2006 Wheels Car of the Year: what will win in a very strong field?

[fpv_gtho]

Well i guess Audi paid DRIVE a huge amount of money.

On another note who cares about some drive award..............im waiting for the WORLD CAR AWARD .

Im not holding my breath on world car. The VE might be seen as value for money and a decent enough car to their standards, but theyre going to view other models more favourably due to more exposure.

It'd be good to see Holden Commodore win this year because it has already produced about 300,000 (from a guess) and even beat the challenge of having to find new nuts and bolts following the Ajax controversy. I think that Holden have taken it to the world one more time.

Sure you didnt add a 0 to that? Holden only produce about 150K units per year, they wont double that in simply a few months.

[thatdbeme]

It's still a shite tabloid newspaper though. <shrugs> the best of a bad lot

The SMH is a broadsheet

[thatdbeme]

Having said that, if Wheels doesn't award the VE the win, it will be controversial to say the least (unless the WM wins, in which case all is likely to be forgiven). It will lead to accusations of bias against Holden, lack of patriotism, etc, etc.
On the other hand, if the VE does win, it will also be controversial. Accusations will fly about bias towards Holden, questions will be asked about how much Holden spent to get the award, etc.
This is always a problem with Car of the Year Awards.

Noone can justify justify an accusation that wheels was biased against holden. They promote holden in every issue.

[motorsportnerd]

Wheels' VE coverage has been just a little over the top. But since they feature a Ford in virtually every issue, they can also almost as equally be accused of bias towards Ford.
No doubt Wheels' editors would justify the huge amount of space given over to Holden and Ford on the basis that that's what sells their magazines.

[motorsportnerd]

I notice that in the poll the VE Commodore and the WM Statesman are pulling a clear lead. More interesting is the spread of votes given to many of the other contenders, which I think is indicative of how good the past year has been for new car releases in Australia.
Probably any car that finishes in the top 10 this year would have won the title in any other year where there wasn't so many good new cars released.

[fpv_gtho]

Wheels' VE coverage has been just a little over the top. But since they feature a Ford in virtually every issue, they can also almost as equally be accused of bias towards Ford.
No doubt Wheels' editors would justify the huge amount of space given over to Holden and Ford on the basis that that's what sells their magazines.

Its a bit hard to put a Ford bias over Holden in Wheels when the Falcon had been snubbed for the award for so long, whilst every new Commodore seemingly was handed the award. I think Wheels have made comment on more than a few times awarding the VB and VN COTY couldve been a better thought out decision.

[motorsportnerd]

The VB was the right decision in my opinion. A car still big enough to seat five people, but light enough to reduce fuel consumption in troubled times, with decent dynamic ability. Of course there were quality questions. And with hindsight the move to the smaller body car was wrong. But it wasn't known in 1978 that the large car market would survive and prosper. The smaller bodied VB seemed right in a time of fuel-crisis.
The VN most definitely wasn't deserving. Nor was the Camira.
The 1988 award should probably have gone to either the Honda Civic or BMW 5-series. Both were more advanced and better cars against the magazines criteria than either the Commodore VN or the Falcon EA.
Not sure what should have won the 1982 award. Possibly the Mitsubishi Starion Turbo. It wasn't a great year. The Camira was reasonably advanced for a Holden - quite spacious due to FWD layout, modern OHC engines, decent dynamics. But, it was poorly built, spectacularly unreliable (they already knew this by the end of 1982) and really needed 2.0 litre engines for better performance.
Also, there are question marks over whether the VR deserved the 1993 award. Yes, it introduced advanced safety equipment into Australian produced cars for the first time. But otherwise, it wasn't a huge advance over the VP - rather a reasonably well thought out refinement. A worthy car in its class, sure, but not a technologically advanced car deserving of the award.
If the premium priced Honda Accord had been cheaper it would've easily beaten the VR.
Over the years questions have been raised about why Ford has won few awards. But how many of their cars truly deserved it? Back in 1972, the XA was favourite. This was a time when only locally manufactured cars were eligible. The XA wasn't considered good enough to win. The Holden HQ had failed the previous year as well. Neither were particularly advanced cars, and neither deserved the award.
In 1979, it was the XDs turn to be favourite. The decision not to award the XD the COTY is one of the most controversial. At the time, though, Australia was still in the grip of an oil-crisis, and the XD was considered to be wasteful of resources. Yes, the body was of advanced design. But the underpinnings - the suspension, engine, transmissions - were carry over items. There was no 5-speed manual option for example at a time when they were becoming common on many cars. The rear suspension was still a leaf-spring design. Robust yes, but hardly cutting edge. Turned out with hindsight that the XD Falcon was the right car for the right time and it probably should've carried out the award for its innovative body and interior designs. Still, the Mazda RX7 might have held a good claim that year too - but nothing was awarded the title.
The EA Falcon was rightly overlooked. Other then an new aerodynamic body and OHC engines, it wasn't a particularly great car. It was as good as the VN however - and the VN really shouldn't have won either.
In the 1990s, the EF Falcon missed out on the 1994 award. The EF was a similar story to the VR - a similarly though out and executed advance over the ED that the VR was to the VP. And if the Liberty had been as expensive as the Accord, the EF probably would've won. But questions over rear end stability cost the EF.
The AU failing to win the 1998 award was controversial. Not as much as the XD's failure. Probaby because as a design the AU was controverial. And the Liberty was a damned good car.
However, imported Fords did alright a couple of times. The first Telstar won the 1983 award - rightly. As did the third generation Telstar - again rightly. Shared on both occasions with the twin under the skin the Mazda 626.
My reason for stating that Wheels is just as biased towards Ford (or perhaps not biased towards either Ford or Holden) is that in recent times, Ford has received just as much positive coverage and had just as many pages devoted to their cars as Holden. Lets not forget the magazine's gashing praise for virtually every XR badged Falcon since the orignal XR6 EB. Its praise and awards for the BA & BF Falcon. Its extensive coverage and awards for the Territory. And in the past few years, very positive reviews of the Fords not built in Australia - the Focus and Fiesta. In particular, recent praise for the XR5 Focus.
Of course Wheels has always extensively covered Holden. But they are give pretty much equal room to Ford. Don't forget the Falcon BA award was met with howls of "bais". Remember the controversial decision to exclude the VY Commodore? Or that the BA narrowly beat the acclaimed Mazda6 - a car equally deserving of the award? Or the same accusations level at the magazine when it chose the Territory? A car with a few quality issues, a drinking problem and not quite at home in the bush despite its 4WD chassis? Beating off the VW Golf - which probably had a similarly good claim to the award?
Where Wheels can really be accused of bias is the lack of similar coverage given to either Toyota or Mitsubishi - despite the fact that both build cars in Australia and decent ones at that. Probably because, and fairly so, neither Mitsubishi or particularly Toyota engenders the same passion as Ford or Holden.
Fact is, whenever a Falcon or Commodore is released it is going to be favoured to when the Wheels award. Sometimes its justified (the original Monaro and VB were rightful winners for Holden, both wins for the Telstar and the win for the BA and Territory were well justified winners for Ford). Sometimes it isn't justified (Camira and VN shouldn't have got the award. The XD didn't deserve it either, and Wheels made the right decision not to award it).
But whenever either a Falcon/Territory or a Holden win, the win is going to be met with claims of bias, questions about how much Ford/Holden paid and so on. And not just from the opposing tribal camp. Questions will also come form the supporters of Euro and Japanese cars.
I can guarantee this years winner will be controversial. Whether its the VE/WM or whether its a non-Holden.

[motorsportnerd]

On another note, the Calais-V VE V8 won the Carsguide Car of the Year award. At least they're not pretending the base Commodores deserve it. And the Calais-V as a stand alone is a fantastic car by any criteria. http://carsguide.news.com.au/story/0...-21822,00.html

Its interesting to note that Carsguide has given a COTY award to the same car as Wheels has on a number of occasions: they agreed with the Commodore VT in 1997, the Falcon BA in 2002 and the Territory in 2004.

If Wheels awards this year's COTY to the VE, they will really be awarding the Calais V, not the whole range. But they won't be as clear about that as Carsguide is. And the lesser VE's will bask in the shared glory.
I know Wheels claims it has to consider a whole range because of the fiasco of awarding the Leyland P76 V8 the award a long time back. But, this does have problems.
No way is the Omega VE as deserving of the award as the Calais-V VE for example.
Or, in another example, if the VW Golf GTi could've been considered as a seperate model last year (or the Mazda3 MPS or Focus XR5 this year), it might well have won and deserved to do so.
Perhaps its time to allow individual models within the range to be given a shot at the award.

[fpv_gtho]

Or, in another example, if the VW Golf GTi could've been considered as a seperate model last year (or the Mazda3 MPS or Focus XR5 this year), it might well have won and deserved to do so.
Perhaps its time to allow individual models within the range to be given a shot at the award.

Wasnt it last year the Evo 9 was included by itself though?

[motorsportnerd]

Yes, it was - which I found a bit strange. Include the EVO9, but not the Golf GTi? The Golf probably would've won the award last year.

[fpv_gtho]

Admittedly there is alot different to your basic Lancer and the EVO models - the turbo engines, AWD and the front end. But Mitsubishi sell then as Lancer Evolutioin's, so even they say theyre Lancers.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Admittedly there is alot different to your basic Lancer and the EVO models - the turbo engines, AWD and the front end.

Plus a generation old bodyshell.

[fpv_gtho]

Plus a generation old bodyshell.

I dont think so. The all new Lancer is coming out soon, i think the current one is just the result of heavy facelifting.

[2ndclasscitizen]

The EVO 7 through 9 are all based on the Lancer model that replaced the CE2 (my model Lancer and the one the EVO 6.5 is based on) The EVO just got the Boulay nose to suit that model Lancer, and the 9 lost it when the Lancer lost it.

But yes, the new EVO will be based on the new Lancer

[motorsportnerd]

Just purchased the January 2007 issue of Wheels. In this issue, they have culled 13 cars from COTY contention.
The following cars are no longer in the running to win the Wheels Car of the Year: Dodge Caliber, Fiat Punto, Kia Magentis, Volkswagen Caddy Life, Subaru Tribeca, Ssangyong Kyron, Mercedes Benz R-Class, Hyundai Grandeur, Hyundai Accent, Jeep Commander, Peugeot 407 Coupe, Volkswagen Jetta and Mercedes Benz GL.
Only two real surprises - the elimination of the Jetta, favoured by at least one of our poll voters to win and the Punto, favoured by three of our poll voters to win. The magazine argues that "Jetta range fails to deliver vale and versatility of Golf hatch, on which it is based. Not a bad car, but not a serious contender either." The Punto is judged as having "too-big prices for too-small engines doesn't add up to value in our view. Dynamics not great, and rear seat isn't as roomy as it should be."
Few of the other eliminations will surprise.
Also, a comparison test in this magazine further strengthens the Commodore VE's favouritism to win the COTY gong - as it beats one of the other big contenders the Aurion in a comparison test.