From: Noddy on 2 Aug 2010 03:16
"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message
> You still have an inflated opinion of the Getz.
No Clocky, I don't.
I think they're an okay little car, but at the time which I was making
direct comparisons (which was 2004) so was the Mazda 2, the Echo, the Jazz,
the Swift and the Barina. You could have thrown a blanket over the lot of
them as far as driving dynamics and fit & finish were concerned, but the
thing that seperated the Getz from the resr of the field at the time is that
it was considerably cheaper while being just as good a car and in some cases
offering a lot more kit as part of the bargain.
> Design wise they are not significantly different, so no surprise that the
> driving dynamics are very similar also.
It may not be surprising for you, but then by your logic a 1980 Ford Laser
should have very similar driving dynamics to a 2010 Honda Civic because
there's no significant difference in their design. You can think whatever
you like of the Getz (and cars of it's ilk), but the difference in terms of
handling ability, stopping & steering ability, comfort and NVH levels
between it and a 1980's Mitsubishi colt is *light-years* apart in my
Just like there would be between a 1980's Colt and anything else built 20
> 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.
No, I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that at all, and this is
were you and a few others need to brush up on your comprehension skills a
What I said was that while I generally liked my EF Fairmont, and it was
indeed a very good car, *I* found the Getz to be a more comfortable long
distance cruiser from a driver's point of view. That doesn't mean that I
thought the Getz to be a better car overall, or that everyone else would
find one as comfortable as I did.
From: Kev on 2 Aug 2010 11:45
> What I said was that while I generally liked my EF Fairmont, and it was
> indeed a very good car, *I* found the Getz to be a more comfortable long
> distance cruiser from a driver's point of view. That doesn't mean that I
> thought the Getz to be a better car overall, or that everyone else would
> find one as comfortable as I did.
You must be one short fucker
From: Kev on 2 Aug 2010 11:48
Jason James wrote:
> "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
why were they in 3rd doing 120??
can't have been pushing them very hard
should have been up near 140+ in second
From: Noddy on 2 Aug 2010 19:07
"Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message
> You must be one short fucker
Yet *another* armchair expert who's clearly never sat in a Getz :)
For the record, I'm 5'8" tall, which is average. The thing about the Getz
that made it comfortable for *me* on a trip was that it had an extraordinary
amount of front seat room at the expense of rear seat space. It's also not
cramped up with a large bulky console meaning you can throw a leg around
wherever you want and "relax", and the front seats are *very* comfortable
and supportive for extended periods. I could drive the thing for 8 hours
straight and get out feeling like I'd just done 2 hours in the Falcon.
The EF was a fine car, but after about an hour and a half it got tiresome.
The seats, while comfortable, lacked any real lumbar support, and while it
was certainly a larger car all round the driver's "corner" was more cramped.
From: OzOne on 2 Aug 2010 20:46
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:07:05 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:
>For the record, I'm 5'8" tall, which is average.
Average Australian male is 5'10" (1.75m)
No wonder you're such an obnoxious prig...You have small man syndrome
and you dispaly ALL the symptoms!
OzOne of the three twins
I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.