Search the Community

bros, my 05 vios steering column bearing/shaft makes a squeal when i turn the steering no matter i'm moving or not. my powe steering is fine. with last ps oil change about 3 weeks ago. i went back to my usual mech...was diagnose with the "bearing/coupler inside the steering rubbing with each other". any way to confirm any further? i have not got a quote on the price to replace the whole set. so need to ask typically how much is the cost to replace the coupling with bearing.

OK, I searched. There have been threads on paddle shifters before, e.g.: http://www.mycarforum.com/topic/2676927-paddle-shifters-which-type-suits-you/. But they don't address this exact question. My specific question is: which particular mounting position of paddle shifters suits you better? Fixed to the wheel or fixed to the steering column? Examples of makes/models with each position (taken from the web): Wheel mounted: BMW - 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 series VW - Golf, GTI Porsche - 918 Audi - R8 McLaren Acura - TL Cadillac - CTS-V Column mounted: Subaru - Outback Ferrari Lamborghini Nissan - GTR, Maxima What prompted this question: I have experienced both. Right now, my Bimmer and my Merc both have wheel mounted shifters. I find them very intuitive to shift with. This applies to both street driving and track/high performance driving - I recently came back from NZ where I did the Alpine drive on the Southern Hemisphere Proving Ground. The wheel-mounted shifters on the M and xDrive cars were an absolute pleasure. Also, I was recently invited to test drive the 488GTB. I loved the car on the whole, but disliked the column mounted paddles as I found them unwieldy to use. I have lived with a column mounted shift for a few months - my F430. Took me some getting used-to. Honestly, I never drove that car as hard as I've driven many others, and nowhere near as hard as it was intended by god and Enzo (who might be one and the same entity, lol). What made it a little easier is that I had no other paddle shifting car at that time so I didn't have to "switch" between two modes of shifting. But if one has one of each type, I can see how it might be difficult to go from one to the other on a periodic basis. So my question is: which do you personally prefer? I prefer the wheel-mounted type, as I've already mentioned. But arguments for and against both types can be made, e.g. Wheel mounted shifters allow one to always have immediate access to the paddles if one holds the wheel in the prescribed 9-3 racing position. But Ferrari claim that you shouldn't be shifting gear mid-corner, so you should never actually need to reach across to the column from anything other than a 9-3 position. I don't really agree - you can and should select the right gear prior to corner entry, but you often have to upshift when accelerating out of the apex. With modern rev-matching transmissions, weight transfer, etc. becomes a moot point, it's all so smooth that there's practically no risk of destabilisation. Anyway, if you're experienced with both types, please do vote and post an opinion. But please don't proffer irrelevant opinions like "never had one", "I leave the car to shift for itself", or "real drivers drive manuals", which would be a waste of time and effort for you, and of bandwidth for all. I don't mean to be rude, but too many threads like this have devolved into noise. Thank you!

Saw ebay selling the same parts but anyone can advice any different between left or right hand drive.

Hi Guys, I have a VW with a clicking noise, like a spring being pulled while the steering wheel is being turned. been into VW for the 6th time and was told that this is normal. they have relubed, replace the spring and the noise is still back after 1-2 weeks is this normal? or what could be wrong?

IT SEEMS obvious by now that the Government's handling of housing issues has been the most successful of several outstanding policy issues. At least, this is going by the results of a recent Straits Times survey on key election issues and their progress since the 2011 General Election. By contrast, government policies on transport issues have yet to resonate. What factors have led to the success in housing policy? What lessons can be applied to transport issues? Three points come to mind. They are: Targeting different social groups more carefully, being relevant, and implementing policies that the targeted groups can readily understand and appreciate. The challenge is to fine-tune policies to meet the needs of different groups more closely. For housing, the different groups included the first-time flat seeker, the sandwiched middle class, singles, and marginalised groups such as single mothers and divorcees with children. For first-time flat seekers, for whom a backlog had already built up, focused policies included building a record number of flats. The move was so successful that within three years, a balance was restored. The average application rate for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats fell from 5.3 per applicant in 2010 to a low of 2.9. A special subsidy was provided for households earning $2,250 or less, with eligible buyers limited to two-room or three-room flats. The Government also expanded its Special Housing Grants to households earning less than $6,500 a month. Applicants could opt for a four-room flat and still qualify for up to $20,000 more in subsidies. There was also the slew of policies related to the rental market, which made it accessible to a wider range of households (and not just lower-income groups). Competition for flats from permanent residents was reduced by making the latter wait for three years after getting their residency. Citizens felt good that they had been given priority. The Housing Board also de-linked new-flat prices from those of resale flats to stabilise BTO flat prices. There was a concerted effort to address the cash-over-valuation component. This was removed completely in the resale market. The move was particularly helpful for young couples, who could take only smaller loans and found it difficult to pay out additional cash. All these measures were announced in quick succession. The cooler market that resulted helped meet citizen expectations. Each group felt attended to, and that created a feel-good, positive attitude. But what about the transport sector? Here, commuters are challenged by overcrowded trains and buses. There is intense competition for road space among cars, buses, taxis, bicycles and pedestrians. Vehicle owners are frustrated with the prices of certificates of entitlement (COEs), which vary with market forces and the growth of the car population. Public anger is compounded when public-listed transport companies report profits, while overcrowding, rail breakdowns and delayed buses are the norm. To be fair, the Government has taken action to improve the situation. It announced several concessions for commuters. Plans are on track to have more trains and to build more lines. Bus commuters will enjoy the $1.1 billion Bus Service Enhancement Programme and efforts to make bus services more regular. For car owners, there will be a review of the carbon emissions-based vehicle scheme. Cyclists will see more bicycle racks to secure 3,000 bicycles at 32 MRT stations. Pedestrians can enjoy more sheltered linkways and lifts at 40 pedestrian overhead bridges. And yet, these excellent, far-reaching policies have made little impression on the public. Why? I believe that unlike in housing, where each measure can be seen to be directly linked to a specific group, transport measures have appeared piecemeal. Transport policymakers must clearly define the various groups they need to address and formulate policies to help each group. Policymakers also need to explain how each set of changes will improve the lot of the various commuters or motorists involved. Take one category of disgruntled commuters: Those who travel by taxi. They want changes to work in their favour immediately. Taxi charges in Singapore are among the most complicated in the world. Surcharges often lead to unintended consequences. The midnight surcharge has led to taxis "disappearing" close to midnight. Surcharges and electronic road pricing charges have kept taxis from the Central Business District, where they are most needed, especially during peak periods. And yet, cabbies complain that they often cruise with their cabs empty. In fact, a solution is nigh. Why not allow and promote the usage of mobile phone taxi-booking apps? Taxi apps offered by third parties like GrabTaxi, Easy Taxi, MoobiTaxi and Uber match cabbies directly with commuters. These apps may appear to be disruptive technology from the point of view of existing taxi companies, which have invested heavily in their call centres. But they cater to taxi commuters' needs. Then, there are public transport commuters. One segment that has been marginalised due to accessibility or high fares are the lower-income, the disabled, the elderly and students. The Government has identified this segment as needing help, and has set aside about $50 million a year for fare concessions. But are these measures enough? Besides incremental gains, there should be transformational policies to bring about the tipping point that was seen in the housing issues. Look for a nexus that resonates. For example, why not use money collected from COEs to support bus and train commuters, and to help meet the needs of special groups like the elderly, students and the disabled? COE quota premiums are a relatively stable source of revenue. For buses, why not allow more private operators like City Direct to operate bus services, to compete with the existing transport companies? Building on the growing public acceptance of transport improvements and concessions, look seriously at structural issues to bring on the kudos from commuters. For now, the policy initiatives have yet to come together in a more impactful way to resonate with people. -- ST FILE PHOTO by Basskaran Nair The writer, a retired public relations professional, teaches media and public policy at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.

Among the many letters The Straits Times received in recent months from folks who called for changes to the COE (certificate of entitlement) system, a few stood out – their writers suggested that the Government allocate COEs according to bidders’ needs. These readers wrote that people with jobs that require lots of commuting, or those with young children or taking care of aged parents, should be given priority access to cars. The suggestion is easy to dismiss as it appears ridiculous, impossibly cumbersome to apply and administer, and runs smack against the purity of the current capitalistic system – where the price mechanism decides who gets a COE. The COE system, which turns 23 this year, has proven largely effective in controlling Singapore’s vehicle population growth, even if the targeted rate of growth has not quite been met consistently. It is a clean, cold and calculated system that lets economics run its course. Supply, demand, competitive auction, transparency – ingredients which ensure that those who are most willing and most able to pay will get a new car. Why muddy it with needs-based components? Well, it is interesting to note that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, one of Singapore’s greatest policy-makers, mooted such an idea back in the early 1970s. In his book The Practice of Economic Growth (1977), a collection of speeches he made, Dr Goh touched on controlling Singapore’s vehicle population through a quota system. In it, he argued that such a quota system, where bidders compete for the right to own a car, could be the way forward (he spoke about it some 20 years before the COE system was implemented). But he also suggested that the Government set aside some permits for certain deserving professions, such as teachers and policemen. He also mentioned administrative officers in the civil service. Dr Goh did not articulate the rationale for this, but it is perhaps reasonable to assume that he felt certain people whose services are valuable to society, but who may not be able to compete with the wealthy for the right to own a car, should receive some form of dispensation. Of course, the professions he cited are much better-paying today, and most people in those jobs are quite capable of buying a car themselves. But the thinking behind Dr Goh’s suggestion was one grounded in some form of social equity. When the COE system was implemented in 1990, it featured a fairly strong element of social equity. There were many more car categories than today, so that bidders in lower income brackets are shielded somewhat from those who are better off. But the four car categories were merged into two in 2000. The move resulted in the demise of (cheaper) small cars. There was an outcry, but the authorities did not relent. Still, there was some fairness in the revised format, as big-car buyers do not compete with the rest for certificates. That lasted a few years. Today, COE Category A (for cars up to 1600cc) has been “infi ltrated” by luxury makes with 1.6-litre models. This has caused premiums in the category to spiral northward. Recently, they crossed the$90,000 mark to end not far from the Category B (cars above 1600cc) price. Despite repeated calls for a review of the system, nothing has been done to return some equity into it. It’s a shame, really, because there are various ways to modify the process so that bidders who aren’t that rich can have a fair shot at acquiring a new car. One way would be to revert to the four categories. Another would be to segregate vehicles according to their open market value (OMV) instead of engine displacement. For the latter, perhaps cars with OMVs of up to $25,000 can reside in Cat A, while the rest can go into Cat B. Whatever form the modification takes, the final objective of the COE system remains unaffected: it will still control the rate of vehicle population growth. The difference would nevertheless be tremendous to consumers at large. A review will also go to show that the Government is one that rules not only with its head, but also with its heart. And if we were to apply the late Dr Goh’s principle of rewarding certain groups of people by granting them easier access to a car, perhaps we could consider married couples with more than two children. That will certainly help to solve Singapore’s dismal birth rate. This article was written by Christopher Tan, consulting editor for Torque.

At a recent Chinese New Year lunch, a senior civil servant suggested that I write an article on why Singaporeans should give up their aspiration to own a car. Half-jokingly, I said I would - provided there was no major MRT incident for six months in a row. By "major", I meant incidents that disrupt service for more than 30 minutes each. The condition is fair and, in fact, is one I think train operators SMRT and SBS Transit should aim for. While it is unreasonable to expect machines to operate without a single glitch, it is reasonable to expect major incidents to be kept to a minimum. After all, rail systems are inherently robust and durable. And a system that is as new, short and costly as ours should have fewer breakdowns. For instance, breakdowns on the 125-year-old, 340km, 24-hour New York City subway average one every 260,000km operated. Singapore's 25-year-old, 180km network breaks down once every 120,000km. What is essential is a proper maintenance regimen, which train operators and regulators must nail down if the country is to promote public transport - which is intrinsically slower and less comfortable than the car - as a choice transport mode. And if a mode of transport cannot be as comfortable or speedy as the private car, it should at least be reliable. A major train breakdown impacts passengers travelling on the affected line as well as those in other parts of the rail network. Even minor incidents can trigger this ripple effect, but to a lesser extent. Not only that, a major incident calls for bus bridging, which can impact bus commuters and road users at large, when bus services are diverted to cater to stranded train passengers. That is why major incidents have to be minimised. And on this front, Singapore has some way to go. The total number of disruptions lasting more than five minutes in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were 393, 396 and 309 respectively. Disruptions lasting more than 30 minutes each fell from 11 in 2011 to eight in 2012. It remained at eight last year. For incidents lasting more than an hour, the figure went from six in 2011 to four in 2012, but rose to five last year. This year has not begun well for train operators. In January alone, there were three incidents lasting more than 30 minutes each. Of these, two stretched beyond an hour. These are not comforting numbers. Last year, more than 130,000 commuters were affected by disruptions lasting more than an hour, or about the same number in 2012. While the figures are far smaller than the 250,000 inconvenienced by major breakdowns in 2011, they are still significant - representing more than 10 per cent of train commuters. You could calculate the economic impact of such delays, but that would be irrelevant in today's argument. The crux of the issue is: How do you convince people they should not aspire to own a car, when the probability of them being caught in a major rail disruption is so significant? It is hard to quantify the cost of a delay, even if you can quantify the value of time. The confusion, the discomfort, the anxiety of not knowing when one can complete one's journey - these make up the anatomy of a delay. And being caught in one on a day when there is an all-important test or interview you cannot be late for can be devastating. Especially so for folks who cannot afford the luxury of a cab, and have to rely 100 per cent on public transport. The unhappiness over an MRT delay is arguably deeper than say, a bus delay, because of the high expectations commuters attach to rail travel. The frequency and punctuality of trains now far exceed standards attained by buses. Also, in some cases, a rail breakdown entails passengers walking on tracks or in tunnels - which can potentially be hazardous. Or to put it another way: How can drivers be persuaded to give up their cars when the rail network - the backbone of the public transport system - is in a state where there is one major incident every six to seven weeks? Consider, too, that even without major incidents, the system is straining at the seams. Packed carriages, crowded station platforms, lower operating speeds and patchy air-conditioning are recurring complaints. Frayed nerves and short fuses have become par for the course. Professor Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, went as far as hypothesising that another major MRT breakdown, "combined with declining trust in public institutions", could result in "the perfect combination for a riot or two". He said that in an Opinion piece for this paper last April. Last week, he followed up with an article on how car ownership and usage rates seem to be dipping in the West - and why Singaporeans should take a leaf from that trend. I concur with his observations. But the reasons for the disenchantment with the car in the West are worsening congestion, parking woes and a growing environmental consciousness (especially among the young). These are not strong motivations here. In fact, they often do not apply. Compared to most major cities, the roads here are relatively free-flowing and parking is aplenty. And environmental concerns do not yet seem to rank high among people here - young or old. But the car's biggest attraction must be its speed and efficiency. Door-to-door journeys by car in Singapore is often less than half the average time taken by public transport. As long as this huge gap remains, the aspiration to own a car will remain. The balance, however, tilts substantially in favour of public transport if your points of origin and destination are both on the doorstep of an MRT station. Not only that, people living near stations are more likely to use public transport. According to the Land Transport Authority's latest Household Interview Travel Survey, among people who live within 400m of an MRT station, 71 per cent take public transport. The percentage drops to 67 per cent if the distance is 800m. And for those living beyond 2km of a station, only 55 per cent take public transport. As the rail network expands, more and more of us will live and work within walking distance of a station. By 2030, the network is expected to almost double to 360km, and 80 per cent of households should be within 10 minutes' walk to a station (up from around 60 per cent today). But the increased coverage will be quite meaningless if it is not paired with better reliability. On that score, it is good to know the Government and the transport operators are pulling out all the stops to fix things. It may take a while, but there is optimism that standards Singaporeans have come to expect can be re-established. And just for the record: The senior civil servant accepted my "challenge". Six months, no more than one breakdown over 30 minutes. The clock begins ticking in the Year of the Horse. -- ST ILLUSTRATION: MIEL by Christopher Tan

In my January 2014 column, I said that Singaporeans should use 2014 to think of new Big Ideas to guide us for the next 50 years. Here is Big Idea No.1 for debate and discussion. Singapore will never be car-less, but it can and should have fewer cars. On reading this, the reader could be forgiven for thinking: ''Here goes Kishore again on his campaign to improve public transport in Singapore.'' However, this big idea is not about improving transportation. It is about improving the happiness of the Singapore population. Unhappy Singaporeans IT IS a well-known fact that the Singaporean population is not the happiest in the world. Singaporeans gripe, naturally and effortlessly. One good example of this was provided by a Straits Times article written after the Prime Minister had spoken to a group of students at the Nanyang Technological University on Jan 30. The article began with the following line: ''Nine out of 15 interviewed were concerned they won't be able to buy a flat and a car.'' The aspiration of the young for a flat is perfectly reasonable. But the aspiration of nine out of 15 for a car is not reasonable. Why not? The simple, direct and blunt answer is that if Singapore tries to squeeze the American dream - designed for a huge, almost boundless continent - into one of the tiniest countries in the world, it will effectively condemn its population to perpetual unhappiness. High car ownership ONE little known fact about Singapore is that it has one of the highest car ownership populations in the world for a city. (Repeat: For a city, and not for a country.) Mr Charles Chow, who blogs on transportation issues, says the following: ''There are roughly 550,000 to 600,000 private vehicles in Singapore. Forty-five per cent of households in Singapore own at least one car. This implies that out of the approximate 1.25 million households in Singapore, about 560,000 households have at least one car. There are 200,000 private dwellings in Singapore and slightly more than one million Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. My simple back-of-the-envelope calculation therefore shows that more than 300,000 HDB or public housing dwellings own at least one car. Since HDB dwellings are heavily subsidised, the fact that they are also given abundant and cheap residential HDB carparks represent a further subsidy.'' Mr Chow also notes the contrast between Singapore and other cities: ''From London to Hong Kong, only the top 10 to 20 per cent of household dwellings come with carparks. Without a carpark, residents just simply cannot buy a car. In Singapore, the Government has so generously provided abundant and cheap residential carparking in the HDB estates over the years. From New York to Tokyo, office buildings are deliberately built with few or no carparks. ''In Singapore, that is not the case. Even middle managers can drive their cars to work and park their cars in office building carparks for the whole day.'' Having lived in New York for 10 years, I can only agree with Mr Chow when he says: ''Anyone who has lived in New York or Tokyo would know that even managing directors of companies, senior bankers and lawyers take public transportation to work. In Singapore, even middle-level executives working in Raffles Place drive to work. Is the Singaporean middle-level executive better paid than a senior banker in New York?'' Car ownership encouraged IN SHORT, in a country that has designed public policies to restrict car ownership (from the compulsory certificate of entitlement to high import taxes), Singapore has paradoxically ended up creating an environment that actually encourages rather than discourages car ownership. There are three ways in which Singapore encourages car ownership. Firstly, as the world's only city state, the Singapore Government wisely decided in its early years that the country would strangle itself to death as an economy if it allowed Bangkok-style traffic jams to clog our streets. But while Singapore has succeeded in creating free-flowing traffic, this has paradoxically made it rational to own a car. This is also why I own a car. I can get from my home in Siglap to my school in Bukit Timah in less than 20 minutes by driving. Any combination of public transport would take at least an hour each way. I save 80 minutes a day by driving. This provides a huge incentive to own a car. (My ultimate dream, however, is to forego owning a car. Instead, I would like to have a driverless electric vehicle - similar to the one the National University of Singapore is testing - appear at my home within 30 minutes of calling. As I learnt in Davos last month, I will be able to achieve this dream in my lifetime.) Secondly, by ensuring that car prices are among the highest in the world, Singapore has made the car one of the most important status symbols in Singapore. This explains the attraction of European car brands in Singapore. In most cases, a Japanese or Korean car can do the job of transportation equally well. But it will not enhance one's status. A European brand does. This is how we try to keep up with ''the Joneses'' in Singapore. Thirdly, as Mr Chow says, our subsidy of carparks in HDB estates makes it much easier and cheaper to own and park a car than it would be in New York, London, Tokyo or Paris. Since this subsidy has become entrenched in our society, it cannot be taken away. Any government that tries to take back perks that a population has become accustomed to is a government that wants to commit political suicide. It would be unfair to ask any government to do this. Bottom-up approach ALL this brings me to the most important point that I want to make in this article. Singapore has succeeded in its first 50 years because it had a government that thought carefully over the long term and crafted policies that would enhance the long-term interests of Singapore. This is why Singapore has free-flowing traffic. However, over the next 50 years, a new paradigm will be needed: What is needed now is a society where the people think carefully and advocate policies that are good for Singapore's long-term interests. In short, a bottom-up instead of a top-down approach is needed to solve the car problem of Singapore. In the first 50 years, Singapore had a government designing various policies to temper the desire for Singaporeans to own cars. Now, society needs to decide that since Singapore is one of the tiniest countries in the world, people should gradually give up the desire to own cars. Most Singaporeans reading this article would scoff at this notion. Let me share some good news here. In most developed countries, people are already using cars less, not more. Trend towards fewer cars AN ARTICLE from The Economist on Sept 22, 2012, provides some encouraging statistics. In the leading economies in the world (Japan, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States) ''total vehicle kilometres travelled began to plateau in 2004 and fall from 2007; measured per person, growth flatlined sooner, after 2000, and dropped after 2004 before recovering somewhat''. According to World Bank data, passenger cars per 1,000 people in the US have been gradually declining since at least 2003, a trend which accelerated somewhat after the onset of the recession in 2008. Equally encouragingly, young people in the developed world are getting driver's licences later in life (or not at all). This is good news for congestion because, according to a study conducted in the UK, people who learn to drive in their late 20s drive less than if they had learnt in their late teens. Singaporeans are proud of the fact that the country has gone from ''Third World to First World'' faster than any other nation in human history. Now, for the next 50 years, Singapore has to catch up with the First World in terms of moving away from car ownership as a dream. In my next article - Big Idea No.2 - I hope to demonstrate it is possible to make Singapore No.1 in the world when it comes to public transportation. -- ST ILLUSTRATION : Manny Francisco by Kishore Mahbubani The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. He is the author of The Great Convergence: Asia, The West, And The Logic Of One World, which has been long-listed for the 2014 Lionel Gelber Prize, described by The Economist as ''the world's most important award for non-fiction''.

Writers such as myself can wax lyrical for pages about any given topic, but all that talkativeness somehow goes straight out the window when we’re caught in an “accidental” social situation. Suffice to say, I completely dread Chinese New Year “pilgrimages”. These visits are made all the more painful by the fact that I’m single. Because of my bachelorhood, I’ll be forced to endure questions on when I’m getting married, all the while resisting attempts by my mother to sell me off to the lowest bidder. Once that particular minefield has been negotiated, and before the conversation trails off awkwardly as we gravitate towards the pineapple tart jar, I’ll have to fi eld questions on “What I Do For A Living” and “Which Car I Like Best”. The first question is taken care of quickly, but the second is usually my cue to launch into a rambling monologue. But you know us writers. We’ll cast around aimlessly for ages, but once we find something we can relate to, we latch on like so many starving leeches. (Or, it could be that because of my extraordinary social ineptness, I’m interpreting the question wrongly – like going on endlessly about cloud patterns to non-meteorologists when someone asks about the weather.) It first starts with the notion that fast, exotic and astronomically expensive isn’t everything – which, I’ve come to realise, is a bit counter-intuitive to your average Joe. So, if their eyes haven’t glazed over yet, I proceed to then break the news that my favourite car so far isn’t even a car. It is, in fact, a van. Or more accurately, a light commercial vehicle. But whether you want to call a spade a spade or a multi-purpose gardening implement, it’s hard to escape the fact that the Renault Kangoo was built for more, ahem, utilitarian pursuits. Yes, the Kangoo handles like a soggy marshmallow, its 0-100km/h time is best measured in days (20.3 seconds actually, but same difference) and its 70bhp 1.5-litre turbo-diesel engine is a little… agricultural. All signs should point to me hating it, but here’s the thing – I don’t, primarily because it’s far and away the most honest vehicle I’ve ever driven. “I’m a van,” it seems to say. “So what?” In a time when overwrought seems to be the order of the day, the Kangoo is a breath of fresh air. At this point, the person I’m talking to will most likely have adopted a slightly glazed look, or started walking to where the bak kwa is as an excuse to end the conversation. Either way, I’d like to think it’s a win-win. For me, that is, because I’ve successfully fended off more questions while getting to indulge myself a little. As I grow older, I realise I’m deriving far too much glee from seeing those glazed expressions. I wonder if I should get that checked out... Daryl counts driving the Ferrari 599 as the closest he’s come to having a religious experience. And he doesn’t think he’s that antisocial This article was written by Daryl Lee, Associate Editor for Torque.

It’s all too easy to be over-critical of a mundane vehicle and overindulgent of a luxury model, which is why I always remind myself that we should respect each and every automobile that comes our way for what it is – regardless of brand, positioning, price tag or horsepower. Not every car is meant to tackle corners, or possesses the dexterity to rival a parkour exponent; neither is every car a born sprinter. Some are made with comfort as their top priority, for instance, while others provide a no-frills option for budget constrained consumers. I always believe that we get what we pay for, and we pay for the “car-racteristics” we value the most. At the end of the day, comparisons between competing products have to be objective, and the shopper’s expectations must be realistic. The same philosophy applies to children. As parents, we should respect each child as a unique individual and appreciate him/her for all of his/her virtues and shortcomings. However, this is easier said than done because parents, just like motoring journalists, are human after all, and humans are by nature susceptible to favouritism, prejudices and preconceived ideas. My daughter may only be two years old, but she already exhibits certain personality traits we can “project” into her teenage years. Some of these we are happy about, such as her pleasant disposition, meticulousness and sense of responsibility, but other traits we are less accepting of, such as her stubbornness and impatience. The dilemma for me is: Should we try to influence and change her based on what we think is best, or should we just allow her to grow into the person she is meant to be? It’s even more challenging for parents with more than one child, I reckon. I sometimes put myself in the shoes of these mums and dads, and I imagine how difficult it must be for them to always try to be fair to their brood and refrain from comparing one with the other, even if they love them all equally. I will not even begin to discuss how parents often compare their kids with the latter’s classmates, especially on exam results. Young parent Lynn says she could use an “owner’s manual” stashed handily somewhere inside her daughter’s stroller. This article was written by Lynn Tan, freelance writer for Torque.

Whenever the state of the taxi service is discussed, my mind goes back to 1985. That, in my view, was the last time the Government tried to tackle the problem in a fundamental way. But that experience was so painful, no transport minister since has had the appetite to take on the issue. Which is why the problems persist, almost 30 years on. What is the issue? The Straits Times carried several stories in recent weeks of taxi queues in the city during the evening, with waiting times much longer than they were a year ago. A Sri Lankan businessman was quoted as saying: "It's the worst thing I hate about Singapore - standing in taxi queues." One statistic alone tells the story of how poorly the service here compares with that in other cities: Singapore has 29,000 taxis, Hong Kong has only 18,000. But despite their fewer numbers, Hong Kong taxi drivers make more than a million trips a day, compared with fewer than a million here. So what's happening? That 1985 saga was instructive. I know because I was in the thick of it as a young officer at the then Communications Ministry. The problem then was exactly the same as it is now. Commuters complained they could not get a taxi when they wanted one, that taxi drivers were choosy, refusing to pick up passengers headed for certain destinations, or disappearing just before midnight when the surcharge kicked in. Sounds familiar? At the ministry, it seemed like a straightforward analysis - taxi fares in Singapore were too low, relative to buses and the cost of owning a car. If four people shared a cab, it would be cheaper than taking the bus. The solution? Raise taxi fares substantially to reduce demand, and solve the problem once and for all. But that wasn't all - taxi diesel taxes were also increased to make the cost of owning and running them closer to that of a privately owned car. The theory was sound but, alas, we guessed wrongly how sensitive commuters would be to a big fare hike. Demand for taxis plunged so much that taxi drivers' earnings went down despite the higher fares. There was an uproar: Commuters were unhappy over the increased cost, and taxi drivers were up in arms that their earnings had gone down. The Government had to do an embarrassing U-turn, moderating both the fare and tax increases of the original plan. More significantly though, and with serious implications for the future, it backed off from trying to intervene in the taxi business. So fares were later deregulated and no longer decided by government but left to taxi companies to determine. The number of taxis on the road was also left to the market until recently. But the problems have not gone away, hence the spate of newspaper reports lately. Many suggestions have been made to improve the situation - getting rid of the surcharges, simplifying the fare structure, imposing a minimum cruising mileage, and so on. Indeed, the Land Transport Authority has just announced changes to the rule requiring operators to have a certain proportion of their fleet on the road during peak hours. These moves are worth trying. But I am afraid they will not solve the problem unless Singapore is clear about the role of taxis in its overall transport system. Unless this is settled, the patchwork of measures that have been tried over the years will continue to frustrate. Unlike buses and the MRT, which run on fixed routes, taxi demand is more unpredictable, driven by those whose needs cannot be met by public and private transport. This includes regular bus and MRT commuters who occasionally use taxis, tourists, and even motorists who sometimes find it more convenient not to drive. How to devise a system to meet so many of these different needs with no obvious pattern to them? It turns out that getting the price right is the most important. If it is set too low, demand will surge and service levels will deteriorate unless the roads are flooded with taxis, which isn't possible without causing serious traffic congestion. If it is set too high and demand collapses, neither commuters nor drivers will be happy, as was the case in 1985. Because it is so important to get the price right, it cannot be left to taxi companies to decide. They have other commercial considerations when setting the price and may not necessarily take into account the proper role of taxis in the overall transport system. Indeed, as many critics have pointed out, because their revenues come from renting the taxis out, they have no direct interest in providing good service, apart from meeting minimum regulatory standards. For these reasons, the correct fare level ought to be decided by the transport authorities, taking into account the overall transport system. In Singapore, this price should be pegged between public and private transport. One other factor needs to be taken into account, which is often overlooked. This is the effect price has on taxi driver behaviour. If the price is set too low, cabbies have to pick many fares through the day to make a decent living. Each fare then becomes relatively unimportant because it represents a smaller part of his overall earnings, as he knows he can pick another fare just round the corner. Taxi drivers operating in this scenario tend to be choosy about the fares they pick. On the other hand, if the price is set higher and demand is lower, you can expect better service as every customer contributes a larger share to the driver's earnings. It's the difference between a supermarket and a boutique. Both types of taxi service can be found all over the world - the supermarket model prevailing in developing countries, whereas in, say, Tokyo or London, it's a boutique service. What's critical is that whichever model is chosen must not result only in better service for commuters but also give taxi drivers a better deal going forward. Their livelihood has to be a priority because a good taxi service can happen only when cab drivers believe there is a secure future for them, they earn decent wages, and have a profession that others respect. So, whenever changes are made to the taxi service, one critical question to ask is: Will taxi drivers be better off as a result? There is much work that needs to be done to make these fundamental changes that will result in permanent improvements to the taxi service: determining which taxi model is best for Singapore, setting the correct fare level, the number of taxis needed, the cost of owning and operating them, and the way the business is operated. These issues require decisions that only the Government can make. But it has to first exorcise the ghost of 1985. -- ST PHOTO: Neo Xiao Bin by Han Fook Kwang

Recently I came across another one of these mad videos where this particular owner posts videos of him doing gravel rallying, burnouts, drifts and the likes. Pretty mad stuff in my opinion. Makes me wonder why one would do that to their cars. Maybe the owner is sick of the cars? Or perhaps he is sick of people commenting that supercar owners can’t drive? On another note, you have owners who don’t even drive their cars (think of the collectors). I was recently at this local club and there was a string of nice assorted supercars parked nearby. I couldn’t help but to stop and digest what was in front of me. But that lasted only for a good three seconds because I thought it would be brilliant if these cars were barrelling down our F1 street circuit instead. (On a side note, organisers, please let us have a go at the street circuit.) I can understand why owners do not want to trash their cars or even drive it often. It may hurt its value, see. But leaving it at home or driving it to the nearby pub/club and then back does not give these supercars much justice. These sexy cars aren’t meant to be furnitures, see. So my question to all readers out there: If you were rich enough to own a supercar, would you drive it or just admire it?

We are at the last quarter of 2013, and in a flash another year will soon be upon us. I did not realise it is the end of September until I saw Vivocity preparing for Christmas. The movies I used to watch as a kid are being remade. Cartoons nowadays lack the entertainment feel, air travel has become more affordable, with more tourist arrivals recorded. There was no Terminal 3, kinetic rain or Project Jewel when I was a kid. Things were simple, mechanical and, if I may add, fun. Cars have, over the years, shed the typical boxy designs and are adapting more fluid, dynamic aesthetics complemented by exotic materials like Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics (CFRP) or composite aluminium or light reinforced steel. Automobiles have become faster, safer and in most cases prettier. On one end of the scale we have the likes of Koenigsegg, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti and Pagani who are pushing the boundaries of automotive engineering by producing cars that accelerate faster, setting new records and giving fans like myself a sense of excitement. On the other end, we have cars that are greener. Hybrids, turbocharging, range extending EVs - automobiles that are trying to rectify the problem of global warming, pollution and climate change. The way I see it, there is another group - cars that are loaded with so much driver enhancement technologies that they become...boring. Nothing but just machines with wheels and an engine. These group of cars are usually loaded with more advanced cameras, radars and sensors than a F-22 Raptor and are usually decorated with features and novelties like Adaptive Cruise, Lane Departure Warnings, Cyclist Detection Systems, Full Braking and in the near future Autonomous driving and parking. So in future, what is my role as the driver ? Over the past two decades technology has evolved faster than ever with land lines almost disappearing, public phones becoming endangered, hand phones that have reduced from military grade walkie-talkies to handsome machines fashioned from a single piece of aluminium, glass and sapphire crystal. Phones have evolved from the basic purpose of communication and networking to pocket diaries, 24-hour assistants, credible portable entertainment hubs and most importantly - has shrunk the knowledge of the world to the palm of your hand. But I don't want cars of the future to do the same. There is a reason cars like the Porsche 911, Aston Martin, Rolls-Royce or even BMW have been marketed with specific terms. Ultimate driving machines, carpet ride, greatest/ultimate Gran Tourers. And when the machines take over (slowly but surely they will), what will cars be called? Called me old fashioned but cars are meant to be driven and not driven in - or in this case driven by a robot. With technology replacing almost everything, including humans and their jobs, where is the novelty of living?

After a long day at work, you head towards your car (those that can afford one) and all you really need, is a relaxing drive back home. Unfortunately, more often than not, that isn't the case. Aside from the dreadful traffic we have on our little island, inconsiderate driving is a major reason for an unsettled drive home. There are certain rampant cases, for example, at a junction when the car in front can either go straight or make a right turn but there's no signal from the joker. Or when you intend to make a right turn out of a secondary lane, and the oncoming car from the right who wants to turn left doesn't signal his intention, leaving you stranded for safety reasons and missing the opportunity to turn. And then there are times when you want to change lanes, but the clown tries to be funny and closes up the gap, not allowing you to pass. That's not all, how about those jerks that tailgate as though they are going to miss their flight? And just when you think things are looking up, you turn into the carpark, only to find drivers who park like crap. The usual suspects are those who love to cross the allocated boundary (thankfully for one), those who have parallax errors of a good 20 to 30 degrees, the huge ass truck driver who should jolly well park in the heavy vehicle carpark as well as those who park horizontally in a vertical lot (rarely, but believe me, they exist). Perhaps this is one of the pet peeves I have besides our infamous COE system and what nots. Then again, who doesn't have one?

Being in a relationship with your partner can be a chore when you're "in the mood to be single" and can be an exciting and lovely experience when you want to share your thoughts, ideas and love with someone close and familiar. But being in love with your car can be a relatively different argument altogether. Like getting yourself involved in social media websites such as Facebook (which is pretty much everyone, I assume?), breaking up can be a tough thing to do. I have about 500 friends on Facebook, of which I consider some 19 of them as "ex-girlfriends". The necessity to highlight the word ex-girlfriends is simply because they could be make-out buddies, one-night stands, challenged-by-friends flings, and a few ladies I never fully interacted with but flirted so heavily with that they can no longer be categorised as "just friends". I was once told, a long time ago, that breaking up is one of the easiest things to do. There are so many different ways to do it I hardly even know where to begin. My friends and I have all these exes, be it wagons or women. It's not just because we are more comfortable with blurring sexual boundaries but also because not committing seems like an easier way out to finding something fresh and new. It was supposed to be the same with cars, when COE was hovering at a much lower price. But considering how much more money you'll have to invest to get into a new relationship with another car, you're better off not having another ex. Of course that's also considering you're not some rich kid on the block. I was also once told, a long time ago, that COE prices were going to drop in a couple of years. It seems like everyone knows a thing or two about the COE system, just like how every guy seems to know a thing or two about women. How true that's going to stand is beyond me, and if you're honest enough, it'll be beyond you too. Till then, we'll all have to move on. Sort of.

[extract] Before I start griping about the problems that I have with driving in this country, I'll like to clarify certain facts first. I have been driving only for more than half a decade, and am only in my mid-twenties. So I guess on the experience scale I will probably rank myself in-between amateur and intermediate. But having been travelled in a family car since I was four, and as a frequent cab user, I may actually have an idea or two on what I am blabbering about

"What is the best car you've driven so far?" I always get asked this question whenever I am engaged in a conversation with my relatives or friends. Well, as a rookie in the industry, I haven't had the chance to try as many as other seniors have. My age notwithstanding. But what I can say for sure is that I don't have an absolute answer to the question but if you're interested, here is my two cents' worth. Firstly, every single car out there has its pros and cons, and in my dictionary, there is only near perfect. Same goes for us humans. And then it boils down to the personal preference about a car. You may love a Toyota 86 to bits, however, your other half may not like it because of the frequent 'get out to let others in' courtesy. Last but not least, on this hot and sunny island of ours, every single thing is helluva expensive. No, hold a second. Buying a car here is helluva expensive - if it ain't for the price, I may have gotten a wee bit nearer to having answered the question. Cars aside, one vehicle that I actually enjoy driving is a Suzuki Every. It is such an honest vehicle; it is just what it is - a van. Yes, the driveability may be like crap and powering it is only a mere 659cc engine but, seriously, who cares about the performance when all you need is a vehicle that allows you to get from point A to point B in a fuss-free manner? Heading to IKEA? No problem too, this 'kei' car can haul your furniture as easy as 1, 2, 3. Best of all, its compact size allows you to access cramped places easily, which is really common on this tiny red dot we call home. So what's the best car I've driven thus far again?

Singaporeans are whizzing past things and people faster than they should. And I think they could be missing out on the finer things in life. Speed. Power figures. Time. These are numbers which are of second nature in the automotive world. We are deeply engrossed in how much (or how fast) a car can do. Of course, I'm speaking on behalf of the general crowd who are just as passionate about cars or things on wheels as we do. And I realise that it can do more bad than good. I am one of the lucky few to have tasted the sheer excitement of a sub three-second supercar. Many have tasted more. But I am grateful enough, for I was born with no silver spoon and none of the pennies to grab hold of one. I am not going to brag about it because speed (or the desire for it) is a double-edged sword. When mishandled, it can leave you wanting more, and ditch you like an unwanted child when you've had the most of it. No one wants to be a homeless kid, nor do they need to be one to understand the sorrows. Then, we are very commonly exploited to the idea that "it's not about the car, but the driver". Likewise, the people making tyres will have you believe that power is nothing without control. The driver is king, and his car is merely one of his servants carrying out his orders, dutifully. Hence, there is no escaping from the responsibilities of being the driver. Then, you may blame the suffocating lifestyles for your harsh, brash driving. Needless to say, that is just one of the dumb excuses. Trying to save time on your commute? Doing 120km/h instead of 90km/h won't save you a quarter of an hour. Our puny island, with its mostly choked and clogged roads, is no heaven for speed demons. I am sure you must have gotten my drift by now. It is high time that we learn to take things slower, because our hectic driving style is really pointless. Then again, I may not practice what I preach - most men don't, anyway.

guys, my car steering gives a wheet noise while turning the wheel, any ideas?

Quite a funny article.

Hi MCFers, nowadays, car owners really put in effort to make their ride "stand out" among cars on the roads of singapore. Its time to "STOMP" these "RICE" cars and share among MCF. Just my "bo liao" suggestion for MCF........

Previously I did post here complaining some rats type of noise when turn my steering wheel, thought was the drive shaft and check with workshop, they confirm not drive shaft then I suspect was steering wheel, change to a chiong MoMo type but still got the sound. My friend told me suspect is the steering column, anyone can tell me that is it critical for the steering column and is it possible to change to new one?

Hi all, I am really irritated by the last 15 threads box on the left of my screen which covers the avatars. Is it just me or you feel the same way too ?

Bros and Sisters, so fast we have our column already, as our population ever growing faster and faster. let continue to make this community more vibrant and interesting. Cheers

hi all chevians...i think its abt time we hv our own place to talk c#@k sing song. reason 1) we are hogging the American Talk big time,thus depriving other makes owners from discussing among themselves here. reason 2) chevy group is growing fast in MCF. & since its a new brand/model, the drivers/newbies tend to hv more enquiries. reason 3) some chevy kakis are quite active here....thus not fair to other groups(eg Ford owners) reason 4) & since we're so used to MCF already....so i 'geh kiang' & seek Admin's opinion on this issue(hving our own place to chat in MCF) below is our corresponse... ah_veo's PM to Admin: hi Admin, as the chevy owners are growing in MCF.... i was wondering if we can hv a column on our own...maybe at the bottom below VW Group? coz not very nice to always 'hog' the American Talk. the Ford drivers may feel offended. regards & happy new year.. and this is Admin's reply: yes that would be good. you can have your own meetup column which is hidden from the rest. coz I have a few pple asking me how come the chevy grp always hold their own meetups. to proceed, pls think of a name for your group, also norminate a moderator. then you have to think of the forums you want to create, like general meetups etc _________________________________________________________