Just got myself a 97 EL Fairmont for $1000. 262km on the clock. Bodywise has a few knocks, scratches and scrapes, a wee bit of oil usage/leakage, but everything on it works, it has a recent WOF, great service history and drives really well. Can't believe how cheap big Aussie 6's are getting. Clearly the price of gas is taking it's toll on the value of used examples - but for $1000, what a deal! Think I'll just run it until it dies, or petrol reaches $5 a litre!
cmx4eva,
Sep 15, 9:37am
the gas certainly is main the issue along with the mostly low wages available in nz-hardly anyone can actually afford to fill the tank hence the mostly 30$ fuel top ups!
franc123,
Sep 15, 9:37am
The stupid thing is they aren't that expensive to run, I find it amusing as hell that large cars get shunned and people gladly hand over twice or three times as much for some 1.8-2L shoebox, that doesn't deliver significantly better economy and sure as hell doesn't perform as well and is cramped and uncomfortable by comparison.
v8_mopar,
Sep 15, 9:45am
68 l tank in me ed and that will get me to dunedin and back. Thats 720ks in an xr6. My 1500 nissan is about the same at 60 to 65l there and back
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 10:04am
Yeah but you are comparing to an inefficient Japanese car. A 2.0 FSI Golf will do pretty much smack on twice that distance on the same 68 litres with that sort of running. You have ample power and comfort too.
unclejake,
Sep 15, 10:08am
You are very right.
In similar news: My mates are always at me to buy something more economical, but they forget that the more economical vehicle will be $30-$50k more to purchase. Diddles.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 10:15am
!! On what planet!
mellisa2000,
Sep 15, 10:33am
I get around 700km to 68L in my Panelvan too. Falcons are grossly under rated as an economy car. Power+torque+tall gears=economy.
crzyhrse,
Sep 15, 10:33am
Yep. And all that depreciation buys a lot of petrol.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 10:42am
Do you also win pissing competitions against 80 year olds!
Falcons are O.K on fuel if you HAVE to have a large petrol car that is cheap to buy and can tow a large load. But economy car they are not.
Its just Falcon/Commodore drivers are usually too busy being staunch to expose themselves to vehicles that are actually efficient.
crzyhrse,
Sep 15, 10:48am
Perhaps not from a pure fuel economy PoV but they're certainly an economical car to own overall.
franc123,
Sep 15, 11:04am
No its more like we are too busy driving our cars as opposed to having our VW stuck in the workshop yet again while the latest ABS problem gets diagnosed, they also work out why the instrumentation has died yet again, the aircon doesn't work and they find out where the $1200 part that had to be flown from Germany three weeks ago still isn't here.As if we weren't spitting tacks enough about the damn plastic water pump that fell off last month because VW engineers couldn't make one that could stand being immersed in 80 degree coolant for any length of time and blew the head gaskets.But hey each to their own, we find it better to spend money at the petrol pump.
quickstitch,
Sep 15, 11:16am
yip, i reckon my $1200 falcon will give me two years of trouble free motoring and i will still be able to sell it for $1500 when im done. and i usually put $60 in the tank a week. And if it does cost more than a jappa i reason it down to a bit extra for comfort and safety.t
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 11:22am
Thats what happens when you air freight with flying pigs. Nice fairytale.
morrisman1,
Sep 15, 11:23am
you know absolutely nothing about what car he is comparing it to. For all we know it is a 1985 pulsar that he bought for $250 which of course is totally fair to compare against a late model golf aint it.
I dont trust those figures for the nissan in question are wrong or there is something wrong with it. 65L to 720km works out at over 9L/100km, hell I'd be disappointed with that around town.
don_logan,
Sep 15, 11:25am
Bit late for maths, but wouldnt 1440km from 68 litres work out at 4.7 lt per 100km from the golf!
If so, does seem to fly in the face of this review. "In cruise it can be pleasingly economical with freeway consumption of under 7 litres per 100km registered on the trip computer"
I'm guessing under 7 means somewhere between 6-7 or they would say under 6 or 5 !
Fairytale!Its been the harsh reality for many people, some have found out the hard way that a Passat 4motion is called that because of the undesirable effect that the repair bills have on the frequency and liquidity of the hapless owner faeces.But you knew that already being a VW expert.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 11:34am
1. Yes a MK5 2.0 Golf will cruise down around 4.7 - 4.8 l/100km on the open road assuming correct tyre pressures and the car is serviced properly etc. Thats with careful but not ridiculous driving. I can say that having done it first hand in 3 of them. If you really concentrate, use "pulse and glide" techniques etc you can even get as low as 4.3l/100km. I have done that for short stretches for amusement but its not practical for every day motoring unless you get some kind of sick pleasure out of it.
2. Please post links unaltered so we can read them.
1. I know its Japanese (Nissan) 2. I know its 1500cc 3. I know its fuel milage
On that basis I call it an inefficient Japanese car. Please feel free to enlighten me as to how this could be a poor conclusion to draw.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 11:44am
Thanks for fixing the link.
1. It says they were getting under 7 litres at cruise. I could be pedantic and say that 4.7 is under 7. But to be sensible about it, these are motoring writers with heavy boots. That dosn't surprise me at all. It also depends how they set the trip computer. They may well be confusing an instantaneous readout with one weighted over the last few km's.
Official figures seem to vary between sources, the lowest official highway figure I have seen is about 5.5 in reality though I find them slightly better on the open road than a 1.2 punto, and I can squeeze a CVT one of those down to nearly 5l/100km.
I am not the only one, plenty of others have used them in economy runs and got them down to around the 4.3l/100km over entire tank fulls. No doubt you can find those on the net if you doubt what I am saying.
morrisman1,
Sep 15, 11:45am
You would get your panties in a twist if someone called your precious european cars inefficient. Let me try. A friend has a MK4 golf GTI automatic. His trip computer reads 8km/L and on the open road it does not go above 10km/L. On that basis I call it an inefficient european car.
The funny thing is he nanas the car, driving slow and smoothly and that magical 1.8T engine that you rave about can only deliver the same economy that we see the falcons and commodores getting!
ginga4lyfe,
Sep 15, 11:48am
apparently my 86 1.3l Nissan sunny gets 58 Mpg or 4.6 liters to 100 Kms! , but thats only apparently
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 11:49am
Hmmm lets review, the 1.8T is the GTI meaning the high performance version. Plus its coupled to an automatic gearbox.
Its also NOT the vehicle we are talking about here (I made it quite clear I was refering to a 2.0 FSI) and is far from inefficient given its age and the hp it produces. Besides I am not sitting here trying to claiming that model is the pinnacle of economy.
Whats with the random vehicle confusion rubbish!
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 15, 11:51am
It probably does on a Japanese economy test. Have you ever compared how they do the tests! Its time the Japanese were forced to bring their testing in to line with international standards or face action for fraud. Realistically ALL cars should be tested in the exact same way so that means the U.S tests etc should be aligned too. That gives more useful information than supposedly adjusting the tests to local conditions (which is the excuse the Japanese are just using to cheat).
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.