new2ford

Seems a strong plus for the Territory has come from an unlikely direction. In a move that is likely to become fashionable in local councils around Australia, North Sydney Council has moved to scale its fees for residents’ parking permits on the basis of how environmentally efficient their cars are. Although the Mayor and the media have chosen to sensationalise this as an anti-4WD move, if you read the council document carefully (see the extract of categories and fees below) you will see that the scale is sensibly based on the ratings of the Australian Department of Transport’s Green Vehicle Guide (www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au). So amongst those large high-impact 4WDs are also some V8 sedans, whereas some smaller 4WDs are up with sedans on green ratings. In her press conference, the Mayor’s intellectual answer to what Australian families should get into instead of a 4WD is either a Volvo station wagon - definitely the go in that wealthy area - or a car called the “Ford Commodore”. (Sounds familiar but I can’t put my finger on it.)

What this initiative does highlight is that the Territory is rated (both by the DoT and North Sydney Council) as a medium impact car, rating at 2 and a half stars out of 5 overall and with a greenhouse rating of 3.5 out of 10 and an air pollution rating of 5 out of 10. Whilst these figures are not brilliant, they place the Territory closer to the Falcon and Commodore rather than with the big 4WDs. The real eye opener is that the Landcruiser, Patrol and Pajero are down with the worst of the high-impact vehicles with scores down in the 1 and 2s out of 10. The Prado is barely any better while the Kluger (obviously a lighter vehicle) rates much the same as the Territory - though interestingly its supposedly better fuel consumption does not seem to give it any environmental rating advantage over the Territory. The poor old Ford Exploder is pretty much down with the worst Japanese 4WDs.

So - good news for Territory owners. If this current polarised debate eventually gets to the point of realising that not all 4WDs - read SUVs - are the same, it might start to actually name names and zero in on the real culprits: those perennially popular large neanderthal Japanese 4WDs (and the Ford Explorer) that people are duped into buying through ignorance, myth and the knuckle-headed beat-ups that the 4WD mags give them. When you combine this environmental factor with a 38 percent chance (in these vehicles’ accident ratings) of topping yourself in a highway rollover in one of these crude trucks, I really don’t understand why any thinking person would buy one. Roll on Territory, and good on you Ford. (Hint hint Ford - get rid of the Explorer. You’ve got Land Rover, why do you need that Detroit embarrassment?).

North Sydney Council residents permits proposed scale of fees

Fuel Consumption & Greenhouse Rating of Vehicle: Very Low Impact
Example Vehicle: Hybrids (Toyota Prius) & Smart vehicles (Smart Cabrio)
First vehicle $24 Second vehicle $80

Low Impact
4 cylinder vehicles (Toyota Corolla, Holden Barina) $34 $90

Medium Impact
6 cylinder vehicles (Ford Falcon, Holden Commodore) $44 $100

High Impact
4WDs (Jeep Grand Cherokee, Mitsubishi Pajero) & 8 cylinder vehicles $88 $200

Ouzo

Thanks - very interesting reading that gives a good insight into a widely reported decision. But it still doesn't justify what that Council has done. The environmental impact of a vehicle doesn't seem to me to be related to its physical impact on the street. Surely a Pajero for example doesn't take up more room in the street than the Commodore. A more logical approach would be to charge according to vehicle length.

Still seems to me to be 4WD bashing or am I missing something?

new2ford

Well yes it is 4WD bashing (at least at the political level) but the council's agenda is not the space they take up in the street (most 4WDs have a footprint no bigger than than a Commodore) but encouraging people to actually sell their less "green" cars and replace them with "greener" cars. Its an air quality and energy/resource issue, not space on the ground. The council's engineers have been asked to monitor ownership as reflected in parking permits over the years to see if the punitive charges are having an effect. Lets hope the residents all replace their 4WDs with Territorys so the Mayor can still fulminate over the big SUVs still parking there, but at Commodore rates. Perhaps only then will the penny finally drop as to why Australian families are moving from "Ford Commodores" and Volvo S/Ws to SUVs.

Ouzo

Interesting take on the issue on the back page of the Financial Review today by a writer who clearly has never driven a Territory. Apart from his ignorance in that area its quite a good read and as he articulates very well, doubling a $22 parking registration fee is hardly likely to discourage ownership by someone who can afford to spend $60k-$80K on a car. Still a few people on the council no doubt have a warm inner glow over this stupidity.

outback_ute

Yes I agree with you Ouzo, even $88 is less than a tank of fuel for those 4wds they are targetting.

Was the "Ford Commodore" comment a verbal typo or stupidity???

new2ford

To anbody who can afford to live in Nth Sydney these fees would be nothing, but if it makes some greenies feel good...

Re the latter it would have to be stupidity or maybe its one of those hybrid cars.

At the end though we still have that point in Territory's favour, whether you believe in it much or not.

mikeals

this is a question...dont we pay more for registration if we have a larger/higher capacity car....like i said its a question, not sure if right though...but if it is, what right does a council have to dictate which vehicle is right for people to drive......

smooth dave

It's obvious that the North Sydney Council are factoring in:
Vehicle mileage, and weighting this between essential travel (work related) and discretionary travel (leisure/family),
Vehicle suitability to household circumstances,
Vehicle recycle rating.

What, no!
Just a simplistic yet discriminatory measure designed to be revenue positive.

Oh!

And how are they tackling crime? Ah yes, no money to be made in that area.

gz1

That would be right with councils, First they dictate what houses we can live in, now they dictate what cars we drive. What next.

new2ford

Yes its stupid stuff from a council and reminds me of when the Whitlam government wanted to ban V8s until Leyland demonstrated to them that the Rover V8 was more economical than a lot of sixes at the time. Politics is about ignorance and kneejerks.

The main reason for this post is to highlight the green credentials of the Territory compared to the other big-selling medium/large SUVs and thus its strong position of defence against stupid "initiatives" like this that are bound to arise again and again as long as the "4WD debate" continues to be conducted in such ignorant fashion.