Gillard's $2k offer
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Trucks and right lanes (Vic)
Next: 88 Tarago
From: PhilD on 3 Aug 2010 04:31 "Albm&ctd" <alb_mandctdNOWMD(a)connexus.net.au> wrote in message news:MPG.26c258f59cdb880989c36(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <8bpnv6FmfjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, ftrust(a)iinet.net.au says... >> >> "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message >> news:4c4edf03$0$12392$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... >> > >> > "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote >> > in >> > message news:i2mkqv$ag1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> > >> >> My own criteria are usually: Can I afford it? Does it do most of what >> >> I >> >> want it to? Do I enjoy driving it most of the time? No to any of those >> >> usually means it doesn't happen. I could have bought some much more >> >> reliable &/or cheaper to service vehicles over the years but I've >> >> enjoyed >> >> most of the ones I've had most of the time. >> > >> > And that is the ideal "need" right there. The desire and willingness to >> > own >> > what you *want* rather than what someone *else* thinks you *need*. >> > >> > Be it a Lada or a Land Cruiser. >> >> Cars are an expression of your personality pure and simple. > > That's why I had a Lada, rough, noisy and obnoxious. > Then I could be in trouble deciding why I've got a '75 Range Rover. I'm either suave, sophisticated and well engineered OR a Troglodyte, luddite and just plain leaky at all joints/openings. Probably the latter. PhilD
From: Milton on 3 Aug 2010 05:18 "Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c56e7cb$0$1985$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > Noddy wrote: > >> 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 > Nope, he's the arsehole......not the fucker. Regards Milton
From: Feral on 3 Aug 2010 06:01 hippo wrote: > > Two highly likely reasons: > 1/ the Avalon has US origins - the land of understeer, float and 'sneeze > factor steering; > 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. > I wonder if it's carried over to the Aurion? Anybody got one? -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: Feral on 3 Aug 2010 06:10 Albm&ctd wrote: > In article<8bpnv6FmfjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, ftrust(a)iinet.net.au says... >> >> "Noddy"<me(a)home.com> wrote in message >> news:4c4edf03$0$12392$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... >>> >>> "hippo"<am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in >>> message news:i2mkqv$ag1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>>> My own criteria are usually: Can I afford it? Does it do most of what I >>>> want it to? Do I enjoy driving it most of the time? No to any of those >>>> usually means it doesn't happen. I could have bought some much more >>>> reliable&/or cheaper to service vehicles over the years but I've enjoyed >>>> most of the ones I've had most of the time. >>> >>> And that is the ideal "need" right there. The desire and willingness to own >>> what you *want* rather than what someone *else* thinks you *need*. >>> >>> Be it a Lada or a Land Cruiser. >> >> Cars are an expression of your personality pure and simple. > > That's why I had a Lada, rough, noisy and obnoxious. > > Al You missed out "and runs on alcohol". -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: Jason James on 3 Aug 2010 15:59
"Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c56e895$0$1985$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > 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. >> >> Jason >> >> > > > why were they in 3rd doing 120?? > can't have been pushing them very hard > should have been up near 140+ in second It was a function of the length of road available. Jason |