd get well over 600km round town. did numerous trips from adel. to bris and would get about 930km out of a tank on the highway. that was around 8l/100km.

i started this thread because every now and then i read an article that really annoys me as it paints a bleak picture for the large car industry when i personally don't believe its as bad as what they make out. sure its not as good as it used to be but the way they spin it causes a lot of people to panic buy and not do the sums like greenmachine did.

instead of selling the so called worthless large car in the drive, why not just put lpg on it and then you have best of both worlds. i still can't get over the lack of media coverage and/or advertising for lpg powered cars and yet they rave on about hybrids which are worse in the long term than every petrol car on the planet.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Hunter

If you can get 11L/100 km in pure city driving out of an EL Xr6 then something has been done to it because that is even lower than what Ford themselves quote it as getting. I highly doubt that it would get thatfor 100% city driving. Several people I know with E series Falcons wouldn't even get close to 12L/100km!! (that's the optimistic figure Ford claim the EL 6 with a manual tranny can get around town).

If you drive it Grandma style I can believe it. If I could get my 03 BA XR6 to deliver 10.4 L/100 in city driving, then it is possible. Your right foot and changing gears correctly can be a big difference to fuel consumption.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by 05MkIIFutura

Read the many articles which are published by magazines, and alot of posts on this site, all which say they easily beat the published figures.

Yeah well every vehicle I have driven has not come anywhere close to the economy quoted by the manufacturers (which I largely take with a big lump of rock salt). Besides, not all of us want to ride around with our tyres at 50 psi and driving 10 cm from the back end of a semi trying to slipstream...

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Well, Hunter - your unnamed E-Series friends must be doing it wrong. Only mods to the car are an exhaust and a high-flow air filter. It'll get 11L/100 all day long. Ford manual in the glovebox says 1-2 change at 20kph, 2-3 at 40 and 3-4 at 55, car never revs over about 1500rpm.

Ah so it is modded? Have you tried the tests with the OEM filter and exhaust? Not saying they will or won't make a difference but without trying you cannot conclusively say a stock EL 6 will do such good mileage. I recall in the past there have been several threads about fuel economy in the E-series section of this forum and most people said they were lucky to get 400-450 km out of a tank... which is between 17 and 15.1L/100 km funnily enough...

I can email you fuel consumption data since the beginning of the year, if you'd like. I wouldn't be surprised if I could get that kind of economy out of ANY well maintained 4 litre manual - driving style is the key.

I'll take your word for it but I still have seen plenty of 6 cylinder falcons eat petrol like it was free beer.

Originally Posted by vztrt

If you drive it Grandma style I can believe it. If I could get my 03 BA XR6 to deliver 10.4 L/100 in city driving, then it is possible. Your right foot and changing gears correctly can be a big difference to fuel consumption.

A BA 6 is *substantially* different to an EL 6, especially the fuel and spark delivery not to mention the transmission is better. You should also note that my Falcon is an auto, as are 95% of ones on the road...

Originally Posted by prydey

if you don't drive like you stole it it's amazing what can be achieved. i had a ef xr6 wagon that used to regularly dip under 11 round town. i fitted a trip computer to it and it would often read around 10.7. i'd get well over 600km round town. did numerous trips from adel. to bris and would get about 930km out of a tank on the highway. that was around 8l/100km.

On long trips my Falcon gets fantastic economy... around town it does not. Everyone told me to dump the Falcon when I got the new car but I keep it because I like how it drives. I very much do not like how bad it is on fuel, but I don't drive it much so I deal with it...

[ILLaViTaR]

"The AU Classic was worth $32,000 when he signed on the dotted lined in 2004."

These are the type of people we want driving small cars.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Hunter

A BA 6 is *substantially* different to an EL 6, especially the fuel and spark delivery not to mention the transmission is better. You should also note that my Falcon is an auto, as are 95% of ones on the road...

Yes it is, but the B-series is also about 300kg heavier and weight has been found (by Volvo engineers) that it's 70% the cause of fuel consumption.

But I'll leave it at that, because I still believe that if you drive the Falcon very conservativly you can get good fuel consumption. Problem is the fun of driving sorta goes out the window.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Yes it is, but the B-series is also about 300kg heavier and weight has been found (by Volvo engineers) that it's 70% the cause of fuel consumption.

Of course, weight = drag = engine having to work harder = using more fuel. Interestingly my EL weighs 1535 kg or something - my cousins EB is a wagon and weighs almost as much. My Mazda 3 weighs about 1200 kg (it certainly doesn't feel like it weighs that much).

But I'll leave it at that, because I still believe that if you drive the Falcon very conservativly you can get good fuel consumption. Problem is the fun of driving sorta goes out the window.

To test the theory today I decided I'd 'try' driving under 1500rpm... its almost impossible without a) getting beaten to death for holding up traffic and b) cannot get up the extremely steep hills in my area (well you can but you will do so at about 2 km/h). If you need to drive the car at less than 1500 rpm (which is what, 900 rpm above idle?!) you may as well not drive it because its practically useless.

On the other hand my 3, like most 4s, likes to rev, it'll happily sit on 3000-4000 rpm and the engine is smoother than the EL at 1500 rpm. But it'll also use less fuel and go fast at the same time .

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by Hunter

To test the theory today I decided I'd 'try' driving under 1500rpm... its almost impossible without a) getting beaten to death for holding up traffic and b) cannot get up the extremely steep hills in my area (well you can but you will do so at about 2 km/h). If you need to drive the car at less than 1500 rpm (which is what, 900 rpm above idle?!) you may as well not drive it because its practically useless.
.

AFF Fuel Economy Challenge!

I have no trouble driving under 1500rpm with the 5 speed, just lots of quick changes, you get up to 60kph pretty quickly.

[HOEBAG]

i have heaps of trouble keeping it under 5k!
hahaah
nah normally just being a nanna on the road the car decides to change gears at around 2500

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Of course, weight = drag = engine having to work harder = using more fuel.

No it doesn't.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't in aerodynamics...

[XWGT]

[QUOTE=sleekism]-
I'm sorry but small cars (excluding the BMW 1 series) are boring as bat$hit to drive no matter what anybody says.

QUOTE]

Hmm sorry there is some seriously misguided rubbish being sprouted in this thread.

Firstly, I have owned XW GT, XY GT, EB 5Ltr Fairmont Ghia, AU2 XR8, Porsche Boxster S, and currently Mini Cooper S and Audi A4 1.8T (we will leave the beloved Hilux out of this for a moment)

Overall, my A4 Audi is as big inside as my XR8 was, EASILY. I'm 6,2 and we have no problem accommodating 3 6+ foot individuals. The boot is enourmous, and if you lay the rear seats down you could park a 747 in it. Its kick off the line is fine and will not be embarresed anywhere. And with a curreny city fuel economy of 7.6l / 100 klm over the last 40,000klm I can tell you this is a seriously good car. EXCEPT for its outrageous depreciation, which just goes to prove not only large 6 and 8 cars depreciate heavily.

Car 2 the Mini Cooper S. Someone mentioned earlier that they couldnt pull out into traffic. Well the Cooper S will toast most traffic even with 3 adults on board, and accomodates once again 3 6+ foot adults without much difficulty, and with only 2 you lay the seats down and get plenty of luggage space. Again returns around 8lt / 100klm in city cycle. Depreciation not too bad on the Mini.

So overall you CAN find small economical cars that have decent interior space and performance. Its just that everyone equates small / medium cars with Corrollas and Getz's.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Hunter

No, it doesn't in aerodynamics...

Aerodynamics has little to do with weight.

[outback_ute]

Hunter you can't work out L/100km figures from what people say they get from a tank based on the full tank capacity (68L) as nobody uses every last drop.

xbgs, the point is valid despite an incorrect term (I think you are nitpicking a bit), perhaps Hunter could provide a link to the info re Volvo engineers? Weight will affect the amount of rolling resistance (which you could call mechanical drag) and more importantly makes a difference to the work needed to increase a car's kinetic energy (speed) which is the most relevant factor surely in suburban driving. Of course aero drag is not related to weight, but also will have little effect on fuel consumption at <60km/h speeds.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Hunter you can't work out L/100km figures from what people say they get from a tank based on the full tank capacity (68L) as nobody uses every last drop..

Surely we all base the figures on klm travelled vs amount of fuel put in since the last fill ?

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Aerodynamics has little to do with weight.

I know, which is why I said I wasn't talking about the aerodynamic properties... probably drag wasn't maybe the RIGHT word but I and you know what I meant.

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Hunter you can't work out L/100km figures from what people say they get from a tank based on the full tank capacity (68L) as nobody uses every last drop.

Nah I don't do that, I use the amount I put into the tank to work out how I had left and then take the mileage used to get to that point.

So if I rock up to the servo and put in 58L I obviously have 10 left and then I can work out how good the fuel economy was based on how far I went on 58L.

I've also discovered that in most cars the fuel warning light will come on when you have approx 10L left, it does in my Falcon and the Mazda at least.

Best way is to fill the tank to the brim. Do your kilometres and then fill it back up.

Then it's a matter of kilometres per litre, or however you want to do the maths. Simple.

[Falcon Coupe]

A handy link i use to check mine:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/gaskpl.html

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I know, which is why I said I wasn't talking about the aerodynamic properties... probably drag wasn't maybe the RIGHT word but I and you know what I meant.

Sorry you are still offtrack. The main reason that heavier cars use more fuel comes down to basic physics.

Force = mass x acceleration
Power = force x distance

Hence a heavier car takes more power to accelerate and this burns more fuel. No need to work for Volvo to figure out the obvious.

[xbgs351]

That should have said work, not power. :