Thread: Have to buy the wife a car- but what

G'day Blaze,

I'd be looking for a Commodore or similar up your way. Even though the road has improved a sensible use of power can help get out of trouble, especialy with all the trucks on the road.

I once ran out of road when the vehicle I was driving couldn't pass a truck that had sped up in the overtaking lanes west of the Sisters Hills cutting.

Cheers Andy.

The latest Pulsar got a good write up in the weekend paper ( up against Subaru Rx). They reckon economy was better and handled better than the Subaru, which i was surprised at.
The Mazda 3 is not a bad car either.
I'd check out the Pug 306/307/308 and VW Golf too ( diesel variants ) at least then the windcreen wipers and indicators would be on the same side as the Disco
If buying new I'd be looking for one with Electronic Stability Control standard ( which i think all of the above have )

I got a VY Calais for sale if you want one . But it's V8 .But in saying that the best i have had it running is 9.5L to the 100km on highway use . It does have a few kays on it tho . But for $15,500 it's still a cheap car .

go the falcon on gas option, cheap as to run, plenty of power and space.

I cannot say I'm surprised by all the "Commodore" votes, however, the Ford Falcon is similar to the Land Rover.
Seen as trouble and cheap!

However the truth is, the Falcon is a far better vehicle.
Yes it doesn't appeal to bogans, no it wont do zero to 100 metres shredding rubber and making a lot of noise. It does not have a good resale value and is unpopular with the "younger set".

BUT!! The six cylinder Ford will run circles around a Commodore.
It has more torque, it can actually pull heavy trailers and vans, in the Station Wagon version it has a long wheelbase and solid axle!
The Falcon wagon will not scrub tyres when under a load. The Falcon has power to overtake on hills and at higher speed, without dropping to a lower gear.

I could go on, but I'll quit while ahead.
I have two vehicles that I like for different reasons.
An AUIII Falcon SR that is the cheapest tourer I have ever owned. 8.5 lt/100km with power at high speed to boot :-)

Plus a 97 SE7 V8 Disco that is a superb towing vehicle, for stability! If only it had the guts of the Falcon.....

Cheers,
Ron Mc

Geez Ron,
Obviously I have been driving the wrong Falcons. I find them gutless, very cheap and nastily built, uncomfortable and above all UGLY as sin. I find the Commodore VT on just a much much better package and has absolutely nothing to do with being a Bogan although I may resemble that remark. I realy think the last decent Falcon was the XE. Since then with the AU, way way off base and I reckon they resemble a pregnant Hippo and the rest were close but no cigar. However for what you can buy a Falcon for now it is well worth considering if you are on a budget and have no taste. My pick will always be the V8 though. The Statesman took it to another level and is very refined and you can get them for a similar price to the same model/year Commodore. Having said all that I did like my brothers Ambrose special. Like chalk and cheese with a standard Falcon though. The BA XR6 turbo is not bad either but they still command good prices. Thought about an AU XR8 last year as only $8k but just could not do it, even though it was black, that Hippo shape just turned my stomach.

CraigE

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

I cannot say I'm surprised by all the "Commodore" votes, however, the Ford Falcon is similar to the Land Rover.
Seen as trouble and cheap!

However the truth is, the Falcon is a far better vehicle.
Yes it doesn't appeal to bogans, no it wont do zero to 100 metres shredding rubber and making a lot of noise. It does not have a good resale value and is unpopular with the "younger set".

BUT!! The six cylinder Ford will run circles around a Commodore.
It has more torque, it can actually pull heavy trailers and vans, in the Station Wagon version it has a long wheelbase and solid axle!
The Falcon wagon will not scrub tyres when under a load. The Falcon has power to overtake on hills and at higher speed, without dropping to a lower gear.

I could go on, but I'll quit while ahead.
I have two vehicles that I like for different reasons.
An AUIII Falcon SR that is the cheapest tourer I have ever owned. 8.5 lt/100km with power at high speed to boot :-)

Plus a 97 SE7 V8 Disco that is a superb towing vehicle, for stability! If only it had the guts of the Falcon.....

Cheers,
Ron Mc

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

I cannot say I'm surprised by all the "Commodore" votes, however, the Ford Falcon is similar to the Land Rover.
Seen as trouble and cheap!

However the truth is, the Falcon is a far better vehicle.
Yes it doesn't appeal to bogans, no it wont do zero to 100 metres shredding rubber and making a lot of noise. It does not have a good resale value and is unpopular with the "younger set".

BUT!! The six cylinder Ford will run circles around a Commodore.
It has more torque, it can actually pull heavy trailers and vans, in the Station Wagon version it has a long wheelbase and solid axle!
The Falcon wagon will not scrub tyres when under a load. The Falcon has power to overtake on hills and at higher speed, without dropping to a lower gear.

I could go on, but I'll quit while ahead.
I have two vehicles that I like for different reasons.
An AUIII Falcon SR that is the cheapest tourer I have ever owned. 8.5 lt/100km with power at high speed to boot :-)

Plus a 97 SE7 V8 Disco that is a superb towing vehicle, for stability! If only it had the guts of the Falcon.....

Cheers,
Ron Mc

Ron Ron Ron . you're saying mate that the Falcon has more power and torque but yet a commodore can shred tyres with less power and torque...... something wrong with the drive line mate .


Theres a very good reason why commodore has outsold falcons over the last 30 years . Better looking , better handling ( proven in bathrurst plenty of times before the supercars took over ) and longer lasting . How many XD's and XE's do you see on the road compared to VB's and VC's ????

I rest my case .

Originally Posted by wannalandy

Ron Ron Ron . you're saying mate that the Falcon has more power and torque but yet a commodore can shred tyres with less power and torque...... something wrong with the drive line mate .

They sure do, Commondoor has very low first gear ratio