https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1

Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.

All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical, you
can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take your
eyes off the road.

On 6/03/2024 2:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>
>
> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>
> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical, you
> can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take your
> eyes off the road.

Absolutely agree. Cadogan highlighted this recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txXH9_lNZ7o

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 6/03/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>
> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>
> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical, you
> can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take your
> eyes off the road.

I don't think it's that big a deal, although some of the better systems
have voice activation. The Ranger does, and it works surprisingly well.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/3/2024 8:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>
>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
>> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>
>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take
>> your eyes off the road.
>
> I don't think it's that big a deal, although some of the better systems
> have voice activation. The Ranger does, and it works surprisingly well.
>
You wouldn't, but you're a shit driver and have the *crippling injuries*
to prove it.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/03/2024 7:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>
>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
>> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>
>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take
>> your eyes off the road.
>
> I don't think it's that big a deal, although some of the better systems
> have voice activation. The Ranger does, and it works surprisingly well.

If you can touch a point on a screen without looking at it you're better
at it than me, and 90 odd percent of the population. As for voice
control, it must be a lot better than any that I've seen. I think that
the Maz3 can initiate a phone call by voice, I must try it some time.

On 6/3/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>
> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>
> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical, you
> can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take your
> eyes off the road.

Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and shouldn't be
in cars.

--
Daryl

On 6/3/2024 9:06 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 7:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 6/03/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>>
>>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding
>>> a button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>>
>>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to
>>> take your eyes off the road.
>>
>> I don't think it's that big a deal, although some of the better
>> systems have voice activation. The Ranger does, and it works
>> surprisingly well.
>
> If you can touch a point on a screen without looking at it you're better
> at it than me, and 90 odd percent of the population. As for voice
> control, it must be a lot better than any that I've seen. I think that
> the Maz3 can initiate a phone call by voice, I must try it some time.
>

Voice control systems are certainly a lot better than they used to be,
I think my wife uses that feature on her Golf but I prefer to press a
button or turn a knob.
If the car has Apple car play or Android auto you can just say "hey
siri" or "hey google" to do things, some people like that sort of thing
but some don't and I'm the latter, talking to a phone or a screen seems
silly to me.

--
Daryl

Clocky wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 2:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>
>>
>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
>> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>
>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take
>> your eyes off the road.
>
> Absolutely agree.

Retro thinking. Voice Activation is the best (and probably cheapest)
option. Although I rarely use use the version in the Benz because it
never responds to, 'Hey Google'...

Speaking of the MB... 4 year service the other day. $1,100 and nothing
needed doing.

alvey

Daryl wrote:
> On 6/3/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>
>>
>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
>> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>
>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take
>> your eyes off the road.
>
>
> Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
> critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and shouldn't be
> in cars.

Careful there Deryl. If "hideous things" are banned in cars you'll find
yourself having to travel by bus.

On 6/03/2024 9:06 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 7:28 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> I don't think it's that big a deal, although some of the better
>> systems have voice activation. The Ranger does, and it works
>> surprisingly well.
>
> If you can touch a point on a screen without looking at it you're better
> at it than me, and 90 odd percent of the population.

I've never carried out such a survey Keith, and unless you have I'm not
sure how this would be something you would know :)

As for screens, I can't touch them without looking any better than
anyone else, but it doesn't take long to familiarise yourself with a
vehicle to the point where you can do such things fairly quickly, and
most cars so equipped that I've been in the operation is little more
than a quick glance and a single press.

It's not complicated, and the better systems lock the more involved
stuff out while you're driving.

> As for voice control, it must be a lot better than any that I've
seen. I think that
> the Maz3 can initiate a phone call by voice, I must try it some time.

This tech changes virtually daily. How old is your Mazda now?

In the Ford Ranger, at least in the Wildtrak variant and probably with
other spec models, you can control a hell of a lot by voice, including
dictating and sending text messages, you can have incoming messages read
to you, you can make and receive calls, you can control the audio system
including Spotify, you can set navigation points, you set the climate
control, you can set reminders or calendar entries, or do anything else
that you would normally have to touch the centre display for all by
voice. In fact, with wireless phone connection my phone never leaves my
pocket, and with Android Auto I can use Google Assistant to ask it
anything I like and have it find the information and read it back to me.
All without ever having to take my eyes off the road or my hands off the
wheel. It's one of the better systems around, and it works *very* well
indeed.

Some months ago when I first took delivery of this ute and you
questioned why I claimed it was a "game changer", this is one of the
reasons why I believe that to be the case. It's a perfect example of
"tech" that not only makes like easier, but makes driving safer.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/03/2024 10:33 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 6/3/2024 9:06 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>>
>> If you can touch a point on a screen without looking at it you're
>> better at it than me, and 90 odd percent of the population. As for
>> voice control, it must be a lot better than any that I've seen. I
>> think that the Maz3 can initiate a phone call by voice, I must try it
>> some time.
>>
>
>  Voice control systems are certainly a lot better than they used to be,
> I think my wife uses that feature on her Golf but I prefer to press a
> button or turn a knob.

It's certainly come a hell of a long way. In the Navara it was available
in foreign markets but disabled for Australia because the system
apparently struggled with Aussie accents. The current system in the Ford
is superb. It has a button on the steering wheel which you can use to
activate either the built in Ford system or Google, but you don't even
have to do that. You can set "code words" that it will listen to, and as
soon as it hears you mention them it will fire up and ask you what you want.

> If the car has Apple car play or Android auto you can just say "hey
> siri" or "hey google" to do things, some people like that sort of thing
> but some don't and I'm the latter, talking to a phone or a screen seems
> silly to me.

I'd never been a big fan of it previously, but in the Ranger it's so
seamless that it feels like having an assistant sitting in the car with
you.

It just takes everything to a new level of easy....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/03/2024 10:27 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 6/3/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>
>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding a
>> button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>
>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to take
>> your eyes off the road.
>
>
> Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
> critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and shouldn't be
> in cars.

I love them :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 7/3/2024 7:45 am, alvey wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> On 6/03/2024 2:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>>
>>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding
>>> a button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>>
>>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to
>>> take your eyes off the road.
>>
>> Absolutely agree.
>
> Retro thinking. Voice Activation is the best (and probably cheapest)
> option. Although I rarely use use the version in the Benz because it
> never responds to, 'Hey Google'...
>
> Speaking of the MB... 4 year service the other day. $1,100 and nothing
> needed doing.
>
I recently rotated the tyres on the Toy and thought I might as well have
a look at the brakes whilst doing that. Pads (original) on the front
looked to be *as new*, certainly they looked to be 75% remaining. The
rear (original) were 50% remaining, That's at 150k kilometres. That's
certainly better than the run I have had with previous Toys. That said,
up here we don't deal with the cut and thrust of city driving so less
hard on brakes.

Speaking of cut and thrust city driving, from the 15th-24th Feb we were
doing a bit of touring around NSW. On the 16th I entered the fray with
heavy Sydney driving around Chatswood, Mascot and Botany, quite a change
from the relative calm of the Mid North Coast. Had to do an airport
pickup late arvo that day, then headed off to a resort in the Blue
Mountains, the M8 and M4 tollways making the journey much more
tolerable. Spent time in Dubbo and Bathurst, then back to Newcastle and
the Central Coast culminating in an airport dropoff at Mascot that went
much more smoothly than the pickup a week earlier. Discovered that a
niece is Manager Events at Bathurst CC and that includes all goings on
at Mt Panorama. Even though they were only prepping for races the
following week, we had a look at the activities and visited the car
museum on site.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 7/3/2024 11:12 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 10:33 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/3/2024 9:06 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If you can touch a point on a screen without looking at it you're
>>> better at it than me, and 90 odd percent of the population. As for
>>> voice control, it must be a lot better than any that I've seen. I
>>> think that the Maz3 can initiate a phone call by voice, I must try it
>>> some time.
>>>
>>
>>   Voice control systems are certainly a lot better than they used to
>> be, I think my wife uses that feature on her Golf but I prefer to
>> press a button or turn a knob.
>
> It's certainly come a hell of a long way. In the Navara it was available
> in foreign markets but disabled for Australia because the system
> apparently struggled with Aussie accents. The current system in the Ford
> is superb. It has a button on the steering wheel which you can use to
> activate either the built in Ford system or Google, but you don't even
> have to do that. You can set "code words" that it will listen to, and as
> soon as it hears you mention them it will fire up and ask you what you
> want.
>
>> If the car has Apple car play or Android auto you can just say "hey
>> siri" or "hey google" to do things, some people like that sort of
>> thing but some don't and I'm the latter, talking to a phone or a
>> screen seems silly to me.
>
> I'd never been a big fan of it previously, but in the Ranger it's so
> seamless that it feels like having an assistant sitting in the car with
> you.
>
> It just takes everything to a new level of easy....
>
And you need it to be *easy* given your lack of competence in driving!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 7/3/2024 11:12 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 10:27 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/3/2024 5:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/carmakers-must-bring-back-buttons-to-get-good-safety-scores-in-europe/?comments=1&comments-page=1
>>>
>>> Manufacturers like touch screens because they seem "Cool" and adding
>>> a button on the screen is cheaper than adding a physical control.
>>>
>>> All controls regularly used while driving though should be physical,
>>> you can use them by feel, with a touch screen control you have to
>>> take your eyes off the road.
>>
>>
>> Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
>> critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and shouldn't
>> be in cars.
>
> I love them :)
>
>
Obviously a lot of people like them which is why a lot of cars have them
but I see it as car manufacturers installing equipment simply because
its cheaper.
As per many of the car reviews I watch some manufacturers will make a
good job of it and others will completely make a balls up of it, some
new cars more resemble a computer game than a car.
I don't think its a problem to have lesser used controls on a touch
screen but basic things should be on proper buttons/switches, I've seen
examples on some screens where the drivers have to sort through multiple
menus just to change the radio volume.
Sounds like Ford have done a reasonable job with the Ranger but from
what I've seen many other cars aren't so good.
BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
Australia.
--
Daryl

On 7/03/2024 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 11:12 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
>>> critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and shouldn't
>>> be in cars.
>>
>> I love them :)
>>
>>
> Obviously a lot of people like them which is why a lot of cars have them
> but I see it as car manufacturers installing equipment simply because
> its cheaper.

In some cases I think it is, but it also makes it easier to incorporate
various functions into a vehicle and have them work in conjunction with
each other.

> As per many of the car reviews I watch some manufacturers will make a
> good job of it and others will completely make a balls up of it, some
> new cars more resemble a computer game than a car.

Some do. Trevor pointed out a while ago how shitfully bad the MG system
was.

> I don't think its a problem to have lesser used controls on a touch
> screen but basic things should be on proper buttons/switches, I've seen
> examples on some screens where the drivers have to sort through multiple
> menus just to change the radio volume.

I haven't seen that, but I'm sure it's out there. Most cars I've seen
have all the "essential" stuff like radio volume, cruise control, phone
activation and various other things on the steering wheel. Various other
"non essential" stuff is on the dash centre, either by way of hard
switches or screen controls.

Some actually duplicate stuff. The Ranger has hard buttons for the
climate control as well as screen controls which do exactly the same
thing, and I never quite got the need for the duplication. I mean, how
many different ways of turning the heater on do you actually need?

The audio system is a little different. It has a physical on/off button
that on the lower centre dash, and you can also turn any of the audio
modes on by pressing any of their icons on the screen. Volume is
controlled by steering wheel buttons or by turning the physical knob on
the dash, but it can only be turned off by pressing the physical button.

Fucked if I know. Some cunt in the design crew was amusing themselves
that day :)

> Sounds like Ford have done a reasonable job with the Ranger but from
> what I've seen many other cars aren't so good.

It certainly all works well and is pretty intuitive. I've actually
surprised myself as to how much I like it. Especially the navigation. I
thought it was all a bit gimmicky at first, but it does an excellent job
and particularly when it comes to finding things where you can't
remember the exact location.

For example, a few weeks ago the wife and I went to an antiques &
Collectables fair near Castlemaine, but she'd forgotten where it was
being held and I didn't know. So I asked Google to tell me where it was
which it did, and it then asked if I wanted to set it as a destination
which I did, and off we went.

All pretty painless, and in way less time than it would take for me to
look it up and type it in myself.

> BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
> series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
> replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
> engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
> Australia.

Yeah, it does seem odd. Apparently the Powerstroke version is the one to
have. Then again if you're prepared to throw 150 grand at one of those
monsters you're probably not going to be too bothered about what kind of
fuel it uses.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 6/03/2024 9:06 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 6/03/2024 7:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I don't think it's that big a deal, although some of the better
>>> systems have voice activation. The Ranger does, and it works
>>> surprisingly well.
>>
>> If you can touch a point on a screen without looking at it you're
>> better at it than me, and 90 odd percent of the population.
>
> I've never carried out such a survey Keith, and unless you have I'm not
> sure how this would be something you would know :)
>
> As for screens, I can't touch them without looking any better than
> anyone else, but it doesn't take long to familiarise yourself with a
> vehicle to the point where you can do such things fairly quickly, and
> most cars so equipped that I've been in the operation is little more
> than a quick glance and a single press.
>
> It's not complicated, and the better systems lock the more involved
> stuff out while you're driving.
>
>
>  > As for voice control, it must be a lot better than any that I've
> seen. I think that
>> the Maz3 can initiate a phone call by voice, I must try it some time.
>
> This tech changes virtually daily. How old is your Mazda now?
>
> In the Ford Ranger, at least in the Wildtrak variant and probably with
> other spec models, you can control a hell of a lot by voice, including
> dictating and sending text messages, you can have incoming messages read
> to you, you can make and receive calls, you can control the audio system
> including Spotify, you can set navigation points, you set the climate
> control, you can set reminders or calendar entries, or do anything else
> that you would normally have to touch the centre display for all by
> voice. In fact, with wireless phone connection my phone never leaves my
> pocket, and with Android Auto I can use Google Assistant to ask it
> anything I like and have it find the information and read it back to me.
> All without ever having to take my eyes off the road or my hands off the
> wheel. It's one of the better systems around,

Hmmm. So you have a dig at Richo about his non-existent "survey" yet
here you are braying that your Ridiculous Ranga has "... one of the
better [VR] systems around...". Come on then Fraudster, tell us how you
know.

Oty

alvey

On 7/03/2024 12:58 pm, Tony wrote:

Shut the fuck up, you nym shifting attention whore. No one gives a fuck
about anything you have to say.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 7/3/2024 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 7/03/2024 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 7/3/2024 11:12 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
>>>> critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and
>>>> shouldn't be in cars.
>>>
>>> I love them :)
>>>
>>>
>> Obviously a lot of people like them which is why a lot of cars have
>> them but I see it as car manufacturers installing equipment simply
>> because its cheaper.
>
> In some cases I think it is, but it also makes it easier to incorporate
> various functions into a vehicle and have them work in conjunction with
> each other.
>
>> As per many of the car reviews I watch some manufacturers will make a
>> good job of it and others will completely make a balls up of it, some
>> new cars more resemble a computer game than a car.
>
> Some do. Trevor pointed out a while ago how shitfully bad the MG system
> was.
>
>> I don't think its a problem to have lesser used controls on a touch
>> screen but basic things should be on proper buttons/switches, I've
>> seen examples on some screens where the drivers have to sort through
>> multiple menus just to change the radio volume.
>
> I haven't seen that, but I'm sure it's out there. Most cars I've seen
> have all the "essential" stuff like radio volume, cruise control, phone
> activation and various other things on the steering wheel. Various other
> "non essential" stuff is on the dash centre, either by way of hard
> switches or screen controls.
>
> Some actually duplicate stuff. The Ranger has hard buttons for the
> climate control as well as screen controls which do exactly the same
> thing, and I never quite got the need for the duplication. I mean, how
> many different ways of turning the heater on do you actually need?
>
> The audio system is a little different. It has a physical on/off button
> that on the lower centre dash, and you can also turn any of the audio
> modes on by pressing any of their icons on the screen. Volume is
> controlled by steering wheel buttons or by turning the physical knob on
> the dash, but it can only be turned off by pressing the physical button.
>
> Fucked if I know. Some cunt in the design crew was amusing themselves
> that day :)
>
>> Sounds like Ford have done a reasonable job with the Ranger but from
>> what I've seen many other cars aren't so good.
>
> It certainly all works well and is pretty intuitive. I've actually
> surprised myself as to how much I like it. Especially the navigation. I
> thought it was all a bit gimmicky at first, but it does an excellent job
> and particularly when it comes to finding things where you can't
> remember the exact location.
>
> For example, a few weeks ago the wife and I went to an antiques &
> Collectables fair near Castlemaine, but she'd forgotten where it was
> being held and I didn't know. So I asked Google to tell me where it was
> which it did, and it then asked if I wanted to set it as a destination
> which I did, and off we went.
>
> All pretty painless, and in way less time than it would take for me to
> look it up and type it in myself.
>
>> BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
>> series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
>> replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
>> engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
>> Australia.
>
> Yeah, it does seem odd. Apparently the Powerstroke version is the one to
> have. Then again if you're prepared to throw 150 grand at one of those
> monsters you're probably not going to be too bothered about what kind of
> fuel it uses.
>
>
>
The XLT at $116-120k (depends on wheelbase, it comes in 2 different
lengths with one being approx 300mm longer) is actually cheaper than a
Landcruiser.
It really depends on the particular engine, generally petrol engine fuel
consumption is much worse than a diesel when towing heavy loads but
there are exceptions.
Interesting that the dealer said that he could bring the caravan and do
a tow test with a new F150, never heard of a dealer doing that before.
Harrison F Trucks is selling diesel 4WD F trucks but the prices are eye
watering, well over $200k for a top of the range model, they even have a
Shelby for over $300k.

--
Daryl

On 7/03/2024 4:32 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
>>> series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
>>> replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
>>> engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
>>> Australia.
>>
>> Yeah, it does seem odd. Apparently the Powerstroke version is the one
>> to have. Then again if you're prepared to throw 150 grand at one of
>> those monsters you're probably not going to be too bothered about what
>> kind of fuel it uses.
>>
>>
>>
> The XLT at $116-120k (depends on wheelbase, it comes in 2 different
> lengths with one being approx 300mm longer) is actually cheaper than a
> Landcruiser.

They don't attract the Toyota tax.

> It really depends on the particular engine, generally petrol engine fuel
> consumption is much worse than a diesel when towing heavy loads but
> there are exceptions.
> Interesting that the dealer said that he could bring the caravan and do
> a tow test with a new F150, never heard of a dealer doing that before.
> Harrison F Trucks is selling diesel 4WD F trucks but the prices are eye
> watering, well over $200k for a top of the range model, they even have a
> Shelby for over $300k.

Yeah, I saw them the last time we dropped the Santa Fe off for a
service. They're interesting to say the least. The Ranger is large
enough for me :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 7/3/2024 6:21 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 7/03/2024 4:32 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 7/3/2024 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
>>>> series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
>>>> replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
>>>> engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
>>>> Australia.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it does seem odd. Apparently the Powerstroke version is the one
>>> to have. Then again if you're prepared to throw 150 grand at one of
>>> those monsters you're probably not going to be too bothered about
>>> what kind of fuel it uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The XLT at $116-120k (depends on wheelbase, it comes in 2 different
>> lengths with one being approx 300mm longer) is actually cheaper than a
>> Landcruiser.
>
> They don't attract the Toyota tax.

Ah Darren, you silly fool. All you prove when you waffle on about the
*Toyota tax* is that you know nothing about *value*. You know the price
of everything, the value of nothing.

The Toyota Tax, as you are wont to call it, actually pays *dividends*.
The first of those is reliability dividends, with a Toyota you just get
out there, get on with life, and *do stuff*. The last is the *residual
dividend*, what you get back on your investment at the end of its
working life. As a Toyota, even an old one, they *hold their value*
better than all the other brands. There's a reason for that Darren, it's
called value for money. Ok, I get it, that's beyond your ken but the
rest of the world gets it which is why they don't quibble about the
upfront sunk cost when buying a Toyota - they know they're getting a
good ROI.
>
>> It really depends on the particular engine, generally petrol engine
>> fuel consumption is much worse than a diesel when towing heavy loads
>> but there are exceptions.
>> Interesting that the dealer said that he could bring the caravan and
>> do a tow test with a new F150, never heard of a dealer doing that before.
>> Harrison F Trucks is selling diesel 4WD F trucks but the prices are
>> eye watering, well over $200k for a top of the range model, they even
>> have a Shelby for over $300k.
>
> Yeah, I saw them the last time we dropped the Santa Fe off for a
> service. They're interesting to say the least. The Ranger is large
> enough for me :)

For sure, any larger and you're going to need a *stepladder* to even
mount the steed. You wore out the Navara seat because you had to slide
upwards into it every single time. And in only 79k kilometres too, piss
poor quality those Navara seats.
>
>
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 7/3/2024 2:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 7/03/2024 12:58 pm, Tony wrote:
>
> Shut the fuck up, you nym shifting attention whore. No one gives a fuck
> about anything you have to say.
>
Well Darren, you obviously do! Getting under your skin? LOL

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 7/3/2024 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 7/03/2024 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 7/3/2024 11:12 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agree and many people who review new cars are becoming more and more
>>>> critical of touch screens, IMHO they are hideous things and
>>>> shouldn't be in cars.
>>>
>>> I love them :)
>>>
>>>
>> Obviously a lot of people like them which is why a lot of cars have
>> them but I see it as car manufacturers installing equipment simply
>> because its cheaper.
>
> In some cases I think it is, but it also makes it easier to incorporate
> various functions into a vehicle and have them work in conjunction with
> each other.
>
>> As per many of the car reviews I watch some manufacturers will make a
>> good job of it and others will completely make a balls up of it, some
>> new cars more resemble a computer game than a car.
>
> Some do. Trevor pointed out a while ago how shitfully bad the MG system
> was.
>
>> I don't think its a problem to have lesser used controls on a touch
>> screen but basic things should be on proper buttons/switches, I've
>> seen examples on some screens where the drivers have to sort through
>> multiple menus just to change the radio volume.
>
> I haven't seen that, but I'm sure it's out there. Most cars I've seen
> have all the "essential" stuff like radio volume, cruise control, phone
> activation and various other things on the steering wheel. Various other
> "non essential" stuff is on the dash centre, either by way of hard
> switches or screen controls.
>
> Some actually duplicate stuff. The Ranger has hard buttons for the
> climate control as well as screen controls which do exactly the same
> thing, and I never quite got the need for the duplication. I mean, how
> many different ways of turning the heater on do you actually need?
>
> The audio system is a little different. It has a physical on/off button
> that on the lower centre dash, and you can also turn any of the audio
> modes on by pressing any of their icons on the screen. Volume is
> controlled by steering wheel buttons or by turning the physical knob on
> the dash, but it can only be turned off by pressing the physical button.
>
> Fucked if I know. Some cunt in the design crew was amusing themselves
> that day :)
>
>> Sounds like Ford have done a reasonable job with the Ranger but from
>> what I've seen many other cars aren't so good.
>
> It certainly all works well and is pretty intuitive. I've actually
> surprised myself as to how much I like it. Especially the navigation. I
> thought it was all a bit gimmicky at first, but it does an excellent job
> and particularly when it comes to finding things where you can't
> remember the exact location.
>
> For example, a few weeks ago the wife and I went to an antiques &
> Collectables fair near Castlemaine, but she'd forgotten where it was
> being held and I didn't know. So I asked Google to tell me where it was
> which it did, and it then asked if I wanted to set it as a destination
> which I did, and off we went.
>
> All pretty painless, and in way less time than it would take for me to
> look it up and type it in myself.
>
>> BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
>> series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
>> replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
>> engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
>> Australia.

Given the future of diesels in the smaller truck market, I'd say you are
getting some insight into what is to come.
>
> Yeah, it does seem odd. Apparently the Powerstroke version is the one to

Ah, no it doesn't seem odd to me in the slightest. Well, to someone
who's never left home nor travelled in their entire life, it might seem
a little odd. You know, someone like you. The price of petrol in the US
is way lower than ours here. As such, all smaller trucks intended for,
or built in, the US market will generally be petrol. This is not a new
thing. When I was in Indonesia I worked on a few Ford Louisville trucks
and these were offered with petrol V8s as the standard engine right up
to 28 tonnes GVM. If the truck model name had a 3 digit number, like
LN800, it was a petrol variant. If it had a 4 digit number, like LN8000,
it had a diesel engine and was intended for heavy service or as a prime
mover. One of the trucks I worked on and frequently drove was just like
this one but with the Hiab crane at the front of the tray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK3BBpoHqjw

So a petrol engine in a toy truck like an F150 is quite normal in the
US. In fact, it's the *rule* rather than the exception.

Darren, you need to get out more. Locking yourself up in your shed all
the while peering out waiting for someone to drive up your dead end
street just can't be good for your mental health!

> have. Then again if you're prepared to throw 150 grand at one of those
> monsters you're probably not going to be too bothered about what kind of
> fuel it uses.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 7/3/2024 6:21 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 7/03/2024 4:32 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 7/3/2024 12:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> BTW I was looking at a new F150 Lariat with a mate yesterday, his 79
>>>> series Landcruiser is 10yrs old and done 200k km so he's looking to
>>>> replace it, surprised that so far the F150 only comes with a petrol
>>>> engine which seems like the wrong engine for that type of vehicle in
>>>> Australia.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it does seem odd. Apparently the Powerstroke version is the one
>>> to have. Then again if you're prepared to throw 150 grand at one of
>>> those monsters you're probably not going to be too bothered about
>>> what kind of fuel it uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The XLT at $116-120k (depends on wheelbase, it comes in 2 different
>> lengths with one being approx 300mm longer) is actually cheaper than a
>> Landcruiser.
>
> They don't attract the Toyota tax.
>
>> It really depends on the particular engine, generally petrol engine
>> fuel consumption is much worse than a diesel when towing heavy loads
>> but there are exceptions.
>> Interesting that the dealer said that he could bring the caravan and
>> do a tow test with a new F150, never heard of a dealer doing that before.
>> Harrison F Trucks is selling diesel 4WD F trucks but the prices are
>> eye watering, well over $200k for a top of the range model, they even
>> have a Shelby for over $300k.
>
> Yeah, I saw them the last time we dropped the Santa Fe off for a
> service. They're interesting to say the least. The Ranger is large
> enough for me :)
>
>
>
>
Caravans seem to be getting bigger and heavier so people are wanting
bigger tow vehicles, Landcruisers and most utes have 3.5t towing
capacity which is barely enough, the F trucks are 4.5t with some of the
bigger models with even more capacity although their drivers will need a
light truck license.
I wouldn't be surprised if they sell quite a few especially of the fuel
economy is reasonable when towing something heavy.

--
Daryl

On 7/03/2024 9:50 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:21 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Yeah, I saw them the last time we dropped the Santa Fe off for a
>> service. They're interesting to say the least. The Ranger is large
>> enough for me :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Caravans seem to be getting bigger and heavier so people are wanting
> bigger tow vehicles, Landcruisers and most utes have 3.5t towing
> capacity which is barely enough, the F trucks are 4.5t with some of the
> bigger models with even more capacity although their drivers will need a
> light truck license.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they sell quite a few especially of the fuel
> economy is reasonable when towing something heavy.

Guy around the corner has one. He has a large boat that he hauls with
it, but most of the time he just drives it as his daily. They're okay if
you're into them I suppose, but I just find them too big to be
practical. I parked next to one at Bunnings the other day, and it made
the Ranger look positively tiny by comparison.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.