|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
|||||||
| The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
28-12-2015, 06:56 AM
|
#11 | ||
|
Beaut Ute
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Gippsland, Victoria.
Posts: 627
|
I bought a 4.1 litre Falcon in 1984, and it was one of the best vehicles I've owned—among the many. Strong body, simple but functional dash and interior, well finished and put together, adequate get up and go plus good braking, zero NVH, and a great 1,000+km a day vehicle. What wasn't to like?
Point is, I bought the Falcon in preference to the Commodore because of its "big" 6 engine. As far as I'm concerned potential car buyers put far too much significance on fuel consumption—then and also today. Do I really care if I spend $100 per week on petrol, or $120? Nope; it's a relatively minor point of consideration when one considers all the other unavoidable associated costs of keeping a vehicle on the road, including depreciation, insurance, servicing etc. Would I have bought the Falcon if it had a 3.3 litre donk? Nope. |
||
|
|
Re: Why Didn't Ford Offer A Smaller Engine?
Threaded Mode