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

[motorsportnerd]

About this time each year I start a thread previewing Australia's main Car of the Year Award which is announced by Wheels Magazine in their February issue each year.

I bought the January issue today, and it has a full list of the cars that have been nominated for the award.

The list is as follows.
Nominated:
Audi A4
BMW 1 Series Coupe
BMW 1 Series Convertible
Ford Falcon FG
Honda Accord
Honda Accord Euro
Honda Jazz
Jaguar XF
Mazda6
Mazda CX-9
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo
Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart Sportback
Peugeot 308 hatch
Peugeot 308 Touring
Smart ForTwo
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

Nominated but no cars for testing (hence can't win)
Fiat 500

Eligible But Not Nominated for final testing
Audi A3 Cabriolet
BMW X6
Chrysler Grand Voyager
Chrysler Sebring cabrio
Citroen C5
Dodge Journey
Fiat Ritmo
Hyundai iMax
Jeep Cherokee
Kia Rondo
Lexus LX570
Mini Clubman
Proton Persona
Renault Koleos
Renault Laguna
Volvo XC70

Ineligible
Holden Commodore VE Sportwagen (not new enough)
HSV W427 (not new enough, insufficient sales)
Maserati GranTurismo (sales)
Mercedes-Benz C-Class Wagon (newness)
Mercedes-Benz CLC (newness)
Renaultsport Clio (sales)
Porsche 997 911 (newness)
Skoda Octavia Scout (newness)
Subaru Impreza sedan (newness)
Subaru Impreza WRX STi (newness)
TRD Aurion (newness)
Volvo V70 (newness).

The full list of criteria by which the award is judged is listed here: Wheels - The COTY Criteria (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Car_of_the_Year_2007/The+COTY+Criteria.html?open&template=domWheels)

Note: the Nissan GT-R is NOT on the list this year because it is not officially on sale in Australia yet. However, providing Nissan can prove it plans to sell more than 250 cars a year, it should be eligible next year.

Also, please note the the outright best overall car or best drivers car may not be the car that will win the award. The winner will be the car that best matches the criteria. So those who assume that the Mercedes-Benz C63 or Lancer Evo X are certain to win, may wish to look at the full criteria by which the award is judged first.


So, from the above list what will or should win?
Or more correctly, can the Ford Falcon FG be beaten? The Falcon would have to be a very short-priced favourite to win the award this year.

[motorsportnerd]

I'll quickly run through the cars that I think are the favourites.

Audi A4. May make the final 8 contenders. Value will be an issue, especially when compared to the similar sized but much cheaper Mazda6 and Honda Accord Euro. Is it worth the extra? This is likely to determine how well the A4 does. My thoughts? Will probably make final 8, but no further.
BMW 1-series Coupe This was my pick for the car that should win the award, until I picked up today's issue. My reasons? Good value compared to the opposition and especially the 3-series Coupe. Blitzes the technology, efficiency and safety criteria. Excellent dynamically, but a little bit tight in rear seating, so reasonable against the function criteria.
However, after reading today's issue, I'm not so sure. Seems it wasn't an automatic entry into the final testing. Apparently the 1-series coupe didn't have enough support from the judges and editors for automatic entry, but
thought worthy of a second look. So, the 1-series Coupe & convertible, plus the Citroen C5, Peugeot 308 hatch & Touring and Volvo XC70 were taken on two days testing to see if they were worthy of joining the final competition. The BMWs both made it in after this - mainly thanks to their dynamics. The Peugeots also made it in. However, the Citroen didn't (poor steering and ride) and nor did the Volvo (poor dynamics).
So on this basis, I doubt the 1-series Coupe will have much of a chance after all. I thought it should win and would make the top 3. Now, I'm not so sure. So, in summary: Chance to make final 8. Won't win. And the 1-series Convertible will have no chance.
Honda Accord. Good value, especially in V6 form. Interesting cylinder shut down technology (though this is hardly new, it is one of the cheapest cars on the market with the technology). Excellent build quality and packaging. Reasonable dynamics. Recently won the Drive Car of the Year award. However, the performance of 4-cylinder engines may hurt it. As will comparison with its sibling the Accord Euro and last year's runner up the Ford Mondeo. My thoughts? A dark horse. May make top 8, but unlikely to win.
Honda Accord Euro. A better chance than the bigger Accord. Better performance, better dynamics, better value. Question marks on its electric steering. And its evolutionary compared to the old Euro rather than revolutionary like the old car. Also, will be constantly compared with Mazda6 - and this will probably hurt both cars as they are damned close. My tip? Top 8 certainly. Possibly in contention for top 3 and may be an outsider for Car of the Year.
Honda Jazz. Would be a strong contender if it has ESP It doesn't offer it on any model. And since ESP has to be standard for eligibility for next year's award, it has no chance. Won't even make the top 8. Which is a shame as it otherwise presents a strong argument with decent drivetrains, dynamics and great packaging. Summary: Will finish well down as it fails against the safety criteria.
Jaguar XF. Strong contender. Brilliant dynamics, drive trains (particularly the diesel), safety credentials,quality. Apparently packaging is an issue - with tight interior space. However, the question of value will be where this car's chances rest. Its great value compared with a BMW 5-series above it. Not so when compared to a Falcon FG G6E Turbo, which is about 90% as good and less than half price. And since the Falcon is the favourite, this question will come up constantly for the Jag. If judged good value against its normal rivals like the 5-series - it will make the top 3 and maybe win. If,as is more likely, it is judged poor value against the cheaper Falcon, it will only make the top 8. Will be interesting to see which way the judges go. Summary: Top 8 for sure. Should be top 3. Outside contender to win.
Mazda6. See the summary for the Accord Euro. The same comments apply to the Mazda, except it has better steering than the Euro but is less refined. Once again, an evolution - not a revolution like the previous model. Summary Top 8 certainly. Possibly in contention for top 3 and may be an outsider for Car of the Year. (Will be ranked alongside the Euro. If one wins, the other will be second for example..)
Volkswagen Tiguan. After talking to IB4R, I'm in agreement with him that is car, like the 1-series Coupe, is another that should be in contention for the win. Has excellent petrol and diesel engines. Excellent quality. Decent dynamics. Good value. Only question may be whether it is just a Golf on stilts? My tip? Will make top 3. Should win, and is a strong chance to win.

Now, I left out a whole lot of contenders, because I don't think they have a chance. The Mercedes-Benz C63 and Lancer Evo X may be amongst the best performance cars released in the past year. But questions on value and whether they are too narrowly focussed will hurt their chances. Either one may at best make the top 8.
The Peugeot 308 is an outside contender for the top 8. Since it almost didn't make it to the final testing, it probably won't. But it does offer decent packaging and reasonable value.

I mentioned the Jazz above in my summary of individual cars because its an example of a car which really should be a contender but won't be.
Of the eight cars I mentioned above, one won't make it the top 8. The other seven are the cars I believe should make the top 8.

And of course I left one car out. This is the car that is the short priced favourite. And any discussion about this year's COTY award will revolve around this car.
Ford Falcon FG. I think there are many reasons why this car will win - and win easily. It is strong against every one of the criteria until one starts to nitpick. It has decent dynamics, from the base model through the high performance FPV variants. The six-cylinder engines are very good, and provide smoothness, performance and decent economy for their size. The turbo engines are simply brilliant. The FG is the first Australian car to gain an ANCAP 5-star safety rating. Its also easily the best car in its class - having surpassed both the 2006 winning Commodore VE and 2006 COTY top 3 finalist, the Aurion.
Going against the FG are the fact that it is, simply, a great car at the wrong time. The market is moving away from large family cars. Most private buyers overlook the FG.
Safety may also be an issue. Nitpicking here - as the car does have a 5-star rating. But curtain airbags are not standard in the base car. And ESP is not available on the LPG models.
Quality is another issue. Has been in past Falcons. And there's not doubt that despite improvements, that there are many similarly priced European and Japanese cars that are higher quality.
Value is a strong feature of these cars (esp compared to Euro cars of similar size), but if resale is considered part of the value equation, then Falcons have poor resale, so it may hurt.
Finally, the V8 engines suffer in comparison the the turbo engines and the dynamics of the XR variants are not quite as good as the VE SS (a recent comparison in Wheels between the XR6T and VE SS saw the nod given to the SS on the basis of dynamics).
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.
However, there's no doubt in my mind that the FG will win the award. It is almost a foregone conclusion. And it will be controversial - whether it wins or not.

That's my thoughts. Anyone want to explain why the Falcon FG won't win? We can all give reasons why it shouldn't, but this in itself isn't going to stop it from winning.

[henk4]

I am interested to read why they consider the C5 to have a poor ride.....

[ruim20]

The A4 or the Euro Accord, both great cars, but the Accord is better value for money.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

This is the new C5, and for some reason the Pneumatic suspension does not cope well with Australian roads, despite Citroens history of well riding cars.....

In my opinion the Volkswagen Tiguan is the dark horse in this race & my tip for victory. MoSpoNerd & I have discussed these reasons at length, but this is my top 3:

BMW 1 Series Coupe: A Car Wheels magazine, along with much of the motoring press have a hard on for. Great value compared to rivals, fun to drive, fufills most of the criteria.

Ford Falcon FG The Sentimental choice, The Australian choice, and by no means a bad car. There are problems with Efficiency, newness & how relevant it is to todays marketplace. Not winning CoTY could be the killer for this type of car in the Australian market, and any result for this vehicle will cause controversy - favourable or not.

Volkswagen Tiguan Hear me out on this. The Tiguan has moved on the game in it's class (the Compact 5 seat SUV) significantly, and won the 9 car comparison Wheels put on by a considerable margin. The car itself is well made, handles safely, is well equipped & surprisingly good value.

This year hasn't been a stellar one for new car releases - in fact, there have been very few uncompromised standouts the past few years, but to me the Tiguan represents the best choice.

[charged]

I am interested to read why they consider the C5 to have a poor ride.....
What IB4R said, our roads are shocking compared to european roads, it wont be the first or last european car that cant cope on aussie roads

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Previous European vehicles (Renault 14 comes to mind) coped admirably, but the sportier set up of the Citroen means it couldn't cope.

The CoTY tests are hell on European spec suspension, they have an undulating road test to check rebound on suspension, and in 1998 an Audi A6 bottomed out constantly on such a test - with European spec suspension.

Needless to say it was not Car of the Year.

[motorsportnerd]

I am interested to read why they consider the C5 to have a poor ride.....

I'll directly quote the magazine. "After two days under the microscope, the Citroen C5...failed to convince [the judges] of their merit. Through the slalom, the big Citroen teamed lifeless electric steering with an understeer-prone chassis. On the road, the soft C5 lacked body control, yet still suffered crash-through over sharp hits. Over coarse-chip tarmac, there was also a surprising - and unwelcome - amount of road noise."

Basically, doesn't sound the suspension is very well matched to Australia's roads. Often cars that offer excellent dynamics and ride on European roads don't translate to Australian road conditions very well.
Seems that's the problem with the C5 in Australia.
They like the V6 Twin Turbo engine and six-speed auto combo however - calling it "slick".

[SlickHolden]

I'd tip the FG over this field. I don't want to label any car inferior, However i think this field isn't a full list of strengths. A few here and there but generally not a top class field from A-Z. So number one tip FG as the range has vaule from base to sport into luxury.

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.

Dark horse I'm going for the Mitsub Lancer.


On the Sportwagon. I'm shocked. It's new comparing it with it's predecessor. It as far as i know doesn't run on the VE architecture it's running on Statesman ?. Same with the ute even if they have said it is. But anyway.

[Bleeding Heart]

Me vote for MB C63...

Me love big V8 merc... :D:D:D:D

[IBrake4Rainbows]

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.

[motorsportnerd]

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.

Dark horse I'm going for the Mitsub Lancer.


On the Sportwagon. I'm shocked. It's new comparing it with it's predecessor. It as far as i know doesn't run on the VE architecture it's running on Statesman ?. Same with the ute even if they have said it is. But anyway.

The Falcon BA looked quite different to the AU it replaced - front and rear anyway. However, it ran substantially new engines, upgraded transmissions, had new front and rear chassis structure, new suspension, completely new interior and in terms of the way it drove was light years ahead of the AU. Much of the technology that found its way into the BA - such as the IRS and the 24-valve engines - weren't actually due until the FG. Which in turn was originally due a few years ago. But such was the amount of money spent transforming the AU into the BA that it lived much longer than originally planned with only a couple of facelifts over the six year life of the BA-BF. So to me the BA was the revolutionary car. Whereas the FG is the evolutionary car - it even looks evolutionary.

As for the Sportwagon - I believe its ineligible because it is not sufficiently new in comparison to the VE sedan range (rather than in comparison to the VZ wagon). It uses most of the same structure and chassis as the VE sedan, so they didn't consider it a model in its own right.

Of more interest is how did the C63 make it in? It must be significantly different to the normal C-Class to warrant inclusion.

And since the C63 made it in, I'm not sure how the TRD Aurion didn't. It seems to be as different to the standard Aurion as the C63 is to the standard C-Class.

[motorsportnerd]

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.

The FG isn't the only car where such concerns can be raised. The Mazda6 and Accord Euro carry over many structural and chassis components of the old car. The Euro carries over the engines. The Mazda has an enlarged engine - but I don't think its all new.
However, if we dropped the FG, Euro and Mazda6, then the field would be starting to look pretty thin.
Thus showing how quiet the past year has been for new models. This is certainly not like 2006 for instance.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Indeed.

It's foolish to think that Manufacturers can't improve on products from a few years ago - constant refinement is what the industry is moving towards, not just for cost purposes, but for ease of manufacturing & parts sharing.

[henk4]

What IB4R said, our roads are shocking compared to european roads, it wont be the first or last european car that cant cope on aussie roads
in this respect the hydropneumatic suspension is the first step to your road improvement. After the Wall fell, Citroens became very popular in Eastern Germany just because of the poor road quality. You may want to do an experiment by driving a BMW (any model) over a bad piece of road and then a C5.....(Remember the Top Gear episode where Clarkson mounted a TV Camera on the roof of a C6 and a BMW 5-series to film the horse races?)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

yes, but Australian roads are significantly different to your average european road.

Namely, dryer, more rocky, dusty, and more rhythmic in their corrugations, especially.

John Carey, the motoring writer who tested the vehicle, found the steering lifeless and the suspension unable to cope.

Which, when I read, was a surprise, but the new C5 is attempting somewhat of a sporty bend....

[henk4]

I'll directly quote the magazine. "After two days under the microscope, the Citroen C5...failed to convince [the judges] of their merit. Through the slalom, the big Citroen teamed lifeless electric steering with an understeer-prone chassis. On the road, the soft C5 lacked body control, yet still suffered crash-through over sharp hits. Over coarse-chip tarmac, there was also a surprising - and unwelcome - amount of road noise."


I will eat my hat if somebody can prove to me that the C5 has an electrically assisted steering. And road noise also depends on the choice of tyres.

[henk4]

John Carey, the motoring writer who tested the vehicle, found the steering lifeless and the suspension unable to cope.

Which, when I read, was a surprise, but the new C5 is attempting somewhat of a sporty bend....

It is so contrary to tests that I read here, not only French but also German and Dutch. I am sure that if the steering was as dead as this guy implies, other magazines would have made similar comments, as they prefer direct steering cars. I quote from "Autovisie" (the Dutch magazine that started the European COTY over 40 years ago) talking about a 2.7HDI...

"On bumpy roads there are hardly any cars which match the absorption capability and also the general stability of this Citroen"

[motorsportnerd]

I haven't driven a C5. However, I was quoting directly from the magazine. Perhaps the staff there haven't read the specs properly (in regards to the electrically assisted steering). If so, it brings the magazine's credibility (and by implication the whole Australian motoring press, as Wheels is the premier magazine here) into issue.
Just as likely, they don't particularly like the C5 for whatever reason. The current issue is the second issue where the tester, John Carey, has mentioned his dislike for the steering.

Its probably best I direct you to their website: Wheels - Wheels Magazine - Car Reviews - Road Tests | Wheelsmag (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au). Over the next few days they should get the section for this years Car of the Year award up and running. Perhaps you can ask the editors directly in the blogs on there to prove to you that the C5 has electrically assisted steering. If you do, and you get a response, direct us to it so we can see.

[motorsportnerd]

Of interest, a different writer, Mike McCarthy, is much more positive about the C5. Here's his brief road test on the Wheels site: http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Road_Tests/Citroen+C5+Exclusive.html?open&template=domWheels&pagenum=2&fullarticle=yes

Perhaps the C5 didn't make it in primarily because one of the judges - John Carey - doesn't like it and none of the others liked it enough to stand up for it.

[SlickHolden]

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.
Yes lobster.. But I'd go on body as much as drivetrain. And atleast this time over the BA we have seen a change exterior wise.. All be it drivetrain is similarly same with upgrades. New front end steering but basically the same package. That new feel should be there as long as you dont look to long at the mondeo your fine:D.

But it does question the sportwagon going on VZ to this. We cold argue the same thing but holden didnt need another car in the field:D.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

With Citroën’s computer-controlled self-levelling Hydractive3 hydro-pnuematic springing, the impressively supple ride is unusually willowy (and quiet).... At first the C5 feels comparatively soft and a bit floaty even on the firmer of its two settings. But familiarity and hard cornering prove that the handling, grip and body control are, in their own Citroën-esque ways, the stuff of which fast, flowing cruising is made

I think the situation MoSpoNerd has described occured. Other Journalists might have disagreed with Mr. Carey's version of events, or he just found a nasty bit of road, but none of them were so inspired by the car to fight it's non-inclusion.

[henk4]

I think the situation MoSpoNerd has described occured. Other Journalists might have disagreed with Mr. Carey's version of events, or he just found a nasty bit of road, but none of them were so inspired by the car to fight it's non-inclusion.
well, if behaviour and comfort on poor roads is an issue what on earth is the BMW 1-series doing there?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Because the vehicle has no pretensions of ride comfort - it's designed to be sporty & offer feedback. The C5 is designed to isolate the cabin from external influences - namely, the road surface.

Because the 1 Series Coupe is considered a performance vehicle, a whole plethora of sins are forgiven.

[henk4]

Because the 1 Series Coupe is considered a performance vehicle, a whole plethora of sins are forgiven.

objective selections down the drain;)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well, as MoSpoNerd indicated, people weren't particularly willing to fight for that vehicle, either.

This Award is about overall excellence in a variety of categories. If the C5 had managed to scrape through on dynamics it would have been murdered on Value for money, amongst other things.

While there aren't that many diesel vehicles in it's class to compete with, the fact you can get a Mazda 6 or Honda Accord Euro (essentially the Model you receive in Europe - we receive both down under) for cheaper, and it can be argued objectively they are better cars - for a discount kills them.

It's a similar thing for the A4 - is the extra cost buying you a better car?

[SlickHolden]

The Falcon BA looked quite different to the AU it replaced - front and rear anyway. However, it ran substantially new engines, upgraded transmissions, had new front and rear chassis structure, new suspension, completely new interior and in terms of the way it drove was light years ahead of the AU. Much of the technology that found its way into the BA - such as the IRS and the 24-valve engines - weren't actually due until the FG. Which in turn was originally due a few years ago. But such was the amount of money spent transforming the AU into the BA that it lived much longer than originally planned with only a couple of facelifts over the six year life of the BA-BF. So to me the BA was the revolutionary car. Whereas the FG is the evolutionary car - it even looks evolutionary.

As for the Sportwagon - I believe its ineligible because it is not sufficiently new in comparison to the VE sedan range (rather than in comparison to the VZ wagon). It uses most of the same structure and chassis as the VE sedan, so they didn't consider it a model in its own right.

Of more interest is how did the C63 make it in? It must be significantly different to the normal C-Class to warrant inclusion.

And since the C63 made it in, I'm not sure how the TRD Aurion didn't. It seems to be as different to the standard Aurion as the C63 is to the standard C-Class.
The IRS was the biggest change to the BA. Looks wise you couldn't miss the AU right in the guts. Ford might say door trims roof isn't the same. Well holden told me i couldn't fit WH Statesman gear into a VT. wernt they wrong. I even maniged to smuggle in some VZ bits:D.
From my time in a AU they steered the same they didnt handle the same.
They went differnt but sounded the same.

Hey what about the territory ?. Only change was steering rack ?. Bascially same everything as the BA only in a SUV package.

[henk4]

Well, as MoSpoNerd indicated, people weren't particularly willing to fight for that vehicle, either.

This Award is about overall excellence in a variety of categories. If the C5 had managed to scrape through on dynamics it would have been murdered on Value for money, amongst other things.

While there aren't that many diesel vehicles in it's class to compete with, the fact you can get a Mazda 6 or Honda Accord Euro (essentially the Model you receive in Europe - we receive both down under) for cheaper, and it can be argued objectively they are better cars - for a discount kills them.

It's a similar thing for the A4 - is the extra cost buying you a better car?

That's all very well, and probably correct, but to disqualify the C5 because of its ride is something, let's say, surprising at least. And it is actually that you can buy one over there...

[Ferrer]

It's a similar thing for the A4 - is the extra cost buying you a better car?
It isn't, if you get the Seat Exeo.

As for the C5 it seems like Citroën tried to be German wihtout leaving it frenchness behind and failed at both.

A bit like Alfa Romeo.

[ruim20]

Did the C5 tested have Hidromatic suspension or regular one?

[henk4]

Did the C5 tested have Hidromatic suspension or regular one?
I think they had a 2.7 version and that comes only with Hydro.

[henk4]

As for the C5 it seems like Citroën tried to be German wihtout leaving it frenchness behind and failed at both.


utter nonsense

[ruim20]

I think they had a 2.7 version and that comes only with Hydro.

Then i have no ideia how they could have said it didn't cope with the roads, that's the point of hidro suspension, to be confortable in any road.

[Ferrer]

utter nonsense
Ads, caring for the handling and non-hydropneumatic suspension available point otherwise.

[henk4]

Ads, caring for the handling and non-hydropneumatic suspension available point otherwise.

ads?
caring for handling?
non hydro is a pure cost element.

[Ferrer]

ads?
caring for handling?
non hydro is a pure cost element.
Haven't you seen the C5 ads?
YouTube - The New Citroën C5 - Unmistakeably German (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE)

[henk4]

Haven't you seen the C5 ads?
YouTube - The New Citroën C5 - Unmistakeably German (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE)
I had not seen it before, but I do remember that ages ago when the car was not even officially presented we saw one on the road and I thought it was an Audi....so no "fail" there.....

[Auxin]

I'm going to have to say the XF. Although I do prefer other cars like the C63, 1-series and the EVO, a COTY has to be practical, reliable and provide good value. I can say from experience that my mum has an XF and they are just great all round cars, look amazing too.

[henk4]

Ads, caring for the handling and non-hydropneumatic suspension available point otherwise.
if you can read German, here is a test of a Volvo, BMW and C6. Contrary to what you would expect, the C6 was faster through a slalom than the BMW, maybe Citroen already did care about handling earlier...

BMW 525d, Volvo S80 D5, Citroën C6 HDi: Kontrast-Mitte | auto motor und sport (http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vergleichstest/artikel/bmw-525d-volvo-s80-d5-citroen-c6-hdi-kontrast-mitte-2-760373.html)

here is a link to an AMS test of the C5HDIV6
I have taken out the judgment on ride quality...the only negative point is the turning circle, but Australia is roomy enough to not take that as a serious minus point I would say.


Fahreigenschaften
+ sicheres Kurvenverhalten (secure cornering)
+ stabiler Geradeauslauf (stable in a straight line)
+ gutes Handling
+ geringe Karosseriebewegungen (few body movements)
– großer Wendekreis

Citroen C5 V6 HDi 205: Schwebenskünstler | auto motor und sport (http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/einzeltests/citroen-c5-v6-hdi-205-schwebenskuenstler-707750.html#article_detail)



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.

[Ferrer]

No I can't read german I'm afaird.

Well done Citroën.

(I've always liked the C6 anyway, handling or not)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

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.

Blatant fanboyism is blatant.

Carey is a qualified and respected automotive journalist. you don't have to like his opinions, but this is honestly the most sour puss response I've ever seen.

You know very little of the road conditions in Australia, and it's entirely plausible, and indeed possible, that the vehicle did not perform to expectations.

Furthermore, the vehicle obviously did not leave a good enough impression on Mr McCarthy, another well respected automotive journalist in Australia, to warrant further inclusion in this test.

different opinions to yours are allowed, you know.

[Kitdy]

Well said IB4R - I must say that I thought that the C5 had a good ride but am very unequipped to comment.

You must consider that henk is the premier auto expert in all The Netherlands and possibly the World and all dissenting views are invalid - funny though, as I would say he's what probably would be described as liberal and liberals are meant to accept other's opinions.

Curious.

Anyways, tension and argument add to the fun of UCP!

This was the classiest of the comment: "Blatant fanboyism is blatant."

Gold.

[henk4]

Blatant fanboyism is blatant.

Carey is a qualified and respected automotive journalist.
who credits a car as having an "electric" steering, which it has not....

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Where on the spec sheet does it indicate it doesnt?

[Kitdy]

At this point the Falcon leads polling.

What I wonder is are people voting for what they want to win or what they think will win - the poll asks for what will win not what's your favourite.

Is the Falcon really that good or are people cosing it because they think patriotism (coupled with bribery maybe?) will give it the edge in the test?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Judging by people like Bleeding Heart they just vote for whatever the hell they want, ignorant of the criteria.

And the Falcon is the sentimental choice. It would by no means be a mean feat if it won on it's own merits, but with a vehicle like that it's as much an emotional response as a matter of quality.

[Kitdy]

Also, 5 Aussies voted for the Falcon so potentially patriotism bias/favouritism there or maybe realism recognising that the magazine will skew Australian?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The magazine was known in the 70's for an Australian bias - indeed, the award was only available for Australian built cars until the early 70's.

But over the past 5 years, Two Mazdas, A Mercedes, A Holden & A Ford have won the award.

So one could say they are in fact biased against Australian cars :p

[Ferrer]

At this point the Falcon leads polling.

What I wonder is are people voting for what they want to win or what they think will win - the poll asks for what will win not what's your favourite.

Is the Falcon really that good or are people cosing it because they think patriotism (coupled with bribery maybe?) will give it the edge in the test?
I voted for the Flacon because it's what I think will win.

In this times of crisis and problems chauvinism ftw, probably.

If I had to vote for what I'd like to win I'd go for the Jazz or the 6.

The magazine was known in the 70's for an Australian bias - indeed, the award was only available for Australian built cars until the early 70's.

But over the past 5 years, Two Mazdas, A Mercedes, A Holden & A Ford have won the award.

So one could say they are in fact biased against Australian cars :p
Isn't the Flacon, technically, a Ford? :)

[Kitdy]

I voted for the Flacon because it's what I think will win.

In this times of crisis and problems chauvinism ftw, probably.

If I had to vote for what I'd like to win I'd go for the Jazz or the 6.

I would expect you to be wise and attentive enough to vote for what the question asked. A vote for the Falcon would make sense to me.

[clutch-monkey]

the falcon looks like ass now.
i'd vote mondeo/mazda 6 if keeping it within the company, also like the euro.

but then this is all irrelevant anyway, because new cars are for suckers

[Zytek_Fan]

It's difficult between the A4 and Falcon, but I think the A4 deserves the Car of the Year title.

I mean, just look at it :D

[Kitdy]

Zytek Fan choosing an Audi - what a surprise.

It's about as surprising as Ferrer bashing/not choosing an Audi.

[clutch-monkey]

It's difficult between the A4 and Falcon, but I think the A4 deserves the Car of the Year title.

I mean, just look at it :D

it looks as bad as the falcon :confused:

[Zytek_Fan]

Zytek Fan choosing an Audi - what a surprise.

It's about as surprising as Ferrer bashing/not choosing an Audi.

Is there anything wrong with Audi? ;)

...other than the occasional electrical quirk.

[SlickHolden]

Hey i drive a Holden !!.. Yet i selected the Ford. It's package is more then one car and that is why i chose it above the field.

Guys come down to Australia and have a drive on our roads. Then go back to Europe and drive on their roads. Then you will see why they believe the citron isn't suited to our roads.
That is a mark off in my opinion. It doesn't hurt to tweak something for different environments.

A typical Aussie road.. And only last week my auntie almost lost her front and she hit a pothole and the car almost launched off the road @ 100kmph.

Turn it up loud.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/slickholden/th_AussieRoads.jpg (http://s197.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/slickholden/?action=view&current=AussieRoads.flv)

[Kitdy]

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 guess when it comes to the BMW/Audi/Benz battle, I see BMW as being the best for driving, Benz for being the best for luxury, and Audi - I don't really know. The 3 is the best year after year in it's category - I'd say the S is probably the best flagship luxury sedan of the three, and as for the 5 vs E vs A6 I know the 5 has a good history for driving dynamics, the E for luxury, but what does th 6 have to offer? This preceding is probably an oversimplification but I dunno what Audi has over Benz or BMW other than quattro and looks (if you like them - and I'm of two minds on the looks of Audi). Audi does have the RS6 which is a curiosity and interesting and the R8 however which I and many others rate highly.

[charged]

Hey i drive a Holden !!.. Yet i selected the Ford. It's package is more then one car and that is why i chose it above the field.

Guys come down to Australia and have a drive on our roads. Then go back to Europe and drive on their roads. Then you will see why they believe the citron isn't suited to our roads.
That is a mark off in my opinion. It doesn't hurt to tweak something for different environments.

A typical Aussie road.. And only last week my auntie almost lost her front and she hit a pothole and the car almost launched off the road @ 100kmph.

Turn it up loud.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/slickholden/th_AussieRoads.jpg (http://s197.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/slickholden/?action=view&current=AussieRoads.flv)

Slick your meant to miss those potholes mate:p, 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.

[motorsportnerd]

Well, interesting responses over the past day. I'll get back to the Citroen shortly. Seems that is the car that has created most controversy on these pages.

However, I'll address some other points first.



At this point the Falcon leads polling.

What I wonder is are people voting for what they want to win or what they think will win - the poll asks for what will win not what's your favourite.

Is the Falcon really that good or are people cosing it because they think patriotism (coupled with bribery maybe?) will give it the edge in the test?

Yes, I asked in the poll for people to select the car they think will win. Not for the car they want to win or should win.

I chose the Falcon, not because I own the previous model, nor because I am a Ford fanboy, not because I patriotic (I'm a New Zealander by birth after all), but simply because I am fairly confident that rightly or wrongly it will win. I gave my reasons back in the second post.

As a Ford fan and owner, of course I'll be happy if it does win - so in a way its also the car I want to win. However, its not the car that I think should win. I think the BMW 1-series Coupe or VW Tiguan are the cars that should win. And I have a soft spot for the Jaguar XF as well.

[motorsportnerd]

It's difficult between the A4 and Falcon, but I think the A4 deserves the Car of the Year title.

I mean, just look at it :D

Now, the real surprise in the poll so far to me is how well the Audi A4 is doing.

Can I ask all those who voted for the Audi if they read the criteria? Particularly the value criteria? The Value criteria is as follows: "Does the price accurately reflect its qualities? Essentially quality – in every sense – versus price.".

First, consider the price of the base Audi A4 1.8T costs A$50,900 with the six-speed manual or $53,500 with the CVT transmission.
Next, consider the price of the two cars on the test which are a similar size, and in many ways directly comparable.
The base Mazda6 Ltd costs just $27,990 with a 6-speed manual and $29,990 with a 5-speed auto.
The base Honda Accord Euro costs $32,990 with a 6-speed manual and $34,990 with a 5-speed auto.

Now, can anybody out there convince me that the Audi A4 represents great value when compared to two very convincing rivals like the Mazda6 or Accord Euro. Is the basic A4 worth $22,910 more than the basic Mazda6? Put another way, is it 54% better again than the Mazda, which its price suggests it should be?
I'd suggest not. And badge aside, I'd suggest that the Mazda is comparable in almost every way. As a drivers car the Mazda is probably comparable. It wouldn't suffer for reliability. Sure, the Audi has a reputation for quality - but how much of this is perceived as opposed to real quality? Is the extra perceived quality really worth $22,910?
And we can even forget about comparing the base Mazda6 when it comes to value. In Australian, one can get a top of the range Mazda6 Luxury Sports Hatch for $42,990 - which is still almost $10,000 less than the base Audi.
So, when it comes to value, case closed. The base Mazda6 is probably 98% as good as the Audi for 54% less.
And its this sort of comparison that will hurt the Audi's chances of winning the Wheels COTY.
I may be reasonable value compared to a BMW 3-series or Mercedes C-Class, but not compared to the Mazda6 or Accord Euro.
This same value equation almost cost the Mercedes-Benz C-Class the win last year against the Ford Mondeo.
I feel that the Audi won't get past it however. For another factor is that for a car to win the Wheels Car of the Year, it should be the best car in its class. A recent comparison between last years Car of the Year winner the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and Audi A4 saw the Mercedes given the win. So last years Car of the Year is still the best car in its class. Hence, not only does the Audi suffer on value, if the judges select it they will be selecting a car that they have already said in the pages of their magazine is not as good as last year's winning car. And this may devalue the award a little.

Earlier in the thread, the question was asked of Australians if they were voting patriotically in favour of an Australian built car. Can I ask if some people are voting for the Audi because it is an aspirational German car with a prestige badge?

[motorsportnerd]

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 (http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Citroen-C5/)).

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 (http://www.citroen.com.au). 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.

[fpv_gtho]

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.


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.


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.


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.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

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 :p

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)

[fpv_gtho]

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.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

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 :)

[Ferrer]

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.

[SlickHolden]

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:D. 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.

[henk4]

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....

[Kitdy]

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.

[clutch-monkey]

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

[SlickHolden]

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:p.

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 :eek:.

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.

[motorsportnerd]

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.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

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.

[Ferrer]

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.

[motorsportnerd]

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.

[Ferrer]

Ah yes and some Italian car made by Lamborghini finished second.
Which technically is an Audi owned by Porsche.

[motorsportnerd]

Very good point. Don't yet the Lambo fans out there hear you say that.;)

[SlickHolden]

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.
I mist that. see mo fanboy here:D.. Now that makes me think even more why the vz wasn't selected or even the vy.
VR had same engine as the VP. Same transmission as the VP calais. IRS same as the VP all be it in a tweaked way but not much. Biggest change was rear and front suspension. Yet driving one was similar to a VP:D.

I thought the VQ Statesman had airbags first and abs irs all that stuff ?.

[SlickHolden]

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.
Shock horror:D.. Does anything else ever win it ?. If they selected cars like wheels do for COTY would the Porsche ever be new enough to win ?. Sorry Monkey:D.

[motorsportnerd]

I mist that. see mo fanboy here:D.. Now that makes me think even more why the vz wasn't selected or even the vy.
VR had same engine as the VP. Same transmission as the VP calais. IRS same as the VP all be it in a tweaked way but not much. Biggest change was rear and front suspension. Yet driving one was similar to a VP:D.

I thought the VQ Statesman had airbags first and abs irs all that stuff ?.

The VQ was released in 1990 and didn't get airbags. The Statesman/Caprice got Airbags and ABS with the VR upgrade as well.
The First Aussie car with ABS - from memory - was the Falcon EB11.

The VY and VZ Commodores were controversial exclusions from COTY. Would they have won anyway? The VY would have been up against the Falcon BA, Mazda6 and Honda Jazz back in 2002. The VZ would have been up against Territory, Mazda3 and Golf back in 2004.
The VZ had a new engine and new enough styling, so it should really have been eligible. The VY only really had new styling and interior - so would have been more marginal.

Going back to the VN. This was one of the winners of the award that in hindsight should never have won. Back in 1988 it was up against the Falcon EA, Honda Civic (4th generation) and BMW 5-series E34. The judges rightly ignored the Falcon EA - which was an awful car and very unreliable. But somehow, the VN - which had dodgey dynamics and only slightly better quality and reliability than the EA - won the award over the more deserving Civic or 5-series. I think Value for money plus the engineering job in widening and re-engineering the Opel Senator bodyshell to create the VN helped it win the award that year.

[fpv_gtho]

VZ being included wouldve made a laughing stock of the awards though. The styling changes were still only on a similar level to that ov VT-VX and other quarter life upgrades for the Commodore.

Lately Wheels have been excluding cars on the basis of simply not being class leading upon launch, despite how they mach up against their criteria.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well that doesn't make sense to me, really.

Because the Award is specifically for that year and the vehicles that qualify as such. If it was for class best they would be including that vehicle every year until such time as it is deemed not the best.

But then again, One of the criteria is how it stacks up against current rivals, and if it can't beat them, it doesn't really have a hope of beating every other vehicle in contention.

[SlickHolden]

I was pretty happy with the VY-VZ to miss the cut. Even if the VY got the alloytech engine i don't think it would have been selected.
But it just raised question on what they select or deem fit one year to the next. If they like a car do they cut corners - In the same way they don't like one ?.

Even though the car company's say this and that wont fit. We'd be surprised at just how many bits and peaces go backward.

[SlickHolden]

Congratulations to the FORD FG Series. WHEELS CAR OF THE YEAR 2008 !

[Ferrer]

So, those who got it right do we win something? :D

[adrenaline]

Congratulations to the FORD FG Series. WHEELS CAR OF THE YEAR 2008 !

Has this been announced? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

[syko]

Has this been announced? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Me neither

maybe Slick is taking the piss :D

[SlickHolden]

I can't find it also. However i heard it from someone who know someone who made an ad which said wheels car of the year Ford FG :D.

[fpv_gtho]

Have they said when they'll be making the announcement?

[wwgkd]

Have you noticed the votes going up for the FG after this announcement?

[SlickHolden]

Have they said when they'll be making the announcement?
I thought they did ?..

Hey i can see your pussy:p.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I've seen this ad Slicks talking about.

it's the Carsguide car of the Year. you tricky bassturd :)

For the record - WHEELS HAS NOT ANNOUNCED THEIR CAR OF THE YEAR

[adrenaline]

This the ad you're talking about Slick?

YouTube - Ford Ad - Keeps on Winning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sNReZ0BqIU)

[SlickHolden]

nah my mum told me it had won wheels car of the year:D.

[clutch-monkey]

lol @ people voting for the A4.

[Zytek_Fan]

lol @ people voting for the A4.

Is the A4 even available in Oz?

[Ferrer]

lol @ people voting for the A4.
Indeed.

[motorsportnerd]

We've got another 3 weeks or so to wait for the official announcement. The award is not due to be announced until the next issue of the magazine on January 21. There's usually an announcement on Australian TV the night before the magazine comes out.
I'm sure there are some people out there who know what the winner is. The magazine's editor certainly will know. The winning manufacturer probably knows. But in past years, they've managed to keep a lid on the result right up until publication time.

However, that Ford ad is interesting. If the FG Series does indeed win, then it will be easy for Ford to update that ad to include the Wheels award.

Also, I'm still surprised by how many people are voting for the Audi A4. See my earlier post. Can anybody really tell me that it is worth the extra money over a Mazda6 or Honda Accord Euro?

[motorsportnerd]

Also, an additional point. We should probably all be listening to IB4R's tip of the Tiguan. I've got the winner wrong every year since the last time a Falcon (the BA series in 2002) won the award. I think IB4R's record at tipping the winner is far better than mine.

[clutch-monkey]

Is the A4 even available in Oz?

are you serious? of course it is, and it's just as bad value here as it is elsewhere

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I've only got the winner wrong once out of 6 guesses.

I. Am. GOD!

[adrenaline]

I've heard nothing but good things about the Tiguan, it will definitely be a contender. I don't think it will be enough to trump the Falcon though. Dare I say certain politics could work in favour of the Falcon..

[fpv_gtho]

However, that Ford ad is interesting. If the FG Series does indeed win, then it will be easy for Ford to update that ad to include the Wheels award.

It would also be pretty embarrasing if it didnt and theyve just started that ad, and assumably the winning manufacturer would run an ad pretty soon afterwards.

[motorsportnerd]

If I remember correctly Holden did something similar with the VE Commodore around the Christmas/New Year period, starting an ad on TV announcing that the Commodore had won the Carsguide Car of the Year and People's Choice awards. And then updated the ad after the Wheels award was announced later in January 2007 with the line "And now, Wheel's Car of the Year" added to the ad.

[Ferrer]

Also, I'm still surprised by how many people are voting for the Audi A4. See my earlier post. Can anybody really tell me that it is worth the extra money over a Mazda6 or Honda Accord Euro?
I can tell you it isn't. As with any Audi.

[SlickHolden]

I've only voted 3 times. All 3 correct:p.

[SlickHolden]

"News flash"

No Ford FG in car of the year!!:eek:.

It's down to the Germans and Japanese according to today tonight.

One car was the Accord. The other was the VW tigen. Mazda 6. Forgot the other was more in shock no FG. They spoke to the guy who will announce it tomorrow he had the remanding cars it's very official it's not wrong.

[motorsportnerd]

Audi A4 was the fourth car. The second favourite amongst the voters in this thread. "Very efficient engines" apparently. And its the Accord Euro that made it in, not the Accord.
Full video of the top 4 announcement here here: A Current Affair - ninemsn Video (http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&tab=m164)

Not entirely surprised the Falcon isn't there. It was going to be controversial either way. I'll read the magazine on Wednesday to see why. Looks like I'm wrong for another year.

I did say the Mazda6 and Accord Euro would be together - was at least right there.

However, if you watch the video, I suspect it gives a strong either/or clue as to the winner. They concentrated on two cars in the preview. The VW Tiguen and the Honda Accord Euro.
So, place your bets - which one of these two? Is IB4R right again this year? Or did they concentrate on these two to throw us off the scent?

One thing - I'll be annoyed if the Audi A4 wins. I really cannot see the value in the base model. Either that, or value wasn't given high priority this year.

[motorsportnerd]

One more thing. For the first time since 2001 (when the Holden Barina won), a RWD car will not win this year (in 2004, the Territory was either AWD or RWD).

[fpv_gtho]

In other news, FG did win NZCOTY though.

[motorsportnerd]

Yes, the Falcon did win the NZ Car of the Year award.
I see the one-eyed Ford fans are already crying: Australian Ford Forums - Wheels COTY (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11247124).

A few of the more clued up ones are suggesting that the lack of ESP on the LPG models may have killed its chances.
We'll see what they say in the magazine on Wednesday.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

VERY surprised at the lack of FG Falcon, and the Inclusion of A4.

It seems to me that the Inclusion of the A4 sends quite conflicting messages:

The A4 is better than the 6/Euro, so the money is worth spending.

But the inclusion of the 6/Euro would indicate that you can have just as good a vehicle for significantly cheaper.

It would appear they almost cancel each other out.

[fpv_gtho]

A few of the more clued up ones are suggesting that the lack of ESP on the LPG models may have killed its chances.
We'll see what they say in the magazine on Wednesday.

Other than that, theres still the BF3 wagon lingering on and the utes are still pretty agricultural. If it was just the sedan getting the award it would've increased its chances alot.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

They wouldn't have counted them in the CoTY fieled I presume.

The Ute and the Sedan would have been the only eligible contenders.

[motorsportnerd]

Utes are not eligible for Wheels COTY - so the Falcon ute wasn't eligible, either a separate model or as part of the range. And the wagon is not new, so would have also been excluded.

[henk4]

.

A few of the more clued up ones are suggesting that the lack of ESP on the LPG models may have killed its chances.
I can't even believe that I read this.

[Ferrer]

One thing - I'll be annoyed if the Audi A4 wins. I really cannot see the value in the base model. Either that, or value wasn't given high priority this year.
I'd be annoyed as well.

[nota]

I see the one-eyed Ford fans are already crying: Australian Ford Forums - Wheels COTY (http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11247124).

A few of the more clued up ones are suggesting that the lack of ESP on the LPG models may have killed its chances.
We'll see what they say in the magazine on Wednesday.
Difficult to argue with the 1st para logic in post # 38 of your Ford-forum link

ESP can not be the reason that the FG did not/ will not win, ESP is a initial part of the criteria, if a vehicle model does not pass the initial criteria, it is out immediately. The FG was not ruled out in the initial criteria, so ESP can not be the reason it may fail.

As for the FG not having ESP, ESP is standard on the FG Falcon, however, if the E-Gas option is selected ESP is then unavailable, this technicality is how FG could/ Should pass this hurdle

[henk4]

so it IS true that the LPG version of a car cannot have ESP because it runs on LPG?

[syko]

I'm amused the way they seem to pick and choose which cars they take the whole model line up and which ones they just take one. You would think they when taking a look at a model line up of over a dozen cars vs one car you are bound to find flaws in that many. The BA seemed to win off the back of xr6t alone or at the very least it played a very big part in its victory. If there going to include cars like the evo10 and m3 then wouldn't you think that the entire lancer and 3 series line up should be included as well.

[nota]

so it IS true that the LPG version of a car cannot have ESP because it runs on LPG?
In brief its true in regards to Ford's existing LPG system which is very unsophisticated old-tech. Its a primitive single-feeder that mixes gas & air upstream of the intake manifold, hence its inability to control ESP or traction-control functions.

However the more modern sequential-injection systems (optional on VE Commodore etc) is compatible with ESP & T/C. As too of course is the very latest Liquid Injection gas systems (which as yet are only available here via the aftermarket)

[SlickHolden]

Why is it Ford doesn't use the more modern LPG systems and end this Traction/DSC issue forever. That way all models are 5 star.. Also why can't the LPG version run the 5 speed auto ??.

That was a good forum read.. As MoSportNerd said to me. When these cars won these awards back in their day they were great cars of their time back then. Today just because we see them as shit boxes doesn't mean at the time they were.


Did anyone think the VE won the award in a pretty weak field ???.. I'd say the VE won based on range and based on it's V8 range as much. Which is why i thought the FG was a shoe in with G6E-T XR6-T.

[henk4]

In brief its true in regards to Ford's existing LPG system which is very unsophisticated old-tech. Its a primitive single-feeder that mixes gas & air upstream of the intake manifold, hence its inability to control ESP or traction-control functions.

However the more modern sequential-injection systems (optional on VE Commodore etc) is compatible with ESP & T/C. As too of course is the very latest Liquid Injection gas systems (which as yet are only available here via the aftermarket)

it is the first time I ever hear of this. Any petrol car in Holland can be fitted with an LPG installation (aftermarket) and I never heard any complaints in connection with the ESP. If GM and Ford Australia are fooling their customers in this way, well, down may they go.

[nota]

it is the first time I ever hear of this. Any petrol car in Holland can be fitted with an LPG installation (aftermarket) and I never heard any complaints in connection with the ESP.
Likewise any petrol car in Australia could be fitted with aftermarket Vapour-Injection or the very latest Liquid-Injection LPG installations, both of which presumably are compatible with ESP etc.

If GM and Ford Australia are fooling their customers in this way, well, down may they go.
:confused: But Henk ..

GM-Holden's (factory-engineered) V-I system IS compatible with ESP etc.

Ford's simple, inexpensive but old-tech (factory-engineered) system is not compatible with ESP and Ford has never claimed otherwise.
If they did this would amount to an offence under the Trade Practices Act.

How does either of the above constitute "fooling" their customers? Discuss...

[nota]

Why is it Ford doesn't use the more modern LPG systems and end this Traction/DSC issue forever.

Also why can't the LPG version run the 5 speed auto ??.
It has purely been due to FoA finding itself inextricably stuck (as in locked) into the middle of an extremely long running legal dispute regarding LPG injection, between a highly reputable Dutch company, and a certain small-time Oz Company of which I have very little respect. Although initally on a broader scale, AFAIK this dispute has eventually boiled to which company owns the Australian patent, and therefore the AU licensing rights, for gas injection to FoA

Its a very legal situation of which i am no expert, and it has received little publicity. For a legal disclaimer I could be wrong on all the above (and I have misplaced some of my records) so don't quote me or cite this as accurate. But I think this is in essence is what its all about. You know my enthusiasm for LPG, and a mate and I have been following this saga with interest since the early 1990s when I think the AU company was called Docklands but it has since been renamed, IIRC more than once.

IIRC this situation began maybe 15 years ago and would have been dragging on in the courts for at least for all of this century. To date I think it has basically crucified Ford's hopes of offering an advanced OE LPG system for their cars. Which they intended to do looooong ago.

I would be grateful for any further input or info on this subject...

[motorsportnerd]

Difficult to argue with the 1st para logic in post # 38 of your Ford-forum link

ESP can not be the reason that the FG did not/ will not win, ESP is a initial part of the criteria, if a vehicle model does not pass the initial criteria, it is out immediately. The FG was not ruled out in the initial criteria, so ESP can not be the reason it may fail.

As for the FG not having ESP, ESP is standard on the FG Falcon, however, if the E-Gas option is selected ESP is then unavailable, this technicality is how FG could/ Should pass this hurdle

This is true - despite not having ESP on the E-Gas version, the FG Falcon was indeed eligible. Whether it would have been eligible if the new rules requiring ESP across the range that will be in place for next year's award had already been in use, is debateable.
The clause mentioned above would be the technicality on which it could have passed.
Having said that, it is well known that any vehicle without ESP was going to have very little chance of winning the award. I, probably like most people, assumed it wouldn't affect the Falcon since ESP is standard and is only deleted if one chooses the E-Gas option.
The lack of ESP may not have been the reason the Falcon did not make the top 4. For the exact reason, I'll have to read the magazine tomorrow.

[motorsportnerd]

It has purely been due to FoA finding itself inextricably stuck (as in locked) into the middle of an extremely long running legal dispute regarding LPG injection, between a highly reputable Dutch company, and a certain small-time Oz Company of which I have very little respect. Although initally on a broader scale, AFAIK this dispute has eventually boiled to which company owns the Australian patent, and therefore the AU licensing rights, for gas injection to FoA

This article highlights the problems of the E-Gas Falcon: Wheels - ULP v LPG - Three car comparison (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/Road_Tests/ULP+v+LPG+-+Three+car+comparison.html?open&template=domWheels).

The last line suggests that Ford may be able to develop a more modern system in the near future. Also, I remember hearing/reading rumours that the E-Gas version would get the 5-speed auto and ESP before too long.

[fpv_gtho]

The irony with that article is despite the Accord winning against the gas cars, initial tests of the FG at launch against such cars as the Accord, VE and Aurion had the petrol FG pulling better economy than the Accord even with its cylinder shutoff.

[charged]

I thought the latest falcon would have vsi, not the old mixer:eek:.

The nephew wont fit any falcon after BA or any with traction control with a mixer as the esp/TC causes the LPG to backfire and usually blows the airbox to bits. The VSI setup works well same performance and fuel economy but is expensive compared to a mixer type system

[motorsportnerd]

Just announced. The winner of the 2008 Wheels Car of the Year is the Honda Accord Euro.
So, last night's ACA did give a big clue.

[henk4]

:confused: But Henk ..

GM-Holden's (factory-engineered) V-I system IS compatible with ESP etc.

Ford's simple, inexpensive but old-tech (factory-engineered) system is not compatible with ESP and Ford has never claimed otherwise.
If they did this would amount to an offence under the Trade Practices Act.

How does either of the above constitute "fooling" their customers? Discuss...

Fooling customers means for me that you are offering an outdated technology with serious consequences, while the aftermarket offers the technology which works properly. Just like offering a one speed windshield wiper, knowing that aftermarket equipment can turn it into three speed/any interval machine.
I thought I read that GM offered the same "proper" technology as Ford, but obviously not so.
Anyway, all LPG equipment sold here is aftermarket I think, but being of the diesel faction I never seriously looked at it.

[motorsportnerd]

Full story on the Accord Euro's win here: Wheels - Honda Accord Euro wins <i>Wheels</i> Car of the Year 2008 (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/95E4BCB0DB0AEBC5CA257544001C6397?open&template=domWheels).

This is the first FWD family sedan to win the award since 1996 when the Mitsubishi Magna won.

[Ferrer]

Fooling customers means for me that you are offering an outdated technology with serious consequences, while the aftermarket offers the technology which works properly. Just like offering a one speed windshield wiper, knowing that aftermarket equipment can turn it into three speed/any interval machine.
I thought I read that GM offered the same "proper" technology as Ford, but obviously not so.
Anyway, all LPG equipment sold here is aftermarket I think, but being of the diesel faction I never seriously looked at it.
Morgan is really fooling costumers then... :)

[nota]

Fooling customers means for me that you are offering an outdated technology with serious consequences, while the aftermarket offers the technology which works properly. Just like offering a one speed windshield wiper, knowing that aftermarket equipment can turn it into three speed/any interval machine.
I thought I read that GM offered the same "proper" technology as Ford, but obviously not so.
Anyway, all LPG equipment sold here is aftermarket I think, but being of the diesel faction I never seriously looked at it.
As explained in my (later) post #125, Ford have been unable to offer a more modern LPG system. Or are you saying Ford should have simply abandoned the LPG market altogether, comprising a significant proportion of Falcon sales including repeat customers?

In any case it is the customers choice on whether or not to buy Ford's old-tech OE E-Gas, which btw despite 'serious consequences' still functions good enough for it to be chosen over aftermarket kits (from what I have seen) in the majority of Oz taxis - Ford having a stranglehold on the cab market. Quite a few Falcon E-Gas fleet sales too

No Ford's E-Gas is not the best system, far from it. However it is the cheapest (iirc $700 vs Holden's V-I on-debut price of $3900) which is an additional factor in the cost-benefit equasion

Overall I think its been a real shame our longest-term and most committed-to-gas car company (and still the only one that OE fits LPG) has been prohibited from offering a more advanced LPG system, despite their good intent at being market-leader in this regard, tracing back many years

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Congratulations to the Accord Euro, despite not being my Choice.....

I guess it makes sense just looking at the contenders - 95% as good as an A4 for less cost, Efficient over a Mazda 6, and not a lumber 4WD that would be considered somewhat irresponsible by the greenie weenies who have infiltrated everything.

So Yeah, they finally seperated the Accord & the 6, it seems.

[john14]

Also, I want to congratulate the Accord Euro for winning this award. The Mazda 6 is a great car as well. I don't know very much about the current Audi A4. Does anybody own this A4 or has anybody driven it?

[henk4]

As explained in my (later) post #125, Ford have been unable to offer a more modern LPG system. Or are you saying Ford should have simply abandoned the LPG market altogether, comprising a significant proportion of Falcon sales including repeat customers?

In any case it is the customers choice on whether or not to buy Ford's old-tech OE E-Gas, which btw despite 'serious consequences' still functions good enough for it to be chosen over aftermarket kits (from what I have seen) in the majority of Oz taxis - Ford having a stranglehold on the cab market. Quite a few Falcon E-Gas fleet sales too

No Ford's E-Gas is not the best system, far from it. However it is the cheapest (iirc $700 vs Holden's V-I on-debut price of $3900) which is an additional factor in the cost-benefit equasion

Overall I think its been a real shame our longest-term and most committed-to-gas car company (and still the only one that OE fits LPG) has been prohibited from offering a more advanced LPG system, despite their good intent at being market-leader in this regard, tracing back many years

What a shitty situation....
and what if the customer puts in an aftermarket LPG installation in a Ford with ESP? No Ford Guarantee anymore?

[nota]

What a shitty situation....
Yeah mate and its been a real bugger for FoA :(


and what if the customer puts in an aftermarket LPG installation in a Ford with ESP? No Ford Guarantee anymore?
and what if the Dutch customer puts in an aftermarket LPG installation in a Honda Euro with ESP? No Honda Guarantee anymore?
(this despite it being awarded Wheels coty) :p

Anyway, all LPG equipment sold here is aftermarket I think

[henk4]

and what if the Dutch customer puts in an aftermarket LPG installation in a Honda Euro with ESP? No Honda Guarantee anymore?
(this despite it being awarded Wheels coty) :p
as far as I know, the importer of any car in Holland, will facilitate the installation of an LPG system, without any warranty clauses.

[nota]

as far as I know, the importer of any car in Holland, will facilitate the installation of an LPG system, without any warranty clauses.
So does this mean that (through passed-on importer>manufacturer warranty transfer costs) its the vehicle manufacturer who effectively ends up warranteeing any subsequent vehicle damage thereof?

I mean its normally the manufacturer, and not the importer, out of who's pocket the factory-warranty repair bills are ultimately covered. Hence if the motor internals explode it seems odd for a manufacturer to cover 'without clause' any non-OE (third-party) modifications.

Or do the importers 'wear' these related warranty costs via separate arrangements with the various aftermarket manufacturers, of these various aftermarket LPG kits, with what would then amount to an aftermarket warranty?

Where the LPG installer (and their related defects and warranty responsibility) fits into all of the above warranty-liability mess is anyone's guess. It doesn't take too much imagining to think of a few scenarios leading to dispute:

Let's take the terminal engine damage caused to Mr Smith's brand-new Honda Accord Euro (Wheels coty btw) from, say, overheating.

Eg: was this damage caused and thus to be covered by: the vehicle manufacturer, or the importer, or the LPG kit maker, or the installer!

Mate at least Ford spells it out in plain english:

Falcon Warranty
The Ford Express New Vehicle Warranty specifically excludes any defect in any vehicle component that is caused by or attributable to, or to the use of, an aftermarket LPG conversion. If a conversion to LPG is carried out we believe it is highly likely to result in damage to components including but not limited to the following:
Pistons, con-rods, rings, intake and exhaust valves and seats, engine bearings and seals, spark plugs, petrol fuel system components including pump and injectors, air intake system, any further backfire-related damage including but not limited to the hood.

The term "fooling customers" might also consist of disputed accountability towards what may end up proving to be a dubious aftermarket warranty, leading to 'serious consequences' for hapless Dutch warranty-claim owners caught in the middle and at risk of being 'passed around' the various (dis)interested factions.

Unlike various Dutch car importers, perhaps, you can bet your bottom dollar that the customers of both Ford and Holden who buy their factory-designed LPG systems at least have the absolute surety of a full factory-backed warranty from the vehicle manufacturer itself. Factory testing to major-manufacturer standards for engine durability in the long term is also a consideration, as is emissions compliance

Btw did you know that Ford and Holden LPG engines also include substantial internal modifications to enhance durability (something that importers and/or aftermarket suppliers may not provide)

For Ford's shitty E-Gas this includes:

• Pistons: Higher Compression ratio
• Con Rods: Stiffened to cope with increased loads [h/d turbo-spec]
• Intake Valves: LPG specification for hotter operating conditions
• Valve Seats: LPG specification for hotter operating conditions
• Air Intake System: Backfire and fire resistant air cleaner box and filter.
• Fuel System: Tanks, lines, converter, balance hose and Electronic Throttle Body
• Engine Oil, Spark Plugs: Unique LPG specification
• Powertrain Control Module (PCM): Unique to drive LPG system solenoids and stepper motor.
;)

[henk4]

I honestly do not know all the answers, I have asked some question on the Citroen C5 forum.

[SlickHolden]

It has purely been due to FoA finding itself inextricably stuck (as in locked) into the middle of an extremely long running legal dispute regarding LPG injection, between a highly reputable Dutch company, and a certain small-time Oz Company of which I have very little respect. Although initally on a broader scale, AFAIK this dispute has eventually boiled to which company owns the Australian patent, and therefore the AU licensing rights, for gas injection to FoA

Its a very legal situation of which i am no expert, and it has received little publicity. For a legal disclaimer I could be wrong on all the above (and I have misplaced some of my records) so don't quote me or cite this as accurate. But I think this is in essence is what its all about. You know my enthusiasm for LPG, and a mate and I have been following this saga with interest since the early 1990s when I think the AU company was called Docklands but it has since been renamed, IIRC more than once.

IIRC this situation began maybe 15 years ago and would have been dragging on in the courts for at least for all of this century. To date I think it has basically crucified Ford's hopes of offering an advanced OE LPG system for their cars. Which they intended to do looooong ago.

I would be grateful for any further input or info on this subject...
So similar to a club sponsorship say Puma. Your players are stuck with that product until the end of time no matter how new the others are your lumped with it till the end. So no new high tech shoes for FoMoCoAus..

Now i can see why your not total impressed it sounds dirty.

I thought the latest falcon would have vsi, not the old mixer:eek:.

The nephew wont fit any falcon after BA or any with traction control with a mixer as the esp/TC causes the LPG to backfire and usually blows the airbox to bits. The VSI setup works well same performance and fuel economy but is expensive compared to a mixer type system
Mate has a VN on lpg. And at times on start up he back fires.. Blew the air box off one day scared shit out of me lol.

[SlickHolden]

Just announced. The winner of the 2008 Wheels Car of the Year is the Honda Accord Euro.
So, last night's ACA did give a big clue.
You partially tipped that Friday night.. Good price features etc.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Ok. Picked up the Magazine today, and while I'm not entirely happy with the outcome (Basically the Tiguan fell because the boot isn't large enough......go figure)

The Falcon failed because the base model (XT) felt tired despite being brand spanking new, the V8 Model (remember the range is judged as a whole) was considered nose heavy and almost irrelevant considering the performance advantages of a 6, and there were problems that the FG range hadn't fixed from BA, namely the steering column adjustment.

So, essentially, it wasn't a great enough advance over the BA, let alone the VE Commodore.

[motorsportnerd]

Also, the Mazda6 failed due to refinement issues. And the Audi A4 failed due to the law of diminishing returns - the higher up the range they went, the less impressed they were with the value and way they drove. Surprisingly they viewed the base Audi A4 1.8T as the best value and best drive of the range, despite the fact that it was more expensive than top of the range Accord Euro.
On Falcon, the insistence on testing the entire range probably hurt its chances. If it had been solely the G6ET that had been tested, as the pick of the range, it probably would have won. It was the XT and XR8 in particular that let the range down - not the E-Gas variant which wasn't mentioned at all.
As IB4R said, it lost because it was evolutionary and "does not significantly raise the bar for large cars" in the way that the BA did. There were the aforementioned quality concerns (including "unrefined thumps emanating from the diff under full throttle upshifts" in the manual XR6T). They also mentioned safety concerns (lack of curtain airbags and the fact that the ESP on the XT was skittish and "not up to Ford Australia's usual standards". Refinement on the XT was mentioned as an issue with "the amount of suspension and tyre noise transmitted into the cabin".
Worth noting that the cover headline is "Shock! Why Falcon's not Car of the Year".
This result really does parallel the failure of the XD to win the award.

I mentioned that the Falcon's extensive range and Wheels' insistence on judging the whole range was one of the reasons it didn't win. This also affected the A4's (six variants tested) and Mazda6's (4 versions tested) chances when compared to the rather more focused Euro range (just 2 versions tested). So the Euro was literally able to put its best foot forward without a weak link in the range to cost its chances.

Another point, in regards to the Volkswagen Tiguan, the "lack of boot space..which ultimately swayed most judges not to vote "Tiguan" when it came to choosing COTY 2008 winner". My emphasis on the "most". There was no mention in the Audi or Mazda6 write ups of judges voting for them. This implies that the VW scored at least one vote, and was hence most likely second to the Euro.

Finally, the final seven (not eight like last year) were Accord Euro, Tiguan, Mazda6, Audi A4, Honda Jazz, Honda Accord and Ford Falcon.
Three Honda's in the top seven.

Looking at the Wheels website, the Euro's victory is not particularly popular. Ford fans are outraged. Euro fans can't understand how the Audi didn't win. And the others are amazed the Mazda6 with its wider range of variants and good diesel option didn't win.

[motorsportnerd]

Link to the comments on the Wheels' website here: Wheels - Honda Accord Euro wins <i>Wheels</i> Car of the Year 2008 (http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/95E4BCB0DB0AEBC5CA257544001C6397?open&template=domWheels)

They really are an unhappy bunch. There's some particularly snobbish Euro fans whining on there as well.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The A4 could never had stood up to the Value argument.

As I see it the Accord Euro was simply the most competant across all points of the compass - never the best, but never the worst either.

[fpv_gtho]

I'd like to know how the Falcon lost points for being too evolutionary whilst the equally evolutionary Euro won.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I was discussing with Brendon earlier about how some of the criticisms levelled at one car could be levelled easily at another.

The evolutionary one was raised also.

[fpv_gtho]

These issues have come up with past winners as well. VE had the same issues of poor base spec and a dud engine in the lineup that theyve criticised FG for, as well as questionable gains over the competition overall

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Perhaps the Competition was not quite as strong that year.

Either way, it speaks volumes on how much Wheels think the game has moved on Automotively.

[motorsportnerd]

Looking back over past Wheels Car of the Year awards, there have been plenty of controversial choices. Very few choices have met with all round applause.
Last year's winner - the Mercedes C-Class and the 2005 winner - the Mazda MX-5 - both seemed to be relatively popular choices with enthusiasts.

Let's face it - of the top 7 cars, it doesn't matter which one Wheels chose as its Car of the Year. The winner was going to be unpopular. It was just one of those years where it was going to be hard to come up with a popular winner.
And having a controversial winner is exactly what the magazine's editor's would prefer. Keeps us interested. Helps sells magazines. Has people talking. Which is as it should be.

Personally, I don't mind this year's choice. I like the Accord Euro (considered buying the previous model). I assumed the Falcon would win and thought the 135i deserved to win and, as I like the Mazda6, would have been happy to see that win. However, I was wrong in all cases.
Much as I like the Falcon (I own one after all) and would have been happy to see it win, I have been kind of lukewarm about the FG. It may be a very good car, but it isn't the advance over the previous model and the competition that the BA was back in 2002.

And even though Car of the Year competitions will always be flawed in some way and will often be controversial, I'll continue to look forward to each year's awards.

[motorsportnerd]

Perhaps the Competition was not quite as strong that year.

Either way, it speaks volumes on how much Wheels think the game has moved on Automotively.

Of the top 3 in 2007, if the BMW 3-series coupe had been cheaper it might have won. If the Aurion had better dynamics/ESP and looked less awkward, it might have won.
The Commodore won because the flaws of the other two when measured against the criteria were considered to be worse than the base Commodore's weak drivetrain.
I'm not convinced this year had a stronger line up than 2007.

Anyway, it does show that Wheels thinks the game has moved on. And I doubt the Commodore could have won the award this year if it had been eligible.

[syko]

I don't get it
the side airbag on the falcon base model is optional
meaning if you want it you can tick the box and hey presto its there.

I have not heard the say that the xt's esp was skittish previously in any preview or review of the fg and yet now they decided it is. Are they just trying to satisfy their readers for reason why the FG didn't win?

[SlickHolden]

Maybe it comes back to what i said some time ago.. The FG was going to be a familiar car to drivers of the BA-BF. Maybe that is the part.. As far as looks go it's changed good enough for me.. But that feel driving it will have much familiarity over it..
Whereas Brendon was saying the BA changed the whole feel of the car over the AU - With most of FG gear coming on early..
VE was the same over the VZ. once you drive both cars AU then BA like VZ then VE you feel something big in change in the way they move feel and steer.. FG more on the eyes. Anyone who has driven a BA and Territory should feel a familiarity with FG's driving.
But that's more the AU failing bringing maybe BF gear earlier.. BF could have been an 06 FG ground up job if not for the AU.. Personally as much as i hated the AU look, I still think they should have worked on it into FG.

[clutch-monkey]

The A4 could never had stood up to the Value argument.

As I see it the Accord Euro was simply the most competant across all points of the compass - never the best, but never the worst either.

was the A4 in the review AWD? joins the entry level impreza in the list of "cars where AWD is completely unnecessary"

drove a current model A4 just yesterday as a courtesy car.
how it could be considered a good car, especially at that price, is a mystery

[motorsportnerd]

Wheels had both FWD and AWD versions of the A4 for testing.