The 2004 Dog and Lemon guide review

General Questions and comments

Moderators: IMC, Club Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
RallyMad
Oldtimer
Posts: 1223
jedwabna poszewka promocja
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: Toowoomba

The 2004 Dog and Lemon guide review

Post by RallyMad »

Hi everyone.
Has anyone read or bought the 2004 DOg and Lemon guide. It's a New Zealand publication that reports on cars, and makes reccomendations about their suitability. I'm glad to report that the FTO came out with a recommended rating despite a safety warning for it being a sports car and a higher risk of a deadly accident or something :roll: . :D Anyway it's also really good by accurately talking about the problems many FTo owners face, and decoding the chassis number. :wink:
User avatar
Rusty12
Grease Monkey
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:00 pm

Post by Rusty12 »

IMO one of the things that makes FTO's so safe is the thickness of the doors.

None of that thin Lancer MR crap.
ruchi
Oldtimer
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The 2004 Dog and Lemon guide review

Post by ruchi »

RallyMad wrote:sports car and a higher risk of a deadly accident or something
LOL! :lol: as a general rule, sports cars are normally safer than standard passenger cars. They handle better, stop sooner, go where you point them, better in the wet... need I go on?

I feel much safer in my FTO than my wife's Magna, which is like driving a couch!
MIVEC is My Friend :D
mrx
Veteran Mechanic
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: FTO Capital of Australia
Contact:

Post by mrx »

ruchi, I will second that! If you have more control over a better built, more responsive car, how can that be more dangerous? At least if you do somethin stupid (which we all do) it is a lot easier to get out of trouble in an FTO than an "ordinary" car.
User avatar
Rusty12
Grease Monkey
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:00 pm

Post by Rusty12 »

IMO FTO's are NOT better in the wet. It all comes down to tires.

It a very wide bodied car, so it naturally stcks to the road, but its also very light. I have Nankang NS1's and they stick to the road like glue in dry, but in the wet they are very touchy and very prone to aqua planning. It would be a different story with different tires.

Also, when I am a passenger in my FTO (very, very rare) I feel incredibly safe. For some reason I feel lot lower in the passenger seat then in the drivers seat, sure, I have the saide seat all the way back and tilted alittle, but you just feel encased, with the high window sills and high dash, coupled with heaps of leg room.

It just FEELS safe.
User avatar
RichardH
Grease Monkey
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Perth, WA
Contact:

Post by RichardH »

> I feel much safer in my FTO than my wife's Magna,
> which is like driving a couch!

Hehe. We just bought an '03 Magna AWD Sport for my wife. That particular version of Magna ain't no couch!! Test drove loads of different Magnas, and the AWD Sport is the only one I'd recommend at all. But what a great car. For a "family sedan", it's just brilliant.

Can't wait to take it to a motorkhana training day and have some fun!!!! :)

- Rich
User avatar
rxboy
Mechanic
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: SE Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The 2004 Dog and Lemon guide review

Post by rxboy »

RallyMad wrote:a higher risk of a deadly accident or something
I think that statement refers to safety once the accident has happened. Sure the FTO would be "safer" on the road because of its handling and braking capabilities, but once a collision does occur, you'll obviously come out 2nd best compared to a family sedan or 4WD. This obviously applies to most small and light cars.
Robb
Grease Monkey
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Canberra

Post by Robb »

Rusty12 I have Nankang's on mine too.. I have the same problem in the dry there is no speed that I cannot take a corner at... :wink: But F#@K me dead with a brick if driving with them in the wet isn't the scarest thing ever.... 8O Even when going slow thru roundabouts the car starts sliding everywhere... I have Faulken's on the back and the Nankangs on the front I wounder if having the different quality tyre's makes it worse...

Cheers,
User avatar
Rusty12
Grease Monkey
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:00 pm

Post by Rusty12 »

Sure, Nankangs are a cheaper high performance tire, but IMO they are really, really, REALLY good when its dry... its another story in the wet.

They are very scary, as you said. I remember driving back from work last year when it had been raining all day and the roads were smothered in water. It was so scary because I could just feel the tires not gripping the road, plus visability was bad too, so I was glad I made it home.

Its so amazing how a tire can be so good when its dry, yet so crap when its wet.
User avatar
Daz_FTO
Grease Monkey
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Pine Rivers

Post by Daz_FTO »

IMO I beleive that safety point is for two reasons... One which has been mentioned befroe - FTO vs Range Rover at speed - no matter how good intrusion bars are, etc... u will prolly ome off second best due to the weight differences. If you own the airbag version of the FTO u would have a higher safety rating than one without obviously. I think the second reason is more to do with the type of drivers that have sports cars. More people kick the bucket in sports cars coz they drive them faster and harder - and therefor run the risk of hitting something harder and faster ;)
User avatar
GPXXX
Oldtimer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: < the matrix >

Post by GPXXX »

i would NEVER touch Korean and/or China-made tyres...

the only brands i trust my life with are Bridgestone, Michelin, Dunlop and Yokohama... 8)

...oh and they sound l337! :P
User avatar
RallyMad
Oldtimer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: Toowoomba

Post by RallyMad »

Daz_FTO wrote:IMO I beleive that safety point is for two reasons... One which has been mentioned befroe - FTO vs Range Rover at speed - no matter how good intrusion bars are, etc... u will prolly ome off second best due to the weight differences. If you own the airbag version of the FTO u would have a higher safety rating than one without obviously. I think the second reason is more to do with the type of drivers that have sports cars. More people kick the bucket in sports cars coz they drive them faster and harder - and therefor run the risk of hitting something harder and faster ;)
Thats exactly what I think they where getting at too daz and rxboy. It's funny but in the book pretty much a car without side intrudion bars, airbags, and at least webber grabbing seat belts gets bat ratings.

Don't forget that this is a book for the very basic reccommendation of cars to most people. Not to people like us that enjoy driving and don't all want to drive a camry or something like that. For this reason I'm still impressed by the FTO ratings. A lot of other 90's Japanese sport cars don't get similarly good ratings.

And hey, my current ride, (a modified 86 TX3) is pretty well outlined as a death trap and although I never thought I would be safe in a crash at 60 against a Land Cruiser or something, it's still a little harsh I feel. Mind you most of the imformation is based on crash test. It's a scary world when you think of what happens to most cars in a frontal impact at 60 or above.

I find in interesting to see how quickly this topic became about tyres and some people talking about Nankangs, as a part of safety avoiding a crash is a big thing, sure but not all crashes can be avoided. Maybe a lot of these people using the cheaper tyres are aware of the risk that they run :D but hey, like a lot of things in life, it can be a trade of can't it.
thecook
Mechanic
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by thecook »

i hate to sit in the back seat of an FTO
i feel safer in 4 door car
Post Reply