View Poll Results: What car will win the 2008 Wheels Car of the Year

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Audi A4

    10 22.22%
  • BMW 1-series Coupe

    3 6.67%
  • Ford Falcon FG

    15 33.33%
  • Honda Accord

    0 0%
  • Honda Accord Euro

    2 4.44%
  • Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X

    1 2.22%
  • Jaguar XF

    5 11.11%
  • Mazda6

    3 6.67%
  • Volkswagen Tiguen

    1 2.22%
  • Mercedes-Benz C63

    2 4.44%
  • Honda Jazz

    3 6.67%
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 157

Thread: 2008 Wheels Car of the Year - what car will win?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Haberfield, Sydney
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    In short I can only qualify the Wheels judgment as blatantly incorrect, and a disgrace for the Australian automotive press, if they are indeed as MSN said the largest publication around.
    I had a look at Car Magazine's test of the C5 2.0 HDI - and they too were quite positive about its ride and handling (Citroen C5 2.0 HDi CAR review | Road Testing Reviews | Car Magazine Online).

    As already pointed out, one of the other Wheel's journalists and judges - Mike McCarthy - was far more complimentary about the C5's ride and handling. But obviously not enough to argue for its inclusion in the final testing.

    As for the "electric" steering, I had a look at the specifications of Australian spec C5 at New Car Prices - Latest Offers - Dealers - Citroën Australia Official Site. The V6 variant has "Variable power assisted steering according to speed". So, not electric. The wrong terminology has obviously been used in the magazine. However, putting this aside, the testers didn't like the feel and feedback provided by the steering.

    Now, as has already been noted, the C5 is not the first European car to fail to impress Australian journalists as much as it does European journalists - and it won't be the last.
    Conversely, cars that Australian journalists give favourable reviews to - such as the Commodore VE SS (Vauxhall VXR8), Mazda6 or Honda Accord Euro don't impress European reviewers as much.
    It may come down to the way the cars are set up for each continent. It may come down to the very different market conditions and pricing of the cars on each continent. Or it may be an anti-Europe bias amongst Australian journalists and and anti-Australian/anti-Japanese bias amongst European journalists.
    Whatever it is, we shouldn't be surprised when a car that is given high marks by journalists on one continent doesn't impress journalists on another continent.

    Now, even if the C5 had made it into final testing, and even if we put to one side the question of dynamics, the C5 probably wouldn't have had a chance of winning. Unfortunately the C5 would struggle against the value criteria.
    Why? Well - the Citroen C5 2.7 HDi Exclusive costs A$62,990.
    Compare this with a top of the range Ford Falcon G6E Turbo which is similarly equipped, of similar size, arguably similar quality, and has much better performance (though poorer economy). The Falcon costs $54,990 - a full $8,000 cheaper than the Citroen. And then when one considers that Citroens tend to depreciate even more than Falcons do, the Falcon looks like much better value. Not to mention that the Falcon is arguably the better all-round car in Australian conditions anyway.
    Or to take a diesel engined European rival - the Volkswagen Passat 2.0 TDI wagon, which costs A$46,990 compared to the Citroen C5 2.0 HDi Exclusive Wagon which costs $57,740. The Volkswagen is more than $10,000 cheaper, representing excellent value when compared to the Citroen. Not to mention that the VW is much quicker (0-100km/h in 8.8 secs for the Passat against 0-100 in 13.3 for the C5) and slightly more economical (6.8L/100km for the Passat against 7.1L/100km for the C5). And I haven't even mentioned that in the Australian market the Volkswagen would be perceived as the higher quality and more prestigious car and holds better resale value. Now the Passat is not eligible for this year's COTY award (as it is not a new car to the market), but for any car to win it will be compared to its market place rivals, and the Passat is a rival to the C5.

    So, case closed your honour. The C5 struggles against the Value criteria, so its chances of winning were always going to be low.
    If I was spending my own money and had the choice between the Passat and the C5, I'm afraid the Passat would appear to be the obvious choice to me. And this is the same sort of equation that the COTY judges will have to weigh up.

    Having said all this, I'm sure the C5 is an excellent car in many ways. I'm especially convinced that it would make an excellent second-hand buy in a few years time for someone who doesn't want a German executive sedan or a "boring" Australian or Japanese sedan. And personally I quite like the looks of the C5. However, I don't think it is Car of the Year material - at least not in the Australian market.
    Last edited by motorsportnerd; 12-18-2008 at 02:19 PM.
    UCP's biggest Ford Sierra RS500 and BMW M3 E30 fan. My two favourite cars of all time.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    Quote Originally Posted by motorsportnerd View Post
    But the reason this car shouldn't win in my opinion is simply that it is evolutionary. The BA model which I own was revolutionary in many ways and represented a significant advance for Australian large cars. It shows how good the BA was that the FG is only an evolution on an already good package.
    I personally dont think the FG being merely an evolutionary design shouldnt even rate. The local media made a bit of a circus out of it whilst also ignoring every other evolutionary design, sometimes even praising them, such as the 6, Accord Euro, Jazz etc which look as much or even more in common with their predecessor than the Falcon.

    Quote Originally Posted by SlickHolden View Post
    I agree on the side of is it as new as it should be going on criteria.. One could argue the VZ could have made the list from VT-VX etc.. New engines transmissions tweaking of the IRS and front suspension set-up.. Interior make over pretty much a new rear body wise front more bolt overs..
    Then we take the FG as a new front suspension and tweaked IRS basically a familiar drive with engine transmissions etc. But atleast new to look at and interior is completely changed.

    I was more against the BA. Body wise it's similar to VX into VY. But with the FG i don't have the same issues.. I'm happy to class it as a new car. It might share looks and similarity with it's predecessor but so does the VE.
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows View Post
    I've had a major argument with MoSpoNerd about the newness criteria, Slick. I have to say the inclusion of the Falcon was probably an edge decision - meaning it could have gone either way.

    Rather than incurring the wrath of Australia, they erred on the side of "Why not?"

    I just don't think it's a new enough car, personally. the point of the newness test was to either change significantly dimensions of the vehicle or include major chassis/drivetrain revisions. The FG does neither over the BF.
    I'm reading alot of mis-information about newness, or a lack thereof.

    FG not new enough? Bollocks. Its ALOT newer than BF, and shares only 10% of parts with BF according to Ford. If Wheels even had to consider whether FG was eligible for newness, i'll be shocked.

    Quote Originally Posted by SlickHolden View Post
    Hey what about the territory ?. Only change was steering rack ?. Bascially same everything as the BA only in a SUV package.
    Territory only used about 40% of the parts from BA, which was limited to driveline, some interior parts and the engine bay bodywork. Essentially the rest was ground up. BA and Territory are on different floorplans.
    I am the Stig

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    Thanks for clearing that up MoSpoNerd - I could have sworn because of the Fixed hub that the steering would have needed to be Electric for the electronics to do their thing, but the more you know.....

    My comment as for the Newness of the FG is related to the issue of Size & powertrain. Two key issues with the Wheels criteria - The car is essentially the same size & runs a slightly improved (but still the same essentially) engine set up.

    Because of this the question of newness was brought up. After all, the FG is essentially a major facelift of the BF which was a facelift of the BA which was a Major Overhaul of the AU.

    To be honest I think a win to the Falcon would be seen in one of two lights: Either a patriotic shot in the arm to the australian manufacturing industry who create world beaters, or as a pity f**k to struggling aussie manufacturers. Depending on which side of the Euro fence you sit

    I think it's a worthy car that is competent across the range, I just don't think it's particularly groundbreaking in any way. I dare say it's gone backwards in some areas (the styling is just.....no)
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    But thats the thing, FG is by no means just a face lift if BA was an overhaul. FG was a larger engineering effort - the whole upper bodywork is new, as is the front half of the chassis. BA in comparison only had a new rear end and the usual front/rear update.
    I am the Stig

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    In the end it's a major overhaul of an existing car - not necessarily a new vehicle.

    And it still shares the basic dimensions (within a few mm) and the same powertrain set up. Two key elements Wheels use to test newness.

    I was just interpreting the rules, as they have done
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    Hah if we are to listen to Ferrer they have dead steering feel and potentially are involving? I don't want to put words in his mouth though.
    I'm not interested in over priced Seats.

    audis are mostly uninspiring and used to have really harsh and noisy diesels. And the last A6 has an steering that doesn't feel connected at all with the wheels. And they have a hard ride. And four wheel drive is just compromise that doesn't make up for the real deal.

    That's all I can think of now.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    12,833
    Quote Originally Posted by charged View Post
    Slick your meant to miss those potholes mate, its not just the potholes though.. like IB4r said its the undulations that cause the problems with suspension. A lower rebound shock and a firmer spring probably gives the best ride compromise, Citroen with the C5 may have not done enough R&D to suit our conditions due to the small market here and that has shown up in the testing.
    Those potholes come thick and fast. They look small and hard to see. But they pack a punch.

    Most U.S cars come here and leave suspension tunes as is. With our roads they wave around and tip like the titanic. Way to soft.
    However i wouldn't exclude a car based on that.
    "Just a matter of time i suppose"

    "The elevator is broke, So why don't you test it out"

    "I'm not trapped in here with all of you, Your all trapped in here with me"

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by motorsportnerd View Post
    So, case closed your honour. The C5 struggles against the Value criteria, so its chances of winning were always going to be low.
    The value argument was also used by IB4R, and I can only agree to that. After all the C5 won comparos in Europe against BMW and Audi, precisely because of the value argument (I think a similar C5 was 6000 Euro cheaper).
    What does stick is that "somebody" has been able to disqualify the car for incorrect reasons. For some Aussies the C5 will now for ever have an "electric" steering, because of this "idiot"
    I'll close my case here as well because self appointed experts such as Kitdy will continue to accuse me of fanboyism....
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    I'll close my case here as well because self appointed experts such as Kitdy will continue to accuse me of fanboyism....
    Henk I know a fraction about cars that you do and you may well be right. Also, I did not accuse you of fanboyism - don't put words in my mouth. I said it was "gold" because I thought it was funny.

    The C5 seems to be a very good car for what it is meant to do.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    brisbane - sub-tropical land of mangoes
    Posts
    16,251
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    What does stick is that "somebody" has been able to disqualify the car for incorrect reasons. For some Aussies the C5 will now for ever have an "electric" steering, because of this "idiot"
    i don't really think that the people who buy citroens would be reading this mag anyway, though.
    wonder what motor makes of it
    Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    12,833
    Quote Originally Posted by fpv_gtho View Post
    I personally dont think the FG being merely an evolutionary design shouldnt even rate. The local media made a bit of a circus out of it whilst also ignoring every other evolutionary design, sometimes even praising them, such as the 6, Accord Euro, Jazz etc which look as much or even more in common with their predecessor than the Falcon.
    I still see old Camry in the new one. I even see old lancer in the new one. Is there a new accord.
    I'm reading alot of mis-information about newness, or a lack thereof.

    FG not new enough? Bollocks. Its ALOT newer than BF, and shares only 10% of parts with BF according to Ford. If Wheels even had to consider whether FG was eligible for newness, i'll be shocked.



    Territory only used about 40% of the parts from BA, which was limited to driveline, some interior parts and the engine bay bodywork. Essentially the rest was ground up. BA and Territory are on different floorplans.
    With VY-VZ they ignored any mechanical changes and only went on look.
    Much like VR over Vn. Even back with the VT we had people sprouting many components and floor panels etc were passed over from the VN.

    This is even comes up with the VE.

    But one thing i have learned is what these car company say and do is another thing. I'm sticking parts on my car from models built in 05-06. Yet i can't go backwards to series 1 VT ?. These things we found out repairing it. They handed me series 1 parts and i was told to go back and get VX parts because S1 didn't fit.. You can't fit VZ gear into a VT they say. I have even seen BA interiors in EB's .

    I'd give it 100% new body even if looking similar to the BF and dimensions.
    Drivetrain suspension is basically the same it reminds me of the front VP to VT and Rear VP to VZ. Apparently the cradle for the IRS out of the VZ wont fit under my car work that out ?.
    I don't know if i'd go 80%. Because i think the VE is around 80-90% with carry overs. I know iv'e gone on dribbling to much.
    "Just a matter of time i suppose"

    "The elevator is broke, So why don't you test it out"

    "I'm not trapped in here with all of you, Your all trapped in here with me"

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Haberfield, Sydney
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SlickHolden View Post
    Much like VR over Vn. Even back with the VT we had people sprouting many components and floor panels etc were passed over from the VN.
    Slick - both the VN and the VR Commodores won Wheels Car of the Year awards. The VN in 1988 and the VR in 1993.
    VR won mainly due to the safety advances it introduced to Australian cars - first Australian car to have airbags for example.
    UCP's biggest Ford Sierra RS500 and BMW M3 E30 fan. My two favourite cars of all time.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    The value argument was also used by IB4R, and I can only agree to that. After all the C5 won comparos in Europe against BMW and Audi, precisely because of the value argument (I think a similar C5 was 6000 Euro cheaper).
    What does stick is that "somebody" has been able to disqualify the car for incorrect reasons. For some Aussies the C5 will now for ever have an "electric" steering, because of this "idiot"
    I'll close my case here as well because self appointed experts such as Kitdy will continue to accuse me of fanboyism....
    <plays violin> so you can be irrational, and then when you're pulled up on it you're the victim.

    Right then.

    The test that disqualified the car was made with more than 1 journalist making the call. Carey was most vocal and I can only presume there was consensus with his decision.

    As MoSpoNerd mentioned, the C5 does not compete with the 5 series or A6 in Australia, it competes with the Passat, and as such suffers from very poor value.

    I think we've established Electric steering has been misinterpreted for Electrically assisted steering, so let it go.

    The fact remains the car is ineligible specifically for dynamics. /end argument.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows View Post
    As MoSpoNerd mentioned, the C5 does not compete with the 5 series or A6 in Australia, it competes with the Passat, and as such suffers from very poor value.
    As it does here, despite what tests journalists carry with it.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Haberfield, Sydney
    Posts
    1,759
    On a side note, Motor Magazine, which is orientated more towards featuring performance cars, has awarded its 2008 Performance Car of the Year to ...drum roll here....yep, you guessed it... a Porsche. Again. Specifically the GT2.
    Ah yes and some Italian car made by Lamborghini finished second.
    UCP's biggest Ford Sierra RS500 and BMW M3 E30 fan. My two favourite cars of all time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite James Bond Automobile
    By toyota_trevor in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 05-26-2021, 07:18 AM
  2. Fake Bankers Draft Scam?
    By Q TOY in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 10:21 PM
  3. GT4 whole car list!!!!
    By Mustang in forum Gaming
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 07-07-2010, 08:06 AM
  4. 2008 ALMS Official Thread
    By Wouter Melissen in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 05:47 PM
  5. Wheels car of the year
    By eyebrows in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-28-2004, 04:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •