Yea without looking it up i was going to say 65 litre - have managed to get 550km out of it but generally 530km would be right
richardmayes,
Sep 20, 11:57pm
Well I wouldn't - the "new shape" Euro looks bloody awful!
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 21, 12:13am
Errr no, thats only what people who have been suckered into the reliability wives tales believe.
In general Toyota don't utilize any technology until its been used by other manufacturers for around 15 years or more, sometimes they are even holding on to technology that is several decades old.
This and and offering less equipment sometimes gives them a modest reliability advantage. (its nothing to do with parts being better built etc because they certainly are not). They then play on that reliability advantage and use it "one trick pony style" to attract their customer base.
It also lowers their production and research and development costs significantly. When you buy a Toyota you have often bought an over priced old car wearing a new party dress based on marketing/hearsay that plays on peoples fear of the unknown.
The cars are by no means terrible but as you can see from the economy figures alone they are not even close to being as efficient as the VW/Skoda. This is because of the outdated technology they use and aversion to designing for efficiency.Its not just efficiency that's affected either, they are always on the back foot with regard to safety etc as well.
In a world where technology is leaping forward at an exponential rate buying an over priced typewriter instead an Ipad for reliability reasons does not make a lot of sense.
richardmayes,
Sep 21, 1:10am
There's nothing scientific about this observation, but I've found almost every Toyota I've driven has been a little bit torque-ier and had slightly more usable grunt than the equivalent Jappers of other marques.
If one of the "old" design features that they are holding onto is engines that are tuned to have a bit of bottom end, well that's an "old", "backwards" design feature I would consider quite attractive!
Don't ruin it with silly hyperboles. If a Toyota is a typewriter, then the latest VW equivalent is a typewriter with an improved kind of ribbon spool, not an iPad.
If you want to really talk tech one-upmanship, look no further than the extreme fuel efficiency market.
All that the VW "bluemotion" cars are, are ordinary cars with asthmatically de-tuned engines, tall gearboxes and skinny "low friction" tyres (lol!) VW then have the nerve to pretend in their advertising that they are market leaders in this field, inevitably comparing their products to the car which invented this market - the Prius which really is a revolutionary design.
phillip.weston,
Sep 21, 1:14am
I thought the same when it first came out, but it's definitely growing on me. It made the Euro look more wider and bigger than it really was. After getting used to the new shape Euro the old shape one looks out of proportion a bit, as if it's too skinny for the length of the car.
richardmayes,
Sep 21, 1:24am
Also if you decide to go with the 2.4 litre Euro Accord. Jtune in Mt Roskill reckon they can tune the engine to Ford Falcon horsepower for about $4,000. (without using a turbo). Then you would have a weapon that could make Scotty20,000,000,001 cry.
($4,000 = Basically a new exhaust and aftermarket ECU, fitted, and some dyno time!)
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 21, 1:36am
LOL, you are a funny man. Where to even start. I have gone into the differences between the ancient Toyota Automatics, slow uptake of efficiency measures like electric power steering etc many times in past so I won't bother this time around.
Bottom line, the sum total of efficiency can be measured in 0-100 times and actual fuel economy. Just make sure you use "actual" fuel economy figures and/or direct comparisons because the Japanese have rigged their fuel efficiency test system to make their cars look significantly more economical than they are. Anyone can look up how the tests are done and see this for themselves.
With regard to the Prius, just like other Toyota's its just marketing hype wiht no substance. For all its ridiculouse pricetag and compromises it delivers no significant saving over equivalent performing regular vehicles conventional but up to date technology. Why you would pick on VW Bluemotion for using low friction tyres when the Prius does this AND makes many more significant compromises I do not know. Likewise to criticize VW's gearbox's as "tall" when they have 7 ratios is just hilarious, especially when the majority of Toyota's on NZ roads are struggling with 4 gears.
VW by the way have built a hybrid that's about 5 times more efficient than the Prius (no I am not exaggerating it uses less than 1l/100km)which shows you just how far Toyota are behind in the design and R and D stakes.
Clearly you have never driven a blue motion product or owned a VW. If you did you would realise that a stock standard Golf (not even bluemotion) will give you much the same economy as Prius for the vast majority of NZ conditions with plenty of power. If you go Bluemotion you get a bit more economy again and very little compromise on performance.
My advice Richard is to go and actually drive these vehicles before criticizing them and do some research/learning so you understand what you are talking about. I have owned/worked on and regually driven much of Toyota's product as well as VW's. I know first hand what I am on about and anyone else with some common sense can draw the same conclusions, hang you can quickly get the picture just comparing the spec.
ntalke,
Sep 21, 1:37am
Standard XR6 195Kw
F6 intake+ K&N Panel approx $200/220 gives you about 205/8Kw
$4000 is alot to spend to get that increase
richardmayes,
Sep 21, 1:51am
Bzzzt! Wrong.
I had a test drive of a Bluemotion Polo when they first came out (basically on a dare as my boss wanted to know if one would be any good as an office hack). My experience of it was pretty much the same as the autocar review I read some time afterwards: A little city car with no performance and dodgy tyres, at a premium price.
I also drove a turbo-diesel Volkswagen camper van for 1500km earlier this year, now that thing DID impress with its power and fuel economy! So I'll grant that VW make good light trucks, I've yet to be convinced by any of the hype around the cars.
thejazzpianoma,
Sep 21, 1:53am
The Polo has always been a poo car. If you do a search you will see I have said that on many an occasion. Go and drive the regular Golf with any of the tasty engine choices. You will quickly see that economy does not require compromise.
phillip.weston,
Sep 21, 1:55am
Toyota had electric power steering in 1990 on their SW20 MR2s.
This 1L/100km 'hybrid car' you are talking about is NOT a production car and resembles more of a pushbike than anything else.
Yes the cheaper Toyotas may have 4 speed automatics still, but they probably cost (tens of) thousands less than the equivalent VW/Audi product with a 6/7 speed automatic. Plenty of higher spec Toyotas with 5/6/7 or even 8 speed automatics transmissions.
As much as I find Toyota every day passenger cars a bore, you cannot deny that they are just engineered and built to last, even if it's because they are more simple.
ema1,
Sep 21, 2:21am
I reckon getting the cheque book out often would get boring after a while, even damn annoying. Haven't had that problem with any of my Toyota's over time 12 Toyota's in all actually over about 25 years, boring as some folks on here say, but that's their opinion I guess. Had a BMW in the mix along with the odd other makes mostly English BMC types early on in the piece, funny I didn't have it long and never wanted another one, the one I had must have been assembled by short sighted workers on a Monday, disappointedas I thought BMW's were supposed to be a well built car.! Anyway in Europe they are classed as just another run of the mill car really when all said and done. Got an as new Mercedes Benz 220SEb .admittedly it's 46years young now but it was built in a time when the pride in the product really showed. Total quality it is even still, unlike a lot of the same make built in the late 1980's up to around year 2000. I can vouch for about 1.5million kms driven in Toyota's I've had with very little down time apart from routine maintenance and the odd glitch which is less than is to be expected in that distance traveled. For me .Toyota .Nuff said.
bignzer1,
Sep 21, 2:32am
Totally agree I have a 2004 Honda Accord Euro SW and loving it Can't beat Honda or Toyota for reliability IMO
scotty20001,
Sep 21, 5:57am
my god your full of shit mayes, a 2.4L heap of shit beating a supercharged 3.8, i guess dreams are free, even with that $4000 tune it doesn't even produce close to the torque a standard L67 makes let alone the peak power which is all you rice wankers seem to talk about like its the be all and end all, stick to what you know mayes because its pretty obvious you know shit all about cars, after all you drive a ford laser and were recommending a cr-v (cancerous road vehicle) as a "good car" not to mention your beloved heap of shit accord drives the wrong wheels.
scotty20001,
Sep 21, 5:58am
you poor bastard.
scotty20001,
Sep 21, 6:09am
hey Jazz don't listen to this mayes tosser he thinks cars made in Thailand have good build quality and drives a ford laser.
scotty20001,
Sep 21, 6:11am
bzzt tosser! you really can't talk performance when you are recommending accords and crv-s leave that to the driving enthusiasts mayes.
my god get your hand off it Scott. No one mentioned a Commodore let alone a Supercharged V6 one anywhere, why feel the need to bring it up!
At least Jazz tries to form logical answers to justify his one eyed-ness, you on the other hand aren't so elegant in your posts. There's a reason why I don't come here much these days.
scotty20001,
Sep 21, 7:02am
really! maybe you should read tosser mayes posts properly, i really would love some of what he is smoking it must be good stuff.
phillip.weston,
Sep 21, 7:09am
well if you bothered to read the link he posted up you will see that a company in Auckland is successful with increasing the power output to close to BA Falcon levels. That's quite an amazing feat considering the engine is only 2.4L of displacement as opposed to 4.0L. Yes it probably doesn't have anywhere near the torque, especially down low but the 173kW at the wheels is not to be sneezed at! Either way it's not a fair comparison, be it comparing the Honda to the Falcon or the Honda to the Commodore.
lady71,
Sep 21, 8:25am
Falcon all the way I drive a 2000 model very nice vehicle, hubby has a 03 xr6 and son a 98 xr8.all nice vehicles.
mugenb20b,
Sep 21, 8:37am
Yeah, sure.
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.