It’s a pretty bleak sort of June day up at Heathcote Park Raceway.
A damp fog is still clinging to the higher hills and even though the sun is trying to cheer me up directly overhead, it’s a mean, watery sort of sunshine. Like a cake let down by too-thin icing. Weather-girl/celebrity chef stuff out of the way, this also means the Heathcote hotmix is colder than a well-digger’s arse. On the flip-side, the air is cold and we all know how much supercharged engines love that. Yin. Yang. Take it as it comes, Grasshopper.
So, pull the Mustang’s T-bar into Sport, flip the driving mode to Track, spool the engine up on the brake a little and then squeeze the throttle so that it hits the floor about the same time as the tranny hits second. My self-control loses the fight with my foot just as the tyres lose their battle with torque.
Fourth gear slots home and I’m vaguely aware of the little numbers flashing up on the Driftbox screen, telling me that I’ve covered 400m and I should probably back off now to avoid winding up in the next parish (Axedale, if I’m not mistaken).
I still have eyes like dinner plates as I haul the ’Stang down without initiating a tank-slapper in the process, but even then, I’m starting to process what just happened. I know, for instance, that a stock Mustang GT will cover the first 400m of a decent surface in about 13.4 at around 175km/h. So, I’m thinking along the lines of maybe a high-12 from this car. But my first glance at the Driftbox readout has me swearing out loud to nobody in particular.
Yet, on the standard Mustang GT hoops it was born with and on which it just ran that 12.1, you’re looking at a car that not only complies with all ADRs (we’ve seen the paperwork) but also carries a full Ford Performance Parts driveline warranty. What’s going on here? Two things: forced induction and Rob Herrod. Not necessarily in that order.
Rob Herrod you already know. He’s the love-child of Henry Ford and NASA and has been cranking out seriously quick Ford-badged product since he was tricking up his own daily drivers and having the neighbourhood boys asking him to do the same to their rides.
The process involves stripping the V8 down to the valley, machining off some bosses and bulges here and there and then bolting the 2.3-litre Eaton twin-screw pump in place. It’s not a simple drop-in on the Coyote-equipped Mustang either, as the droop of the snoot requires the blower to sit very low.
Herrod reckons the blower alone takes around 12 or more hours to fit. The kit still allows for the intercooler directly under the Eaton, so the low bonnet doesn’t complicate things permanently. There’s also a cat-back exhaust as part of the deal with a few clever heat shields in the mix and a Ford Performance Parts tune for the ECU.
The end result of all this is 450kW at the tyres which, if you’re as old as me, works out to a neat 600 horsepower at the treads – or 507kW at the crank, reckons Herrod. That’s on a boost-max of about six psi, so there’s still plenty of headroom in this madhouse.
Herrod also includes in this package – dubbed the Compliance Pack – a set of slightly lower, stiffer springs, taking the price of the pack to $21,500.
The solution is to dig a little deeper and opt for the S550 Mustang Handling Pack (again from the FPP catalogue), which gets you some altered rear suspension bushes, a pair of fat sway-bars and a more serious set of dampers at each corner. You’re still in and out in under $25K, but trust me, those dampers really turn the ride quality around and give the car back its svelte.
In fact, it feels almost like a standard car in ride-quality terms, yet it’ll hurtle through bumpy corners with no dramas. The steering retains the fairly natural feel of the stock Mustang GT set-up and the sense as you look out over that long, long bonnet that you’re sitting more or less over the back axle.
In fact, for what is essentially a big car, you can get it to flow from one corner to the next pretty well and, should you mess up and wash off too much speed, that monster engine will bail you out. Mess it up the other way and the stock ’Stang stoppers are well up to the job. We managed a very tidy 35.8m haul-down from 100km/h.
What’s even nicer about the way this car feels is that the modified engine is a bit like the suspension tune: it feels amazingly stock to drive normally and it’s only when you really plant the boot that it reveals its ferocity. Thanks to that gear-specific boost mapping, there’s none of the unanticipated axle-twisting, tyre-frying antics that many a 700-horsepower car would otherwise have. Which is not to say it isn’t hellishly fast, rather that the throttle calibration and power delivery add up to a car that’s easy and predictable to drive.
There’s not even a single trace of blower-whine and absolutely no hunting or pogo-ing at part throttle. But then, when you do start beating on it, the Coyote has a top-end rush that Han Solo would recognise.
Even the cat-back doesn’t make the car nasty in any way. Sure, there’s a bit more aural interest, but it never drones on the freeway or threatens to give Officer Dibble another reason to pull you over.
We drove two versions of the Herrod car: a manual and an automatic. While the manual is probably more entertaining (speaking personally), the auto was definitely the quicker over the 400m. Where the auto pasted down consistent 12.2s and that one banzai 12.1, the best I could do with the manual was 12.6 at 196.7km/h.
That terminal velocity strongly suggests that there’s a low-12 in the manual and believe it or not, I was well and truly into fifth gear before the quarter-mile was up. But the manual just doesn’t 60-foot like the auto and there goes that half a second.
4.5 OUT OF 5 STARS
LIKE: OE-feel, only with masses more go DISLIKE: Won’t win any interior awards
SPECS: Body: 2-door, 2-seat coupe Drive: rear-wheel Engines: 4951cc V8, DOHC, 32v, supercharged Bore/stroke: 92.2 x 92.7.0mm Compression: 11.0:1 Power: 440kW @ 6800rpm at the wheels Torque: 954Nm @ 3600rpm at the wheels Power/weight: 300kW/tonne (approx) Transmission: 6-speed automatic Weight: 1813kg (est) Front suspension: Struts, anti-roll bar Rear suspension: Multi-links, anti-roll bar L/W/H 4784/1916/1331mm Wheelbase: 2720mm Tracks: 1582/1655mm (f/r) Steering: electrically-assisted rack-and-pinion Front brakes: 380mm ventilated discs, 6-piston calipers Rear brakes: 330mm ventilated discs, single-piston calipers Wheels: 19.0 x 9.0-inch (f); 19.0 x 9.5-inch (r) Tyres: 255/40 R19 (f); 275/40 R19(r) Pirelli P-Zero Price as tested: $83,490
BMW executives are reportedly split on how to proceed with the company’s electric car program. Some believe electric cars will eventually become mainstream and the company should keep pace with rivals such as Tesla, while others believe the company’s loss-making EV program is putting a sizable handicap on the company’s profitability.
The German automaker revealed earlier this year that its i sub-brand would switch its focus from purely zero-emissions vehicles to autonomous vehicles.
Sales of the BMW i3 have so far failed to meet internal expectations, though an updated version was released recently that offered an extended battery driving range to enhance its usability.
BMW also offers the niche BMW i8 hybrid supercar, while an i5 mid-sized crossover is understood to still be in the pipeline.
An electric Mini is also under consideration – eight years after the Mini-E demonstration car first showed the BMW Group’s serious EV intentions.
BMW has invested considerable money in its EV programs, with its i3 and i8 both using carbon fibre extensively in their construction.
The i3’s carbon fibre body would undoubtedly be too costly to transfer to an electric Mini, which would have to feature a lower price tag, making it harder for BMW to achieve economies of scale.
The updated version of the BMW i3 went on sale recently in Australia, priced from $63,900.
First published in the May 1992 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.
After the Falcon XR8 nudged out the VN SS in August this year, the VP now carries Holden’s hopes in the bent eight battle. And this time, as KEVIN BARTLETT and MICHAEL STAHL report, there’s a twist in the tail.
Somebody or other is quoted on Ford’s TV commercial for the Ford Falcon XR8: “And the bad news? There is no bad news.”
Sorry, son, but now there is. And it’s plenty bad for the Falcon V8 that has held a brief and slender reign over its arch rival Holden VN Commodore SS V8. The news is that the incoming VP Commodore SS not only got a facelift, but a big nip and tuck in the tail as well.
The inclusion of independent rear suspension, along with detail changes in the front end and a veritable Christmas stocking’s stuffing of standard equipment, appears to have swung the Aussie V8 balance back in Holden’s favour.
The stated aim with the Ford EB Falcon and VP ranges was to refine the existing product rather than radically revamp. For both camps it was a choice dictated by economies anyway, but the advances in overall quality and equipment value for money are palpable in both cars. Ford, pitching its first V8 in almost a decade, must have gnawed a few nails before Holden showed its ace in early October.
They may be gnawing yet. IRS – still exclusive to Holden – is optional on lower six -pack models, but comes standard on the SS. And an SS option Ford can’t match is the availability of an upgraded, 180 kW engine, courtesy of Holden Special Vehicles.
While the option price has yet to be fixed, the 180 kW package is almost threatening to HSV’s own model range, given the stock SS now has the rear end skill to get that through to the road. Both manual and auto SS Holden Commodores get a limited-slip diff as standard. For the Falcon XR8, however, the four speed auto faces an extra cost option LSD.
The Commodore SS and Falcon XR8 are the grown up, body haired versions of six cylinder ‘S’ packs, which are in turn essentially striped and sportified Executive fleet models. There’s still a hint of austerity inside both cars, the Ford half of which lists for $33,161 in auto form (manual $32,595), the Holden for $33,092 auto (manual $32,492).
Both V8s retain manual windows and S pack level , cloth trimmed ‘sports’ seats. The Commodore’s cloth trim is much the nicer of the two. From there, both step up with central locking, remote boot and fuel releases, power mirrors and alloy wheels as standard equipment.
The Holden alone boasts an electric antenna and front fog lights. Significantly, however, the air-con that’s standard in the Falcon is a $1778 option in the Holden. Our test duo’s only other option was the Commodore’s $356 cruise control, an ideally suited accessory sadly lacking in the Falcon.
In fact, power windows aren’t available in the Falcon either – you have to buy a Ghia, we suppose. Holden buyers can luxury-up with power windows in the front ($392) or all round ($785).
Mechanically, both are similar in having 5.0 litre, pushrod ohv, fuel injected V8s. Power outputs are identical at 165 kW apiece, but the Ford slightly out-torques the Holden by 3 Nm, and does so lower in its rev range. Holden’s four speed autobox is not electronically controlled like the Ford’s and also lacks the dual mode facility (power/econ), but both have lock-up torque converters. At the rear end, the auto Ford’s LSD option would be worthwhile at $419. We know, because ours didn’t have it.
Inside, the seats in both cars are more generously contoured than the fleet hack items. Both cars have height adjustable drivers’ cushions, the Ford adding a lumbar lever to its backrest.
The Falcon gets a height and reach adjustable steering column too, but with an awful wheel at the end of it. The Holden has a smaller, more grippy four spoke wheel, but the spokes are too long and it’s difficult to avoid tripping the horn with the heels of your hands.
The Ford V8 carries a redline of 5000 rpm and the tacho calibrations end at 6000, but it has no electronic cut-out. The Holden, on the other hand, redlines at 5500 rpm and cuts abruptly at 5800.
None of that tells you anything, though, because the Holden needs to rev, while the Ford packs a noticeably greater punch at the bottom end and feels about the same at the top.
The Falcon is a deceptive performer. While feeling like a heavier and larger car, and lacking the induction bark of the Holden, the Ford is most likely to impress your neighbours with its surge of acceleration in the lower rev range. It’s more useable, if only marginally so.
The Holden feels a little flat until 3300 rpm or so, at which point it sounds and acts with the enthusiasm you’d expect. Helping the Commodore along are a set of transmission shift points that better complement the engine’s top-endy character. Though the Ford’s transmission ratios feel very similar to the Holden’s, it still only shuffles up between the cogs at 4800 rpm in Sport mode. The Commodore will hold its latter two upshifts to 5300 rpm, which feels and works better.
Over standing start acceleration, the two slushbox V8s are virtually identical. The Holden leaps away from the line a little better, the result of its greater rear end grip, but the Ford soon draws level and works out a tad faster to 140 km/h.
Over the standing 400 metres, it’s lineball. The Falcon’s beefier bottom end surge puts it a shade ahead in the overtaking increments. But really, where engines are concerned, there’s a lot of hair on both and barely a hair’s-breadth between them.
Out in the real world, the Holden has the nicer transmission to use manually. Both shift up and down automatically with acceptable smoothness, but the Ford tends to kick down from top to third a little too eagerly with the switch set in Sport mode.
In their respective, official AS2877 fuel consumption figures, Ford claims its auto XR8 to be slightly more frugal than Holden’s auto V8: 14.5 L/1 00 km city, 9.0 highway versus the General’s 15.0 city, 9.5 highway. That’s certainly how it came out for us, too, with the Ford usually one or two litres per 100 km to the better of the Holden. lt goes against expectations – the Ford is the heavier car, after all, and while its torque converter is of the lockup type, it seems to do so less obviously than the Holden’s, which can be felt locking and unlocking while cruising.
But the Ford’s best of 13.5 compares with the Holden’s best of 14.8 L/1 00 km. Offsetting that is the Holden’s standard 80 litre tank, versus the Falcon’s 68 litre unit. With worst figures of 17.6 (Holden) and 17.3 (Ford), their respective ranges work out at 454 km and 393 km.
Before, when the Falcon and the Commodore were both lumbered with a rigid rear axle, the Ford always got the nod for having the better behaved chassis. It started life with a fundamentally better track width to wheelbase relationship; the Ford stands like a cat, the Commodore like a pigeon. Pardon the mixed menagerie of metaphors but, with its IRS Commodore, Holden has neatly leapfrogged the Ford – if only by about the same margin of advantage.
The Commodore’s niceness goes further than just the rear end behaviour, however. Having a tailshaft and diff now fixed firmly in place has dramatically helped isolate drivetrain noise and vibration. And subtle changes elsewhere have enhanced the overall stability and cornering confidence.
Take a look at the MacPherson strut towers on the SS and you’ll see an adaptor plate that relocates the top strut mount rearwards, thus cranking on more positive castor.
All of which is the reverse of the old Commodore live axle, which lurched into corners like a backhanded slap, then bounced and jiggled and did its best to swap ends all the way through.
The Commodore’s cause has also been helped significantly by the increased track widths that form a part of the IRS package. Front track is up by 34 mm and rear by 9 mm over the live axle models. Even so, compare the SS’s tracks of 1485/1487 mm against the Falcon’s fat 1554/1533, and you’ll see that the slightly longer Ford still has the better footprint on the road.
They both point into corners well, though their steering Is quite different.
Whereas the Commodore’s strong self-centring and on-centre precision is followed by a numbness and lack of feel under cornering load, the Falcon is simply more precise and pointable throughout. It just bites and turns in.
In the Falcon you’re having to think more about the road surface and the corner itself and, although the tail will swoop and dive over undulations, it remains fairly true to its line. Once pointed it will basically stay pointed and won’t launch into anything too alarming, apart from spinning its non-LSD inside rear wheel when you try to keep up with the squatting, squirting Commodore exiting a corner. Overall, Ford has done about the best job possible with this rigid rear axle.
Both cars wear similar sized, 205/65R15 tyres – Dunlop Monza 08s for the Holden, and Pirelli P600s on the Ford. The latter represents a better mating to its chassis, and is more progressive in the wet. Braking is much of a muchness, although the Com modore sometimes feels likely to lock its rears under quick, panic situations.
Otherwise, neither car is unstable under heavy braking. Cornering speeds are also consistently similar – both demand a power-on cornering technique to get their chassis working – but the Falcon driver has to think and work harder for equal progress. Point to point, the Falcon driver needs more concentration and steering and throttle corrections to compensate for his car’s deficit in poise over bumps and grip out of corners.
He’s less comfortable, too, because the Commodore absorbs big bumps better at both ends than the Ford. While the Falcon is initially more compliant over little jiggles in the road, anything more significant will thump up through the chassis and show up a slight inadequacy in damping control.
The whole Falcon experience is also noisier and not In its most pleasant way. lt’s worth noting that our test Falcon had 18,000 km on the clock when we got it and the Commodore only 2500 km, but the Falcon creaked and rattled like a drunken old bastard on unmade roads.
On smoother surfaces, while engine noise is roughly equal, the Falcon cabin has a lot more road and suspension noise coming up through the floor and wind roar from the B pillars. The Holden, meantime, gets some rumble from its Dunlops and some wind noise around the mirrors and A pillars but, in terms of cabin isolation, the Commodore feels as though there’s another $10,000 in it.
That same impression is carried over to the interiors. The Commodore feels like a more highly specced car than the Falcon, with fewer expanses of bare grey plastic and more of the nifties you need.
The changes have been subtle since we tested the manual VN SS against the manual XR8 in our August issue. Apart from the equipment upgrades already mentioned, the front seats are now Calais-sourced items, with plusher trim and padded headrests.
Driving positions are noticeably different, with the Falcon’s cabin feeling low and broad from the driver’s seat and the Commodore more narrow and upright. Bouquets to Ford for its height and reach adjustable steering column: brickbats because the column itself is still offset to the right. The Commodore’s fixed column is nonetheless well positioned, in concert with the height adjustable seat cushion. Its front centre and door armrests are also better placed, and you’ll find door map pockets only in the Holden.
Instrumentation is adequate analogue in both cars, but we’ve never much liked the Commodore’s binnacle mounted wiper switch, or the shape of the single indicator/flash stalk, which encourages your finger to slip off. While the Commodore offers useable grab handles in the doors, the Falcon has less practical overhead grab handles, and only clumsy, nail breaking handles with which to shut the doors.
Also, while the Commodore’s doors have stops, the Falcon’s have none. We found it annoying, as will the owner of the car parked next to you the first time you discover this shortcoming.
Rear benches, meantime, are unchanged from the standard S pack items, and neither car gets rear headrests. A split/folding backrest features in the Falcon, while the Holden has boot access via a large centre port. Both boots carry alloy spare wheels, so no skimping there.
It was only August that we gave the nod to the Falcon XRB manual over the VN Commodore SS. So soon have the roles selected A-for-reverse when we got the automatics together.
But this VP Commodore SS isn’t just an auto-equipped facelift doing battle against its Falcon counterpart. With Holden’s continuing battle of persistence over a fundamental design disadvantage, the VP SS comes together as a nicely integrated touring car. Equipment and overall refinement are helping the SS shrug its humble fleet hack heritage – a feeling that still lingers in most aspects of the Falcon XR8.
The margin isn’t nearly as great as you might expect, given the potential of the Commodore’s IRS, but it is the better value package. For the moment, a case of the news versus the olds.
Check out Wheels Archive online now for other great Ford Falcon features and more from decades past!
Simply log in here using your existing MagShop account or create a FREE account and select this article from the homepage.
Don’t have a MagShop account?
Have a MagShop account?
Some drivers just like to go fast for nix. We don’t mean Porsche 911 GT3 speed, but rather the enjoyment of a brisk chopping and changing between lanes in traffic in a relatively new car for not a whole lot of coin.
Here we’ve gathered cars that were fleet of foot, but perhaps not dynamically fantastic. The marketplace forgot about these sub-decade-old hatchbacks and sometimes with good reason. The upside is if you like to plant your foot to grab that fast-closing lane gap, these rapidly depreciating orphans may do nicely.
1. HSV Astra VXR
Bang-on $10K buys a 2008 model with 130,000km and a 2.0-litre turbocharged four-cylinder good for 177kW/320Nm resulting in a 6.4sec 0-100km/h claim.
They torque-steered a bit, but were grippy and composed, and generally fun. Not bad grunt either, considering a Golf GTI of the day had 147kW/280Nm.
2. Opel Corsa OPC
A pre-bargaining $13K buys a 2013 model with 60,000km that may still have Holden-backed warranty, with a 1.6-litre turbo four delivering 141kW/260Nm and a 7.2sec 0-100km/h. A fun, good jigger that was never quite Clio RS sharp.
3. Volvo C30 T5 R-Design
Thankfully the market has levelled them out and $15K buys a 2008 model with 76,000km, offering 169kW/320Nm and 6.7sec 0-100km/h. Unlike the Ford of the same era, you won’t feel like you’re sitting in a rubbish bin.
4. Kia Pro_Cee’d GT
The 1.6-litre turbo four made 150kW/265Nm and this Kia felt faster than its 7.7sec 0-100km/h claim. Sub-$20K buys a 2014 model with 25,000km and the seven-year warranty remaining.
5. Nissan Pulsar ST-S/SSS
We clocked a 7.8sec 0-100km/h but, although it has zero dynamics, the mid-range in this relatively light (1284kg) hatch is perfect for the city.
NEW car buyers are in line to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation after a scathing government report into extended warranties showed they were mostly lining the pockets of dealers.
A detailed report released by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission this week looking into extended warranties was scathing, finding that the cost of them far outweighed what buyers gained in return.
ASIC said new-car buyers were being pressured into paying for “expensive, poor value products; products that provide consumers very little to no benefit; and a sales environment with pressure selling, very high commissions and conflicts of interest”.
According to the watchdog, a study of the top five products from seven insurance providers showed Australian car buyers paid $1.6 billion in premiums yet only received $114 million in claims.
Commissions received by car dealers were worth $602 million, the ASIC study found, with dealers pocketing commissions of up to almost 80 cents of every dollar paid by buyers.
In contrast, buyers only received $144 million in successful claims, which represents a nine percent return on the money paid.
Wheels has contacted the Australian Automotive Dealer Association for comment.
ASIC said the extended warranties – often rolled into finance payments with little disclosure – were sold to new and used car buyers to cover “risks relating to the car itself or relating to the loan that the consumer takes out to purchase the car” such as credit insurance or insuring against any damage from a flat tyre.
“For some major add-on products, the benefit to consumers was even lower, with consumer credit insurance claims payouts representing just five cents for each dollar of premium,” ASIC said.
Mechanical breakdown insurance showed the best return to buyers, accounting for 22 percent of the successful claims made against extended warranties. However, the average premium cost buyers $1482, with the average claim returning just $940.
ASIC said in the wake of its investigation, the insurance industry had agreed to cap new-car dealers’ commissions to 20 per cent, potentially lowering the cost of these premiums by almost 70 percent.
“There are serious problems in this market that need to be immediately and comprehensively addressed by insurers,” ASIC deputy chairman Peter Kell said.“ASIC will be undertaking further work, including potential enforcement action, to ensure that this market delivers acceptable outcomes for consumers.
“We will also be looking at how insurers can refund consumers who have been sold inappropriate products,” he said.
KEN BLOCK’s Gymkhana series is a viral media sensation, with each instalment reliably attracting hundreds of millions of views every year.
But it has been revealed overnight that NSW Police pushed back on plans for Block and his Hoonigan film crew to record the next part of the series (Gymkhana 9, due out Tuesday September 13th in the US) in the Sydney CBD.
The largest city in Australia was pitched as the venue for Gymkhana 9 as part of a tie-in with Microsoft’s Forza Horizon 3 video game, which allows players to drive across a collage of Down Under locations like the Great Ocean Road and Gold Coast hinterland, and is due to release later this month.
The first eight iterations of the Gymkhana series have been viewed a collective 331 million times on YouTube alone, and are consistently one of the most highly-anticipated automotive films of the year.
US site Jalopnik has revealed the Hoonigan film crew had permit applications to shoot in the Sydney CBD and on the Sydney Harbour Bridge denied by NSW Police.
This is despite the fact Block and his crew offered to produce an anti-hooning PSA free of charge, to help discourage the general public from driving like lunatics.
Production would have required parts of the Sydney CBD and Sydney Harbour Bridge be shut down for filming. The Hoonigan team has prior experience with such an exercise, shutting down large parts of Los Angeles over five days of shooting for Gymkhana 7.
Matt Tuccillo from Hoonigan spoke to Jalopnik about the issues they faced when dealing with NSW Police.
“The police down there [Australia] started to make things difficult with the permitting process for the locations we were trying to secure, both public and private,” he told the site.
“Apparently we were going to be ‘bad’ for Australia and as we got closer and closer to filming we started to lose more and more locations that we had secured, ultimately forcing us to abandon the concept.”
Tuccillo explained the team’s plan was to film in “locations that were iconic and instantly recognizable as Australian”.
NSW Police is yet to return a request for comment to Wheels.
It was suggested by the Police that the film crew shoot at Cockatoo Island. However, Tuccillo said that was an unsuitable location for the film.
“The main problem was that even with a place like Cockatoo, it didn’t give us enough for a whole video, especially with the backdrop being ‘Australia,’” he explained.
“Any public roads we had wanted access to (and none were major arteries or intersections, most were small roads near the waterfront with little traffic to be diverted) would have mandated us driving in a straight and orderly manner, maximum speed being whatever the speed limit was on that road.”
Ken Block’s Gymkhana films are famous for their outlandish driving, with massive tyre smoke, and high-speed manoeuvres.
With Sydney taken off the table, Block and the Hoonigan team filmed the ninth Gymkhana film in Buffalo, New York.
It appears the strong ‘speed kills’ and ‘anti-hooning’ stance of the NSW Police has resulted in Sydney missing the chance to be the background of a high-profile film.
Wheels will update the story once the NSW Police return our request for comment.
It should be noted that the term hoon carries much stronger meaning in Australia than it does in the US, where it is not as strongly associated with illegal activities.
Sometimes we need to be reminded that there are more than two men in the Supercars title hunt.
Whilst much attention in a tough and tight 2016 Supercars Championship has been directed at the duel between Red Bull Racing team-mates, point’s leader Jamie Whincup and nearest challenger Shane van Gisbergen, there’s one bloke out there who reckons Craig Lowndes shouldn’t be overlooked in the title scrap.
That bloke is the man himself.
Lowndes trails Whincup by 198 points, close enough to put him well within striking distance as the championship chase heads into three crucial enduros – Sandown 500, Bathurst 1000 and the Gold Coast 600.
So lots to play for.
And huge pressure on co drivers, as Lowndes acknowledges. He’s more than pleased with his Tonto, Steve Richards, who paired with Lowndes last year to win at Bathurst.
“Steve and I are looking forward to the enduros. He’s driven the car on a number of occasions and likes the way we set it up.“
“To be honest, my technique and approach has only changed slightly and mainly to adjust to the evolution of the Supercar and todays’ independent rear end, bigger tyres and brakes.
“But fast and flowing places like Sandown and Bathurst are good for me.”
Importantly too his #888 technical director Ludo Lacroix also shares a similar car set-up mentality, a good thing perhaps given the Frenchman’s unique ways with the English language.
Toyota has given its Toyota RAV4 SUV range a shakeup with price rises across variants, a safety pack option for lower spec models and the deletion of the mid-range manuals.
The price rises are due in part to additional equipment in the GXL and Cruiser models, though the base-model GX variants gain nothing by way of standard equipment.
If you’re after an entry model RAV4 you’ll need to fork out an extra $560 for both the 2WD GX 2.0-litre petrol six-speed manual and continuously variable transmission auto (CVT) models, which are now priced at $28,550 and $30,590 respectively.
The AWD GX 2.5-litre petrol (sequential automatic transmission only) increases by $660 to $33,650, while the AWD GX 2.2-litre turbo-diesel manual and automatic variants jump by $720 (to $36,310) and $1260 (to $38,750) respectively.
It will also cost more to purchase a mid-range RAV4, with the GXL models losing the cheaper manual variants while gaining standard features including satellite navigation, 4.2-inch touchscreen, upgraded instrument cluster, digital (DAB+) radio, dusk-sensing headlights, fog lights and revised front bumper.
The new features see GXL prices range from an extra $1400 for the 2WD GX 2.0-litre CVT (to $35,390) to $1,560 for the AWD GXL 2.2-litre turbo-diesel automatic ($43,550).
To top-spec Toyota RAV4 Cruiser AWD petrol and turbo-diesel variants go up $910 (to $45,400) and $1010 (to $50,500) and gain ambient foot well lighting and a two-position memory function for the driver’s seat.
Safety technology found in the Cruiser is available as an optional safety pack for the first time on automatic GX variants while remaining optional in the GXL.
The safety pack includes forward collision warning system, active cruise control, automatic high beam, lane departure alert with steering assist, rain-sensing wipers, front parking sensors and a sway warning system to aid when towing. It will cost an extra $2500 in the GXL while costing an additional $3800 in the GX as it includes the new standard features in the GXL such as the 4.2-inch touchscreen and upgraded instrument cluster.
Buyers of automatic petrol GXL variants who select the safety pack can also specify dual-tone paint that adds a contrasting silver accent to the bumpers, wheel arches, door sills and side mirrors for another $1000.
RAV4 Prices
- GX 2WD 2.0L petrol manual $28,550
- GX 2WD 2.0L petrol CVT $30,590
- GX AWD 2.5L petrol auto $33,650
- GX AWD manual 2.2L diesel $36,710
- GX AWD auto 2.5L diesel $36,710
- GXL 2WD 2.0L CVT $35,390
- GXL AWD 2.5L petrol auto $38,450
- GXL AWD 2.2L diesel auto $43,550
- Cruiser AWD 2.5L petrol auto $45,400
- Cruiser AWD 2.2L petrol auto $50,500
You’ve worked hard for your retirement. You’ve earned to throw in the towel on the daily commute and harsh-office lighting. You’re entering the next phase of your life – it’s time to spend your hard earned dollars on you. Naturally, you want a car that will reflect this – maybe a Ford Mustang was on your dream-car list, or a Porsche 911 Carrera. But is your dream-car really the most practical choice?
As you head into your retirement years you’ll need a car that ticks certain boxes on the shopping list. Reliable, safe, dynamic, a clear fixed-price servicing offer and a long warranty to name a few. Then there are these features to keep an eye on in retirement.
Thankfully, there are some cars on sale in Australia that are great to drive while still offering the practicality you need.
1. KIA SPORTAGE
A great looking compact SUV. It’s quiet, comfortable and one of the more enjoyable SUVs to drive, especially if you go down the diesel route offer power and economy.
Warranty: Seven-year
Price: From $28,990
The five-seater Tucson is comfortable, packed with gear and enjoyable to drive. It offers a diesel option as well as a turbo petrol, and some variants offer all-wheel drive.
Warranty: Five-year
Price: From $27,990
You can’t get more Australian than a Holden Commodore. It’s roomy, offers sedan or wagon shape and offers plenty of V6 or V8-engine grunt. It’s still got the sporty option, without sitting too low to the ground and wreaking havoc with those hips.
Warranty: Three-year
Price: From $35,490
If it’s style you want, then the Citroen C4 Picasso might be right up your alley. It’s nicely designed with lots of quirky French finishes and as an added bonus it’s fun to drive. Based on the Grand C4 Picasso, this is a wagon and SUV moulded into a hatch with an SUV-like hip point.
Warranty: Six-years
Price: $40,990
5. MAZDA CX-5
A popular car on the Australian market, the Mazda CX-5 is a medium SUV that drives nicely and is well equipped, for a decent price. Also offered in four-wheel drive, the CX-5 isn’t as large as some other medium SUVs but its size is its biggest appeal.
Warranty: three-years
Price: from $27,190
Some Fiat 500 Abarths cost truly ridiculous money, but on balance we’re glad cars like the unhinged 695 BiPosto exist – if there’s one thing the fast car world needs more of, it’s mad scientists who put racing gearboxes and Lexan windows in a tiny city car, even if it will cost you $100,000.
In the past, a tax on those who listen to impulse over their better judgement has worked in the Abarths’ favour; the price is so far north of apparent rivals that comparisons almost didn’t make sense.
That was until Abarth created the new cut-price, entry-level model, the 595. At $27,500, it’s some $6500 cheaper than the previous base Turismo, the 595 ditching 17s for 16s, bolting in basic cloth seats and giving up a little grunt along the way.
Like every other Abarth, you sit quite high in the 595, a cramped pedal area also making it tricky to get comfortable. While the interior is an ergonomic disaster zone and quite low rent in places, visibility is great and being a small car with short gears that make the most of its 103kW, it’s impossible to feel bored zipping around the city in the 595, chopping up traffic like Mario Kart in easy mode. As a bonus, it’s a cinch to park (though its turning circle is appalling).
While it’s fun in the city, unleash the 595 on quicker roads and you immediately notice this is no Ford Fiesta ST, VW Polo GTI, or Renault Sport Clio. Not only would it be left for dead by all of them in a straight line, the 595, like most other Abarths, lacks serious chassis sophistication.
Though the cheaper price is the main impetus for the 595, to some extent it’s still fundamentally too expensive. It’s swimming in a tank full of sharks like the Polo GTI, Fiesta ST, Clio RS and even the Peugeot 208 GTi – and the food chain is working against it.
There’s no doubt the 595 has a bigger personality than all of them.
3.0 OUT OF 5 STARS
LIKE: Charming drive experience; competitive price DISLIKE: Nowhere as fast as rivals; turning circle
SPECS: Engine: 1368cc inline-4, DOHC, 16v, turbo Power: 103kW @ 5500rpm Torque: 206Nm @ 2000rpm Weight: 1042kg 0-100km/h: 7.9sec (claimed) Price: $27,500
