Gillard's $2k offer
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Trucks and right lanes (Vic)
Next: 88 Tarago
From: D Walford on 1 Aug 2010 19:28 On 1/08/2010 10:59 PM, hippo wrote: > Feral wrote: >> >> OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:39:31 +1000, D Walford >>> <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31/07/2010 7:57 PM, Feral wrote: >>>> >>>>> It *never* handled like "a knob of butter on a hot frying pan" Bighead, >>>>> it just handles better *now*. And rides better. >>>> >>>> Please detail the changes you made that made such a big improvement. >>> >>> Please underline the section where "big" was used! >>> >>>> What were the OE tyres and what did you replace them with? >>>> Did you do anything like changing springs and shockers or just an > alignment? >>>> Good tyres can make a huge difference but whilst an alignment can help >>>> its unlikely to its unlikely to make that much difference unless the OE >>>> setting where very wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> Daryl >>> >>> Oh and taking out the factory positive camber, lack of caster and toe >>> in will make any car handle "better" >> >> Spot on and the wider GIII's and experimenting with front/rear >> pressures completes the cheap, cost effective package. Neutral >> "toe" works remarkably well on the FWD, the front doesn't >> wander when going straight ahead and the steering is light >> until pressed hard into a corner, when it goes into oversteer >> and you feel like you're drifting without skidding. Eerie >> feeling, but safe. It's like a car out of body alignment, >> crabbing. Get the drift? >> >> BTW Daz, the crappy, skinny fitted Dunlops lasted 35k km. >> That's with rotation, but it didn't stop the outside wear and >> feathering. Couldn't wait to get rid of them. >> >> Makes one wonder why they factory set them like they do. I've >> got Supercats of the same size on now, but they aren't as good >> as the GIII's (no longer available for the Avalon). >> >> > > Two highly likely reasons: > 1/ the Avalon has US origins - the land of understeer, float and 'sneeze > factor steering; I've only driven a rented Avalon for about 100klms, it was a couple of years ago but from memory it wasn't that bad and certainly when driven normally no worse than a Falcon or Commodore, no idea how it would behave when driven like a race car but since only an idiot would drive one like that it doesn't matter. > 2/ Toyota Aus decided a long time (20 years?) ago not to go the same track > as Toyota NZ with suspension and steering. They felt that the Chris Amon > tuned suspension would be 'too sporty' for their customers' expectations. > I don't think too much has changed. > Since its was meant to be a large comfortable family sedan which it is why would anyone need it to handle like a sports car? Daryl
From: Noddy on 1 Aug 2010 20:09 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c560331$0$28660$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Since its was meant to be a large comfortable family sedan which it is why > would anyone need it to handle like a sports car? Because they're delusional. For what it's worth I also think the Avalon is/was okay for what it was: A soft, floaty boring A to B American inspired cruiser. However I also think that they have as much ability to be "sporty" as a meat pie, and while I'm sure Feral has improved his somewhat that doesn't mean it could be remotely described as "good". Better can still be shithouse :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Jason James on 1 Aug 2010 22:00 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c4d5d7c$0$11089$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > On 26/07/2010 8:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> I was thinking about this over the weekend. >> >> Anyone know what the fuel consumption figures of the PM's Com-Car is? >> >> I assume it is a V8. Fuel consumption would be no better than 9L/100km. >> Combined figures are going to be considerably worse. >> >> My 1992 6 cyl Dunny-dore returns around 7.5 L/100km. I reckong that >> figure >> is probably superior to the PM's car. > > Driven on the same road at the same speed as yours the Com car which AFAIK > is a Statesman could use less than 7.5lts/100klms, those Holden V8's are > very economical when cruising at hwy speeds. > > What am I going to get (that has >> similar load carrying capacity of my Dunny Dore) with better fuel >> economy? A >> Diesel van? > > TD Hilux has about the same economy and when you drive one people don't > point and shout "looser" as they do to old Holden drivers. > Must be sad to be so desperately poor that you have to drive an old > dunny:-) >> >> No thanks. >> >> Let's see the Pollys place themselves into Diesels or Prius' BEFORE I am >> forced to trade up(?) to a new car. > > What makes you think you will be "forced" to trade up to a new car? > Even if it is economical a 1992 Commodore is still a horrible POS that I > wouldn't drive if you gave it to me for free. The Buick V6 is one of those engines that is economical and powerful. I wouldn't knock back an early V6 Commodore,..we had all the models at work, and they *shat* on the Falcons for economy from a great height. Performance wise, the Falcon was equal to the Commodore. I had a back road with a hill that I'd compare the 2. Even tho the Falcon had more KWs, they both reached 120 in third with barely a metre between them. The key seems to be the versatility of the V6. GMH geared the V6 to use its willingness to rev, that was the clue to its acceleration IMHO. Jason
From: D Walford on 2 Aug 2010 01:23 On 2/08/2010 12:00 PM, Jason James wrote: > "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:4c4d5d7c$0$11089$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> On 26/07/2010 8:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> I was thinking about this over the weekend. >>> >>> Anyone know what the fuel consumption figures of the PM's Com-Car is? >>> >>> I assume it is a V8. Fuel consumption would be no better than 9L/100km. >>> Combined figures are going to be considerably worse. >>> >>> My 1992 6 cyl Dunny-dore returns around 7.5 L/100km. I reckong that >>> figure >>> is probably superior to the PM's car. >> >> Driven on the same road at the same speed as yours the Com car which AFAIK >> is a Statesman could use less than 7.5lts/100klms, those Holden V8's are >> very economical when cruising at hwy speeds. >> >> What am I going to get (that has >>> similar load carrying capacity of my Dunny Dore) with better fuel >>> economy? A >>> Diesel van? >> >> TD Hilux has about the same economy and when you drive one people don't >> point and shout "looser" as they do to old Holden drivers. >> Must be sad to be so desperately poor that you have to drive an old >> dunny:-) >>> >>> No thanks. >>> >>> Let's see the Pollys place themselves into Diesels or Prius' BEFORE I am >>> forced to trade up(?) to a new car. >> >> What makes you think you will be "forced" to trade up to a new car? >> Even if it is economical a 1992 Commodore is still a horrible POS that I >> wouldn't drive if you gave it to me for free. > > The Buick V6 is one of those engines that is economical and powerful. I > wouldn't knock back an early V6 Commodore,..we had all the models at work, > and they *shat* on the Falcons for economy from a great height. Performance > wise, the Falcon was equal to the Commodore. I had a back road with a hill > that I'd compare the 2. Even tho the Falcon had more KWs, they both reached > 120 in third with barely a metre between them. > The key seems to be the versatility of the V6. GMH geared the V6 to use its > willingness to rev, that was the clue to its acceleration IMHO. They weren't all that bad in their day but that was 18yrs ago and by today's standards they are very ordinary. Drayl
From: Clocky on 2 Aug 2010 02:59
Noddy wrote: > "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message > news:4c554946$0$28655$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> Christ, the Mazda 2 must be comparable to a Rolls Royce then :-) > > Maybe to you :) > > The Mazda 2 was comparable to everything else in that class at the > time. However, I thought it was the pick of the bunch. > >> You're living in an alternate universe if you think a Colt's driving >> dynamics were significantly different to those of a Getz, > > Either I'm imagining things in thinking you're seriously expecting me > to believe that a 1980's Mitsubishi Colt and a 2004 Hyundai Getz are > very similar cars to drive, or you've never driven a Getz. > > Either way, you're off your nut if you think that's really the case. > >> and I'll go as far saying that the Colt has more legroom, more >> comfortable seats and better seating position as well - certainly >> for someone over 5 foot :-p > > Uh-huh. Well, all I can say is that it's a fine thing that we're all > different as the world would be a pretty boring place if we weren't. You still have an inflated opinion of the Getz. > Oh, and as you already guessed, I don't agree with any of your > points. In fact *I'd* go so far as to suggest the only thing they > have in common is that they have 4 wheels and are fwd. Design wise they are not significantly different, so no surprise that the driving dynamics are very similar also. Outside of > that I think the Getz shits on an early Colt from such a height that > the falling turd would cave the Colt's roof in when it hit. Well you would, as expected, but then you expect us to believe that a Getz is a better cruiser then an EF Fairmont which pretty much says it all. |