Buying a small 4 cyl buzzbox to save fuel?

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by RAPID_BA

There is a fuel saving driving a small car obviously.

But at what cost? Safety!!

Would you want your wife and child in a Hyundai Getz whilst some clown collects them. More likely they will be alive to tell the tale in a falcon/Commodore or other big car. Thats my reason, forget the few $$ fuel savings. Im buying a safer environment for my family.

What utter rubbish.......

[xisled]

Why do people think big cars are more safer than a smaller car.

I believe a car built in 2010 is more safer than a car built in 2003 even if the car is only half the size of the 2003 car.

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by RAPID_BA

There is a fuel saving driving a small car obviously.

But at what cost? Safety!!

Would you want your wife and child in a Hyundai Getz whilst some clown collects them. More likely they will be alive to tell the tale in a falcon/Commodore or other big car. Thats my reason, forget the few $$ fuel savings. Im buying a safer environment for my family.

Sorry thats rubbish

I'll take my MY2012 Yaris over your MY2000 anything thanks very much.

However as stated in my post, 99% of the driving is single occupant driving. Me. So I'm perfectly happy thanks.Enough airbags to keep my boof head off the pavement easily.

Our family commute is a 2010 Turbo Deisel Prado, which is where you will find my wife and child 99% of the time. However I would have no hesitation in putting them into a 2012 Toyota 4 door sedan either.

I think this is where small cars are filling the niche. The commuter car as opposed to the aspirational / family car.

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by xisled

Why do people think big cars are more safer than a smaller car.

Because they are stuck in this era:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBiJX0uC-cE

[flappist]

Originally Posted by RAPID_BA

There is a fuel saving driving a small car obviously.

But at what cost? Safety!!

Would you want your wife and child in a Hyundai Getz whilst some clown collects them. More likely they will be alive to tell the tale in a falcon/Commodore or other big car. Thats my reason, forget the few $$ fuel savings. Im buying a safer environment for my family.

So your ruined BA and older falcons are all going to be traded on a bog standard 5 star FG XT?

[mike_nofx]

Whenever people compare small car to large car safety, they always compare a new small car with a 10+ year old car, why?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Whenever people compare small car to large car safety, they always compare a new small car with a 10+ year old car, why?

And they always ignore the facts? self justification at its finest
JP

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by xisled

Why do people think big cars are more safer than a smaller car.

I believe a car built in 2010 is more safer than a car built in 2003 even if the car is only half the size of the 2003 car.

Car safety is a complex issue and can not be generalised in all aspects but in size part of it - big car (larger mass) is going to be safer than a small car. Thats is pretty much a given.
Yes , new small cars are designed with clever engineering and advanced materials but mass is a factor that cant be ignored.
As for 4cyl buzzbox not being fuel efficen and not saving money - why create 4cyl Falcon Ecoboost if thats not the case ? :-)

Cars built in 2003 range from bad to excellent - something like 2003 Saab 9-5 is miles ahead of any current small cars... It really depends on particular cars in question .

[stevz]

Originally Posted by xisled

I believe a car built in 2010 is more safer than a car built in 2003 even if the car is only half the size of the 2003 car.

Really?


2002 BA Falcon
http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring/re...s-xt-sedan.htm

2011 Getz
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/2...L-4cyl-Petrol/

[new2ford]

A bit of confusion between primary safety and secondary safety going on here. Primary (active) safety is to do with the car's ability to stick to the road and point in the right direction under stress. Newer cars generally have better primary safety than older cars because of advances like traction control etc.

Secondary (passive) safety is the ability to protect the occupants in a crash (expressed e.g. in the ANCAP "star" ratings). But, generally speaking, mass takes precedence in secondary safety - in a collision between a 2012 Getz and a 1995 Land Rover the occupants of the Getz are likely to come off worse. Airbags may make a difference though and lessen the disparity if the newer car has them and the older car doesn't.

People in very old 4WDs shouldn't feel so confident though. The rigid chassis and lack of "crumple" and lack of airbags etc may not leave them in too good shape even after a collision with a smaller vehicle.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

I could have bought a big 6 cylinder car but unless you want some flogged out ex-fleet XR6, they cost too much money compared to a smaller car that will tick all the same boxes and is more trouble-free.

Not in the 2nd hand market .....
My 2001 AU Ute XLS version ,has all the bells and whistles, Air,steer,cruise,windows,locking,4 wheel disc,alloys,low profiles , has 300Ks on it and was 3500 regoed and RWC
Where would you get a comparable vintage 4 pot with all the features for that,and has the same power/torque ???
You wont unless its some turboed , high risk flogged clunker, thats probably not road worthy or safe ....
Big cars as a package arent that much more dearer to run, and are priced accordingly due to misconception they are alot more dearer over the year
To me theres more than the purchase price,or fuel usage
To me the less your have to spend over the cars life has alot to do with its overall costings
Ive had my petrol 4bie over 4 years now,other than a 300 radiator ,replacing its original,new plastic fan blades again replacing original and 4 new tyres just recently,regular services, i havent spent a cent on it in 4 years
Yes dear to run, but its cheap to maintain ,so that counts for something
My AU in the probably 9 months ive owned it, other than a new rad hose,first day bought,and services havent laid a spanner on it
To me cheap on fuel doesnt mean a thing if it breaks down every week,or you have to spend money on it every week to get good economy,or its cheap to run because its always on a tlit tray (heard that excuse once )

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by new2ford

A bit of confusion between primary safety and secondary safety going on here. Primary (active) safety is to do with the car's ability to stick to the road and point in the right direction under stress. Newer cars generally have better primary safety than older cars because of advances like traction control etc.

Secondary (passive) safety is the ability to protect the occupants in a crash (expressed e.g. in the ANCAP "star" ratings). But, generally speaking, mass takes precedence in secondary safety - in a collision between a 2012 Getz and a 1995 Land Rover the occupants of the Getz are likely to come off worse. Airbags may make a difference though and lessen the disparity if the newer car has them and the older car doesn't.

People in very old 4WDs shouldn't feel so confident though. The rigid chassis and lack of "crumple" and lack of airbags etc may not leave them in too good shape even after a collision with a smaller vehicle.

Ive mentioned this many times,all car ANCAP ratings are done in controlled situations, we all know life and lifes issues or hassles,accidents arent in controlled situations
I hit anyone in my 3 tonne 4x4 with the non pedestrian friendly bullbar and i hope they have air bags, because there wont be much left if they dont
3 tonne mass at 100Ks head on i dont think there will be many alive to tell the tale regardless how safe the car is i hit ....

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Not in the 2nd hand market .....
My 2001 AU Ute XLS version ,has all the bells and whistles, Air,steer,cruise,windows,locking,4 wheel disc,alloys,low profiles , has 300Ks on it and was 3500 regoed and RWC
Where would you get a comparable vintage 4 pot with all the features for that,and has the same power/torque ???
You wont unless its some turboed , high risk flogged clunker, thats probably not road worthy or safe ....
Big cars as a package arent that much more dearer to run, and are priced accordingly due to misconception they are alot more dearer over the year
To me theres more than the purchase price,or fuel usage
To me the less your have to spend over the cars life has alot to do with its overall costings
Ive had my petrol 4bie over 4 years now,other than a 300 radiator ,replacing its original,new plastic fan blades again replacing original and 4 new tyres just recently,regular services, i havent spent a cent on it in 4 years
Yes dear to run, but its cheap to maintain ,so that counts for something
My AU in the probably 9 months ive owned it, other than a new rad hose,first day bought,and services havent laid a spanner on it
To me cheap on fuel doesnt mean a thing if it breaks down every week,or you have to spend money on it every week to get good economy,or its cheap to run because its always on a tlit tray (heard that excuse once )

Yeah but that's at the cheapie end of the used car market. When you're spending 3-5 grand, there's no way you can go past a big locally made car, but at the 15-20 grand end of the spectrum (new car territory) they are too dear.

You can get ex-fleet FG XTs for around 12 grand...very cheap...but they have 140,000 kays on the clock, and they're ex fleet! Grotty door trims, broken seat bases, flat batteries... that's what I came across when I was looking. Almost all the ex fleet Falcons I looked at in that price bracket were in worse condition and had more kays on the clock than my EL! There's no way I'm spending a considerable sum just to take on someone else's neglected, probably troublesome car.

For 12 grand you can also get a brand new Hyundai with no kays on the clock, and in my experience they are quite a decent little car - certainly gave my old EL Falcon a run for it's money in the comfort and performance stakes. Would you rather spend 12 grand on a car that has already spent half it's useable life getting flogged by fleet drivers or a brand new car that is factory fresh? Almost out of warranty, with the threat of diff bushes and transmission heat exchangers looming, or brand new?

[graham_h]

who gives a damn ?
I enjoy hoofing mine up to legal speeds

[zilo]

If both cars are fairly close in year of manufacture...or if you hit a tree, pole or stationary vehicle etc.

A simple fact...The longer the bonnet is on a car the safer the car is....nothing to do with how many cylinders it is.

If a bonnet is 0.7m long it will suffer twice the impact forces of one that has a bonnet length of 1.4m.

A yaris, festiva. lancer etc will never protect the occupants over 60km/h.

Fuel economy means stuff all when you have been permanently injured.

And you will be in a small car.

[Auslandau]

Obviously the actual topic has run its course and no one wants to talk about fuel economy anymore and just 'again' talk about safety big vs small. Have asked to please avoid this topic as had been discussed ad nauseam and has always ended up in blews and tears will wind the thread up.