Technology

My last 3 cars. 3.5 litre V6 Rodeo with tradsman style canopy, ladder rackes, etc. 17.5 litres / 100 average. 3 litre 4 cylinder diesel rodeo same as above 10.5 litres / 100 average. BT50 styleside ute, mainly used for commuting. 9.2 litres / 100 averaged over 80,000K Hello there, I am so excited I found your site, I really found you by error, while I was researching on google for Wrecked Car , Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say kudos for a fantastic post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the moment but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds. Damaged Car

Thats just crazy, a hand sticking out !!! What about the wheel spinning Toyota creating a track ? Wheel spins are allowed according to the vehicle laws ? Thats just a load of bull. I thought it had been changed because of the cat issue and the discrepancy between people being upset and happy. I didn't even notice a hand out the window - as in all things these days, overkill!

I use E85 on my car , but unfortunately there isn't enough petro Stations that have it or different petrol companies that sell it Eg : I use the UNITED brand E 85 Note the government encourages us the people to use it but don't encourage other petroleum companies to sell it , therefore limiting competition and availability.

This is true that LPG has some great characteristics which distinguished it from Petrol. Like it is very cost effective and sustainable in using this. we should use LPG becouse it is less pricy than other fuels LPG Conversion

Not sure what is so "tame" about the grill? The pictured vehicle is a G6 not an XT, the G6 looks great and I dont think it needs a facelift at all however the XT is pretty drab. In terms of teh car overall they drive well, look good, and the cost savings are great. I put one of my 6000km per month reps into one of these a few months back and have saved around $6000.00 in fuel already- and the car is bigger and more comfy than the Mondeo he was driving before. Only down side is the boot space if you choose a full sixe/space saver spare. Brilliant car in my opinion. I have a 2012 model XR6 . Of the 90 cars my family and I have owned over almost 50 years of driving this is the stand out car by light years. It wins hands down on every criterion I have used . My son, an avid holden buyer for almost 25 years thinks that this is the best car he has driven as well. I also like the exterior styling and the aerodynamic shape. Of course if you are stupid enough to judge a car by its external appearance ( within reason) then you deserve to be paying way more for your travelling than I do. This huge family car which averages 700 to 800 Km per week doing about 50/50 city/highway driving averages 12.3 litres of lpg per 100 km. At current costs of about 56 cents per litre find me a a reason not to buy it. I couldn't. Totally agree Fred U sound a wise old codger. U do know its got hi compression & other good stuff - its factory built for this fuel system - wonderful An almost ignored but killer factor is the lack of range anxiety 750km on a tank in the bush A cabchassis w/ 2 extra tank would make an awsome grey nomad tug. Or even the sedan if u forget the boot - not so bad if u have a van Is a rumour the lpi is detuned so as not to embarrass the petrol falconn too much Not my thing, but imagine turbo on it? Standard kit for the same engine in petrol or was - even a supercharged one i think. What a bunch of noughts we skips have become The lpi is the best car on the market & they are going broke to either rubbish or absurdly expensive stuff Interesting to see comparative figures of what other inline 6 cylinders stats are - bmw/toyota/nissan - sounds to me lpi would be right up there & its all OZ engineering - as in final product (lpi is dutch i think) could go on and on - perhaps i have already i reckon new cars are a mugs game - but this ones got me in

The main reason that people con't buy these fuel efficient cars is cost. If you work out the price to own / run the car for 3 years (a common time period these days) then you still have not even broken even on overall cost compared to a similar "non-green" car. I'd love to be proven wrong and things may have changed since I worked it all out late last year but extra cost has to be worth while. I am looking forward to it looking better next time we buy a car. Dnx Hi, Toyota about to release another prius, called prius c which will start from $23,990. The electric cars should be compared with Oz electricity prices in mind, but if owner has solar cells, this will be cheaper. Some of these cars in list are manual versions, not prefered by some drivers. Oz petrol buyer behaviour is such that we will cross the road/do a u turn to save a few cents at another bowser. The BIG cars in Oz are now $30-40K. I can see why diesel SUVs are popular. My daily commute is shared with mostly single occupant cars. The market is there for an organised car pooling scheme, and buyers wanting new $15-25K cars with low fuel use. I'm seeing more i20s, Mazda2s, Yaris, Fiestas, Polos, etc . Melbourne prices over $1.50/litre this week. Perhaps couples/famillies will adopt the one big & one little car 'policy' or we hire big cars when we need one.......but nothing new in that. I would like to see a complete list of cars less than 7litres/100kms. cheers Duncan is on the money. This is little more than a novelty comment. Any fleet manager worth his money would be talking about whole of life cost. If these vehicles have a higher premium cost, higher maintenance cost, excessive downtime because of maintenance issues, and consequently a lower resale cost because of the excessive maintenance and downtime much of the fuel savings are lost and they may in fact be a financial trap. As an example I can recall a particular truck model which used less fuel than its competitors and cost about $5000 less, but required a $15,000 engine build at 80,000 km; the manufacturer had to pull it off the market. What about the Golf Bluemotion? This one is priced pretty low, and is rated for low fuel consumption. If you tested the fuel consumption to be higher, and excluded it on that basis, maybe that's worth another article. If the Gov't would overhaul the registration CTP system so it's fair, then these cars would be a popular choice. I can afford two cars, one for working/holidays etc.- so a mid-large size with towing power. I'd also like a small car for commuting, general running around. What I can't afford is two greenslips, rego and insurance - and, I can only drive one at a time. This is the real problem.

Well put and succinct Rory. One point I would like to re-iterate is that tyres effect most other consumable costs. That is, correct tyre pressues and selection both have an impact on fuel consumption AND servicing cost! Uneven tyre pressures, especially in vehicles carrying load, can incur damage to suspension components (whilst you wont see the difference straight away, once one bushing on on corner wears earlier than the others, with time the difference will become pronounced and break other components). Another flow on effect then becomes braking distance (an obvious safety issue). The most important point though is the create detailed records. Distance travelled and load carried are both important details to record when comparing tyre types utilised within your fleet. Most importantly keep analysing the results of your records for continual improvement. A very clear message Rory. One item i would also like to add is that for a fleet manager or leasing company with a fleet of vehicles the tyre costs can be a high percentage of the overal maintenance budget during the life of the vehicle.

If any of your fleet vehicles are 2010 models, you may find that manufactures have already started installing these devices into new cars. i think this is not bad. but they should check every car parts

I think it depends on which research you want to believe. There has been plenty of stuff in the press in the UK that they do reduce deaths and that they don't reduce deaths. Honestly, I don't mind them as I'm not a speed freak....but I'm guessing that the people that regularly venture over the speed limit will take a more negative view! Oh, and don't forget the political aspects. Not only money saving, but they are a means to entice voting groups!!!! Thanks for your thoughts Morgan! As you said, there is a lot of research out there saying different things, so it can be hard to know what statistics to believe. When you look at it, if you do get fined for speeding (legitimately, as I know there have also been reports of faulty cameras catching anyone), at the end of the day you are breaking the law so really only have yourself to blame. Couldn't agree more, Laura! It's not even like doing an extra 10mph over the speed limit will make that much of a difference to a standard journey anyway! Even looking at the difference between a journey at 70mph and 80 mph for half an hour (assuming you can maintain those speeds!!!!) its only going to make a few minutes difference to your arrival times....I really can't see the point! Here in the states we have in Maryland speed cameras for schools and construction sites. It seems to slow people down in those areas for a total of 100 or so feet and then off to the races again. I don't see how that is really helping a construction zone that can last a half a mile or so when only a hundred feet or so is actually helped?? Seems more of an income generator in those areas. Schools are a little different they actually probably help. Laura, more of the former, less of the latter in my opinion. Having driven for many years in Sydney's near endless streams of metal, glass and plastic, it's clear that these 'life saving' devices are an emotional trigger linked to the back pocket. Fixed cameras in particular have only momentary effect on driving habits, as generally people know where they are and slow accordingly, returning to their previous 'illegal' speed or the speed of the surrounding traffic. This practice is common in other states, moreover, Victoria who adopt fixed cameras also. Having travelled extensively within each state, it is also clear that speed cameras have little apparent effect on average speeds of rural roads, for the same reasons as above. In saying that, if you speed and get caught, it's you own fault. With that in mind it must be said, that cameras probably have a better effect in South Australia and Western Australia on slowing traffic, where they utilise randomly placed, hidden devices in metropolitan/ residental areas. Albeit, the media will publicise they approximate locality, the exact whereabouts is not known. Referring to the switching off of the UK cameras; one would have to be cynical and suggest that the return on investment is clearly undermined by the revenue stream. Why else, media hype aside, would you turn them off! In relation to the life saving aspects of speed cameras, I would very much doubt that the relevant govt depts could be that accurate with their analysis. The data available via the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) is not detailed enough to pinpoint exact areas where cameras are located or their effect. Chris makes an interesting point regarding placement around schools zones. This is possibly one strong case for a safety related placement, albeit there are many other ways of slowing traffic in these proximities. Getting back to your post. Clearly a money making venture, now horribly out of control in lieu of better roads and less passive traffic control. The use of speed averaging/ monitoring systems has been utilised in NSW (Australia) for many years, predominantly for keeping tabs on the trucking industry. In general I think this works but that opinion is based on media and some that I know within that sector. We have some toll-ways which have the 'average speed' monitoring capacity but don't appear to be utilised, as there's not the legislation to support and these roads are privately owned and operated. The vehicle technology improvements are, from my point of view, far outstripping the long established non-passive traffic control methods that have been in place in NSW (at least) since the early 1980s. Since the inception of round-abouts, speed-humps, chicanes, the speed excesses in suburbia have dwindled steadily with only the truly 'lunatic' factor having any adversely damaging results by attempting world record pace in this type of area, albeit there are no generally no cameras in those suburban back streets. Back to the technology and partially respond to "why isn't this being pushed harder?". To have a beneficial effect, where the technology plays a 'controlling' role, there not only needs to be vehicles that have the ability within, you need to have the appropriate infrastructure to assist with point to point logging and GPS target points amongst others, that accurately inform the vehicle of speed zone changes etc... Having the vehicle effectively drive itself, other than steering, is a way off yet. There have been many advances in Europe and some research in Japan over many years utilising tie-ups between infrastructure and the vehicle but at this point the testing seems to be limited to, just that, testing. Although, there may have been some success in Sweden(?) with using this for public transport i.e. buses and the Expo in Japan saw 'self' driven(?) shuttles to move people around. I'd have to check on that. As a former law enforcement officer, I might have a different (if not surprising) opinion regarding this. In general I am not for cameras on the roadway.I am not a fan of having every movement recorded. In addition, artificially slowing traffic below what the public might normally drive increases the danger. Don’t take my word for it – look it up. For schools, I am not against this at all. In fact – with the proper signage noting the cameras may be there – I am more than for it. We had an incident a few years ago where one sibling pushed the other out of the way of a speeding car in a school zone. If the car was traveling even 5 MPH slower, there is a good chance the driver might have been able to stop or both children could have avoided the vehicle. Ultimately I think we all agree there doesn't need to be this heavy dependancy on technology to keep us human beings in line. Stricter penalties for those that are pulled over, cause accidents and deaths are what is needed. No judges giving you a free pass, which is what I think provides the green light to do again without any real penalty. suspensions on a "three and out" would really deter someone from repeat offenses, not paying fines they CAN probably afford, but you take away their license for a length of time and that hurts them and any family they support. Will not do that again! Enforce the speed limits but be reasonable with the speed limit too! I think speed enforcement is definitely a revenue generator for municipalities. And it is accepted by the general public as a sort of "blue law" since those that offend are viewed in a negative light. Why other forms of bad driver behavior are not as aggressively enforced is more evidence this is strictly about money. Where I live a state law was passed a few years ago to limit the percentage of revenue a municipality could receive from speeding tickets to eliminate stereotypical "speed traps." The largest municipality in the state saw this as an opportunity (or at least it was an odd coincidence) to substantially raise the fines for speeding. Less than 10 mph over the limit became a $175 fine, but 10 to 20 over increased the fine by only $10. There seems to be no correlation with the potential danger of the offense to the amount of the fine since running a stop sign is the same fine as 10 over. To make payment easier, the city set up a website where you could pay by credit card. I would think this scenario has become quite profitable, although I have no hard data. This is a little off topic, but plans to use cameras to enforce mandatory insurance requirements were adopted this past year at the state level, but were abandoned due to technology issues with the necessary supporting database. What I personally find most disturbing is these cameras are to be operated by a private, for profit company with the state sharing in the revenue generated. I would guess that a little fact checking will find many of these speed cameras are also owned and operated by private companies. Looking at this from the perspective of a UK person living in Australia, I would tend to suggest that the principal objective of the speed cameras in Victoria is to raise revenue. In my view, there seems to be an overly biased focus on driver behavioural change rather than improving driver ability and vehicle safety. It does seem rather odd to me that 3km above the speed limit on a straight, quite stretch of road warrants a significant fine, however there is little focus on removing defective vehicles from the roads through compulsory annual vehicle testing. If revenue raised from road traffic offences was directed to Federal treasury, then refunded to the State governments based on their road-safety performance, I think that there would be more effective incentive to reduce road fatality rates. I would also view things with a little more credibility if the authorities in Australia did take learnings from other countries where speeds and traffic densities are higher, yet fatality rates are lower. I'm thinking about things like compulsory TPI based on market rates rather than a fixed rate as part of the rego (gets young people out of high-powered cars), compulsory annual vehicle testing (gets unsafe cars off the road), removal of the '1-point' 3-25km fine so that people are more focused on the road rather than the speedo, a compulsory 'keep-left' on all roads, contributory negligence where accidents could have been reasonable avoided, etc, etc - it's all pretty commonplace in Europe and would seem rather easy to implement in Australia if the authorities were serious. with regards to technology... Society as a whole (at least in the 'developed' world - i don't like this phrase but it is fit for purpose) is dependant on technology regardless of situation! Look at the recent address given by Liam Fox regarding the security (or lack of) surrounding EMP's and infrastructure. No, I don't like being dependant on technology, but yes, I will admint that I am and that it would be a damn sight harder to exist without it. Now look at the technology in cars. ABS, EBD, ESP, Seatbelts, Airbags, Bluetooth Phone kits (yes, I would class this as a safety feature), Air Conditioning (keeps you more comfortable = less distractions) Power Steering (less effort required = less tired) Crumple Zones, Cruise Control, Speed Limiters, Radar Assisted Cruise Control.......the list goes on. They are all there for a reason. Governments and manufacturers alike would not make some of these features standard equipment if it didn't help safety. Safety sells, and in the MAJORITY of cases, things like ABS, EBD, ESP etc will assist in the event of a likely or actual accident. Following this thought to a logical conclusion, what the above says is that Human's can't be trusted. We get ticked off with the driver infront doing 25mph in a 50mph zone, so as we get frustrated, we 'floor it' to overtake them, sometimes in places where we know it isn't 100% safe to do so. We get tired behind the wheel, but push on without taking a break because we want to get to our destination and thats more important. Another 'bad' driver makes a mistake and cuts you up, you get angry or upset. As Jeremy Clarkson once said in Top Gear re: the Mercedes McLaren SLR, the worst thing about the car is the squidgy organic thing behind the wheel. No amount of education will rid drivers of being human. The technology won't get frustrated, tired, annoyed, angry, upset, emotional etc etc. Yes, they may be open to virus or other attacks, but I would suggest that the chances of this and the threat to life that this represents is negligable to the number of deaths and accidents that would occur if these bits of safety technology were stripped from cars. Ok this might upset some people but here goes.... -the biggest cause of accidents is human error or more precisely misjudgement of the road situation. I regularley drive stretches of country road at between 160km/h and 210 km/h and have been doing so for many years and have not even come close to having an accident. Why? because i assess the traffic density (very important) the road alignment and road conditions ie dry, wet overcast day etc AND i possess very good knowledge of the roads that i'm travelling. Suffice to say i do not travel any where near this speed on roads i do not know well-and never in built up areas or inside city limits. Now when travelling these roads and i see vehicles approaching in the other direction i slow down way in advance back down to around 120 km/h-not beause they may be the police but in the event that someone behind THEM wants to over take that vehicle in front -with me coming the other way. I also slow down for crests and any side roads entering onto that road which i'm travelling. In my years travelling these roads (which i know very well) i have not even come close to having an accident or even a near miss. I also make sure the my vehicle is up to the task, ie it has excellent suspension, massive brakes and wide tyres in good conditon. Remember -speed itself is not a cause of accidents perse, but once something does go wrong the speed you are carrying has a critical influence on the outcome (survivability) of an 'accident'.

Whilst driving my iPhone4 runs Trapster to keep me aware of my speed, Navizon which gathers points by locating wifi points & cell locations which then convert to money (I make about $5 per month there) and Mocal which is a Free Voice guidance system.

nice blog.... you provides the great information to use Fleet Tracking System and benefits of GPS Fleet tracking. Thanks for this post. GoFleet.ca