 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / March 2008will new Falcon go the way of the 380?
Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years back. At a time when environmentalism is becoming mainstream, the public is moving away from 6's to smaller cars, and fuel prices are on a high, another car is launched, with much of the story on more power, more size. Will more power, more size win buyers back???? Could this be Ford repeating Mitsubishi's mistake???? Mitsubishi promoted the 380 this way from the start - and it did nothing to lift up the sinking ship that was the Magna. Back to the Falcon. Little promotion of LPG, and only with a 4 speed. No diesel. Wagon continuing on as the BF. Much buyer appeal there?? The name changes??? People spending $50 could always say before - I drive a Fairmont Ghia. Now they will say a Falcon G6E? Yes - a Falcon. Is Ford cutting the prestige away? Again seems like Mitsubishi dumping Verada, and replacing it with confusing numbers and letters when the 380 came out - the prestige is gone (well, as much prestige you could attach to a Mitsubishi anyway!) Looks like it will be a better Falcon - but I cant see much that will woo buyers back to the large car market. Remember the BA was outstanding on its release - winning car of the year - only 4 years later - Falcon's worst sales on record. This should give Ford a lift - but will it only to take away some VE Commodore sales? If large cars continue to decline - will Ford stay around? >Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years >back. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >launched, with much of the story on more power, more size. Will more power, >more size win buyers back???? Probably not. There IS still a falcodore market out there - just that Falcon is slipping out of it and leaving it to the VE. (snip rest) >> Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years >> back. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Probably not. There IS still a falcodore market out there - just that Falcon is > slipping out of it and leaving it to the VE. Snap out of it The Falcon will be around for a long while yet the VE is selling well because it's a far better looking car than the previous model, has a better engine with some real power Ford just lost a lot of Govt sales due to the morons at the top showing the prospective voters how green they can be by buying a heap of 4cyl cars for their fleets, even though the fuel savings will hardly be noticed, but they look like caring environmentalists Kev > Ford just lost a lot of Govt sales due to the morons at the top showing > the prospective voters how green they can be by buying a heap of 4cyl cars > for their fleets, even though the fuel savings will hardly be noticed, but > they look like caring environmentalists Ford is still selling their regular number of government fleet sales, and they always will. It's government policy to buy a certain number of cars from each local manufacturer. Where they're missing out is in private sales, as the average Joe isn't buying the Falcon. The VE is selling well largely because it's "new", and because it's a much better looking car. By comparison the Falcon looks old and dated, and has a history of reliability issues that are catching up with it. -- Regards, Noddy. > Ford is still selling their regular number of government fleet sales, and > they always will. It's government policy to buy a certain number of cars > from each local manufacturer. That is not true for Queensland. And dont be suprised if other governments follow. In Queensland a car must get a minimum environment rating. Falcon and Commodore both fail. Even the Premier's Caprice had to go. Its replacement - a Chrysler 300 diesel. QLD government is not buying as much from local manufacturers. Local manufacturers need to improve their environment ratings to keep their sales. > Where they're missing out is in private sales, as the average Joe isn't > buying the Falcon. The VE is selling well largely because it's "new", and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. snip The VE is selling well largely because it's "new", and > because it's a much better looking car. By comparison the Falcon looks old > and dated, and has a history of reliability issues that are catching up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. And all this on top of the VE having no less than 4 recalls in 2 years? But, yes, they are a better looking car than the Ford. Roger > And all this on top of the VE having no less than 4 recalls in 2 years? The VE hasn't had it's first birthday yet, has it? :) > But, yes, they are a better looking car than the Ford. Which is not hard to do really. -- Regards, Noddy. Noddy wrote... > Where they're missing out is in private sales, as the average Joe isn't > buying the Falcon. The VE is selling well largely because it's "new", and Unless the figures have shifted significantly in the past few years, 80 percent of those sales would be to government depts and fleet buyers in general. What would be hurting is the private market share of new vehicles, where we have the likes of Daewoo, Kia, Hyundai and others who are competitive in these market sectors. Also, Ford's Territory is outselling the Falcon as families find it a far more useful vehicle than the Falcon sedan or wagon. I'd be tipping that in a few years Ford will be selling the likes of the Focus and Mondeo and for the top end family car, vehicles like the Territory and Escape, with the Falcon fading into history, unless fleet and government buyers become Fords exclusive customers for that range of vehicles.  SignatureThere are only two ways of dealing with women and neither of them work. > Unless the figures have shifted significantly in the past few years, 80 > percent of those sales would be to government depts and fleet buyers in > general. Regardless, Holden is selling 3 times the number of Commodores as Ford are Falcons, and not all of it is fleet. > What would be hurting is the private market share of new vehicles, where > we have the likes of Daewoo, Kia, Hyundai and others who are competitive > in these market sectors. > > Also, Ford's Territory is outselling the Falcon as families find it a far > more useful vehicle than the Falcon sedan or wagon. Falcon currently sells around 1000 more units per month than Territory. > I'd be tipping that in a few years Ford will be selling the likes of the > Focus and Mondeo and for the top end family car, vehicles like the > Territory and Escape, with the Falcon fading into history, unless fleet > and government buyers become Fords exclusive customers for that range of > vehicles. As long as Holden offer a large sedan, Ford will offer an alternative. -- Regards, Noddy. Noddy wrote... > > Also, Ford's Territory is outselling the Falcon as families find it a far > > more useful vehicle than the Falcon sedan or wagon. > > Falcon currently sells around 1000 more units per month than Territory. Your data differs from mine. I read that in the Drive supplement of the Age newspaper. Where did you get your info from? > As long as Holden offer a large sedan, Ford will offer an alternative. Time will tell. But I doubt it... Signature"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada." - Britney Spears > Your data differs from mine. I read that in the Drive supplement of the > Age newspaper. Where did you get your info from? Herald-Sun. Falcon sales are currently a little over 2000 units per month, compared to Terry's at a little over 1000. > Time will tell. But I doubt it... I don't. For one or either of them to die, they'll have to put out a car that the people *really* don't like, just like the 380 was. Fuel prices will have an effect, but then again the VE's sales have shown that people are willing to buy large cars regardless of what the price of fuel is. There's been talk of either of them "going" for the last 20 years, and the thing that has kept them alive is that they both enjoy a following that no other manufacturer has in this country in that people will buy their products no matter what sh.t they put out, and the AU was a perfect example of that. It was a pretty unloved & ugly car as far as Falcons are concerned, but for much of it's time it was the second best selling car in the country. -- Regards, Noddy. Kev wrote... > Ford just lost a lot of Govt sales due to the morons at the top showing > the prospective voters how green they can be by buying a heap of 4cyl > cars for their fleets, even though the fuel savings will hardly be > noticed, but they look like caring environmentalists Which departments? Most of the government plated cars that I see around here are generally full sized family cars. My daughter's mother in law is a part of the management team at the local hospital. She has a VE "S" to drive around in. She doesn't need it out of hours, just a perk. I've asked what's wrong with driving a Corolla, Camry or similar smaller car? She got all defensive and uppity, that I'd suggest that her status would warrant something less. A mate of mine's sister works for the Victorian government department, DHS (Dept. Human Services). She gets to drive around in an SS! When I was browsing the local Holden dealership recently, I saw a number of Commodores, Berlinas, Calais and SSes which had government departments on the slip as the original owners. Nice to see that we're supporting the "local" car industry and the fat slugs who would be refered to as public "servants". SignatureI think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability. > Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years back. > > At a time when environmentalism is becoming mainstream, the public is moving away > from 6's to smaller cars, and fuel prices are on a high, another car is launched, > with much of the story on more power, more size. Will more power, more size win > buyers back???? My next car will be a V8 Falcon if they happen to have them I have a BA 5.4L V8 now I get 10 kilometres per litre on a run so why go to a small uncomfortable four cylinder car with no power and get a couple of kilometres better consumption? Rather have the comfort > Could this be Ford repeating Mitsubishi's mistake???? Mitsubishi promoted the 380 > this way from the start - and it did nothing to lift up the sinking ship that was > the Magna. > > Back to the Falcon. > Little promotion of LPG, and only with a 4 speed. No diesel. The government stuffed the LPG up when they announced the rebate installation charges went up and gas prices went up as well Why all this hype about diesel? They are just as unecological as petrol motors It will only extend the life of the reserves of fossil fuel by a small margin >Wagon continuing on as the BF. Much buyer appeal there?? > > The name changes??? > People spending $50 could always say before - I drive a Fairmont Ghia. Now they > will say a Falcon G6E? Yes - a Falcon. When people get used to a name, they will use it I remember when the GT Falcon first came out with the XR, "So what?" they said, "Just another Falcon with fancy letters after it." Now you have the Falcon TE50 / TS50 and the Fairlane G220 Not many people know what they are. >Is Ford cutting the prestige > away? Again seems like Mitsubishi dumping Verada, and replacing it with confusing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This should give Ford a lift - but will it only to take away some VE Commodore > sales? If large cars continue to decline - will Ford stay around? Of course they will > Why all this hype about diesel? > They are just as unecological as petrol motors The mainstream diesel *fuel* is what is to blame, not the engines themselves. New diesel engines should be designed to run on renewable alternatives. Most older ones are fine already. > Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years > back. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > This should give Ford a lift - but will it only to take away some VE > Commodore sales? If large cars continue to decline - will Ford stay around? If they can make a business case for keeping the Falcon going at half the current level, then they (Falcon) will continue being built. They'd be wise though to concentrate on Territory and Focus development (possibly even Mondeo) if they can't survive the market shrinking further. Honestly, I can't think of anyone I know that would consider spending their own money on a large, non-prestige, six- cylinder sedan. The fact that it is built in Australia is about all it has going for it as far as relevance to the market is concerned. There seems to be plenty of apologists out there who cry "my V8/BigSix only uses 10l/100km on the highway!!!", but the fact is a diesel would use about 25% less in the same environment, about 40% less in traffic, and still have plenty of grunt for overtaking. I sincerely hope the Falcon does survive. It represents some serious metal-for-the-money but unfortunately, in it's current configuration, it's time has passed. ;-( >> Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years >> back. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > metal-for-the-money but unfortunately, in it's current configuration, > it's time has passed. ;-( Speaking of the Mondeo, I saw my first one in the flesh this morning, not too shabby looking, I would put it on the list if I was in that market looking for a new car. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg "jackbadger56" <castle56@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6a93f02b-d347-40c7-a184- > seems to be plenty of apologists out there who cry "my V8/BigSix only > uses 10l/100km on the highway!!!", but the fact is a diesel would use > about 25% less in the same environment, about 40% less in traffic, and > still have plenty of grunt for overtaking. That may be so, but then you have to put up with driving a diesel, and for some that just doesn't cut it. > I sincerely hope the Falcon does survive. It represents some serious > metal-for-the-money but unfortunately, in it's current configuration, > it's time has passed. ;-( It's a cycle. Whenever a model gets old, it's sales always slow and it's happened to both Holden and Ford many times. Especially when one gets the jump on the other with a new model some time before the other has theirs ready for release. -- Regards, Noddy. > Just some thoughts on the new Falcon launch vs the 380 launch a few years > back. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Commodore sales? If large cars continue to decline - will Ford stay > around? **Ford is as lazy as Holden. Without making serious commitments to REAL fuel economy (Diesel, hybrid, whatever), they will fall by the wayside. Japan conquered the world with it's fuel economical cars, combined with decent reliability, back in the 1970s. Other manufacturers will put Ford (Australia) out of business the same way. For the life of me, I don't understand why Ford did not put a Diesel into the Falcon. Or at the very least, offer it as a low cost option. Trevor Wilson > **Ford is as lazy as Holden. Without making serious commitments to REAL > fuel economy (Diesel, hybrid, whatever), they will fall by the wayside. Current VE Commodore sales disagree with you. > Japan conquered the world with it's fuel economical cars, combined with > decent reliability, back in the 1970s. Other manufacturers will put Ford > (Australia) out of business the same way. Um, not really. The Japanese never established themselves on a fuel economy basis, but rather on value for money. Their cars weren't any more economical that other similar sized vehicles of the day, but where they *were* different was in what you got for your dosh. At a time when the opposition was offering base models with nothing other than a speedo, a couple of idiot lights on the dash and a rubber floor mat, the Japs included "extras" like carpet, heaters, radios, bucket seats, consoles and other conveniences as part of the standard poverty pack deal where the others made you pay extra for them *if* they offered them as options. > For the life of me, I don't understand why Ford did not put a Diesel into > the Falcon. Or at the very least, offer it as a low cost option. Because a lot of people *don't* want diesels. For a diesel engine to be popular is has to meet three basic conditions: It has to be cheap, and to the point where there is no significant price premium to have one, it has to offer no performance compromise compared to a petrol engine, and it has to give buyers a real reason for *wanting* one (Ie; offer substantial increases in economy to make people put up with the stinking rattly things). While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made in recent years, they're not *quite* there yet in terms of what they offer compared to the current crop of petrol engines. Manufacturers like Holden & Ford also look at the likelihood of a diesel variant being successful when compared to things like LPG. At the moment they both offer lpg equipped variants of their standard petrol range for not much extra, and while these cars offer petrol like performance for roughly half the running costs of petrol (and far cheaper than what diesels could ever be) people are *not* flocking to them in droves. Which begs the obvious question of why is it so? -- Regards, Noddy. > While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made in > recent years, they're not *quite* there yet in terms of what they offer > compared to the current crop of petrol engines. That is not a statement that an honest person could make after driving a modern diesel vehicle. For superior acceleration, better fuel economy, huge torque and a generally effortless driving experience, a turbo diesel engine (such as those already available in VW's Jetta, Renault's Megane or Ford's Mondeo) is clearly the obvious choice. The only real attribute working against most diesel vehicles is that the Australian arms of most car companies put a huge price premium on the diesel version of the vehicles they sell. If the Mondeo was available as a diesel in basic spec instead of only as a luxury model, it would outsell the petrol model (perhaps it already does - I haven't checked). If a Landcruiser diesel was as 'cheap' as a petrol version, it too would be the only choice for most people. It would already outsell the V8, I'd guess. The Jetta diesel is already a very small price premium over the petrol model and as a result, most Jettas out there are diesels. And they go like stink and they are extremely quiet. It's only the people stuck back in the 1980s who think that diesel engines are inferior to petrol engines. > That is not a statement that an honest person could make after driving > a modern diesel vehicle. For superior acceleration, better fuel > economy, huge torque and a generally effortless driving experience, a > turbo diesel engine (such as those already available in VW's Jetta, > Renault's Megane or Ford's Mondeo) is clearly the obvious choice. Yeah, they might be in a Jetta or similar, but currently *not* in a Falcon. Bear in mind that the Current Falcadores weigh close to 2 tonnes, and while there's a host of good small diesels for little lightweight cars like the Jetta, there's a distinct lack of engines suitable for a car the likes of a Falcadore that could easily be adapted. > The only real attribute working against most diesel vehicles is that the > Australian arms of most car companies put a huge price premium on the > diesel version of the vehicles they sell. which is one of the reasons why they're currently not more popular than they are. > If the Mondeo was available as a diesel in basic spec instead of only > as a luxury model, it would outsell the petrol model (perhaps it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > result, most Jettas out there are diesels. And they go like stink and > they are extremely quiet. Maybe on the inside. I'm yet to see any diesel engine powered vehicle where it wasn't obvious on the outside. By sound *or* smell :) > It's only the people stuck back in the 1980s who think that diesel > engines are inferior to petrol engines. Not really. Diesel engines have their limitations no matter how advanced they've become, and if you look at the current crop of larger diesel powered vehicles none of them are stellar performers. Certainly not anywhere near the level of performance offered by the current large car petrol engines anyway. As I said in another post, if they can get diesel engines to the point where the average Joe wouldn't know one is under the bonnet *then* they'd be popular, but they're not there yet. -- Regards, Noddy. > As I said in another post, if they can get diesel engines to the point where > the average Joe wouldn't know one is under the bonnet *then* they'd be > popular, but they're not there yet. I disagree that most people care all that much about the performance, current model Falcodores have an unnecessary amount of power, I'd be happy to drop power by 25% if it also meant a 25% gain in fuel economy. 150kw is more than enough for a Falcodore size family car especially in Australia where exceeding the speed limit or squealing your tyres is more serious than child abuse or mass murder. Daryl > I disagree that most people care all that much about the performance, > current model Falcodores have an unnecessary amount of power, I'd be happy > to drop power by 25% if it also meant a 25% gain in fuel economy. Pull a plug lead off your car and drive it around for a couple of days and see if you'd *really* be happy in losing a quarter of it's power :) > 150kw is more than enough for a Falcodore size family car especially in > Australia where exceeding the speed limit or squealing your tyres is more > serious than child abuse or mass murder. I'd agree with that comment *if* they could get the weight of your average Falcadore down to around 1500kg. -- Regards, Noddy. >> I disagree that most people care all that much about the performance, >> current model Falcodores have an unnecessary amount of power, I'd be happy >> to drop power by 25% if it also meant a 25% gain in fuel economy. > > Pull a plug lead off your car and drive it around for a couple of days and > see if you'd *really* be happy in losing a quarter of it's power :) My Hilux has 124kw whereas current Falcodores have 190+. IMO the performance of the Hilux is more than adequate. >> 150kw is more than enough for a Falcodore size family car especially in >> Australia where exceeding the speed limit or squealing your tyres is more >> serious than child abuse or mass murder. > > I'd agree with that comment *if* they could get the weight of your average > Falcadore down to around 1500kg. Even with current weights they still perform very well compared to older models. Daryl > Even with current weights they still perform very well compared to older > models. They do, but then they'd *want* to with almost 200kw under the bonnet of the poverty pack models. The XR GT made less than that in 1966, and that was supposed to be an "enthusiast's" car :) -- Regards, Noddy. >> As I said in another post, if they can get diesel engines to the point >> where the average Joe wouldn't know one is under the bonnet *then* they'd [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Daryl Top post Daryl and you make a lot of sense with your statements. Power is the factor of trouble in cars and in people. Roger > Maybe on the inside. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> It's only the people stuck back in the 1980s who think that diesel >> engines are inferior to petrol engines. Your not suggesting that Noddy is a little out of touch with modern engines?? > Diesel engines have their limitations no matter how advanced they've become, > and if you look at the current crop of larger diesel powered vehicles none [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the average Joe wouldn't know one is under the bonnet *then* they'd be > popular, but they're not there yet. How often does the Average Joe use all the power their car can produce from the amount of new cars chugging along in traffic every day I'd say hardly any and the average person wouldn't even notice if their car was only 140KW compared to 190KW and if the average bloke with an 18 foot 1/2 cabin boat or 20foot caravan had a new turbo diesel to tow it with he'd be wondering why he ever thought he needed a big petrol engine a modern 3-4L 6cyl turbo diesel will pull as hard as any of the standard V8 petrol engine available and most have much more torque than the V8s it's not like you'll be doing any drag racing with 2 tonnes of boat on behind and then there is the main advantage getting 12L/100klm towing a 2 tonne boat/van/horse float behind the family truckster as opposed to getting 17L/100klm from a 6L V8 petrol you'd also see far less Patrols/Cruisers towing the grey nomads vans about Kev > How often does the Average Joe use all the power their car can produce > from the amount of new cars chugging along in traffic every day I'd say > hardly any and the average person wouldn't even notice if their car was > only 140KW compared to 190KW Of course they would. Are you seriously telling me that if someone pulled the 190kw engine out of your BA and swapped it for some smaller 140kw engine while you were asleep you wouldn't notice the difference until the next time you poppped the bonnet to check the oil? > and if the average bloke with an 18 foot 1/2 cabin boat or 20foot caravan > had a new turbo diesel to tow it with he'd be wondering why he ever > thought he needed a big petrol engine Until he wanted to get anywhere in a hurry. > a modern 3-4L 6cyl turbo diesel will pull as hard as any of the standard > V8 petrol engine available and most have much more torque than the V8s The current Land Cruiser makes 430nm of torque from it's 4.5 litre turbo diesel V8 engine, whereas the 6 litre GenIV makes 530nm. > and then there is the main advantage > getting 12L/100klm towing a 2 tonne boat/van/horse float behind the family > truckster as opposed to getting 17L/100klm from a 6L V8 petrol For the small amount of time the average car would be stuck with a 2 tonne load on it's towbar I'd *much* rather have the V8, as it wouldn't feel like it has a two tonne load on it's arse even when it hasn't. -- Regards, Noddy. > you'd also see far less Patrols/Cruisers towing the grey nomads vans about > > Kev > The current Land Cruiser makes 430nm of torque from it's 4.5 litre turbo > diesel V8 engine, whereas the 6 litre GenIV makes 530nm. > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. What could be interesting is the purported Holden diesel due new next year. 3 point something capacity, 180+ kw and 550 nm! Maybe then we will see how the dice fall. Me? Think I'll keepo the Sonata until it becomes obvious over the next 8 - 10 years which way the power train is progressing. Who knows, we may be talking about merits of Toyota fuel cell v GM/Hyndai fuel cell v BMW hydrogen! :) Steve >> How often does the Average Joe use all the power their car can produce >> from the amount of new cars chugging along in traffic every day I'd say >> hardly any and the average person wouldn't even notice if their car was >> only 140KW compared to 190KW > > Of course they would. I think Kevs point is cars do a big percentage of their klms commuting and the traffic is going too slow to its or too heavy for a driver to use anywhere near the available power. I heard a news report this week that said the average speed of traffic on the Westgate bridge is now 40kph and from what I've seen recently the Monash fwy wouldn't average any faster so at those sort of speeds 150 of the available 200kw isn't doing all that much. IMO a 150kw turbo diesel would be more than adequate in a Falcodore and if the numbers added up I would be happy to own one but sadly the numbers don't add up. One of the few TD cars that seems reasonably priced in the Hyundai i30 but one of those isn't going to interest a Falcodore buyer. Daryl > For the small amount of time the average car would be stuck with a 2 tonne > load on it's towbar I'd *much* rather have the V8, as it wouldn't feel > like it has a two tonne load on it's arse even when it hasn't. **That comment reminded me of way back when. My (1.3 Litre) Escort had carked it down near Nowra. I called the NRMA for my free tow. The guy turned up in a V8 Holden tray body thing. He put a tow rope onto my car and explained how I should steer and brake on the way back to his workshop. As we drove back, I recall thinking how nice it would be if my Escort was able to accelerate as quickly as it did whilst being towed. :-) Trevor Wilson >> While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made in >> recent years, they're not *quite* there yet in terms of what they offer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > turbo diesel engine (such as those already available in VW's Jetta, > Renault's Megane or Ford's Mondeo) is clearly the obvious choice. It might be if as clean for fuelling and maintenance and as cheap and powerful as a petrol motor , they aint The > only real attribute working against most diesel vehicles is that the > Australian arms of most car companies put a huge price premium on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as a luxury model, it would outsell the petrol model (perhaps it > already does - I haven't checked). No way in the world , many like me think it stinks If a Landcruiser diesel was as > 'cheap' as a petrol version, it too would be the only choice for most > people. It would already outsell the V8, I'd guess. The Jetta diesel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's only the people stuck back in the 1980s who think that diesel > engines are inferior to petrol engines. only a fool would suggest a smelly noisy expensive heavy motor would overtake a petrol /lpg motor for general use .. make them as cheap and powerful and they will oft be ignored because they stink . > only a fool would suggest a smelly noisy expensive heavy motor would >overtake a petrol /lpg motor for general use .. > make them as cheap and powerful and they will oft be ignored because >they stink . Australians are easily lead. It wouldn't take much more than a large scale advertising/education campaign pushing diesels for them to be accepted by the car buying public. Link them to 'green' values and you get the religious/pious types in too. There will always be a core group of performance enthusiasts who want nothing to do with them, but in terms of market size, enthusiasts are not a very large part of the market. >> only a fool would suggest a smelly noisy expensive heavy motor would >> overtake a petrol /lpg motor for general use .. >> make them as cheap and powerful and they will oft be ignored because >> they stink . > > Australians are easily lead. a few are , most are becoming more cynical by the second It wouldn't take much more than a large > scale advertising/education campaign pushing diesels for them to be > accepted by the car buying public. I can't agree Link them to 'green' values and > you get the religious/pious types in too. doubtful it would be successful by the time it was shopped to death > There will always be a core group of performance enthusiasts who want > nothing to do with them, but in terms of market size, enthusiasts are > not a very large part of the market. more than you realise . think $ value enthusiasts >>> only a fool would suggest a smelly noisy expensive heavy motor would >>> overtake a petrol /lpg motor for general use .. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Australians are easily lead. > a few are , most are becoming more cynical by the second I really doubt that. Witness how meekly people have accepted speed cameras and the associated social engineering, Children Overboard, War on Terror, Hansonism, Howard's dog whistle politics etc etc. A bunch of docile sheep in my opinion. > It wouldn't take much more than a large >> scale advertising/education campaign pushing diesels for them to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> not a very large part of the market. > more than you realise . think $ value enthusiasts $ value enthusiasts are probably most representative of the second hand car market. We are not talking second hand market here. > I really doubt that. Witness how meekly people have accepted speed > cameras and the associated social engineering, Children Overboard, War > on Terror, Hansonism, Howard's dog whistle politics etc etc. A bunch > of docile sheep in my opinion. Hardly a relevant analogy. Every one of those things is something the average Joe can do little about, whereas car buying is all about choice. -- Regards, Noddy. >> I really doubt that. Witness how meekly people have accepted speed >> cameras and the associated social engineering, Children Overboard, War [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Every one of those things is something the average Joe can do little > about, whereas car buying is all about choice. **And Ford/GM do not provide the consumer with real choice. They don't offer a Diesel motor for their most popular cars. Buyers are forced to buy expensive European cars, like Citroens, BMWs, Merc and Peugeots to find Diesels in large cars. BTW: I once spent an absolutely agonising day been driven around Sydney in an old 240D Benz. I can readily understand the reluctance of anyone buying a Diesel after that experience. However, my mate's Citroen C5 put paid to that. Modern Diesels are excellent. The economy of his car is phenomenal. 4L/100km on the open road and 7-8 around town. Easily as big and comfortable as my Dunnydore. Trevor Wilson > **And Ford/GM do not provide the consumer with real choice. They don't > offer a Diesel motor for their most popular cars. Buyers are forced to buy > expensive European cars, like Citroens, BMWs, Merc and Peugeots to find > Diesels in large cars. The point is that if they *did* offer a diesel variant, would people buy them in large enough numbers to make the project worthwhile? I expect that's the number one reason why they don't at the moment. > BTW: I once spent an absolutely agonising day been driven around Sydney in > an old 240D Benz. I can readily understand the reluctance of anyone buying > a Diesel after that experience. However, my mate's Citroen C5 put paid to > that. Modern Diesels are excellent. The economy of his car is phenomenal. > 4L/100km on the open road and 7-8 around town. Easily as big and > comfortable as my Dunnydore. Excellent economy, but around 25% more expensive than a Falcadore on lpg to run. Not to mention the premium price of the Pug in the first place. This is the exact problem diesels face at the moment in my opinion. Until they can bridge that gap, they'll never be very popular. -- Regards, Noddy. > Every one of those things is something the average Joe can do little about, > whereas car buying is all about choice. > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. True, all have leveraged their choice hence car large car sales are down through novated leases. One has to question the wisdom of an even larger Falcon, when the market going towards more medium. Unfortunatly with Ford having no real serious export for it their may not be enough volume to keep it financial viable. It's a long bow I know, but it does have the pattern of the local Mitsubishi screw up here. Engine plant closing No Exports / Low volume Larger than before / while market heading size wise other way. If Bracks doesn't employ too many consults in his new indusrty role and makes some decent decisions, It will promote a longer term outcome for the teo top players in manufacturing namely in order are Toyota & GMH Ford Australia will be coin toss as they will be needing assistance from HQ which are still quite finiacial ill at the moment in North America. Ford of Europe / Asia / South are the divisions keeping the oxygen masked paid for on the 1/2 dead patient called Ford North America. Don't know why Ford of NA don't promote more heavily their europe offerings? Some of them are quite good. Surely in light of the fuel price hikes they simply can't go on promoting the F150? As it's the only thing they have over there that really sells for them. Maybe they still can't see it Yet. >>>> only a fool would suggest a smelly noisy expensive heavy motor would >>>> overtake a petrol /lpg motor for general use .. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on Terror, Hansonism, Howard's dog whistle politics etc etc. A bunch > of docile sheep in my opinion. Not relevent , people cant directly effect a change but a test drive and a NO! will , again I say people can directly effect the sales >> It wouldn't take much more than a large >>> scale advertising/education campaign pushing diesels for them to be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > $ value enthusiasts are probably most representative of the second > hand car market. We are not talking second hand market here. for a base model it almost is and will be in months if the car is bad so can't agree here either > Australians are easily lead. It wouldn't take much more than a large > scale advertising/education campaign pushing diesels for them to be > accepted by the car buying public. Link them to 'green' values and > you get the religious/pious types in too. That'll *only* work until people start driving them :) > There will always be a core group of performance enthusiasts who want > nothing to do with them, but in terms of market size, enthusiasts are > not a very large part of the market. People who buy base model Falcons are hardly enthusiasts, and while there's currently no diesel option they're largely ignoring the lpg variant. -- Regards, Noddy. >> While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made in >> recent years, they're not *quite* there yet in terms of what they offer [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It's only the people stuck back in the 1980s who think that diesel > engines are inferior to petrol engines. IMO there is no question that modern diesels are good but the numbers just don't add up in their favour. You pay a premium price for the diesel engine option then pay more for fuel, you will get better resale but from a economics point of view they don't make sense. Daryl >>> While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made >>> in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fuel, you will get better resale but from a economics point of view they > don't make sense. **The cost of Diesel is bullshit. A few years ago, it was cheaper than petrol. Which is how it should be. It is a less refined product, with fewer additives. IOW: It costs less to produce. The fuel companies just gouge Diesel users. SOP. Trevor Wilson >>>> While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made >>>> in [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > additives. IOW: It costs less to produce. The fuel companies just gouge > Diesel users. SOP. Agree but thats the way it is at the moment and I can't see it changing anytime soon. I bought a new diesel Mazda van in 1984 and at that time diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol, if that was still the case I'd most likely be driving a diesel. Daryl >>> While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made >>> in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Daryl Yep and that's the thing I would like to see a serious comparison on Is the price premium you pay over a petrol powered car, plus the extra price you pay at the pump per litre for fuel, equal to, less than or greater than the savings made because of the diesels greater fuel economy?? Maybe "Wheels" need to do some real world cost analysis of this and get back to us :-) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg >> Daryl > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe "Wheels" need to do some real world cost analysis of this and get back > to us :-) I'd like to see why a diesel engine costs more than a petrol engine you only have to look at the cost of parts for an engine petrol engine parts are far cheaper, even though they are almost identical, but because it's a for a diesel there is a premium price to be paid see how much it's costs for a simple rebuild of a diesel new rings and bearings and new gaskets if you can get one done for less than %5000 then you are doing well meanwhile a petrol engine is around the $2000 mark it's a load of sh.t a turbo diesel in a car should be almost the same price Toyota would have to be one of the worst a turbo diesel Landcruiser is more than $12000 more than a petrol no way does that engine cost $12000 more to produce or fit Ford already have a largish 6 cyl turbo diesel that could be fitted to the Falcon/Territory range with hardly any mods to the car f.cked if I know why they are so reluctant to do so Kev > Ford already have a largish 6 cyl turbo diesel that could be fitted to the > Falcon/Territory range with hardly any mods to the car > f.cked if I know why they are so reluctant to do so It's about perceived interest. The *only* reason you'd want a diesel engine in a passenger car is for reduced running costs, as they offer no other advantage to petrol engines (while offering plenty of disadvantages). Ford already offers a dedicated Gas Falcon that cuts running costs by 50%, which is more than any diesel engine would do, yet Egas Falcons make up less than a quarter of all Falcon sales. -- Regards, Noddy. > IMO there is no question that modern diesels are good but the numbers just > don't add up in their favour. > You pay a premium price for the diesel engine option then pay more for > fuel, you will get better resale but from a economics point of view they > don't make sense. No, they don't. If I wanted a cheap little runabout I'd be f.cked if I'd pay 25 grand for a small car *just* because it had a diesel engine, when a 15 grand petrol powered car will go as well and be almost as economical. -- Regards, Noddy. >> IMO there is no question that modern diesels are good but the numbers just >> don't add up in their favour. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > small car *just* because it had a diesel engine, when a 15 grand petrol > powered car will go as well and be almost as economical. The total cost of ownership is significantly in favour of the small petrol car over a diesel, same applies to hybrids but some are too dumb to figure that out:-) Daryl > The total cost of ownership is significantly in favour of the small petrol > car over a diesel, same applies to hybrids but some are too dumb to figure > that out:-) Yeah, well, they're like rabbits on a road at night blinded by the bright lights :) -- Regards, Noddy. >> **Ford is as lazy as Holden. Without making serious commitments to REAL >> fuel economy (Diesel, hybrid, whatever), they will fall by the wayside. > > Current VE Commodore sales disagree with you. **Right now. Yes. I doubt that will be case, as fuel costs rise (as they surely will). >> Japan conquered the world with it's fuel economical cars, combined with >> decent reliability, back in the 1970s. Other manufacturers will put Ford >> (Australia) out of business the same way. > > Um, not really. **Umm, yes, really. Here is the slogan Nissan used back in the 1970s: 'Nissan Saves'. Or was it: 'Datsun Saves' (Gasoline). Yes, that sounds like it. Datsun made a HUGE deal about the performance and economy offered by it's two big sellers; The 1600 and 1200. "Drive it mild or drive it wild." Were their words. Smart enthusiasts bought the 1600 for it's independent suspension and technically sophisticated engine. > The Japanese never established themselves on a fuel economy basis, but > rather on value for money. **That was certainly part of the mix. Fuel economy was a very big part of it. Their cars weren't any more economical that other > similar sized vehicles of the day, but where they *were* different was in > what you got for your dosh. **Agreed, They were also more reliable. At a time when the opposition was offering base > models with nothing other than a speedo, a couple of idiot lights on the > dash and a rubber floor mat, the Japs included "extras" like carpet, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Because a lot of people *don't* want diesels. **A lot of people THINK they don't want Diesels. After driving a modern Diesel, I have become a convert. They are entirely appropriate to modern motoring. > For a diesel engine to be popular is has to meet three basic conditions: > It has to be cheap, and to the point where there is no significant price > premium to have one, it has to offer no performance compromise compared to > a petrol engine, and it has to give buyers a real reason for *wanting* one > (Ie; offer substantial increases in economy to make people put up with the > stinking rattly things). **Agreed. Diesels certainly meet the last criteria. I don't know about the others. > While some significant improvements in diesel technology have been made in > recent years, they're not *quite* there yet in terms of what they offer > compared to the current crop of petrol engines. **IMO, they are. For carrying any kind of load, for off-road and for towing, they beat the crap out of petrol. Let's be realistic however: We are not at the point where a Ferrari or Porsche (or Falcon XR8) buyer will plonk his/her money down for a Diesel. For mum, dad and 1.8 kids, for the odd bit of country driving and taking the trailer to the tip/boat to the ramp/whatever, a Diesel is a perfect fit. Manufacturers like Holden & > Ford also look at the likelihood of a diesel variant being successful when > compared to things like LPG. At the moment they both offer lpg equipped [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which begs the obvious question of why is it so? **Because LPG is a kludge. Diesel offers significant advantages for motorists. LPG is just the same old engine, with a different fuel. Worse, availability of that fuel outside metro areas, is less than brilliant. Diesel is available pretty much everywhere. Plus you don't have a high pressure vessel fitted behind the back seat. Trevor Wilson > **Right now. Yes. I doubt that will be case, as fuel costs rise (as they > surely will). I don't. Sales have certainly gone off in the last couple of years, sure, but with fuel averaging at around a buck fifty per litre Commodore sales are doing very well, and distinctly better than those of the Falcon. That alone suggests that it's not a dislike for large cars, as Ford fans seem to credit the Falcon's meagre sales on, just the current Falcon. > **Umm, yes, really. Here is the slogan Nissan used back in the 1970s: <snip> Yeah, I know all about them. I've got heaps of old '60's and '70's mags with all the original old adds. The point was that at the time small Japanese cars weren't the only economical 4 cylinder cars on the market, and there were some older ones that did better than most as far as fuel economy is concerned (the original Mini was one). Were they made their difference in the market was with the level of equipment they shipped their cars with as standard. They were *plush* compared to anything else, and that was their principal selling point. Their fuel economy was much of a muchness compared to anything else of similar size. > **That was certainly part of the mix. Fuel economy was a very big part of > it. If you were in the market for a four cylinder car in those days, you were already subconsiously aware of that. > **Agreed, They were also more reliable. I wouldn't go that far. Early Datsuns were hideously *unreliable* pieces of sh.t :) > **A lot of people THINK they don't want Diesels. After driving a modern > Diesel, I have become a convert. They are entirely appropriate to modern > motoring. It's relative. If you want a little econnobox that gets fantastic mileage then diesels offer a great alternative. However, the price premium is huge, and out of all reasonable proportion to the gains when you have a market full of cheap little petrol powered cars that already get outstanding fuel economy. The larger segment is a different story. At the moment if you want a large diesel car you're pretty much limited to a 4wd, and most of them offer all the performance of a tractor. > **Agreed. Diesels certainly meet the last criteria. I don't know about the > others. Neither do I, and until such time as they're able to get it sorted Diesels as everyday car powerplants will largely remain a "novelty" choice. > **IMO, they are. For carrying any kind of load, for off-road and for > towing, they beat the crap out of petrol. They *can* do, but like anything it depends on the configuration. You may have read a thread last week or so where I commented on a family friend's then new Land Cruiser and how utterly hopeless it was at towing. A few people commented that there must have been something wrong with it, and to be honest I never looked at it in enough detail to tell if there was or wasn't. It didn't *seem* like there was anything wrong with it other than it being extremely under-powered for the task at hand (which was towing a large boat). On the other hand, my ten year old 4 litre petrol powered Jeep Cherokee is probably the *best* tow vehicle I've ever seen, and I've had a swag of pretty good towing cars. It does exceptionally well in this regard, and far better than anything diesel powered that I've come across to date short of a large truck. > Let's be realistic however: We are not at the point where a Ferrari or > Porsche (or Falcon XR8) buyer will plonk his/her money down for a Diesel. > For mum, dad and 1.8 kids, for the odd bit of country driving and taking > the trailer to the tip/boat to the ramp/whatever, a Diesel is a perfect > fit. Which "diesel" did you have in mind? > **Because LPG is a kludge. Diesel offers significant advantages for > motorists. Like what? LPG is better for the engine, *much* better for the environment and is *way* cheaper. > LPG is just the same old engine, with a different fuel. Worse, > availability of that fuel outside metro areas, is less than brilliant. Complete crap :) I did a 5000km round trip from Melbourne to Queensland about 6 years ago which included plenty of rural and out of the way places and never once did I not find lpg even at the most remote places. The price was often out of control, but it was always available and in fact I made the entire trip on gas and never had to use petrol once. > Diesel is available pretty much everywhere. Plus you don't have a high > pressure vessel fitted behind the back seat. No, you just have a tank of stinking oil sloshing around under the car that if it gets a few mils of water in it will being the engine to a complete stop in no time. LPG tanks are the safest fuel vessels you can fit into any car. Bar none. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **Right now. Yes. I doubt that will be case, as fuel costs rise (as they >> surely will). > > I don't. **OK. We'll see what happens over the next few years. In Europe (where fuel costs have been high for some time) Diesels are VERY common at all price and performance points. > Sales have certainly gone off in the last couple of years, sure, but with > fuel averaging at around a buck fifty per litre Commodore sales are doing > very well, and distinctly better than those of the Falcon. > > That alone suggests that it's not a dislike for large cars, as Ford fans > seem to credit the Falcon's meagre sales on, just the current Falcon. **No argument from me. I was suggesting that Ford does not deserve to do well, just by emulating GMH. >> **Umm, yes, really. Here is the slogan Nissan used back in the 1970s: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > selling point. Their fuel economy was much of a muchness compared to > anything else of similar size. **Indeed. However, the perception at the time was that the Japs specialised in properly sorted economy cars. >> **That was certainly part of the mix. Fuel economy was a very big part of >> it. > > If you were in the market for a four cylinder car in those days, you were > already subconsiously aware of that. **That was part of it. >> **Agreed, They were also more reliable. > > I wouldn't go that far. > > Early Datsuns were hideously *unreliable* pieces of sh.t :) **You call Datsuns unreliable and then go on to refer to Minis???!!! In any case, a few mates had Datsuns and their reliability was very impressive. Vastly more reliable than any of my Escorts. >> **A lot of people THINK they don't want Diesels. After driving a modern >> Diesel, I have become a convert. They are entirely appropriate to modern [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > large diesel car you're pretty much limited to a 4wd, and most of them > offer all the performance of a tractor. **Bullshit. Try a Citroen C5. Plenty big enough and a very nice drive. A mate bought one 'round last year and I was mightily impressed. I particularly liked the push button raise and lowering. Nice for loading. >> **Agreed. Diesels certainly meet the last criteria. I don't know about >> the others. > > Neither do I, and until such time as they're able to get it sorted Diesels > as everyday car powerplants will largely remain a "novelty" choice. **Bullshit. Go visit Europe sometime. Diesels EVERYWHERE. And I do mean EVERYWHERE. >> **IMO, they are. For carrying any kind of load, for off-road and for >> towing, they beat the crap out of petrol. > > They *can* do, but like anything it depends on the configuration. **Er, no. Sort it anyway you want: * Similar engine sizes - Diesel wins. * Same fuel economy - Diesel wins. * Long term engine life - Diesel wins. > You may have read a thread last week or so where I commented on a family > friend's then new Land Cruiser and how utterly hopeless it was at towing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other than it being extremely under-powered for the task at hand (which > was towing a large boat). **I'll take your word for it. One of my mates has a Land Cruiser (4.0 L petrol) and he tows the biggest boat legally allowed (or something like that - it's a bloody big boat). It appears to do that job very nicely. But he's never compared to anything else. I do know that a Diesel 4.0 Litre would deliver more torque and be far more useful for towing. > On the other hand, my ten year old 4 litre petrol powered Jeep Cherokee is > probably the *best* tow vehicle I've ever seen, and I've had a swag of > pretty good towing cars. It does exceptionally well in this regard, and > far better than anything diesel powered that I've come across to date > short of a large truck. **Fair enough. I presume you've compared to a modern, direct injection model? There is a world of difference, between old Diesels and the modern ones. >> Let's be realistic however: We are not at the point where a Ferrari or >> Porsche (or Falcon XR8) buyer will plonk his/her money down for a Diesel. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which "diesel" did you have in mind? **Dunno. How about that Jaguar one? I'd have to assume that Ford has a number of choices available to it. >> **Because LPG is a kludge. Diesel offers significant advantages for >> motorists. > > Like what? **Like a wholesale switch to LPG would result in chaos. There's not enough LPG to go 'round. There is plenty of Diesel however. > LPG is better for the engine, *much* better for the environment and is > *way* cheaper. **Yep. It's still a kudge. >> LPG is just the same old engine, with a different fuel. Worse, >> availability of that fuel outside metro areas, is less than brilliant. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of control, but it was always available and in fact I made the entire trip > on gas and never had to use petrol once. **I travelled with my mate (in the Land Cruiser) to Adelaide a few years back. We had to switch to petrol a couple of times. >> Diesel is available pretty much everywhere. Plus you don't have a high >> pressure vessel fitted behind the back seat. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LPG tanks are the safest fuel vessels you can fit into any car. Bar none. **I wasn't talking about safety. I was talking about the inconvenience of the shape of the tank. Trevor Wilson > **OK. We'll see what happens over the next few years. In Europe (where > fuel costs have been high for some time) Diesels are VERY common at all > price and performance points. It's been like that for years, and I'm aware of it. The price of fuel is hideously expensive in Europe on average compared to here, and smaller cars are much more common. Not only because of their cost effectiveness, but also because the distances travelled tend to be a lot less and the roads are more crowded. > **No argument from me. I was suggesting that Ford does not deserve to do > well, just by emulating GMH. Like anyone else, they have to build a car that people *want* to buy. The Mitsubishi 380 is a perfect example of the blame for failure being laid everywhere *but* at the root cause. It *didn't* fail because there is a trend away from large cars because it *isn't* a large car, and other cars of it's size are doing very well indeed. It also didn't fail because it wasn't economical or because people don't want 6 cylinder powered sedans, as thirstier models are doing well also. It failed because it was expensive for what it was, lacked decent safety equipment for the price, and the public simply had no confidence in the company. Quite rightly too as it turned out. > **Indeed. However, the perception at the time was that the Japs > specialised in properly sorted economy cars. Maybe in your part of the world, but not in mine. When Jap cars started to be noticed all I can remember anyone ever talking about was what you got for the money. Economy wasn't ever mentioned because people buying small 4 cylinder cars expected it as a given. > **You call Datsuns unreliable and then go on to refer to Minis???!!! I never cited the Mini as a cornerstone of vehicle reliability, but that said it was *far* from the world's most unreliable car. The Datsun 180-B, on the other hand, was one of the most unreliable cars ever made. > In any case, a few mates had Datsuns and their reliability was very > impressive. Vastly more reliable than any of my Escorts. They had their ebbs & flows. The pushrod Datto stuff was good. The early OHC stuff was complete crap. > **Bullshit. Try a Citroen C5. Plenty big enough and a very nice drive. A > mate bought one 'round last year and I was mightily impressed. I > particularly liked the push button raise and lowering. Nice for loading. I was talking about locally made cars in particular, and the scope for diesel engine replacements that will not detract from their current levels of overall performance. Thanks, but no thanks. I wouldn't own a French car if you gave me one for free and held a gun to my head to make me drive it. > **Bullshit. Go visit Europe sometime. Diesels EVERYWHERE. And I do mean > EVERYWHERE. That may be so, but it's f.cking irrelevant to us *here* now, isn't it? :) > **Er, no. Sort it anyway you want: > * Similar engine sizes - Diesel wins. At what? > * Same fuel economy - Diesel wins. Again I ask you? > * Long term engine life - Diesel wins. Bzzzt... Nice try. There is *nothing* whatsoever to suggest that small capacity diesel engines have lifespans any longer than petrol ones. > **Fair enough. I presume you've compared to a modern, direct injection > model? There is a world of difference, between old Diesels and the modern > ones. I didn't own the Jeep when I last saw this guy with his Cruiser otherwise I would have been *very* keen to make a comparison. However, the vehicle was new then and it was around three years ago now so it was fairly current. > **Like a wholesale switch to LPG would result in chaos. There's not enough > LPG to go 'round. There is plenty of Diesel however. I take it that you're completely unaware that we produce far more lpg than we can ever possibly use for motor vehicle fuel. So much so that we have to export the sh.t by the hundreds of thousands of tonnes to places like Japan? > **Yep. It's still a kudge. I don't understand how you can say that unless you have absolutely no experience with it and are just prepared to assume without knowing what you're talking about. > **I travelled with my mate (in the Land Cruiser) to Adelaide a few years > back. We had to switch to petrol a couple of times. From where? :) I used to drive from Melbourne to Adelaide around a dozen times a year and never used petrol once, and this was 15 years ago when gas wasn't *anywhere* near as popular as it is now. > **I wasn't talking about safety. I was talking about the inconvenience of > the shape of the tank. There's a number of different tank options that don't detract from the cargo space. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **OK. We'll see what happens over the next few years. In Europe (where >> fuel costs have been high for some time) Diesels are VERY common at all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cost effectiveness, but also because the distances travelled tend to be a > lot less and the roads are more crowded. **I have news for you: * Sydney/Melbourne roads are very crowded. * Fuel WILL be hideously expensive in the near future. Australians must compete with the wealthy people in places like the US and China. Like it or not, no more oil is being manufactured at anything like the rates it is being consumed. >> **No argument from me. I was suggesting that Ford does not deserve to do >> well, just by emulating GMH. > > Like anyone else, they have to build a car that people *want* to buy. **Indeed. The car purchased most by Aussies was the Commodore. Next was the Corolla. Thrid was the HiLux. The fact that the Corolla was second suggests a lot of Aussies want small cars. > The Mitsubishi 380 is a perfect example of the blame for failure being > laid everywhere *but* at the root cause. It *didn't* fail because there is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > equipment for the price, and the public simply had no confidence in the > company. **Sure. They never recovered from that gearbox thing. > Quite rightly too as it turned out. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > said it was *far* from the world's most unreliable car. The Datsun 180-B, > on the other hand, was one of the most unreliable cars ever made. **I didn't mention the 180B. I do, however, recall a car magazine reviewing the 200B. The banner went: "Datsun 200B - A 180B with 20 MORE mistakes." After the 1600, Datsun went backwards. >> In any case, a few mates had Datsuns and their reliability was very >> impressive. Vastly more reliable than any of my Escorts. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That may be so, but it's f.cking irrelevant to us *here* now, isn't it? :) **It will be relevant to us. Real soon. >> **Er, no. Sort it anyway you want: >> * Similar engine sizes - Diesel wins. > > At what? **More usable power. >> * Same fuel economy - Diesel wins. > > Again I ask you? **More usable power. >> * Long term engine life - Diesel wins. > > Bzzzt... Nice try. > > There is *nothing* whatsoever to suggest that small capacity diesel > engines have lifespans any longer than petrol ones. **OK. I'll admit that was heresay. My neighbour has a Diesel Triton and he reckons it is the best thing since sliced bread for longevity. Other Diesel owners have told me similar stories. Why would they do that? Is there no truth in it? >> **Fair enough. I presume you've compared to a modern, direct injection >> model? There is a world of difference, between old Diesels and the modern [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was new then and it was around three years ago now so it was fairly > current. **I betcha it wasn't a direct injection model. The difference is astounding. >> **Like a wholesale switch to LPG would result in chaos. There's not >> enough LPG to go 'round. There is plenty of Diesel however. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to export the sh.t by the hundreds of thousands of tonnes to places like > Japan? **Correct. I am unaware of that. LPG is a by-product of petrol production. AFAIK, it is produced in significantly smaller amounts than petrol. However, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. >> **Yep. It's still a kudge. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > From where? :) **Sydney. > I used to drive from Melbourne to Adelaide around a dozen times a year and > never used petrol once, and this was 15 years ago when gas wasn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There's a number of different tank options that don't detract from the > cargo space. **Indeed. None of which can come close to the types and shapes of tanks used for Diesel. Not even remotely close, in fact. They don't need to be pressure vessels. Trevor Wilson > **I have news for you: > * Sydney/Melbourne roads are very crowded. Yeah, they are, and that isn't news even though I don't see a hell of a lot of peak hour these days, but they've got a *long* way to go before they get to the level of mayhem seen in some parts of Europe. * Fuel WILL be hideously expensive in the near future. How much and when? > Australians must compete with the wealthy people in places like the US and > China. Like it or not, no more oil is being manufactured at anything like > the rates it is being consumed. Bullshit. There are no massive shortages. The reason why the price is high is that the oil producing countries are cartelling to *limit* supply so that *just* enough is being produced to meet the demand and prices kept artificially high. They could double their production tomorrow without the slightest difficulty, but that would create a glut on the market and push prices down. And they don't want that. > **Indeed. The car purchased most by Aussies was the Commodore. Next was > the Corolla. Thrid was the HiLux. The fact that the Corolla was second > suggests a lot of Aussies want small cars. Possibly. Then again it could also suggest that there's a bunch of buyers who wouldn't normally buy a Commodore for whatever reason, but think the Falcon is a bit bland as well. > **I didn't mention the 180B. I do, however, recall a car magazine > reviewing the 200B. The banner went: > "Datsun 200B - A 180B with 20 MORE mistakes." After the 1600, Datsun went > backwards. They did indeed. > **It will be relevant to us. Real soon. I wouldn't hold my breath. Diesel cars have been popular in Europe for quite a while, but they've never made it here largely because the quality of our diesel fuel has been shithouse. Until very recently it's been quite high in sulphur content, and to the point where most modern diesel cars wouldn't run on the stuff without doing damage. That's recently changed and diesel powered cars are gaining some ground, but the price of diesel negates a hell of a lot of the effect. I don't know what it's like in your part of the world, but around here diesel is slightly more expensive than regular unleaded. If it was significantly cheaper then I could see the benefits of having a diesel car even with the price premium you have to pay to get one, but when the fuel is more expensive to start with and the cars themselves have an enormous price premium, you'll have to do a *hell* of a lot of miles to before you break even and start to enjoy the savings. It makes the cost of an lpg conversion look like a free gift by comparison. > **More usable power. Diesel engines generally make more *torque*, but less power. That's fine if you want to cruise along with a carload of passengers, but not much chop if you want to accellerate in a hurry. > **More usable power. See above. > **OK. I'll admit that was heresay. My neighbour has a Diesel Triton and he > reckons it is the best thing since sliced bread for longevity. Other > Diesel owners have told me similar stories. Why would they do that? Is > there no truth in it? Absolutely none. Modern petrol engines will see 300,000km or more without a great deal of trouble if they're maintained correctly and not thrashed to within an inch of their lives every time they're started up, and a similar capacity diesel won't do any better given the same treatment. There's nothing intrinsically reliable about a diesel engine that will make it live any longer than a petrol one all else being equal. Large truck engines are a different story mainly because they're very low revving, very under stressed and very solidly constructed. > **I betcha it wasn't a direct injection model. The difference is > astounding. It was whatever a new top of the range "Cruiser would have been three years ago. > **Correct. I am unaware of that. LPG is a by-product of petrol production. It is, but it also comes from the process of producing natural gas. > AFAIK, it is produced in significantly smaller amounts than petrol. > However, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It's produced in very large volume, and in a much greater volume than our domestic market can use. The excess is exported in large quantities, and a hell of a lot of it is vented into the atmosphere and burnt. The last estimate I heard was that our own supplies produced from locally sourced oil and natural gas could sustain over 80% of the country's vehicle fleet if they were to change over to it tomorrow. > **Indeed. None of which can come close to the types and shapes of tanks > used for Diesel. Not even remotely close, in fact. They don't need to be > pressure vessels. True enough, but then if the tank doesn't impinge on the cargo space at all I can't see why that would ever be a problem for anyone. -- Regards, Noddy. >> **I have news for you: >> * Sydney/Melbourne roads are very crowded. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > wouldn't normally buy a Commodore for whatever reason, but think the > Falcon is a bit bland as well. That would be me, I have never owned a registered car with more than 4 cylinders, and probably never will. the largest engine I have ever owned was the vernerable 186 with a T3 strapped to the side, (In an EH) back in my Bathurst Light Car Club days, I made it all the way to B grade in that beast before a rather large and rather solid Gum tree didnt get out of my way ;-) -- > Regards, > Noddy. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? >> **OK. We'll see what happens over the next few years. In Europe (where >> fuel costs have been high for some time) Diesels are VERY common at all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > effectiveness, but also because the distances travelled tend to be a lot > less and the roads are more crowded. AFAIK the main reason for the popularity of diesels in Europe is the significantly lower price of diesel fuel. If diesel was suddenly 30% cheaper than petrol the popularity of diesels would skyrocket overnight. Daryl > AFAIK the main reason for the popularity of diesels in Europe is the > significantly lower price of diesel fuel. > If diesel was suddenly 30% cheaper than petrol the popularity of diesels > would skyrocket overnight. Absolutely. It *needs* to be cheaper to make the purchase of a diesel powered car more attractive. -- Regards, Noddy. Noddy wrote... > The price of fuel is hideously expensive in Europe on average compared to > here, and smaller cars are much more common. Not only because of their cost > effectiveness, but also because the distances travelled tend to be a lot > less and the roads are more crowded. A coupla years ago I met this pommy chap who was out visiting family. His car was a 1000cc product and he said that it was fairly common. He was somewhat impressed at my SS and particularly when he checked out the engine. This huge thing covered by shrouds, airboxes, ducting etc.. to him, was a sight to behold, in terms of how much it would cost him to run back in the Old Dart. I s'pose that it's a matter of time before there'll be caryards full of unsellable large family cars, and a market flooded with cheap imported 1.5l buzz boxes from Korea and India. >>> **Right now. Yes. I doubt that will be case, as fuel costs rise (as they >>> surely will). [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > * Same fuel economy - Diesel wins. > * Long term engine life - Diesel wins. Not always. Take the Jackaroo diesel engine for an example of an unreliable turd of an engine. * Long term health risks Diesel wins. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message