Archive for 2015
The Buzz About The Electric Car
If you were to read the typical review of an electric car – a Nissan LEAF, say – you’re likely to be left with the impression that electric cars are a brand new technology that’s never been seen before. Unfortunately (or should that be fortunately?), this impression is incorrect.
This is only one of the misconceptions about the electric car. The other main one, which typically got heard in the 1980s and 1990s before electric and hybrid vehicles git the market, was a juicy conspiracy theory about big vehicle manufacturing companies or oil magnates finding out about plans for an electric car and taking steps to rub out either the invention… or the inventor. Seeing as most big car companies are putting out hybrids and electrics these days, we now know that this sort of story probably needs to go in the thriller fiction category.
But what about the idea that electric cars are a new thing? Many people are surprised to discover that they aren’t new at all. They were new and hot back in the USA in the 1890s, after a number of inventors had played around with them. In the early days of the automobile, fossil fuels didn’t have it all their own way – there were a few steam numbers knocking about, alongside the electrics, the diesels (and, of course, the horses and the bicycles).
So what happened? How did the electric car go from having about one-third of the private car market to being so rare that it was the subject of the aforementioned conspiracy theories? You can probably blame two main factors. Number one was the mass production methods of Henry Ford, who made his cars cheap for the masses. They just happened to be petrol powered. Number two was, of course, World War 1, which got inventors to pay attention to things that would useful for combat. Electric cars might have been fine for puttering around the streets of London Detroit or New York but were not so good if you had to go long distances, like the taxis that took troops from Paris to the French–German border did. What’s more, a lot of the inventors who had concentrated on aeroplanes during the war turned to cars after the war (or, more accurately, between the wars) and by that time, they were kind of used to working with petrol and diesel. Petrol was pretty cheap, too, what with oil well after oil well being discovered in the Middle East and in Texas. So the electric car just sort of fizzled away.
Well, it fizzled until petrol stopped being quite so cheap and the world became much more aware of the twin problems of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and air pollution in all its forms. Now, we’re all wanting electric cars back again.
However, it’s not quite as simple as all that. For one thing, although electric cars have the advantage of having fewer moving parts to break down as well as having the low, low emissions when used, they still have the problems with range. At the moment, an electric car is great for an urban commute (oh, the joys of not sitting there idling at the lights!). However, if you regularly drive interstate or if you live on a farm, then an electric car isn’t going to have the range you need to get from A to B… which can be quite a long way.
While electric cars don’t need to be filled with petrol and they can use some of their kinetic energy while braking to recharge themselves, they will still need to be recharged when the battery runs low. Just like everything else that uses a rechargeable battery, such as your laptop, your phone and your camera. Now, you know how long it takes to charge your other electronic devices. As an electric car battery needs to do a lot more than your phone or laptop – getting something moving needs more energy than crunching data does – it will take a lot longer to recharge. Overnight, in most cases.
The slightly more complicated issue is the fact that the electricity needed to recharge the batteries has to come from somewhere. This can make the electric car not quite as green as the advertising makes it out to be. All is well if your electricity comes from a renewable source, such as hydro, solar, wind or geothermal (and all the other interesting new ones they’re looking at, like tidal). However, if the power station nearest you relies on coal or some other fossil fuel, your electric car probably has the same carbon footprint as the typical family car. Don’t even get me started on the potential hazards of nuclear power plants, as the folk of Fukushima or Chernobyl can testify to.
The other potential problem with electric cars, which the manufacturers are working on, is the battery. For one thing, batteries are horribly expensive to produce. This is the factor that makes electric vehicles a bit on the pricey side. And the battery will have to be replaced at some point during the car’s lifetime, putting the price tag of owning an electric vehicle up a bit higher. However, this is always the case with new green technologies. They start out really expensive and only a few people take them on. Then it becomes cheaper and more widespread. It’s happened with solar panels and it will probably happen with the batteries in electric cars, too.
The second thing with batteries is that they tend to be made of some pretty lethal stuff, as are all batteries. Lead, lithium and nickel are typically used. This might prove to be a bit of a problem as electric cars get more widespread and disposal of old batteries becomes more of an issue. Thankfully, some companies, such as Nissan, will take old batteries back and recycle them. So do some specialist recycling companies.
Things will change with the electric car. There’s a typical pattern that all new technologies follow as they become more widespread and popular. At the moment, about halfway through 2015, will the purely electric car be right for you? It could well be if you can say yes to the following:
- You are passionate about the environment and don’t mind spending a bit more to minimize your carbon footprint.
- You are based in a city and don’t drive long distances.
- Your local power company runs on sustainable energy or you have lots of solar panels on your house.
- You know where to recycle the battery.
- You have a lifestyle that allows you to recharge the battery overnight (and you don’t mind having a power bill instead of a petrol bill).
The rest of us will have to make do with hybrids, biodiesel and driving what we’ve got as frugally as possible… at least for now!
Safe and happy driving, no matter what powers you,
Megan
Those Fuel Consumption Figures…
I don’t know what you look at first when you think about buying a new car and comb through all the stats in a car review to see what it’s like. For me, the fuel economy figures would have to be just about top of the list, jostling for space with details like the size of the boot and the number of doors and seats. However, have you ever noticed that when you actually purchase your new car, you never seem to get the same fuel economy figures that the sticker on the windscreen says?
Sometimes, the reason why you’re not quite wringing the same economy out of your little car is obvious: you may like to accelerate and go fast, you may do heaps of towing, or you may do heaps more stopping and starting and idling than the average driver. However, even if you’re a light-footed driver who does the average commute, you still might not match the figures in the review or brochure. So what on earth is going on? Are you a worse driver than you think you are? How do they get those fuel consumption figures anyway?
You might imagine that the way the official boffins get the figures is to take the test vehicle and actually drive it around a test track for 100 km at open road speeds, at urban speeds with a few stops to mimic traffic lights and a mixture of both. That would give a fair impression of what the fuel economy stats actually are in real life conditions, you would think.
However, this is what they don’t do. During the testing process in most parts of the world, the testing gets done in a lab under controlled conditions. It’s like the experiments we did in science class at school, where there’s only one variable to be tested and everything else is exactly the same. This does mean that the fuel economy stats aren’t going to be skewed by things like a headwind during the testing process so you can compare car with car, but it’s still a bit disappointing for the average driver.
During the test in the lab, the vehicle gets put on a dynamometer or a rolling road for about 20 minutes. The temperature is somewhere between 20°C and 30°C, and the cars being tested have been nicely run in and are tested from a cold start. During the test for urban figures, the car “drives” for 4 km with a maximum speed of 50 km/h, a few stops and a fair bit of idling, for an average speed of 19 km/h. For the open road speed, the car covers 7 km, gets up to a maximum of 120 km/h and averages 63 km/h. Each test gets repeated a few times – about four times, according to one source. To get the combined figure, they get the average of the two figures weighted by the distance covered in each test. OK, this is a fairly simplified description of the procedure, and if you want to know all the details and all the maths, you can read it at https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00282/Html/Volume_4
The regulations state that “Only the equipment necessary for the operation of the vehicle during the test shall be in use.” They also state that the air con needs to be switched off and the heating should be at “normal” (like you do when driving around when the thermometer hits 27°C?). The widest tyres should be used. The lights and indicators should be off. The slope of the road should be no more than 2%, the top wind speed should be 3 m/s on average (that’s about 11 km/h) and the track should be dry. Tyre pressure should be whatever’s specified by the manufacturers (and you can bet that they’ll put it on the harder side during testing to get more frugal figures). Need we add that there’s probably only going to be one person in the car (unless they get a robot to do it somehow) and the boot will be empty?
Yes, well, we all drive on perfectly dry roads that are practically flat on windless days with nothing in the boot and with the air con off and the windows up (on a hot day?) and the mirrors folded back as sleekly as possible to minimise drag. And we don’t touch the indicators or the lights at all. Which is what the manufacturers were doing when they got the test stats so they could get them looking as attractive as possible.
Back in the real world, you’re going to have wet roads, slopes and headwinds. You’re going to use the headlights and the indicators. You’re going to have kids, the dog and the groceries loading up the car adding to the weight and thus the amount of energy needed to move the car. You’re going to have the air con on (or you’re going to open the window at lower speeds) to keep cool. You’ll put on the radio (and have the aerial up – you can bet that they’ll put it down during the tests to reduce even the teeniest bit of drag). You’ll plant the right foot occasionally to nip into a gap or to overtake. You’re going to idle more than the urban test does, and you’re going to average higher speeds on the open road than what happens in the test. So you’re not ever going to get the same fuel economy figures that the brochure or the car review tells you.
The moral? There are two of them. Number 1 is to read the fuel economy figures by all means – they’ll help you compare car with car (although common sense tells you that a little Honda Jazz is going to have better fuel economy than a monstrous big HSV ). But take them with a grain of salt. Number 2 is to make your driving as close as possible to test conditions… But use the indicators and the headlights – please!
Safe and happy driving,
Megan
Private Fleet Car Review: 2015 Toyota Aurion Sportivo.
Once upon a time, Australia was home to Holden and Ford and some assorted imported brands that made small cars. Toyota sold Corolla, Corona, Land Cruiser and that was pretty much it. Then a car called Camry came along, with a four cylinder engine. It changed shape but didn’t really grow much, even with the addition of a V6. However, time eventually caught up with the Camry and it put on weight, getting bigger and bigger. In 2007 a decision was made to separate the four cylinder Camry from the V6 and to give the bigger engined version its own name. And lo, Aurion was born.
Aurion had big but relatively unsuccessful wheels to fill, with Toyota’s previous attempt at a V6 “big” car, the Avalon, scarcely lighting the fires of desire for Aussie drivers. Aurion, clearly based on Camry, inside and out, survives to this day but the writing is on the wall for the big car, with demand for SUV style vehicles leaving the traditional Aussie big six struggling to find a toehold.
Aurion has a 3.5L V6 engine, with Toyota’s famous 200 “killer wasps” produced at six thousand two hundred rpm. Torque’s maximum twist, of 336 Nm, is at a high four thousand seven hundred. Dry, the Sportivo weighs a not indecent 1555 kg however the fuel economy quoted by Toyota tells a tale of excess: pure highway driving sees just seven litres per hundred of 91 octane go juice being consumed from the 70 litre tank, however if the Aurion is used in its natural environment that almost doubles to 13.3 litres per hundred. 
The combined cycle is quoted as being 9.3L per hundred kilometres; A Wheel Thing had the Sportivo in a mix of driving circumstances and saw a best of 9.5L/100 km.
Aurion is the last of the mainstream passenger cars that Toyota has (Camry, Corolla) to update externally, retaining the sharper edged styling compared to the smoother, more rounded and more assertive look Camry and Corolla have received, complete with “pyramid” grille styling. Compared to its big sedan compatriots, Falcon and Commodore, it’s still a more cohesive look, with front and rear not at odds with each other.
There’s the somewhat blocky, almost trapezoidal profile, reflected in the headlight and taillight designs, with the only curves to be found being the driving lights at the bottom corners of the front air dam, the exhaust tips and the five spoke, 18 inch, black painted alloys. There’s some minor plastic work with the addition of a subtle boot lid spoiler and chin spoiler at the other end.
On the road the Sportivo puts its power down via a six speed auto, with Sports mode and paddle shifters on the steering column. It’s surprisingly quick, with a hint of rorty rasp from the front…there’s also noticeable torque steer under heavy right foot applications. Suspension was harder than anticipated, however, with a personal taste leaning towards a touch more compliance to start before sliding into a taut feel.
The steering itself feels as if there’s a variable ratio system fitted, as turns at slower speed seem to have more turn in the tiller. The shifters fitted are ergonomically placed, as expected, and do appear to change the gears quicker than leaving the ‘box to its own devices, which was smooth, slick and noticeable in braking the engine on certain downhill runs.
On flat, freeway roads, the Sportivo tracks straight and true, with a touch of road noise intruding. Undulations are despatched but there’s not a lot of gentleness in doing so, with that hard suspension.
The interior is a mix of new and not quite so. For example, there’s no heating for the leather seats and there’s the oddity of having a light on for when the aircon is NOT in dual zone mode. The seats themselves were comfortable enough and trimmed in a tasteful mix of black and mocha.
The dash has the same stitched look as Camry, albeit with a different design. Plastic were a mix of blacks, charcoal and an odd silver alloy look strip horizontally and wrapping the seven inch touchscreen and aircon controls. I can’t say it appealed to me.
Information wise, there’s an instant and average fuel usage graph in colour, not monochrome, front and centre, with jog buttons on the tiller to swing through the various folder options.
Being a good sized car (4855 mm in length, 1825 mm in total width with height at 1470 mm) and allowed for plenty of head, shoulder and leg room, plus a cavernous boot (capacity not listed on Toyota’s website).
Audio comes in the form of AM/FM/Auxiliary/USB and Bluetooth plus there’s DAB+ (Digital Audio Broadcasting +). Sensitivity for the DAB tuner is quite high, with minimal dropout in Sydney’s lower Blue Mountains and less so than Mitsubishi’s DAB system. Actual quality was good but seemed to lack definition.
The three level Aurion range (AT-X, Sportivo and Presara) starts at $30990, a decent price for a big car but with an overly thirsty engine. Details and more information on specifications are available here: Toyota Aurion range
Private Fleet Car Review: 2016 Mitsubishi Triton Exceed vs 2015 Toyota Kluger Grande.
Opples and Aranges.No, that’s not a misspelling, I’ve deliberately used opples and aranges to highlight there’s differences and similarities between the top of the tree cars, in their category, from Mitsubishi and Toyota. The Triton Exceed is the top of the range for the newly revamped dual cab ute whilst the Kluger Grande is atop the pile for that range from Toyota. 
Lets compare apples with oranges to see why we have an opple and arange as A Wheel Thing compares the two.
Powersource.
The Kluger range is fully petrol and suffers from economy issues. It’s a 3.5L V6 and slurps 91 RON petrol quicker than a Friday arvo tradie at the pub necks his beer. A Wheel Thing averaged 11.0L per 100 kilometres from the Grande…from 95% freeway work. That’s unforgiveable in today’s driving environment.
The Tritons are now almost exclusively diesel (there is a couple of 2.4L petrols) and it shows; at 2.4L capacity also it sat at around 8.0L/100 kilometres and was on a predominantly urban usage cycle.
There’s 201 kW from the Kluger at 6200 revs, the Triton offers 133 kW at 3500. Torque from the Toyota is 337 Nm at 3700 rpm with the four door ute twisting 439 Nm at 2500 rpm. Transmissions were both self shifters, a six ratio ‘box in the Grande and a rejigged five cogger for the Mitsubishi.
Toyota claims, per 100 kilometres, 10.6/14.4/8.4L for combined/urban and highway from a 72 litre tank. Mitsubishi says 7.6L per 100 km on the combined cycle from a similarly sized (75L) tub.
The Suit.
The Triton hasn’t really undergone a massive overhaul; Japan’s current design philosophy is chrome and it showed, with a bright silver grille taking pride of place at the front, bisecting the slightly reprofiled headlights. 
The test vehicle supplied was also kitted with a rear canopy cover and roof mounted storage, as it had been used for what all proper four wheel drive vehicles should do. It went travelling to the Simpson Desert, courtesy of a four wheel drive magazine and the toughness showed with no major squeaks or rattles, bar the passenger seat moving somewhat as the car moved around.
The rear tray looks almost unchanged bar the tail lights: in profile the top part of the assembly leans forward into the metal whilst directly from the rear the once rounded look is now an angular shape, looking most like it’d been pinched from another Japanese two/four door ute maker… there’s also a strong crease line from the headlights joining the rear, compared to the previous model’s smoothness.
In overall looks it’s more of the same but newer. Dimensions say it’s a hefty unit: 5280 mm in length make it one of the longest vehicles readily available in Australia, plus 1815 mm in width and 1780 in height add to the Triton’s imposing presence. Wheelbase? Well, that’s big too, at 3000 mm…Whack in the weight of 1965 kg unladen, to boot.
To add to the visual appeal, there was sidesteps and front bar; it’s a beast and makes no apologies.
The Kluger has been in its current guise for a while; the vehicle supplied was fresh, with about 500 klicks on the clock when picked up. It’s a big unit too, at 4865 x 1925 x 1730 mm (L x W x H) with a near 2.8 metre wheelbase (2790 mm). It weighs a bit, too, which may account for the economy, as 2065 kilos unladen doth not make a lightweight.
The profile is boxy, angular, moving away from the relatively smoother and slightly curvy previous iteration. There’s a hint of cab forward, with a shortish bonnet compared to the overall cabin length. The window line is familiar, with Camry/Aurion hints plus there’s privacy glass as well. There’s a tailgate lid spoiler and the tail light assembly has hints of Lexus. The front is bluff, upright and in the eyes of the beholder for looks…
On The Inside.
It’s here that the two cars take a stronger divergence. The Exceed needs, quite simply, more bling, whilst the Grande comes with seven seats, sunroof, DVD player (roof mounted and with cordless headphones), heated and ventilated seats, fully adjustable steering column with paddle shifters and a somewhat unusual dash styling, with a curved shape at odds with the hidey hole styling.
In between the driver and passenger sits a huge console, big enough to hide some small bottles or cans. A brushed aluminuim accent surrounds the air vents, info screen and aircon controls, whilst the tabs around the screen are basic and bare looking in black and white plastic.
The dash design, as stated, is odd; there’s a beautiful, sinuous wave shape to the binnacle, only to meet an inset for the clock at the top and a wrap around to the airbag cover, whilst below is a storage locker that simply doesn’t fit with the look of the rest. But at least there’s tech like Blind Spot Alerts to give the driver something more positive.
The Exceed benefits from an updated dash but lacks in presence. There’s the piano black surrounds for the infotainment system, push button start, machine made leather, dual zone aircon and a powered driver’s seat. The seats are better than before, with more padding and support to the hips and thorax, with both getting the standard array of airbags including one for the driver’s knee.
Both don’t suffer from room, with rear seat passengers in both able to stretch comfortably. The Kluger is a seven seater, with simple pull straps to raise the pews, whilst, normally, there’s an uncovered tub for the rear section of the Triton, but in this case it was a three windowed canopy. The tub itself is huge, with more than enough room to toss a sleeping bag and rubber mat to sleep on whilst not knocking the noggin should you sit up.
The Exceed may be at the top of the ladder but to look at the cabin you wouldn’t know it. There’s a real lack of appeal visually, with nothing to catch the eye and make the statement. Not all buyers of off road capable utes with dirty the car or themselves and this really could do with a higher level of visual velcro.
On The Road.
Kluger Grande is a suburban off roader; it’ll see speedhumps and puddles way more than it will any beaches or muddy tracks. There is a 2WD version, the 4WD supplied gets a lockable centre diff. The Triton, on the other hand, is equipped with an electronic 4 wheel drive selector. Operated via a dial in the centre console and displayed on the small colour dash screen via sybols, there’s a clear indication of two wheel drive, four wheel drive and high and low ratios, plus locking centre and rear diffs for getting down and dirty off road.
The Exceed was taken to A Wheel Thing’s test track, a combination of sand, gravel, muddy ruts, rocks and undulating surfaces. To say it coped with that terrain is a huge understatement. Kluger would struggle in the same environment and it’s not a terribly difficult off road track.
The Kluger’s transmission is smooth and slurs through the ratios with barely a hiccup, but the go pedal needs a good prod to get the two plus tonnes moving at anything other than a crawl. Although the Kluger feels, seats of the pants, effortless, it’s clear the lack of lower down the rev range torque hurts. There was a hint of fuel in the tank after 490 klicks were covered; as mentioned before, virtually all driving was freeway based therefore hardly stressing the drivetrain in a suburban stop/start environment.
As one would expect, the ride and handling of the Kluger is well sorted, with minimal roll, dive and squat, plus the brakes grab well enough under most circumstances to haul its mass up. Brake pressure was suitable for the Grande, with engagement almost straight away. Steering is light for the Grande’s size, but not to the point of feeling over assisted or disassociating the driver from the road.
2015 Toyota Kluger
The Triton is big, boofy, solid in its feel on the road but definitely no ballet dancer. Even with the earth rotating torque the diesel generates, the five cogger does its best to hobble the grunt. Acceleration is moderate from standstill but rapid enough once on the run. Even under full pressure, the diesel is relatively refined, quiet and will haul the Triton along nicely.
The auto has been given an overhaul, so although a touch ancient in basic design, it’s smoother and slicker in changing. The package works well and is certainly economical enough, although one wonders how an extra ratio would go. Under hard throttle, it drops smoothly and quietly back one, two, ratios, before launching forward.
Engaging the transfer case is simple; stop, neutral, select, watch the screen…all four paws grip and the Exceed ploughs through and over nonchalantly. It’s fun, agreeable and relatively stress free.
On tarmac…the brakes need work. There’s an inch of travel before they pads bite and then not well. More than once there were some sharp breaths as the rear of the car in front arrived quicker than was safe. It was reported to the dealership that the car was sourced from, just in case.
Steering, again, is light with enough weight to talk but not leave the driver wondering where the front wheels are going, and being a rear wheel drive off road capable working ute, it’s leaf springs at twenty paces at the rear and a touch tight at that.
The Wrap.
Apples and oranges or, in this case, opples and aranges. Why? They’re the top of the range, both four wheel drive capable and have a number of similar features like push button start and satnave, leather seats, kneebags and so on. But they’re different in that one is a proper off roader whilst the other would faint at the sight of a six inch deep muddy puddle. But one offers a DVD player and a suitable interior whilst the other….doesn’t….
They’re designed for different markets, different people and therefore will have different appeal. The Triton wins on economy and true dirt ability, the Kluger wins for features but sucks badly for economy.
Consumers, it’s your call.
Level 2, 9 Help Street