Sabtu, 30 April 2022

2020-2022 Alfa Romeo Giulia and Stelvio recalled in Australia

The fault could cause the headlights to fail, according to the manufacturer.

Alfa Romeo has recalled 558 examples of its Giulia sedan and Stelvio SUV, citing a potential fault with the headlights.

The affected vehicles are stamped Model Years 2020 to 2022.

The recall notice, lodged with the Department of Infrastructure, says: “Due to a manufacturing issue, the automatic Adaptive Light System (AFS) sensors may not adjust as intended when there is a change in load or load distribution on the vehicle.

“If the vehicle headlights do not operate as intended it could increase the risk of an accident causing injury or death to vehicle occupants and other road users.”

Date of recall notice 28 April 2022
Make Alfa Romeo
Model Giulia and Stelvio
Year 2020-2022
Vehicles affected 558
VIN list Click here to download the list of affected VIN numbers
Contact link Click here to contact the manufacturer

Drive has contacted the marque in Australia to determine if any instances of the fault have been recorded in local vehicles. This story will be updated with its response.

A full list of vehicle identification numbers for the 558 vehicles involved in the recall can be found here.

To have your vehicle checked, find your closest Alfa Romeo dealership by clicking here.

The post 2020-2022 Alfa Romeo Giulia and Stelvio recalled in Australia appeared first on Drive.

Jumat, 29 April 2022

New Lada Niva likely axed following Renault sell-off

Does the departure of Lada from the Groupe Renault stable mean it is ‘do svidaniya’ for the promised new Niva?

The everlasting Lada Niva turned 45 years old earlier this month (it first launched on April 4, 1977), and while the original Lada 2121 is still being built, it was expected to have a finite lifespan with Renault noting a ‘new’ replacement Niva among its ‘Renaulution’ forward product planning in January 2021.

Yesterday’s news that Groupe Renault could be preparing to offload AutoVAZ Lada to the state-managed NAMI Russian Science Institute is likely to end this plan.

Renault invested in Lada’s Togliatti factory in Russia as part of its ownership stake and sought to modernise the Lada production lines to use shared Renault-Nissan platforms for future development.

The proposed 2024 Niva was reported to be based on the same CMF-B platform as the new Nissan Juke, giving the Russian brand a far more modern, if not quite as rugged, pathway for the Niva nameplate to continue into a new generation.

But now without Renault’s involvement, this is unlikely to happen.

It’s not the first time that plans for a ‘new’ Niva have been derailed due to a failed joint-venture with the Russian brand.

In 2014, General Motors presented a concept of a 2016 ‘Chevy’ Niva that was prepared by the GM Design Studio in Melbourne. However, this was delayed and the US relationship started to deteriorate when Renault began its investment in 2017.

By 2020, AutoVAZ had re-secured the stake originally taken by GM in 1998, and the Chevy Niva became the current Lada Niva Travel.

And while the long-wheelbase five-door Niva has already ended production, the original three-door 1977 Lada Niva 2121 has survived throughout, and with this most recent news, could be set to live even longer as Lada pushes on without Western ownership or financial support.

Renault has the option of re-purchasing its stake in AutoVAZ within five to six years (no doubt for a little more than the one ruble, or $AU0.02 sale price), so there is an outside chance the new Niva may see the light of day. But with Russia showing little sign of halting its military aggression toward Ukraine, we would imagine that Renault will use this sale as a way of further distancing itself from Russia.

The only upside here is that the iconic original Niva may finally reach its 50th anniversary…

The post New Lada Niva likely axed following Renault sell-off appeared first on Drive.

Formula E Gen3 electric race car revealed with 320km/h top speed and no rear brakes

The all-new third-generation electric racer is smaller, lighter and more powerful than its predecessor. Also, it has no rear brakes!

Formula E has taken the covers off its radical third-generation all-electric race car that is promised to be “the fastest” yet.

Looking more like a jet fighter than a car, the new Formula E racer has been developed to be lighter, faster, and more efficient than its predecessor.

The biggest innovation on the ‘Gen3’ electric racer is a new 350kW electric motor on the rear axle.

It’s capable of propelling the single-seater to a top speed of 320km/h, according to Formula E.

That rear motor is joined by a 250kW electric motor at the front axle, its primary aim to provide – in tandem with the rear motor – energy regeneration.

Formula E claims a total of 600kW of regeneration is available and that up to 40 per cent of the energy used during a Formula E race will be produced by the car itself.

The addition of the front powertrain means that new Formula E racer is not fitted with rear brakes. Stopping power now comes courtesy of front brakes and the twin electric motors’ regenerative capabilities.

The new car is both smaller and lighter than its predecessor. The wheelbase has been reduced by 130mm to 2970mm while the entire car tips the scales at 760kg (without the driver), a 60kg saving over the previous ‘Gen2’ racer.

Founder and Chairman of Formula E, Alejandro Agag said, “With every generation of race car we push the boundaries of possibility in EV technology further and the Gen3 is our most ambitious project to date.”

More details about the car and the forthcoming ninth season of Formula E – which commences later this year – are still to be revealed.

Seven manufacturers have confirmed they will contest season nine of the FIA Formula E World Championship – Porsche, Jaguar, Nissan, DS Automobiles, Mahindra, Nio and Maserati.

The latter joins the grid for the first time, and will go some way to plugging the holes on the grid left by the departure of Mercedes-Benz, Audi and BMW in recent years.

The post Formula E Gen3 electric race car revealed with 320km/h top speed and no rear brakes appeared first on Drive.

Driving interstate in an electric vehicle

Are electric vehicles ready for the great Australian family holiday? The cars may be, but the country isn’t, as Glenn Butler discovers the hard way.

Driving interstate in an electric vehicle is old hat. We’ve done it, and we’ve proved that range anxiety is no longer a thing.

Between Chargefox’s and the NRMA’s charging infrastructures, it’s no longer a challenge to drive between Australia’s two most populous capital cities using nary a drop of fossil fuel.

Thanks to 350kW UltraFast Charging (UFC) stations and electric vehicles (EV) with real-world touring ranges beyond 350km, it’s easy to hop from Melbourne to Sydney with a travel time close to that of a petrol vehicle, with careful planning. 

But what if we ramp up the degree of difficulty? What if we take the family, and do the trip at one of the busiest times of year on our roads? 

Before you accuse us of stacking the deck against the EV, these hurdles all came about naturally, which is how family holidays usually happen. And it’s how they fall apart by putting so much stress on the family unit that another holiday is needed to restore relations between once-loving family members. 

Our interstate adventure was for a wedding. A mate was getting hitched on Easter Sunday in Sydney, and my wife and I really wanted to be there. 

But first, who plans a wedding on a popular holiday long weekend? It’s almost as rude as planning one between Christmas and New Year – which I’ve also experienced.

The Easter and Christmas public holidays are sacred because they coincide with school holidays. These are the two times a year that Mum and Dad can take the offspring somewhere exciting without using up all their annual leave. To plonk a ‘must-attend’ social event in the middle is not very kind. But we sucked it up and made plans to attend.

The problem then became: how do we get there with two kids under two years old; where do we stay; how do we arrange a babysitter; how do we get around; and how much will Qantas charge us in excess baggage?

Flying is no fun when you’re lugging travel cots, prams, car seats and enough nappies to build a bridge to the moon. So we decided to drive instead. Which is when I made the big mistake of pondering out loud in front of James Ward and Kez Casey, “What would it be like to use an electric car for an interstate family holiday?”.

And so, our version of The Griswalds’ EV Adventure was born.

Hyundai agreed to loan us the car you cannot buy: an Ioniq 5 rear-drive with 72.6kWh battery priced from $71,990 plus on-road costs. Well, you can buy one, if you’re quick when Hyundai release the next batch of 100, and even then you’ll wait six months to receive it. 

The Ioniq 5 looks like a small hatchback in photos but is much larger in the metal. At 4635mm front to back, 1890mm wide and 1605mm tall, it is not far off a Hyundai Tucson mid-size SUV. But that didn’t impress my wife when I told her what I had lined up for our Sydney trip. And when I told her we’d need to stop every three hours to recharge for half an hour, she was even less impressed.

Her attitude softened when I showed her a video of the first-class recliner that is the Ioniq 5’s front passenger seat, but that’s like saying a baseball bat is softer than a metal bar when it hits you in the head.

The Ioniq 5’s claimed touring range of 420–450km would present more challenges than a 600–800km fuel tank on our 2000km round trip, but I wasn’t worried because I had the Chargefox app. I knew there was a UFC in Euroa and Barnawartha south of the border, and beyond that in Gundagai and Goulburn. 

Hyundai says the Ioniq 5 can recharge from 10 per cent to 80 per cent in 18 minutes on a UFC. That’s barely enough time to take a toilet break and then get swindled into buying double the amount of chips and soft drinks in the petrol station, because the second bag and bottle is only 50c more than the ridiculously overpriced single bag or bottle. 

Departure day Monday coincided with day one of the school holidays, so we weren’t the only people heading north. Nor were we the only people with a car packed to the roof line and all rearward vision blocked, which explains why many of those people fail to clear the freeway’s overtaking lane for kilometres after completing their overtake.

The Ioniq 5 was fully charged when we left home, its trip computer boasting of a 410km expected range. That wouldn’t be enough to reach our overnight destination, grandpa’s house in Bowral, but based on that I saw no reason we couldn’t do it with just one recharge. 

We made it as far as Euroa because the kids had other ideas. Let’s face it, nobody likes sitting in a soiled nappy for hours, and nobody else in the car should have to smell said soiled nappy for hours either. 

I was also a tad worried about how fast the Ioniq 5 was chewing through its ions at an indicated 110km/h on a freeway with zero opportunity for energy recovery under brakes. We’d covered 170km and used 45 per cent of the available charge. That’s 32.6kWh at an average of 19.1kWh/100km. At that rate I’d be lucky to get 380km from a full battery.

So, I figured if we had to stop for 10 minutes for an F1-style ultra-fast nappy change, we may as well top up the electrons at Euroa’s UFC at the same time. If it can add 50kW in 18 minutes, then 10 minutes should get us back over 80 per cent. 

When we pulled into the Euroa petrol station, one of the 350kW UFC bays was occupied by a BMW iX. No worries, we’ll use the other. Except it was out of order. This turned out to be an ill omen, although I didn’t realise it at the time. 

With a cavalier derring-do typical of early onset road-trip delirium, I backed up to the slower but vacant 50kW fast charger and began rejuvenating the Ioniq 5’s battery at 49 of a possible 50kW.

Fifteen minutes later, nappy changed, Macca’s muffins bought and consumed (with optional hash brown inside for added crunch), and we were on the road again. The battery had absorbed 11.5kWh in that time, which got us back to 64 per cent and an expected range of 256km. Barnawartha was only another 120km and one hour up the road, and our arrival time would coincide nicely with lunchtime.

We got to Barnawartha’s bucolic charging station with just 21 per cent battery left, which the Hyundai told us was good for another 68km, not the 136km it should have had based on its Euroa projection. We had averaged 22.2kWh/100km for this purely highway leg. 

Luckily for us, the UFC charger at Barnawartha was operational and about to be unoccupied by a black Porsche Taycan that had just sucked its fill. We got chatting to the owners who were heading back to Canberra after going to the Australian F1 Grand Prix. 

It’s funny how you feel a little bit smug, standing there at a charging station chatting to other ‘enlightened’ EV owners, looking down your nose at all those gas guzzlers heading in to top up their fossil-chewing, carbon-belching planet-killers. 

Once our new best friends headed off, I plugged the Ioniq 5 in and set up a picnic for the family. It all felt very civilised and carefree as I watched older son frolic through the shrubbery, dropping his cheese sandwich on the ground only to pick it up and eat it, gravel and all.  

Meanwhile, the 350kW CCS recharger was feeding the Ioniq 5 at a peak of 148kW, which seemed a bit stingy to me. I didn’t pay it much thought, however, because it promised 22min to 80 per cent, 46min to 100 per cent. 

It’s fair to say our picnic was a leisurely one, giving the Ioniq 5 time to suck down 60.5kWh of power at a cost of $24.19. The battery was back to 100 per cent and our expected range said 390km. Bowral was still 460km away, so another stop would be needed. Goulburn in 385km, maybe, and then we could shoot for grandpa’s place and be there in time for dinner with an almost full Ioniq 5 and two tired grandkids.  

Easy. Not. 

After 180km we’d used up half the battery. When I say we, I mean my wife because it was her turn to drive. She’d averaged 19.9kWh per 100km, which is marginally better than my last leg, but still not the stuff a 420km range is made of, and not enough to reach Goulburn.

So, Gundagai here we come. 

Finding the chargers in Gundagai is not easy. They’re hidden behind the big Oliver’s fast food joint, out the back near the loading dock, which means driving down a dirt road churned up by delivery trucks when it’s wet, leaving ruts big enough to swallow a small Tesla. 

There are two ranks of chargers, one dedicated to Elon Musk’s faithful and another to all other (heretical?) EVangelists. When we pulled in, the two UFC bays were out of order, and even had two technicians looking at their innards in a perplexed ‘Do we cut the red wire or the green one?’ way. 

Of the two 50kW not-Ultra but still Fast Chargers, one of those was out of order too. And the other was occupied by the same black Porsche Taycan we’d met at Barnawartha. This time there was no EV-tribe camaraderie and no warm charger-side chats. They stayed within the Taycan’s confines, windows up, looking intently at their phones. 

Silently rebuffed, I checked the charger’s readout. It said their car had 20 per cent and had only latched on five minutes ago. They were going to be a while. Not even the sight of myself and my wife standing around with two grumpy kids sick to death after five hours in car seat restraints could get them to lower their windows and engage us in conversation. 

So, rather than hang around in a muddy loading bay complete with algae-covered water feature, we decided to make a run for Jugiong in the hope that its 50kW charger was available. 

Unlike the Chargefox app, the PlugShare app that lists NRMA’s charging points as well doesn’t have real-time occupancy, unless the user chooses to ‘check-in’. Previous check-ins suggested the station was operational because another Ioniq 5 had topped up there earlier in the day. 

When we got there 30 minutes later, we found a red Tesla plugged in and a grey Hyundai Kona Electric parked alongside, waiting its turn. 

It was now 3:20pm, seven hours after we had left home. The excitement of our pioneering EV family road trip was rapidly wearing off. We were 200km from our destination, but only had enough battery for 107km – if the Ioniq 5’s range estimations could be trusted. 

We waited. And waited.

Our spirits lifted when the Kona got sick of waiting and took off. I don’t know where they charged instead, but I hope they made it.

Shortly after that, a couple walked over towards the Tesla, and I experienced elation akin to winning the lottery. If the Kona had waited they could be plugging in now. But their impatience was our gain.

“We’re going to be another 40 minutes,” the Tesla owner told me. 

It’s hard to be angry when they were here first, but I wasn’t happy. My two angelic boys were now doing demon impersonations, screaming like banshees demanding to be unleashed from this cross-country hell. 

Their vocal exhortations did little to sway the Tesla owner’s commitment to maintain station. He went back across the road to the coffee shop, presumably to have another ethically sourced chai latte.

My wife and I debated heading for Yass, a further 60km away. But what guarantee would we have that (a) the Ioniq 5 would make it, (b) the station would be operational, and (c) available? 

Instead, we stuck with the devil we knew and took our two demons for a play in the park while waiting for Red Tesla to finish being so bloody selfish and charging at the one bloody charging station that I bloody needed.

Mercifully he detached after 30 minutes, not 40, for which two frazzled parents were grateful, and said so. If it sounded insincere, it wasn’t meant that way and I apologise in retrospect. By then we were happy for any small mercies because we knew dinner in Bowral was not going to happen.

At 4:00pm we plugged in and started recharging. By 4:26pm we had taken 18.5kW on board and had 57 per cent charge. If Hyundai’s 420km range claim was to be believed that should get us 240km. Bowral was 221km away.

I didn’t trust it, so we waited some more. 

By now, the bustling tourist town of Jugiong had become a ghost town. The Long Track Pantry had closed up and the staff gone home. The only people left in town were a dishevelled couple with two tired kids and their Ioniq 5 still slurping juice at 41kW/h.

At 5:00pm we pulled the plug on the charger and on Jugiong. The Ioniq 5 had consumed 35kWh and was back up to 79 per cent. We loaded the kids back into the car and returned to the Hume.

Now we had a different problem. As any parent of an infant knows, the hours between 5:00pm and 7:00pm are dominated by feeding, bathing, playing and then bed. 

When 7:30pm finally comes around in our house, you will find my wife and I sitting on the couch in front of the TV, some form of alcohol close at hand and battle-weary looks on our faces, silently suffering through offspring-induced post-traumatic stress disorder.

Not on this day, however. Every kilometre between Jugiong and Bowral was travelled in fearful anticipation of an infant hollering with an insatiable hunger. As we left Jugiong, they were both quiet and we prayed it would stay that way for as long as possible. We knew the car would make it to Bowral, but we also knew the kids wouldn’t without being fed. 

They lasted almost to Goulburn before the older one screamed for sustenance. The younger one joined in because he knows two screaming kids will get fed faster than one.

We stopped at Goulburn’s UFC, which also happens to be right next to a McDonald’s. My wife fed our eight-month-old in the front seat while the Hyundai fed itself at 183kW and I took my older son to Macca’s for his first-ever fast food. At 6:35pm we unplugged with 85 per cent charge and finished the trip in the dark, with two back-seat demons now snoozing contentedly. 

We pulled into Bowral at 7:45pm, 11 long hours after we left Melbourne. We had covered 768km at an average speed of 70km/h with an average consumption of 21.1kWh/100km. At best that’s a 350km range. At Chargefox’s 40c/kW our fuel cost just under $65. By my estimate, a petrol-powered car would have done it in two hours less at a cost of $120.

We stayed in Bowral for five days, charging the car via a domestic plug every time we so much as used it to check the mail. We drove to the wedding in Sydney on Easter Sunday and watched our friend get hitched to the woman of his dreams. Seeing these two lovebirds so deeply enamoured with each other partially repaired our own travel-damaged domestic bliss.

Then we drove back to Bowral and plugged the Ioniq 5 in. By the next morning it had enough charge to get to the Goulburn UFC, where we juiced it to 100 per cent. Then we headed for Cootamundra where we stayed overnight. Why? Because we had learned three things on the northbound journey: 

  1. Never drive interstate with infants, ever
  2. If you have to drive interstate with infants, don’t do 800km in a day
  3. If you have to drive an EV interstate, avoid school holidays and the day after F1 when the rest of Australia is driving their EV home too.

This trip proved to me that while range anxiety is no longer the issue, charger anxiety is. If one 350kW charger is down, it takes that day’s EV traffic up to five times longer to charge on 50kW stations. That’s assuming they’re all working.

The last day of our round trip from Cootamundra to Melbourne was bucketing with rain, and I learned yet another thing: EVs get 10 per cent less range when it’s raining. Something to do with the tyres having to move water as well as grip the road.

I’m sure petrol cars do too. But with the proliferation of petrol stations and an ICE car’s greater range, rain range is less of an issue. In a Hyundai Ioniq 5 with a claimed 420km of range managing at best 350km on the Hume Highway, we didn’t have another 10 per cent to spare. 

We got home, but only after stopping again at Barnawartha and Euroa. 

But at least I got to show my sons the house in Bowral where Sir Donald Bradman lived, and the house in Cootamundra where The Don was born. And we did it all without burning a single drop of petrol. It’s just a shame they won’t remember it. Or maybe that’s a blessing because they won’t be scarred by the experience. 

Interstate EV travel is possible, but until the infrastructure catches up, it’s far from enjoyable.


FOLLOW-UP

We asked Hyundai Australia to help us understand a few of the driving range and charging speed inconsistencies experienced during our interstate trip. Here is the company’s response.

Q: The fastest recharge we saw on a 350kW Ultra Fast Charging station (both Barnawartha and Goulburn, twice on different days) was 188kW at a burst and a sustained 148kW. Why would this be, given other media outlets have seen a sustained 225kW?

HMCA: Without trying another Ioniq 5 on the same chargers or knowing whether this vehicle charged at the higher rate on other chargers, it would be pure speculation [as] to why this occurred. Charging stations are impacted by supply voltage and by multiple vehicles being charged at once. (For example, one vehicle on a 350kW charger and another on a 100kW impacts the overall power the charging station is using or able to use). The charge of the vehicle can impact as well. If only topping up for a few minutes the charger may not ramp up to full speed.

Q: The maximum range on the drive up to Sydney was 380km at indicated 115km/h. Driving back the range prediction was 350km, but this was in constant rain. A Porsche Taycan driver told us EV range can be 10-15 per cent less in rainy conditions. Is this plausible?

HMCA: There will be a minimal impact on wet days from the power required to run the wipers and a minimal aerodynamic impact from wiper operation. There are no figures that I know of for a definitive impact on range. The wet road itself won’t make a difference but there are usually changes in driving behaviour on wet roads which could impact range (drivers vary speed more in the rain causing other traffic to be impacted). The more likely reason is due to driving in Sydney traffic before the return to the open road. Range is based on driving history so if there was some urban driving in Sydney, this would be taken into account when the 350km figure was displayed.

The post Driving interstate in an electric vehicle appeared first on Drive.

Tiny Chinese electric car arrives with corny name

Chinese automaker Changan has debuted the ‘Lumin Corn’ – a mini electric car to rival the top-selling Wuling from General Motors.

The tiny Lumin Corn is the latest electric vehicle arrive on the Chinese market. 

Manufactured by automaker Changan, the mini EV is set to go head-to-head with the nation’s best-selling vehicle – the GM-Wuling.

The newcomer will reportedly be available in two variants – one powered by a 30kW LFP battery from Gotion Hightech that generates 30kW and a range of 150km, while the range-topper packs a 35kW LFP battery from CATL, generating 35kW and capable of 210km.

Both variants are capable of a top speed of 101km/h.

Sporting a miniature exterior with two-doors, the Lumin Corn is equipped with four seats.

It measures in 3270mm from nose to tail, 1700mm at the tallest point, 1545mm wide, and features a wheelbase of 1980mm. 

The interior styling is futuristic and features a 10.25-inch central infotainment screen along with physical climate control dials, a three-spoke steering wheel and a mixture of  leather and fabric. 

The all-new EV is set to launch in the second half of the year with pricing yet to be announced.

The post Tiny Chinese electric car arrives with corny name appeared first on Drive.

Kamis, 28 April 2022

Australia’s Motor Magazine axed after 68 years

After helping shape Australian car culture for more than half a century – and becoming a driving force in iconic Holden-versus-Ford battles – Motor Magazine has reached the end of the road.

One of Australia’s most iconic car magazines, Motor, will print its last edition next month after 68 years.

Originally called Modern Motor and launched in May 1954, the magazine helped shape Australian car culture and was one of the driving forces in iconic Holden-versus-Ford battles on the road and track for more than half a century.

Motor Magazine – a sister title to Wheels Magazine – is due to print its last and 827th issue in June 2022 and be on the news stands in July, the company announced today.

As with women’s magazines, ‘lads’ magazines, and weekly tabloid titles, Australian car magazines have struggled in the internet age.

Compounding this, the decline in sales of car magazines have accelerated since the shutdown of local Ford and Holden factories by the end of 2017 – and amid the dramatic shift in buyer tastes to four-wheel-drives and utes which now account for the majority of new-car sales.

A decade ago, passenger cars including the Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon accounted for more than half of all new motor vehicles sold. Today, passenger cars represent less than 20 per cent of new motor vehicle deliveries.

Increased paper costs and a dwindling magazine audience have slammed the brakes on a magazine that was read by generations of Australian car enthusiasts.

While women’s magazines saw a spike in sales during lockdowns and travel restrictions over the past two years during the COVID pandemic, motoring magazines hit reverse over the same period given airports and petrol stations formed a large part of their sales.

The CEO of Wheels Media, Christian Clark, told Drive that retiring Motor Magazine was “the hardest decision the company has had to make and was not done lightly.”

The iPad edition of Motor Magazine stopped being updated last year and only limited digital back issues are available.

The company says it is yet to decide if Motor Magazine will remain online – and if the extensive back catalogue of magazines will be digitised and preserved for future generations.

Much of the information contained in motoring magazines published in the pre-internet era cannot be found online and could be lost to history unless they are copied into a digital format.

Industry insiders say Motor Magazine was perilously close to being shut down on several occasions over the past five years, each time winning a stay of execution to help to protect other motoring titles within the group such as Wheels, 4×4 Australia, Street Machine and Unique Cars, which shared production costs and delivered economies of scale.

Circulation figures and publisher claims sourced by Drive reveal a sharp decline from a peak of more than 65,000 sales of the December 2003 edition, to an average of 10,000 copies per month in 2020, down to approximately 7000 copies per month so far this year. 

Industry insiders say the absence of Motor Magazine will put increased pressure on the remaining motoring titles in the stable such as Wheels, 4×4 Australia, and Street Machine, which will no longer be able to amortise costs with Motor Magazine.

However, Mr Clark – who also oversees the other motoring magazines within the group – said the decision to retire Motor Magazine “absolutely will not extend to the other titles.”

“We are consolidating all of our efforts into our remaining titles and focusing on the digital side of the business,” said Mr Clark, who noted the motoring group’s online audience had grown by 30 per cent in the past year.

Although approximately 10 jobs across the motoring media group are understood to have been made redundant earlier this week, Mr Clark said 80 per cent of Motor Magazine staff will remain employed.

While the exact number is yet to be calculated, there were more than a dozen editors of Motor Magazine over 68 years – and countless Holden-versus-Ford tests, which inevitably prompted accusations of bias from readers when their favourite brand of car didn’t win a contest.

In addition to numerous and notable industry “scoops” and exclusive road tests of super-rare cars, Motor Magazine did occasionally get some of its cover speculations wrong, including tipping Holden would build a convertible Monaro, revive the Torana in the early 2000s, and introduce a diesel Commodore (three examples pictured above) none of which made it to showrooms.

But readers quickly forgave – or forgot – these indiscretions thanks to page after glossy page of stunning photography of high-performance cars from Australia and overseas, being tested on the road and track.

Motor Magazine experimented a number of times with foreign cars on the cover – in a bid to broaden the magazine’s audience and reduce the dependence on Holden-versus-Ford battles – but each time sales of that edition would tank.

Once Holden and Ford were no longer making cars in Australia, Motor Magazine pivoted to higher-quality paper stock, top-level photography, and an ultra-modern art direction – to turn it into a monthly “coffee table book”. 

In the process Motor Magazine became aesthetically beautiful, but even that wasn’t enough to arrest the sales slide.

According to insiders, for a period of time in the past five years, Motor Magazine was more profitable than sister magazine Wheels due its smaller cost base.

Drive has been told there was until recently a plan to digitise the entire back catalogue of Motor Magazine to preserve 68 years of motoring history – and to secure information that can’t be found on the internet – but that decision was paused due to cost.

Motor Magazine says existing subscribers will be given a subscription to sister title Wheels Magazine – or have their Wheels subscription extended if already a subscriber.

Circulation figures show the December 2003 edition of Motor Magazine (pictured above) was the biggest-seller in the history of the title, recording 65,273 sales for that issue.

By early 2022, sales had dropped to 7000 copies per month.

Motor Magazine says it will print extra copies of the final edition, “to say thank you and goodbye to our loyal audience.”

The post Australia’s Motor Magazine axed after 68 years appeared first on Drive.

4×4 Wagon versus 4×4 Ute comparison

These tough offroaders are very popular with Australians because they offer the dream of big country drives with the ability to handle the everyday. But which is better and why?

So, you like going on adventures beyond the bitumen, but you don’t have the finances to afford a dedicated holiday vehicle. What’s the right steed for you that combines weekday practicalities with weekend escapes: A dual-cab ute with four-wheel drive or an offroad wagon with four-wheel drive? 

Dual-cab utes are hugely popular. Three of the five best-selling vehicles in Australia are dual-cab 4x4s. Six of these rugged workhorses are in the top 20. Conversely, large 4×4 wagons similar in size and mechanical makeup to dual-cabs are not as popular, although there are three listed in the top 40 by sales year to date. 

These two fundamentally similar but different vehicles got us thinking: are Aussies missing a trick here? What is it that dual-cab 4x4s can do that a ute-based 4×4 wagon cannot, and vice versa? So we decided to look at these two popular vehicle types side by side. 

Interestingly, two recent comparisons we published gave us the chance to do this in the real world. We took the Ford Ranger Raptor and the Nissan Navara Pro-4X Warrior to the Victorian High Country to see which hard-core 4×4 ute is better. 

We also did a comparison between the Ford Everest and Isuzu MU-X, at the same time on the same roads. Our reason for taking all four was initially to combine our production resources and deliver two comparisons from the one road trip. 

Fortuitously, this gave us a chance to compare these two types of vehicles back-to-back. We experienced how each of them performed on-road and off-road, we discovered how they can carry people and cargo, and we learned how comfortable they are around town and in the country.

We thought we’d share our findings with you, in the hope that it helps you buy smarter the next time you’re looking for a weekday workhorse with weekend potential. 

So we can compare apples with apples, we’re going to focus on the Ford Ranger XLT and Ford Everest Sport. These two share the same 2.0-litre twin-turbocharged diesel drivetrain with ten-speed automatic transmission. 

This is not meant to be a head-to-head comparison to decide if the Ranger or Everest is better. This is more of an ethical debate to help you decide whether you’re beaut for a ute, or a wagoneer at heart. 

(Please allow us some poetic licence with the pics, we had a Ranger Raptor, Navara Pro-4X Warrior and Everest Trend on test. They’re there representing their genres moreso than their specific model reputations.) 

It’s possible that, in some instances, there might be a particular 4×4 wagon that bucks the general trend and is better in a particular area than a specific 4×4 ute. Or vice versa. Again, this is not the be-all and end-all of utes versus wagons. It’s a general guide. 

On road

This first bit is not going to come as a surprise. The off-road wagon genre is generally better for driving on road compared to an off-road ute. The three main areas in which the wagon has the advantage are on road dynamics, on road ride quality and on road NVH. 

Noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) is an industry term for how well a vehicle separates occupants from the mechanical operations. Things like isolating the engine’s vibrations and harshness from the chassis to which it is mounted (and to which the cabin is also mounted). We’re also talking about noises generated by the car’s motion such as tyre roar, wind noise, and engine and exhaust noise.

Wind noise will be noticeably louder for back seat ute passengers because airflow becomes turbulent where the cabin ends, right behind their heads. In the wagon, airflow detaches from the cabin back behind the cargo area so is less noticeable.

That said, the modern off-road ute has a far more refined and comfortable cabin than previous generations, but the ute’s utilitarian roots are still evident in some ways. 

For example, the ability to carry a tonne in the tray and tow heavier loads means that utes generally have stiffer rear suspension than 4×4 wagons. In most cases, where the wagon is based on the ute, there are suspension component and tune differences, but the ute’s primary goal is more about moving loads than the wagon’s goal of cosseting occupants. 

That’s why the Ranger XLT 4×4 dual-cab utility can carry a payload of up to 1003kg or tow up to 3500kg, but the Everest Sport wagon can only carry 683kg of people and luggage or tow up to 3100kg (with the 2.0-litre twin turbo diesel). It also means that the Ranger’s on road and off road ride is firmer and more reactive over rough terrain than the Everest’s.

Combine these suspension differences with the ute’s longer wheelbase and on-road dynamics are generally better in the wagon than the ute. The wagon’s steering tends to be quicker and more responsive, too, and the turning circle is tighter as evidenced by the Everest’s 11.7m compared to the Ranger’s 12.7m. 

This means the wagon will also be easier to manoeuvre around town and in tight situations like parking.

Interestingly, on-road acceleration is an area where the ute will often beat the wagon, even though both vehicles share powertrains. That’s because the ute is often lighter in its basic form.

For example, the Everest wagon weighs 2417kg compared to the Ranger XLT’s 2197kg. That means the Everest can only claim a 65kW/t specific power output, which is 10 per cent less than the Ranger’s 71.5kW/t.

It’s worth noting that part of the Everest’s extra weight comes from a third row of seats which the Ranger cannot match – although it would be cool to imagine a Ranger with an open air third row in the tray!

But seven seats doesn’t always come with a significant weight impact. The seven-seat Isuzu MU-X is only 40kg heavier than the five-seat D-Max ute. So, because both Isuzus share the same 140kW 3.0-litre turbodiesel and six-speed automatic transmission, straight line performance is likely to be much, much closer. 

Off road

Because the wagons we’re looking at here are largely based on their ute brothers, the four-wheel-drive system is often identical, although electronic assistance systems and suspension setups may have been modified for wheelbase and weight differences. In reality, this means that any advantage in tricky situations will primarily come down to tyre choice.   

The wagon’s slightly softer coil-sprung suspension tune may translate to better bump absorption and traction on choppy tracks than the ute’s leaf-sprung rear end. The wagon’s shorter wheelbase will give the vehicle a slightly better rampover angle, too, but the ute’s higher ride height equates to better ground clearance (237mm for the Ranger ute v 227mm for the Everest).

Similar front overhangs means approach angles are close enough to make no difference (27deg for Ranger and 27.5deg for Everest), but the ute’s longer rear overhang (1226mm v 1136mm) gives it a worse departure angle (21deg v 25deg), so from that point of view the wagon is better.

If you’ve got a river to cross, both Fords have an 800mm wading depth rating.

Fuel economy

Ford claims a combined fuel economy of 7.0L/100km for the Everest Sport with 2.0-litre twin turbo diesel, and 8.0L/100km for the Ranger with the same engine. In reality you won’t get near those figures, especially off road. But in relative terms the Everest will go further than the Ranger on a full tank (both have 80 litre tanks).

Carrying people and luggage

Let’s look at interior practicality. According to Ford’s own figures, the Everest has 10mm more headroom and 37mm more legroom in the second row. Shoulder room is 2mm wider, too, but that’s the difference between a jumper or not on one occupant. 

Both of our vehicles genres have big useable boots. The difference with the wagon is you can put a physically taller load in the cargo area and expect it to stay dry in wet conditions. Getting loads in and out of the back of both is easy if what you want is right next to the tailgate. If it’s not, then ute owners may have to unhook the tonneau cover – assuming you optioned one – which takes time and can be painful to fingers on cold winter days.

With the wagon, you can also reach the boot from the back seat, whereas in a ute there’s a bulkhead between occupants and their gear.

Safety

Dual-cab utilities have come a long way in terms of interior comfort and safety in the last decade – to the point where there’s little to separate the two. 

Both the Ford Ranger and Ford Everest have earned five stars in independent crash performance (tested in 2015), and same goes for the Isuzu D-Max and MU-X (2020).

As for other safety features, looking at the Everest and Ranger again, the differences are small. Electronic brake assist and active cruise control and on both vehicle genres, and front and rear cameras are also commonplace. 

Looking beyond the basics to features like blind-spot monitoring, lane keeping assist, rear cross-traffic alert and other latest-generation assistance systems, the differences may come down to the specific make and model you choose. The Isuzu MU-X and D-Max are an example of each that have very high levels of active safety.

Conclusion 

We’re not going to conclude this by telling you to buy a 4×4 wagon or a 4×4 ute the next time you’re shopping for an off-roader. 

Instead, we trust that the insights detailed above into the strengths and weaknesses of each give you the information you need to buy the right type of vehicle for your needs. 

If it was our money, then it’s hard to go past the wagon’s combined strengths.

Which means there must be other reasons more people buy utes than wagons…

The post 4×4 Wagon versus 4×4 Ute comparison appeared first on Drive.