2005 Wheels Car of the Year.
01-23-2006, 07:37 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish I say. Call me shallow but a car like that should never be able to win the much revered COTY based solely on it's image, or lack thereof and ownership issues.
The words Ugly and Mid Life Crisis spring to mind. Quality Issues and manual roof add to the horror.
It handles nicely but this years COTY field was hardly anything special. Should easily have gone to the new boxter.
As mentioned in another thread, how credible is wheels COTY after S2000 made it down to the finals in 99 only to be hammered in all reports since.
I'm not biased or anything. haha.
The words Ugly and Mid Life Crisis spring to mind. Quality Issues and manual roof add to the horror.
It handles nicely but this years COTY field was hardly anything special. Should easily have gone to the new boxter.
As mentioned in another thread, how credible is wheels COTY after S2000 made it down to the finals in 99 only to be hammered in all reports since.
I'm not biased or anything. haha.
01-24-2006, 03:03 PM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
*snipped article*
MOTORIST associations say drivers risk being left stranded by the growing number of cars being sold without full-size spare tyres - with the winner of the Wheels car of the year award among vehicles on the market with only a puncture repair kit.
Temporary spare tyres or puncture repair kits were the most hotly debated topic during judging of last year's award, said the editor of Wheels, Ged Bulmer. Despite this, the Mazda MX-5 "won comfortably" in the 2005 judging, although Bulmer would not disclose how many of the 10 judges voted for the car.
"Temporary space-saver tyres or tyre repair kits (which the MX-5 has) are not entirely satisfactory for Australian conditions," Bulmer said.
"There is absolutely no doubt that, given our vast distances and the limited availability of certain tyres, it is a concern."
The MX-5 won because it was fun to drive and better suited to daily use than its predecessor, he said. It was the car's second win in 16 years, ahead of three other finalists - the Lexus IS250, the Ford Focus and the Mercedes-Benz M Class four-wheel-drive.
MOTORIST associations say drivers risk being left stranded by the growing number of cars being sold without full-size spare tyres - with the winner of the Wheels car of the year award among vehicles on the market with only a puncture repair kit.
Temporary spare tyres or puncture repair kits were the most hotly debated topic during judging of last year's award, said the editor of Wheels, Ged Bulmer. Despite this, the Mazda MX-5 "won comfortably" in the 2005 judging, although Bulmer would not disclose how many of the 10 judges voted for the car.
"Temporary space-saver tyres or tyre repair kits (which the MX-5 has) are not entirely satisfactory for Australian conditions," Bulmer said.
"There is absolutely no doubt that, given our vast distances and the limited availability of certain tyres, it is a concern."
The MX-5 won because it was fun to drive and better suited to daily use than its predecessor, he said. It was the car's second win in 16 years, ahead of three other finalists - the Lexus IS250, the Ford Focus and the Mercedes-Benz M Class four-wheel-drive.
01-24-2006, 05:57 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blackie,Jan 25 2006, 10:57 AM
And yet, they still whack a Holden on the front of the magazine...
Coincidently, when I was in the newsagent this morning I noticed that in the Australian's motoring article today they were reviewing the new Cayman. The headline on the front page said "Perfect Porsche".
No bias there either
01-25-2006, 01:47 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me COTY has very little foundation in reality and has very little real world relevance to the public/buyers. Afterall, look at their criteria ... most of them are the last thing that would make a difference to me in chosing/purchasing a car.
My priorities lie very much elsewhere and I judge cars by a totaly different 'criteria'. Same probably goes for most people ... how many people care about:
- inovations in design
- technology advancements
- degree of recyclebility
Even the 'value' and 'efficiency' are of very little importance to me. What I may perceive as 'good' value may be different to someone else. 'Value' is purely dependant on the criteria that you're looking for. To me S2000 at $70k may be a good value, but any 4WD is bad value even at $10k as I have no use for a car like that. Also to be honest the fact that one car consumes 10L/100km and the other 15L/100km makes practicaly no difference to me. 50% more on the fuel bill is easily offset (and bettered) by the purchase price, resale-value, service costs, cost of replacement parts (ie. tyres, brakes etc), insurance etc. All of that will add up to a lot more than the $1000 extra that one will spend each year on fuel.
Also 'safty' category is pretty much irrelevant to me ... not because I don't care about safety, but because what Wheels regards as 'safe' is not the same as what I do. They look for technological advances like traction control, stability control, air-bags, crash rating etc. To me what's more important is now good a car is at avoiding accidents (ie. how responsive and nimble), how good and grippy the tyres are (ie. anything on the cheaper cars is not much better than re-treads). Airbag that gets in a way in terms of packaging, and hence makes the steering wheel more cumpersome is to me a 'negative' feature as I'd rather have better access to steering than having an airbag pop out when you crash. Though, if the airbag is out of the way, and does not interfere withthe steering wheel design/feel then it's a welcome bonus that actually did make the car better.
To me TC and stability control is somehting that makes a car worse, not better ... not necesarily if you can actually disable/switch it off 100%, but if you can't then that would be something that would make the car illegible for me to win any kind of award. A car that does not give you control over ity when you want it? No thanks, straight off my list.
Also I don't care how technologicaly advanced the car is, but how well it does what I want it to do. Also I don't care how many design innovations the car makes ... again, I'm after the final result and I don't care whether the car has not invented/introduced anything new as long as it does what I want, and does it really well.
Though, after all that, I'm happy that the MX5 won ... actually a car that one can get excited about. Not the case about 95% of COTY winners.
My priorities lie very much elsewhere and I judge cars by a totaly different 'criteria'. Same probably goes for most people ... how many people care about:
- inovations in design
- technology advancements
- degree of recyclebility
Even the 'value' and 'efficiency' are of very little importance to me. What I may perceive as 'good' value may be different to someone else. 'Value' is purely dependant on the criteria that you're looking for. To me S2000 at $70k may be a good value, but any 4WD is bad value even at $10k as I have no use for a car like that. Also to be honest the fact that one car consumes 10L/100km and the other 15L/100km makes practicaly no difference to me. 50% more on the fuel bill is easily offset (and bettered) by the purchase price, resale-value, service costs, cost of replacement parts (ie. tyres, brakes etc), insurance etc. All of that will add up to a lot more than the $1000 extra that one will spend each year on fuel.
Also 'safty' category is pretty much irrelevant to me ... not because I don't care about safety, but because what Wheels regards as 'safe' is not the same as what I do. They look for technological advances like traction control, stability control, air-bags, crash rating etc. To me what's more important is now good a car is at avoiding accidents (ie. how responsive and nimble), how good and grippy the tyres are (ie. anything on the cheaper cars is not much better than re-treads). Airbag that gets in a way in terms of packaging, and hence makes the steering wheel more cumpersome is to me a 'negative' feature as I'd rather have better access to steering than having an airbag pop out when you crash. Though, if the airbag is out of the way, and does not interfere withthe steering wheel design/feel then it's a welcome bonus that actually did make the car better.
To me TC and stability control is somehting that makes a car worse, not better ... not necesarily if you can actually disable/switch it off 100%, but if you can't then that would be something that would make the car illegible for me to win any kind of award. A car that does not give you control over ity when you want it? No thanks, straight off my list.
Also I don't care how technologicaly advanced the car is, but how well it does what I want it to do. Also I don't care how many design innovations the car makes ... again, I'm after the final result and I don't care whether the car has not invented/introduced anything new as long as it does what I want, and does it really well.
Though, after all that, I'm happy that the MX5 won ... actually a car that one can get excited about. Not the case about 95% of COTY winners.
01-26-2006, 03:18 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole concept of COTY seems senseless to me.
Firstly, it is extremely subjective. Secondly it is rather narrow in its assessment. Thirdly, how can a roadster be compared to a LandCruiser, or a Suzuki Swift.
Different vehicles. Different assessment.
The Mazda is fine for girls who appreciate style over substance, and boys who can't afford something better.
This whole thing is tainted by marketing and mateship. You can be sure that companies that dont advertise in Wheels dont get too many awards.
By any measure the Honda is superior and it should be for the extra money you pay. That isn't the point. Selecting a COTY is not unlike selecting the sexiest woman. Perfectly pointless.
Add to the list of previous winners that were absolute dogs the 1968 VE Valiant.
Firstly, it is extremely subjective. Secondly it is rather narrow in its assessment. Thirdly, how can a roadster be compared to a LandCruiser, or a Suzuki Swift.
Different vehicles. Different assessment.
The Mazda is fine for girls who appreciate style over substance, and boys who can't afford something better.
This whole thing is tainted by marketing and mateship. You can be sure that companies that dont advertise in Wheels dont get too many awards.
By any measure the Honda is superior and it should be for the extra money you pay. That isn't the point. Selecting a COTY is not unlike selecting the sexiest woman. Perfectly pointless.
Add to the list of previous winners that were absolute dogs the 1968 VE Valiant.
01-26-2006, 04:51 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne!
Posts: 3,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leopardsocks,Jan 26 2006, 10:18 PM
The Mazda is fine for girls who appreciate style over substance, and boys who can't afford something better.
The MX5 is a fine convertible, quick enough for around town (especially with the new 2 litre motor) and more than sporty enough for fast driving on anything other than a competition track.
'sounds like you've got something you need to compensate for when making statements like that Leopard.
01-26-2006, 04:55 PM
#20
Surely the socks were a dead set give away.
Does the S2000 really lack torque? I always though that pre-VTEC the S was like any other NA 2L and above that ballistic. And that the 'no torque' idea came from comparisons to 240hp V8s and the like.
How much torque does the S put out at 4000rpm and how much does the MX5 (by way of comparison).
And I never found the clutch to be binary. That was a big part of why it wore out when I went FI.
Does the S2000 really lack torque? I always though that pre-VTEC the S was like any other NA 2L and above that ballistic. And that the 'no torque' idea came from comparisons to 240hp V8s and the like.
How much torque does the S put out at 4000rpm and how much does the MX5 (by way of comparison).
And I never found the clutch to be binary. That was a big part of why it wore out when I went FI.