Join me live on YouTube every Thursday evening at 8:30pm (Sydney time) where I answer your questions live for 1hr+.

You bring the questions/comments (ask me anything) and I'll do my best to answer them.

If that time's not convenient for you (wherever you are in the world) then the stream is viewable on my YouTube Channel, and the audio podcast is of course available here.

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

I just designed the perfect mainstream EV - it’s perfect - and nobody’s making it. Yet. (It’s more of a feasibility study, really.) This is a massive automotive industry opportunity.  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

I remain the ultimate EV skeptic. I don’t worship at the church of Electric Jesus. Never will. And yet I’ve been driving a Hyundai Kona Electric for about 6000km now. And I do enjoy driving it. I love not going to the filling station - nostalgia factor there: -273 degrees C, on a warm day.  I love the way that Kona EV gets off the mark - silent but deadly. Peak torque at zero rpm. Awesome. And I’ve never needed it to take me more than 450 kilometres in a day. It’s good on the highway, too. When I have occasionally run it down to under 10 per cent remaining, it still charges up overnight on a single-phase 240-volt, 32-amp charger at home.   (That’s like maxxed-out at-home charging - 7.7 kilowatts. Set and forget, there - also brilliant.)  I like not contributing to air pollution in our cities. (At least in that car - in the other two big diesel tanks in the driveway … call me a hypocrite on that.) And energy security for Shitsville - so important. [MALS] EVs certainly have a niche carved out and well defined there, even though the grid remains properly filthy.  But there is an EV elephant in this room: the fundamental impediment to mainstream adoption of EVs is price. The mighty Kona Electric is $25,000 more than its petrol counterpart. Like mid-$40s drive-away for the 1.6 Turbo Highlander. About $70,000 for the EV. That’s a massive monetary hit. The petrol MG ZS is $17,000 cheaper than the EV.  Only a proper EV zealot with cash to burn can justify this, or perhaps a business looking to wear its green credentials on its sleeve. And, look, there’s nothing wrong with doing that - economic rationalism is not a prerequisite for owning a vehicle. I’m just saying economic irrationalism limits the number of EV sales that can be made, ultimately.   Look at the opportunity cost: What else could you do with the $17-25 grand? Most people would say: Plenty.  The only two ways to make this work on the corporate side are to charge a bomb and just trickle EVs through to receptive, wealthy zealots and let market forces work it out, or petition the government to subsidise EVs so they can go mainstream.  What if there were a better EV? What if the car industry took its head out of its arse and instead made the EV that people actually need, with a balance sheet that balanced? (As opposed to the zealot-magnet.)  I’m talking about a new EV segment: the shitbox EV. A fairly nasty second car. A runaround with minimal features, and not much range. Just right for average driving in built-up areas, a kid-school delivery and recovery device, right at home at the commuter car park or the local shopping centre.  A device with roughly the raw sex appeal of a sandwich press. A device for which the primary purpose is simply to take the load off your nice, liquid-fuelled car. I actually think this is economically rational already - even though no carmaker is apparently doing it.

The phoenix has risen from the ashes of Holden. And its name is ‘Silverado’. The hubris - the sheer, presumptuous audacity - required to pull this one off with conviction … it really is ‘export grade’.  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

According to GMSV: “North American trucks are redefining the ute market in Australia and New Zealand.”  I respectfully disagree. Silverado sales approximate zero at this point. So, absolute redefinition of the segment there from Silverado: Zero.  RAM is of course just like Silverado, only with different hair and makeup, kinda thing. Last year was RAM’s first full year on sale here: 2868 sales in a 4X4 dual-cab market of 168,869 units.  I struggle to see how a market share of 1.7 per cent for Retardistani trucks could constitute any kind of (quote-unquote) ‘redefinition’ of a segment. These vehicles are, at best, niche. And that’s all they will ever be here - over-hyped and kind of irrelevant. (It’s OK to like them - that’s allowed.)  The Silverado (and RAM) party trick is, of course 4.5 tonnes of alleged tow capacity. This is going to attract some people. It just rolls off the tongue. 4.5 tonnes. (‘I’m in’ - as Jeep would say.) In Silverado’s case this is possible only if you fit a 70mm ball, and limit yourself to 422kg of download.  But this is a vehicle that weighs 2.5 tonnes. (It’s actually 200 kilos lighter than a Landcruiser 200 Sahara.) If you think it’s a good idea to tow a 4.5-tonne trailer with a vehicle such as this, I would submit that you are functionally insane, or staggeringly out of touch.   Trailers with centralised axle groups - like, single, tandem or triple-axle pig trailers - are fundamentally unstable in yaw and pitch. I’m talking caravans, boats, horse floats and campers. They rely on the underlying stability of the towing vehicle to remain stable in yaw and pitch. And it’s kind of important that they do stay controlled.  So, when the pig is 4.5 tonnes (which is nearly 80 per cent heavier than the Silverado) it’s very easy for the pig to nudge the vehicle around, at highway speeds, and the ‘tail’ thus it wags the ‘dog’. And I do mean ‘dog’. Catastrophically. Especially in yaw. This is fundamentally unsafe.  Thankfully the 4.5-tonne tow limit in Silverado is largely bullshit. In practise. See, gross combination mass for Silverado is 7160 kilos. (I’m getting this from their website.) Take away 4500 for the heaviest trailer and 2540 kilos for the kerb mass and you’re left with just 120 kilos for total payload. (That’s when you’re towing 4.5 tonnes.) I know some caravanners who would overload the vehicle, just by climbing aboard.  Certainly it’s not a ‘his & hers’ proposition. In the immortal words of renowned social philosopher Bonn Scott: “Ain’t no fairy story. Ain’t no skin and bones. But you give it all you got, weighin’ in at 19 stone.” That’s from the insulin resistant caravan owner’s national anthem, 1977. From the double platinum album - Takin’ a dump ‘out there’.  Do consider all this before spending, like, $140,000 on a Silverado

Hilariously enough, Ford named its Kluger competitor the Endura. Now they’ve boned it, in Australia, less than two short years after its release. This just satirises itself. The non-enduring Endura - truth once again being weirder than fiction...  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url 

Ford Oz gave birth to baby Endura here in December 2018, with (one imagines) high hopes of it growing rapidly and taking the lucrative fight to Kluger and CX-9 and Santa Fe and Sorento … and CX-8, and Subaru Outback, and even Tiguan Allspace. But all of these SUVs continue to out-sell Endura, which couldn’t even match Skoda Kodiaq on sales. Go figure. Well done, Ford. #Consistency.  Even Holden Acadia out-sold Endura - which is, kinda, a neat trick, for a brand that doesn’t actually exist any more.  So far this year, Toyota’s uber-popular Kluger is living proof that mediocrity is the recipe for outright success in seven-seat SUVs. Mediocre Kluger outsold non-enduring Endura by more than seven to one. CX-9 out-sold it more than five to one. This is a race, with absolutely no need for the video referee. Ford’s marketing is so bad that (I’m tipping) most SUV buyers don’t even know that a non-enduring Endura ever existed. And now, of course, it doesn’t.  Not being able to sell a large SUV in ‘Straya is like not being able to drink 100 long-necks of VB, every hour. Or being unable to find a venomous reptile within 10 feet of the back door.  Not being able to sell a large SUV here is un-friggin’-’Strayan.  So Ford has boned this unappealing vehicle, after selling only 1015 non-enduring Enduras - and I wouldn’t want to be one of those owners, or the 1986 punters who bought one in late 2018 or across 2019. Nobody, statistically, wanted a non-enduring Endura, new. Nobody, statistically, is gunna want yours at resale time, used, with three years of your residual farts infused into the seats.   The term ‘depreciation dog’ springs to mind. Buying a depreciation dog is, of course, a great way to burn cash, and I want you to know that this is not merely idle speculation in this case:  According to Redbook, if you had purchased in 2018 a range-topping non-enduring Endura Titanium at launch for about $68,000 (before on-road costs) it’d trade for about $38,800 today, on average. You’d burn just over $29,000.  If, instead, you’d come to your senses at the 11th hour and procured alternatively a range-topping Mazda CX-9 Azami, for about $66,500, it’d trade today for about $45,000, and you’d burn only about $21,500.  This puts you $7500 behind, in just 23 months, in the Ford. Imagine getting $80 a week and just throwing it out the window, arbitrarily, every Friday afternoon. Because that’s what non-enduring Endura buyers have been doing, effectively.   Look, the kindest I can be is to say: It’s probably OK to buy a Ranger or an Everest. There’s a reasonable demand for them, used. But as for the rest of the SUVs and all the cars bearing the blue-oval badge...  ...the risk of your resale value making like Dresden on February 15th, 1945, over the next three to five years is rather high. Some would say, unacceptably so, and I would be one of those saying that.

would you put your child in row three of an SUV or a people mover - if you knew the vehicle did not have head-protecting side airbags in that row? And how would you even know if it had that? I just carved up the market - 20 seven-seat SUVs and four people movers … and the row-three protection offerings might surprise you.  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

This week I went through the somewhat laborious process of figuring which vehicles had the airbags in row three.   In people movers, Kia Carnival, Toyota Granvia and Honda Odyssey get big ticks for row three protection (and row four as well in the case of the four-row Toyota). But the LDV G10 does not - nor does it offer that side protection in row one or two - which goes some way to explaining its pathetic three-star rating.  Among seven-seat SUVs, MU-X, Fortuner and Everest manage to offer that row three protection, while Pajero Sport does not. I’m lumping them together because they’re all essentially converted dual-cab utes.  Landcruiser 200 also offers you that side protection, as does Prado, Kluger and Nissan Pathfinder, but I cannot tell you about Pajero or Patrol, because ANCAP’s evaluations there are hopelessly outdated and the technical reports do not include this information.  LDV D90 - yes, for row three. Also in the ‘Yes’ column are Honda CR-V, Mazda CX-8 and CX-9.   The entrants which either fail to offer this protection, or offer it only partially, are X-TRAIL, Outlander, Santa Fe, Sorento, Ford Endura, and SsangYong Korando - but I cannot tell you about the Rexton because it has not been tested by ANCAP.  Before I let you go on this: I honestly cannot tell you if this is a meaningful metric about whether or not to buy a particular vehicle. Like: does it make sense not to buy a vehicle if it lacks this protection? In isolation: it’s probably a poor way to choose a vehicle.  I don’t know how many people actually die or are injured in row three - and I don’t know the modality of their injuries. I can tell you only 27 children aged from newborn to 16 died on the road in the six months from April to September this year. (Clearly, they weren’t all sitting in row three - some were probably pedestrians, and some were probably the victims of parental incompetence - such as failing to be restrained by drunk parents, or somesuch.)  Transport injuries - which is not just cars, but is probably mainly cars - hospitalises about 19,000 kids a year. (In perspective, falls are roughly double that, and ‘other’ is the largest official category of child injuries - at about 50,000 annually.)   I’d also want to know if side impact injury is even a major thing in row three - because if the modality of injury is mainly rear-enders, we’d clearly be better off focussing on structural protection and controlled crumpling to the rear, huh? It may well be that side curtain protection is something of a sideshow for row three. In the absence of data, how would you know?

Join me live on YouTube every Thursday evening at 8:30pm (Sydney time) where I answer your questions live for 1hr+.

You bring the questions/comments (ask me anything) and I'll do my best to answer them.

If that time's not convenient for you (wherever you re in the world) then the stream is replayable on my YouTube Channel, and the audio podcast is of course available here.

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

You need to service auto transmissions - even the sealed ones. This report is the how, why and when - for ordinary and severe applications, as well as whether you need to fit an aftermarket cooler or not.  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

This report answers the following question, from a dude named Barry:  

"I really enjoy your videos as they give us non experts factual information that's difficult to get from other sources that are often less reliable. I'd like to get some facts from you about what are harmful temperatures of the oil in automatic transmissions. I drive a 2.8l Prado with auto transmission & occasionally tow a camper trailer weighing 1.6 tonnes. Connected to the OBD2 port in the Prado is a ScanGauge2 that allows me to see the readings from many of the sensors on the car. I've been particularly interested in the  readout of the transmission temperature.  

"Some time ago you published a video that recommended using auto setting to tow & not to use the transmission as a "manual". Normally when towing I'd set the transmission into the 1:1 ratio 4th gear & tow in that mode. After watching your video, on the next camping trip to western Qld I put the Prado into Drive to see what, if any, difference it made. It did drive a little differently & shifted gears a lot more as it moved between the 5th & 6th overdrive gears to 4th gear or lower depending on the terrain. The transmission temperature in this auto mode was regularly in the range of high 90 to over 100 deg C with the ambient temperature in the mid to high 20's.  

"Next I went back to my default towing mode with the transmission set to 4th as the highest gear ratio used. There were less gear changes (no surprises there) but the transmission temperatures were definitely lower, mostly in the 80's & occasionally into the low 90's. Ambient temperatures were the same as before. The downside was that the fuel consumption was slightly higher. At a service after that trip I got my mechanic to change the transmission oil as on inspection it appeared much darker than normal. I'm not sure whether this was  a result of the way it was driven on this trip or not.  

"My understanding is that the optimum temperature for longevity of an auto transmission is somewhere in the 80 deg range & anything higher was likely to cause long term damage if the oil wasn't changed regularly (the Prado service schedule is for an oil change each 40,000 kms or 2 yrs). Can you give me some guidance on whether this is correct or not & what regularly running at the types of temperatures seen in auto mode are damaging. There must be many Prados (and other makes) out there that are used for towing & driven in a set & forget fashion that could be just waiting for an expensive appointment with a service centre.  "I'd appreciate your comments on this subject."  

Many thanks  

Barry

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

This report is inspired by the following question from Mike Bristow:  

Hi John, Great report and fantastic clarity. No one else goes to such lengths to explain things like this the way you do. Great job. During your video, you stated that accelerating from zero appears quick and tails off the faster you go until you can't accelerate any more. Presumably due to the physical limitations of the engine (air/petrol intake, physical properties of the engine, and ultimately air pressure etc.)  Because you appear to me to be extremely adept at explaining issues involving the more fundamental properties of science, would you please indulge me in explaining something that is kind of  linked, but nothing to do with cars - yet anyway.  Your statement re acceleration struck a chord and made me think about a lifelong issue that no one has been able to explain. The issue being the finite speed of light.  A light wave or particle (not sure if they've decided which is which yet but never mind) travels, as you know, at a bit over 670 million miles an hour and according the prophet Einstein, nothing can travel faster. Is it because there is no known force that can give it more momentum or simply something that prevents it going faster by getting in its way like the fabric of space itself, if that actually exists.  I know this is a very simplified way of looking at it but surely things should be explainable so the common man can understand.  All the common axioms that get blurted out by nerds that think they believe in relativity etc. drive me round the twist. I'm just looking for an honest, down to earth answer as to why light can't go faster than 670 million mph. Sorry to bother you with this John but if you do have the time, I'm sure your answer would make not just me but a lot of interested science guys like me very happy.  If I don't hear from you, I completely understand.  All the best, Mike.

In this report: Unofficial pointers from a prosecutor in Redneckistan (which I think some people still refer to as ‘Queensland’).  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

This report is inspired by the following unsolicited advice from a Queensland police prosecutor. (Name withheld to protect identity.)  

"I prosecute Traffic offences in Queensland. The roadside conversations can help people if they’re dealing with your general duties police, not likely if you are dealing with our road policing guys.   

"Queensland has the Penalties and Sentences Act, section 9 speaks about the sentencing guidelines and section 18, No conviction with no further punishment. No matter what the fine is, there is also the offender levy. The demerit points always flow no matter what the penalty, unless you receive the wonderful words of Not Guilty.   

"The traffic penalties for traffic tickets in Queensland are set by Queensland Transport. We also have case law where the District Court makes reference to the amount of fine ordered by the court should be higher than the ticket amount to discourage people from contesting a ticket to get a discount.  

 "Hypothetically, if the ticket amount is $400, you contest it, go to court and decide to plead guilty, you wear the fine plus the offender levy. I say fine because once the ticket becomes a charge, you are open to the maximum penalty which for some offences is 20 penalty units or about $2800.   

"One other thing, the prosecutor’s office is somewhat independent of the police who issue tickets. We factor in a range of considerations when deciding if we will continue with an infringement. An example of this, we have a road in Brisbane where there is a Bus jump zone. The lane is a left turn only lane, except for buses which can drive straight ahead, other vehicles must turn left. We recently had a case where a guy got a ticket for disobeying the left turn only sign. AT the time of the offence, every single lane on that road was bumper to bumper so no real gain to be in that lane, so in this instance we discontinued the proceeding.      

Hope this makes sense."

An oxymoronically happy story … about dying on the road.  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

When I was six, in 1970, road death was out of control in this country. In total, 3798 people died on the roads. Today, the annual death toll is just over 1100.  A bit less than five million vehicles were on the road in 1970. About 20 million today, in Shitsville. Population in 1970: 12.5 million. Today, double that. Four times the vehicles and twice the people - but significantly less than one third of the death. If that’s not the happiest story ever, I don’t know what is.  In 1970, nearly eight people died for every 10,000 registered vehicles. Today it’s well below 1 death for every 10,000 vehicles (0.56 in 2018). According to the Feds.  In 1970, 30-ish people died on the road for every 100,000 people in the nation. In 2018, it was about 4.5. Essentially, in real terms, the roads are between seven and 14 times safer, depending on how you decide to measure such a thing.  In 2018, we drove, collectively 227 billion kilometres. That’s 5.7 million laps of the planet. 57 million transcontinental runs from Steep Point to Cape Byron. It’s 22 return trips to Pluto, which isn’t even a planet any more - so, why bother going even once?  And, in all this driving, 1100 people died. Every death is a tragedy, certainly - I’m not suggesting those lives don’t matter. They do. There’s a burden on each of us, every time you put your hands on the wheel to act responsibly and avoid this kind of thing. It’s, like, the primary responsibility of driving.   To me, however, those 1100 deaths are tantamount to a cost of enjoying all that mobility, in an imperfect world. I’m sure many of those deaths were preventable, and I’m sure we can work on it, but it’s not out of control. It’s not even disproportionate.  If you compare those 1100 road deaths to accidental falls, which killed 3300 people in 2019, it kinda puts it in perspective. (Admittedly, the average age of the deceased there was 87.4, so that’s pretty much age-related, it seems.) Poisonous or noxious substances killed 1357 Australians in 2019 - about 200 more than on the road.  The big one for the grim reaper is what the statisticians call ‘intentional self harm. In total, this claimed 3317 Australians in 2019. Three times higher than the road toll.   (I know what a touchy subject this is. Suicide is absolutely not a solution to a problem. If this is confronting to you - call Lifeline in Australia on 13 11 14.) The median age for the deceased here: 43.9 - so, a lot of life-years lost to self-harm. Just like the road toll, and also skewed significantly towards males in both cases. Odd similarities there.  These data - from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, from: Causes of Death, Australia.  What I always find amazing is that - without controlling for risk factors specifically - the risk of dying from self harm is three times higher than that of dying on the road. That does my head in. Then I look at the resources marshalled at the prevention of road trauma versus the prevention of suicide, and I wonder about society’s priorities there.  (I’m not suggesting we take resources away from preventing road trauma - I’m suggesting we pay attention to other salient causes of preventable, premature death, to the overall betterment of society.)