Volkswagen Golf VI gets P-plate okay in NSW

By Paul Maric | March 12th, 2009

When Volkswagen’s all new Golf VI hit the showrooms, Australia’s illogical blanket ban on turbocharged and supercharged cars for P-platers made the car illegal to drive if you held a probationary licence.

Volkswagen pounced at the chance to curb this issue and held a meeting with the Road Traffic Authority in New South Wales.

Karl Gehling, General Manager Press and PR for Volkswagen Group Australia told CarAdvice:

“We have recently presented to the NSW RTA and they have agreed that the Golf TSI engines should be exempted from the restrictions for P plate drivers.”

Although, Mr Gehling also told CarAdvice that:

“This exemption is offered to drivers on an individual basis but we are pleased that the RTA has recognised the Golf TSI engines deliver considerable gains in efficiency and the new Golf provides increased safety for drivers.”

In essence, each owner needs to apply for an exemption from the RTA before the vehicle can be legally driven by a probationary license holder.

Victorians are yet to be exempt from the restrictions though. Mr Gehling said that Volkswagen is in the process of meeting with VicRoads, with the aim of reaching a similar agreement to that with the RTA. CarAdvice will keep you posted on the outcome.

If you’re anything like us at CarAdvice, you will agree that this blanket ban beggers belief. A P-plater can legally drive a 200kW+ V6 (such as the VW Golf R32 or Toyota Aurion), but they can’t set foot in a five-star EuroNCAP rated Volkswagen Golf VI. That’s about as clear as mud.

Joseph

This news peeves me off. My son can not drive the CLC200 i purched for him because it has a supercharer (and is stuck driving my partners A200). Yet VW simply get a exemption – how is this fair?
Twilight

OMG YES! AT FIRST U WANTED THE TURBO DIESEL (but without the auto (does it come without auto?)) and now i can have the tsi!!!!

THIS IS AMAZING!
Twilight

oops, at first ‘I’ i wanted…
MisterTwo

^Joseph – VW has made the effort to get the Golf TSi exempted, Mercedes obviously did not. Unfortunately life is not very fair. By the way I thought the CLC was more of a girl’s car?
Wheelnut

There are some Highway Patrol Cops that wouldn’t know whether or not a car has a Turbo or a Supercharger or whatever just by lookng at it. as they aren’t particularly interested in cars as much as the enthusiasts on here. They’re like “Kompressor.. what does that mean?”

Which is why a number of young drivers who own a turbocharged [AWD] car for example have removed any badges that indicate that it’s got one.
The only time they would find out is when they pull you over for something else like the canon exhaust is too loud.

It’s a stupid law anyway as a P plater can’t drive a Daihatsu Copen which produces 90Kw because of the turbo but he can drive a naturally aspirated Porsche which makes approximately 4 times as much power…?

Obviously thought up by someone who doesn’t have a licence or a car as usual.
Mitch

Actually wheelnut, they arent allowed to drive Porsches or other high powered 6 cylinders

Such as M3, z4, cayman, NSX, 350z

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/downloads/200706_high_powered_6_list.pdf
Wheelnut

Now that they have given the VW an “exemption” they may as well get rid of the blanket ban.
as It’s like having the Hoon laws and letting drivers off if they happen to own a particular make/model of car.

The RTA has [probably un-kowingly] set a precedent which drivers of other turbocharged “performance” cars can use.. Because how is a EvO a WRX or a C200 any different to a Golf? Their engines are just as efficient as they produce as much power if not more
Doh!

Typical public servants! I don’t care what anyone says, their all dumb as ####
HAL

Sorry Wheelnut, I have to disagree. I like this law – as you said it’s a blanket law and as such it is designed to be relatively simple to understand and enforce by making it relevant to all turbo-driven and other high-performance cars. Obviously there is some discretion and practicality applied to the law by the RTA, as shown in this example of the Golf.

The law makers have to do something – a week doesn’t go by where you don’t see another news report of another car load of kids being killed or seriously injured. If they can make it illegal for young, inexperienced drivers to access/drive turbo driven cars, then it’s a good thing. Let’s face it, they are really looking to target cars with enormous street cred amongst young drivers i.e. WRX, XR6T, Evo, XR5, MPS etc etc, which is a great idea as the first thing they want to do when they get into one is show off to their mates how cool they are and go nuts. And the vast majority simply wouldn’t have the driving experience to handle the power of some of those cars.
Nightshifter

What exemption? You can always apply for an exemption on individual basics already, at least in NSW. The RTA website has said you may be eligible to apply for exemption if you car has only got a moderate-performance turbo/super charger

Straight from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/gettingalicence/car/p1p2_conditions.html?llid=4

Examples of moderate performance turbo/supercharged vehicles that may be eligible for exemption include (but not limited to):
Audi 1781 cc, A3 and A4
Mercedes-Benz 1796 cc, C180, CLK200K, E200K, C200, C230 and SLK 200K
(BTW you are wrong for those who think Merc didn’t make an effort, google it and u’ll find they were actually the first to make an effort)
Saab 1988 cc, 9-3 Linear, Arc and Vector
Volvo 2521 cc, S80, XC70 and XC90
Volkswagen 1400cc Golf 90TSI 118TSI, 1400cc Jetta 118TSI and 2000cc Tiguan 125TSI

So this is really an old news. Perhaps this is a VW’s attempt for publicity?
http://Pagani Darren W

They should be using a weight to power (kgs divided by kw) ratio weighted towards the age of the car (160kw in an XD Falcon is likely to be more dangerous than 160kw in an ED Falcon simply because the ED has much better suspension and tyres and is likley to be in a better condition). As for the question of modifications of engines for more power, I’d reccomend that L and P platers learn to drive first in an unmodified car, then they can modify to their hearts content when they get their full license.
Pauly

lol some people who are commenting are idiots. How the hell can your compare a Evo or Sti to a Golf TSI?

The Golf TSI is not a performance car at all. If you know your cars, you will understand its got a 1.4L Petrol Engine, coupled with a turbo charger and super charger to bring its overall power up to 118kw.

This is totally done to be fuel efficient and to provide some power to an otherwise tiny motor.

The STI and Evo, are purely designed for outright performance. Not Economy.

Dont get me wrong I love Evo’s and Sti’s, they are brilliant cars.

But what VW has done, alot of other car companys should also do, because these blanket bans are thought up by people who do not understand cars at all, and instantly think Turbo or Super Charger = Hoon Car.
Sunny

makes me think that the law should be based on how many KW’s a car can produce and not based on if it is turbo charged or supercharged.
Howie-VL

I’m a little unclear on some of these rules as I am from Tasmania and we dont have these rules here. But this also includes V8′s doesn’t it? If so, aren’t P platers allowed to drive late model commodore of falcons, but can’t drive the older model V8′s which produce less power?
Chris

It’s quite simple and it should have been done a long time ago.

The RTA et al should have a database with all cars rated based on their power to weight ratio.

Manufacturers would be legally required to release an official power to weight ratio rating with the release of a car and for the older cars that didn’t come with a rating, they are either tested by an independent team to rate them OR manufacturers test any older models they have kept in storage (if they do such a thing)…
If the car in question exceeds a limit deemed dangerous on the power to weight ratio system, ban those cars from L and P Platers with the possibility of exceptions i.e the driver takes a defensive driving course and has a clean driving record.
This idea might work..

Motorbikes are rated on a similar system in some states I’ve heard.
None of this N/A Vs. Forced Induction Crap…
It’s just not realistic…
Mega

Finally the RTA is seeing some sense. Lawmakers love to ban a technology because it is an easy blanket ban. But really you need to ban the specific applications of said technology, rather than the technology itself. Turbochargers are nowadays used to improve the torque of small engines allowing them to rev lower and therefore improve fuel economy, while continuing to reduce their displacement (e.g. the 1.4L golf). Unfortunately it has taken the RTA this long to realize that.

It seems to me that lawmakers are the people least qualified to make laws regarding cars & technology.

Rather then banning cars based on whether or not they are forced induction, they should be restricted based on power/weight ratio.
Pauly

Im pretty sure in Vic and NSW, all V8, V10 and V12′s are banned. and high performance V6′s are banned for P platers.

But they also had a ban on basically every Turbo/Super Charged Car (with a few exceptions being Diesel cars and some very very low powered petrol cars).

Now VW have gone to NSW and VIC to have the new Golf made except from this for their TSI model because its a 1.4L Petrol engine with both a Turbo and Supercharger to bump the performance to 118kw. Which normally be banned because it has a Turbo (and/or) super charger.

VW’s (and alot of other peoples) argument is that the Turbo and Supercharger are purely there to make the car environmentally friendly coupling them with a 1.4L petrol engine, which is true!

However you have people who make these rules, who do not understand cars, let alone engines and why they do this. As soon as they hear the word Turbo or Super Charger, they instantly think they are hoon cars, and P platers shouldnt be aloud to buy them. Which in some cases is stupid.

As you saw, the rule basically lets P platers drive over powered Falcons and Commadores, but bans them from smaller and lesser powered cars.

Great example is:

Golf GTI (banned on P’s)
Golf R32 (your aloud to drive)

Its stupid, and should be based on power to weight ratio. Or have people in charge who make these rules, that actually understand cars, and communicate with car company’s alot better so they can understand them and make informed decisions, instead of making these stupid blanket rules.
Revolvor

Yes the law is an ass. I have a T5 V70, loaded with all the volvo safety capabilities, and yet my P plated daughter cannot drive it. So she drives an old Impreza with far less safety capability, though AWD does add safety value for sure
HAL

^ but Revolvor, your daughter is much less likely to get herself into trouble driving a basic Impreza than a T5 Volvo (not meaning to in anyway judge your daughter’s driving habits/ability). There’s a hell of a lot of difference in the power available to her. I’m not saying the Volvo isn’t a safer car, it’s just about percentages, and that’s what the law makers have put their money on here I assume.
Mitchell Oke

The law is ridiculous on this. I applied for an exemption to drive my dad’s Mini Cooper S (inline 4 Supercharged, 125kw) and got rejected, yet it is no problem for me to jump in the new 200kw Aurion.

Power to weight is a much better way of working out what is a performance car and what isn’t. Many car companies these days use turbos and superchargers to reduce emissions and fuel consumption, the RTA and the rest of the motoring authorities in the country (why can’t we have just one?) need to wake up and straighten out this mess.
Mitchell Oke

Oh the irony, the anti-spam word for my above comment was Bugatti…
Andrew

Wouldn’t the R32 be classified as a high performance 6 cylinder and therefore banned?
Andrew

Oh and the reason that high performance 6 cylinder cars like Commodore SV6, Falcon and Aurion are not banned is because of their sheer commonality.

This was a question asked when the rule first came in and they reasoned because they represent one of the most popular sectors of vehicles (at least at the time) and are purchased by families, that they wouldn’t ban them.
ComradeVodka

I believe there should be a power to weight limit, and nothing more. There are plenty of cars that are below the golden 200kw limit, but have turbos, superchargers and more than 6 cylinders.
-
Example: Can’t drive an old V12 Jaguar XJS, which these days would be lucky to make its claimed 195kw, simply because it has more than 6 cylinders… But still allowed to drive the 200kw Aurion. Right. Only one word comes to mind…

IDIOCY.
Reckless1

Once the RTA hurdle is overcome for the Golf 1.4 Turbo and the Golf 1.4 Supercharger+Turbo engines, the next hurdle is insurance companies. They don’t seem to like turbos much (diesel excepted), they like Superchargers less (sounds faster ????) so what will they make of both at once.
Devil666

First of all, let me make it clear that you can apply for these exemptions (as many times as you like), but unless you have a legitimate reason, you will NOT GET ONE. Simply having an efficient car will NOT, I repeat, NOT get you an exemption simply because the RTA has done exactly that, a BLANKET, KNEE JERK law that defies logic and reason.

Simply having a small, slow, efficient green car with a low boost turbo isn’t a reason in the eyes of the RTA as anyone who has applied will tell you.

HAL, you do have a valid point, but in the particular case you mentioned about with Revolvor, you are barking up the wrong tree. It is a big heavy safe Volvo. Power isn’t necessarily going to get you into that much trouble, especially with all the electronic nannies. Excess speed is far more likely to place you in a LIFE threatening situation (a situation that ANY modern car can approach), and in this context, a Volvo is INFINITELY safer than said Subaru.

Which brings up my next point. These laws are forcing P platers into statistically more dangerous cars. When most P platers get licenses, the majority rely on the family car or something similar which is typically well in excess of their budget. Should this car be illegal for them to drive, they are forced into budget ‘wheels’ which can hit similar speeds and would lack modern safety innovations.

For the RTA to sit there and go “Oh but the cars have too much torque” is bullshit for two reasons. The first is that diesel vehicles are exempt from the law, and they are the torquiest kind of engine. Secondly, having a lot of torque can cause wheelspin and the driving wheels to break out, sure, and drifting, doughnuts and what not can sometimes cause accidents. Statistically, these are a huge majority of low speed, non fatal, minor injury, fender benders causing scrapes and broken bumpers. The only group to benefit is the damn insurance companies! Cutting down on P platers doing doughnuts by banning all drivers from turbo and supercharged engines is a joke.

Lets not forget, these particular laws (engine restrictions) were RUSHED out by the RTA in response to ONE SINGLE INCIDENT (within a week of the accident – caused by excess speed and negligent driving) which is no way to implement government policy. “Law adapts to reflect society”, but it seems the RTA dictates what is right for society and therefore what rules we should follow. It seems the wishes of a hysterical grieving family, that in no way can accept that their child was the cause of a massive loss of life and instead blames speed and dangerous cars, has more sway over RTA policy making than rational, well conceived legislature that society will benefit from, not be hindered by.

The system is disgusting and needs to be scrapped, from L’s to Green P plates. A driving lesson/school attendance/day course should be compulsory BEFORE you are let behind the wheel of a car (ironically when you are least experienced you have the greatest range of cars for driving, ALL of them!) followed by an advanced driving course later on, requiring wet weather, overtaking and emergency braking aspects.

In this time of globalisation, let us look to our European neighbours for inspiration for the best implementation of driver training programs that garner the most successful results.
Devil666

If you don’t agree with me, well the proof is in the pudding people. The death toll has had a % increase (insted of a decrease) as P platers are suck in less safe cars. The RTA effectively added to the road toll, and killed your friends and family.

Simply saying ‘NO!’ to kids is no way to parent and no way to govern a country.

Time for plan B.
Jimmy

Why don’t they have laws regarding the safety features on cars as well then? Surely it is a similar logic. Cars are complicated machines with many different criteria making them more or less risky for unexperienced drivers. This law is too black and white. It’s just not that simple.
Twilight

I agree with Devil666, i only just got my P’s and i would love to participate in a driving school/education programme.

and it’s ridiculously true what everyone is saying, why should all the responsible P-Platers be banned from driving these low capacity turbo/supercharged cars, all because some moron in a doofed up rexie had a crash?! ITS THE STEREOTYPE – and its sad because it is generally treu (just go into parramatta and livo)… << no offence.
Phil C.

RTA exemptions are incredibly rare.

The RTA stuffed up with this stupid ruling. It should’ve followed the successful precedent with the motorbikes.

ie Power to Weight ratio with an uppermost capacity limit. This indicator is very accurate at predicting performance.

A figure of i think its 125kW / 1000kg (ie kg/kw = 8:1)is used. This allows for the weight of bike plus an allowance of about 90kg for rider and fuel. Max engine capacity is 650cc.

A similar power / weight figure (maybe add a torque / weight limit of 250Nm / Tonne) and a capacity limit of 4L for cars would result in a 0-100kmh time of about 7s and 400m time of 15s flat. These figures are in line with Aurion and Falcon. Commodore is 9s & 16.5s.

Falcon is 115kw&230Nm/Tonne.
Aurion is 120kw&210/Tonne.
C’dore is 100kW&200Nm/ Tonne.

Food for thought…
Myke

Makes sense, I see plenty of P-platers driving Golfs. So does this mean only the Golf is exempted from the restrictions, despite the fact the Tiguan and Jetta have the same 1.4TSI engine?
Mannn, the RTA and VicRoads are annoying.
Wheelnut

Okay then Hal -

The Golf GTi Turbocharged car.. The WRX is a Turbocharged car as is the XR5 Focus and a number of others

So how is the Golf any different to the WRX [for example]? why does it get an Exemption?
If anything the WRX and the Evo should be more eligible for an exemption than the Golf as they have AWD which makes the car safer etc.

The Turbocharger is the primary feature which puts both the Golf GTi and the WRX on the no-go list for P Platers.

Sure some discretion may hav been applied but whenter or not your exemption gets approved depends on someones interpretation of the law [and if the assessor likes the make and model of car]

The Law clearly states if it’s got a Turbo and you’re a P plater you can’t drive it. There are no special circumstances on which to allow the VW an exemption.

Now that the RTA has said the “Golf is exempt” they’re going to be inundated with applications for exemptions by WRX and EVO owners.
So they might as well get rid of the law because some poor govt employee will have to assess/process the applications which means they might actually have to do some work – and we can’t have that can we?
http://www.caradvice.com.au Paul Maric

Wheelnut:

The GTI doesn’t get an exemption.

It’s only the Golf VI that is in question at the moment, which includes the 90TSI, 118TSI and 103TDI.
Reckless1

Wheelnut, as the owner of a Golf GTI, I can attest categorically that it is FAR too quick for a new P Plater on public roads.

The Golf VI 90TSI will not nearly approach the capability of the GTI, and should automatically have exemption with the diesel. Perhaps the 118TSI will be a bit much performance too, probably on the max.

I’m sure when the 2.0L Golf VI GTI (155kw) and R20-T (225KW ?, AWD) appear on the scene, VW will definitely NOT seek P Plater exemption for them.
Simon

Power to weight restrictions won’t work. People can chip cars and no one would be any the wiser until they stomp the throttle.
I like the restrictions in place, just wish they would be implemented nationally as a standard.
Wheelnut

Thanks for the update Paul

However; the law designed/intended to prohibit P Platers from driving any car which was considered to be a pefromance car – and by that they meant cars that are either Turbocharged Supercharged which produced more than a certain amount of Power.. was it not?

So why is the VW 103TDi exempt? Sure it may only produce 103Kw but so does a naturally aspirated 87 VL 6cyl Commodore and you see a number of P platers driving them.

The RTA may have shown some Discretion in regards to giving the Golf an exemption but are they going to show the same level of Discretion when it comes to the Hoons?
Tom

Simon, as Phil-C said, a combined power-weight and engine size (for turbo’s) limit would work, as bikes have. If turbo engines were limited to 1.8L, then a simple chip/ecu reflash will not vault the car in to a performance weapon. Yes, there are some very powerful turbo 1.8L engines out there, but they usually require a lot more than just a ecu reflash to get their power figures.
Reckless1

Tom, a Polo GTI with 1.8 turbo is 150bhp/163nm torque.

Apply a Revo flash and it becomes 210bhp/240nm torque, which puts its performance a little below the Golf 2.0 GTI (200bhp/280nm, heavier car) but not much.

Hence your argument is flawed – a chipped 1.8T IS too fast for a new P Plater on public roads, and they do not require any more than an ECU flash to get there.
Wheelnut

Even if you are lucky enough to get an exemption for your Golf 103TDi.. you’re still going to have a helluva problem convincing the Highway Patrol that you’re allowed to drive it when they pull you over.. and the more you argue with them the more “defects” they will “find”
Bavarian Missile

Simple when I got my P plates years ago we were given 4 points and you had a speed limit of 80s for 12 months.

Didnt matter what you drove ,you couldn’t exceed 80s………..

Cops have no idea most of the time when you pop the bonnet what their looking at !

I have learn’t where these a will there’s a way to disguise grunt.
Andrew M

Learnt something new,
They had P plates in the 1940′s

*ducks for cover*
Andrew M

Perhaps just put space saver wheels on their cars for the first 12 months.
That ought to keep them at 80k’s
Bavarian Missile

…………………………..

*Looks for Andrews email address to bomb him him with spam *
Twilight

anti-spam word ‘impreza’ lol…

just for verification, i’ve been told it is completely LEGAL for a [P]-Plater to drive any TurboDIESEL car, and illegal (for the time being and not including the new Golf) to drive a TurboPETROL car…

is this true? if so, why is everyone whining about exemptions for the 103TDi Golf VI? there shouldnt have to be one for the Diesel…

ALL it boils down to, is that there should be Kilowatt restrictions, for instance, no [P]-Plate should drive a car that exceeds say… 130kw? no matter the torque figures. like, all of my friends have in-line 6 or V6
Twilight

didn’t finish…

all my mates got V6 or straight 6 utes, and are hoons! i hate driving with them… where as my car is a simple little 1.3L 55kw manual Starlet, and i LOVE driving it.

its a simple formula and as a [P]-Plater i am in aggreeance!
[P] driver + too much power = STUPIDITY

just have a power limit like overseas. or even a displacement limit, like no cars exceeding 1800cc or something like that.
Paul Maric

Wheelnut:

I think it’s more the fact that the Golf is one of the safest cars on the road.

It’s a 5-star EuroNCAP and ANCAP car.

At the end of the day, it’s excessive speed that kills, not too much power. You’re just as likely to die hitting a tree at 160km/h in a vintage Commodore as you are in a V10 Lamborghini.

All of the cars you are ‘allowed’ to drive as a P-plater are all capable of hitting things.
Wheelnut

Exactly Paul – which is why the law should be repealed. either allow P-platers to drive any car be it Turbo or supercharged or 4 6 or 8 cylinder etc or Ban them from driving all cars because its not the car that causes car accidents; it’s the nut behind the wheel.

The govt will never be able to legislate against stupidity in an attempt to try and change peoples attitudes or thought processes etc.. as most P platers will always believe “it will never happen to them their to skillful they will never be in a [fatal] accident etc

Which is why even advanced driver training isn’t a good idea as people think – as it will only confirm their beliefs and give them even more false self confidence
http://www.trianglerentacar.com/ Triangle Rent a Car

I agree with Paul- it’s really not so much the vehicle that is to blame…most of the time it’s the person driving it who is doing so unsafely…people need to remember this..
Simon

According to the RTA website, P platers can still drive an Aurion, or Falcon which are roughly 7 second cars 0-100. Commodore isn’t far behind. This was V8 territory in the ’80s!
If it wasn’t for how common they are I’d like them resticted too.
Lost count of how many times I’ve been cut off or screamed pass by a P plater in one of these cars.
Ok so it sucks if you are on your P plates, but the restrictions aren’t forever. When you get your full licence you will be glad there are restrictions on P platers!
david

i think from day 1 there should have been a deeper investigation into what cars should have been banned.
im a p-plater myself, and an enthusiast, and have a clean record. besides that, like many have mentioned the rta just hear turbo or supercharged or more than 6 cylinders and they say nup sorry.

it confuses me, and many, especially when the carsguide made the rta look stupid when discovery was made that a p-plater could not drive a 147kw golf gti, but could drive a 183kw golf r32. hence to say they werent thought out right.
not just that, but also theres a number of ways to counteract the laws. why is it obvious so many p-platers now drive hondas? (for some unknowing people, the honda vtec engines are capable of producing over 250kw of naturally aspirated power and still legal)

i mean i was annoyed when i found out you cant drive any safe car because well most of them are banned for p-platers. safety was intended first in taking away the cars, and well within the first year death tolls doubled.

its up to the individual driver to be able to make the right decision, and maybe those who are willing to be able to drive moderately powered, unmodified vehicles, to undertake a course subcontracted from the rta which demonstrates they can handle a car of greater power, because lets face it, even some experienced drivers cannot control the potential of their car. this way if a p-plater fails this test well it shows they cannot handle the car they want.

subsequently, the actions of a handfull of idiots ruined it for the rest of the responsible p-platers, and well because of more idiots who want to showoff to every retard they see, its brought about change for the current generation of learning drivers. it might work, it might not, but only time will tell, when we get out official road death toll statistics to see if making learners do 120hrs will be worth its while

just felt like i should have my say
TBSZ

This has got to stop P platers are targets and it a fault in society that it is that way. I’m on my L’s and usually drive an aurion or prado [4.0L] and i’m well and trully safe on the road but suddenly I’m going to get my P’s and become a hoon yeah sure. Driver education not restriction. I have had more issues with 80+ individuals who can no longer control a car and change lanes without looking or indicating. What’s changed from old times where you would have young drivers getting high powered cars and showing off. Hal you are joking this law has more flaws than a skyscraper in Dubai and should be removed.
FitzY

How many p platers do you know that could afford one off the bat? It’s a posh wank jobs law that challenges the concept of the law they introduced, so what happens if Nissan decides it’s new skyline is “more efficient” I mean its not even a legal term, it’s a variable point. What’s the set efficiancy? So would you prefer me to be in a 20yr old “safe” car when I’m steering opposite your mrs and kids? If younger drivers could have a decent car they would probably get a loan and/or try buy something they want, as new as possible, unknowingly choosing something that’s alot more of an advancement in the safety department, less pollution, sure you might see 20 silvias in a day but isn’t that better than that pulsar with no resignator you keep hearing?