Overdrive is Necessary

Car Tech and Me

2010-03-09T16:21:00.005-05:00

In my last post I ranted, rather crazily, about technology slowly creeping into everything a car does. From cruise control, to steering, it's filtering in everywhere.

I admit, I sounded like a stark raving lunatic that wants to go back to the old days of "horseless carriages" that required hand cranking and manual spark advance.

I don't want that. I know that technology is a good thing. I just firmly believe that too much is a bad thing.

What I'll call "latent" technology (my own term) is definitely a benefit, and completely useful. These are the pieces of technology that significantly improved the car since its creation.

Things like:

The airbag.

This is a latent piece of technology. It doesn't activate itself until absolutely necessary, and it saves lives. Cars are safer because of them, especially now that manufacturers are putting them in the headliner of cars and even in the sides of the seats. I fully support this. Old cars, contrary to what everyone seems to think, aren't safe.

So the airbag's brought us a long way.

Stability Control:

The diagram above is referring to Ford's Roll Stability Control, but the image applies to every company that has a type of stability control. It's a type of program that is mostly latent. Under normal circumstances, the computer won't apply the brakes or cut fuel to the engine unless it senses that the vehicle is about to roll over or outright crash.

I support this. It makes cars safer and saves lives.

A number, if not most, of sport car manufacturers have their own versions of this program. These programs created faster cars. They also ensure that the customer can get as much enjoyment as they can out of their car, without killing themselves. Many people, myself included, simply can't handle brand new Ferarris or Lamborghinis the first time out. Traction control is a necessity.

But, ideally, they don't cut in until something is about to go wrong. They wait in the background until they are needed. That is important to me.

ABS:

That picture demonstrates why ABS is a wonderful thing.

ABS stands for antilock braking system, it automatically pulses the brakes so that it slows the car without locking the brakes, which would send the car into a skid. That's what's happened to the car on the left.

With the wheel still moving, but slowing down, the driver can keep control of the car. I'm all for control. It was revolutionary when it came out, but now it's a standard feature on almost every car.

Still, I enjoy driving cars without ABS. I can feel how the car's breaking and change my driving style appropriately. I have to pay more attention when I drive; something more people should do.

So, no, I don't hate all technology. I just dislike certain applications of it, and enjoy older versions of it.

However, in a comment on my last post, a gentleman reminded me that many old technologies, or skills, have faded away because they were no longer useful. People don't need to know how to light a kerosene lamp or take care of a horse, for example.

Well, he's right.

Some skills and tech are no longer applicable, or won't be in the coming years. But, you see, I'm strange. I like old technology, the old ways of doing things. It's not because I despise new technology, or new advances. I'm not a reactionary. It's because I love history.

These skills, being able to rebuild a generator or manually adjust spark timing, are part of that history. It's where things have come from, and what has given us the ability to create variable valve timing and coil on plug ignition.

So my defense, and lamentations, of these technologies are brought about by a love of history, of preserving a few old things that no longer exist.

That being said, I don't support technology for technology's sake. To me, that is where the self steering ability from that Mercedes falls into. It's unnecessary in my opinion. (And for the record, it probably will make it to production. Mercedes-Benz has a habit of previewing tech like that in their show cars and then putting it into their products.)

However, I am in the minority on that one. People love convenience, and anything that makes a few simple chores even easier. That's why I ignored the automatic parallel parking software in my rant. It's useful, I suppose, but I'd never use it.

I'd never use the media center in a car, either. I only listen to CDs and the radio. Yes, I'd like to have satellite radio someday, but I don't need a hard drive in my dash to store my iTunes files.

I look at GPS units and shrug my shoulders. I'd love to have some of these new luxury cars, if I could afford them. But then I wonder if I could get the GPS unit deleted from it, somehow. Part of the fun in taking a long trip, for me, is using a map and enjoying the drive, not having a computer voice tell me to take a left hand turn while I'm on a bridge. Still, I definitely understand why other people would want it.

Whenever technology can improve the car, I'm all for it. Whenever it can make a car safer, I'm all for it. But I have problems accepting technology that only serves as a selling point to a customer, something that doesn't solve an existing problem.

I enjoy convenience like any other human being. I take on technologies that make my life easier.

But there are some I just cannot accept.

Mercedes-Benz's Latest Tech Grab Bag

2010-02-23T21:38:00.010-05:00

Things in the car world have calmed a bit. Toyota's not on every headline, Hummer's death went pretty much unnoticed and quite a few companies posted better sales. Yawn.

So I'm going to bring something up from the recent Geneva Auto Show. It pretty got passed over, like the show itself, and no one paid attention to it.

I like to think of it as a harbinger of the future, unfortunately.

This is it, the Mercedes F800 Style.

It looks like a shark with a peace symbol shoved up its nose, and carefully creased sides.

The ass looks like a blend of BMW, VW and Mazda design cues. But it's pretty inoffensive.

It's also got a nice set of sliding doors in back.

I rather like those rear doors, personally. Entering and exiting would be much easier, and much more distinguished, in parking lots or the curb at the latest nightclub.

The interior's not bad either, really.

Granted, it looks like every other damn concept car from the last ten years, but whatever. It still looks nice.

So, really, it's a pretty standard concept. Mercedes is testing out new design cues and possible interior treatments. Nothing new there, boys and girls.

And those doors have a heretic's hope in hell of making it into the real world.

Oh, and it's supposedly powered by a nonexistent a fuel cell. Meh.

Why, then, did I call it the harbinger of the future you may ask.

Well, it's because of the technology this damn thing is showcasing. Just one in particular.

It's called DISTRONIC PLUS Traffic Jam Assist. I don't know what the hell "distronic plus" is referring to. It's probably something that the marketing department coughed up to make it sound cool, because all it's describing is a new type of cruise control.

But this new type of cruise control has a feature that I loathe with every fiber of my being. Using the cruise control's radar, the car can actually steer itself through a corner at speeds of up to 25mph by following the car in front of it.

According to Mercedes, the system can tell the difference between regular traffic and some idiot in front of you swerving off the road, or taking a different corner.

I don't care.

I don't care if it can tell the difference between taking a corner, making a turn or a circus trained elephant. Putting something like that in a car is, well, bloody effing stupid.

Have we gotten to the point that people can't be bothered to steer their car? Already we have cruise control systems that will automatically slow the car if traffic slows down. So now we don't have to, I don't know, drive?

It's a bunch of crap.

All of this technology bull that keeps getting shoved in cars is making drivers more stupid. I don't have to look behind me when I back up because I have a camera that does it for me. I don't have to pay attention on the highway because the car will tell me when I'm straying out of my lane. I don't have to worry about when to change my oil because the car tells me when to do it.

Tell me, automakers, how am I driving a car anymore? I'm not controlling it, the damn computer is.

When people don't have to pay attention anymore to their car, they stop caring about it and about driving. They just do stuff, and think that the computer or whatever happens to be in the car will take care of it.

Well, what happens when the computer breaks? Or what if something happens that's outside of the computer's control?

I honestly think that's what's happened with Toyota's cars, to pull that back in here. People are so damn used to the car just doing it's thing that they don't know what to do in case of an emergency. They don't know how anything works anymore, and they don't care because it doesn't need their attention, or so they think.

People, basically, don't know how to drive.

It's sickening, and the damn manufactures aren't helping.

But the genie can't go back into the lamp. Not now. Everyone's clamoring for more tech garbage, and it'll eventually lead to cars that drive themselves.

I won't have any of that. Give me a manual transmission and a set of manual door locks. At least then I'll know that I'm in control, not HAL.

I'm Back.

2010-02-16T22:22:00.003-05:00

It's been just over a month since I last posted, and so much has happened. This is unforgivable. But like that title says, I'm back.

There's one very large piece of business that I have to get out of the way. Everyone's been talking about it for so long, and so much, that I almost feel bad to add to the discussion. But since I hate talking around issues, I'm going to jump right in.

Toyota. What the hell?

For sake of brevity, I'm limiting my commentary to the recent recall with the sticking accelerator pedals. I mean, really, anyone who thought that floor mats were causing cars to speed up at random intervals needs to have their head examined.

However, I would like to mention that no one, so far, seems to have gotten onto Toyota for their floor mat explanation. To me, that reeks of red herring. They knew there was a problem with the accelerator pedals, they'd had recalls in Europe for heaven's sake, but they tried to foist blame onto a different cause. That is a load of shit, and it's an indication of just how much Toyota's image differs from the reality.

Toyota's image is that of the caring, loving, benevolent car manufacturer. Their sole purpose, they say, is to create cars that are gentle on the environment, provide safe transportation for families and have a reliability that is topped only by the laws of physics.

For a while, that was the real company. But, within the last ten years, they realized something. They were making tons of money all over the world. They were within striking distance of GM for the largest car company in the world. They wanted that spot, they wanted the prestige, they wanted the money.

And I don't blame them for it. Toyota is a company. It's purpose is to make money however it can, so long as it's legal. (I'll save unsavory business practices for another day)

So they went for it. They increased production, started new sale promotions and began to bulk up their lineup with new models. New Toyotas, like the Venza and full-size Tundra pickup came out. Toyota improved the comfort of their large SUVs so they would appeal to customers that typically bought American cars. They gave Lexus new models like hybrids and sports cars. They created the Scion brand to attract a younger buyer.

But this expansion came at a price. But then again, it always does, right?

Whenever someone makes more of something, the quality is probably going to go down, at least initially. It is very hard, almost impossible, to keep quality at a high level while pumping out a car every few minutes, if not faster. Robotic technology can only do so much.

But, as the Washington Post pointed out, there was another place where quality control started slipping: engineering. Toyota's engineers gained on the job experience in a mentor set up. Over a period of years the engineers would learn their job from their immediate superior. It was the reason Toyota made such high quality cars, everyone knew their job inside and out. It was an environment that put engineering first as a matter of pride.

However, when Toyota started increasing its model lines, the engineers couldn't keep up. The mentor system was strained, the engineers themselves were stressed and overworked. New blood came in that didn't get the full mentorship experience. Inevitably, things were going to start going downhill.

In a way, it's obvious now. First, in the late 90s, early 2000s, there was the recall on Toyota and Lexus V6 engines. The oil ports were plugging up because they were too small. Toyota denied it and blamed the consumers. They quickly reversed that idea and quietly settled it.

A few years later, and Toyota quietly made headlines with their Tacoma pickup truck's rusting frame. The entire rear section could rust and the spare tire drop off the car. But there wasn't any big hubbub. After all, that won't kill anyone.

So now we're at the acceleration debacle. With this problem prevalent over so many models, and maybe even a different problem with the Prius (which I'll talk about later), it's hard to believe that this slipped through Toyota's quality control net.

But it did, and it's a perfect example of the growing pains that companies regularly go through when they expand. It's natural, it's inevitable. If Toyota had handled it a different way, it might even approach forgivable.

Yet they didn't handle it correctly. They made excuses, they pointed fingers and they were finally forced to admit that there was a problem. That was the biggest blow to Toyota. That was when they lost part of the customer friendly image, when they tried to sweep the issue under the rug.

Toyota will recover. It's too big not, too established and they will regain their image. People will keep buying their cars.

I hope, though, that, someone, somewhere will remember this. No car manufacturer is perfect. Every car manufacturer will have a major recall at some point.

The most important thing is that they live up to the mistake and take responsibility.

Small Truck Comeback?

2010-01-15T19:10:00.004-05:00

A while back I bitched, moaned and whined about Ford not bringing the next Ranger over to America. In short, if you didn't read the entire little rant, I predicted that smaller trucks were going to become very popular because of the new downsizing trend.

I think I was right.

According to Wards Auto, which is one of the premier sites and publications about cars and trucks, Scion is thinking about a small pickup truck. With Scion being Toyota's "hip and with it" brand for younger people, they're thinking that a small, slightly peppy truck can sell now.

That's very interesting since Toyota never builds a car that it can't sell. The company thinks there's a market out there somewhere.

But one company does not prove a trend.

However, rumors have been floating around that GM might bring the Holden Ute over to America and market it as an El Camino. While this is just the latest rumor like that in the past three years (originally they thought about calling it a Pontiac, until they killed Pontiac in its sleep) they might, just might be serious this time.

Who the hell knows? All I know for sure is that I'd love to see this with a Chevy or GMC badge on it.

I'd even take the green color.

It's a Holden Commodore Ute, a car body with a pickup bed in the back.

So, note to Ford if one of your internet trawlers happen to read this: either fix the damn Ranger or bring back the Ranchero. Small trucks might be the next big seller, get in on it now.

Right now, Ford is debating about what to do with their Australia division, and this might just be the answer. The cars they build in Australia are made in Australia for Australians. That doesn't fit in with the whole idea of a "global car" that can be sold in damn near every spot on the planet. So Ford might just pull the plug on its Australian plant and just import cars there.

But Australia is the only place where Ford has a variety of rear-wheel drive cars. If, somehow, Ford could take that technology and bring it to the rest of the world, the Australian cars could be saved. General Motors pulled it off with their RWD cars and their Holden division...almost.

I want Ford to save their RWD tech and their Ute because then they could give us this:

They call it the Falcon XR8, it's the sport version of Ute. I'd like them to call it the Ranchero and bring it here.

The only problem is that if they actually do it, I'll have to start a snow shoveling business in hell.

Suicide, Not So Painless

2010-01-06T22:18:00.004-05:00

It's really obvious when ad men and marketers can't come up with a good idea and they're under a deadline. After thousands of ideas get rejected, and thousands more die in the conceptual stage, they're left with nothing and the client is standing there tapping a Rolex and wondering where the hell the commercial is.

That is the moment when the ad men and marketers lose their minds.

In a last gasp, do or die attempt, they pitch one last idea. Because it really is the last idea, the client takes it and the commercial is made. Nine times out of ten the spot is absolutely forgettable.

But some are just so bad, so reprehensible, that they stir up controversy and are only forgotten when the public flushes them from their collective memory.

The one's we have today revolve around one theme: suicide.

The first is a GM ad from the 2006 Super Bowl. Everyone calls it the "Suicidal Robot."

While the robot dreaming about killing itself is bad enough, what's worse is that the commercial doesn't actually say anything about GM's cars. They have a 5 year warranty. So what? That's nothing special.

Besides the small amount of controversy the ad stirred up from suicide prevention groups, everyone forgot about this spot pretty quickly. Which is perfectly acceptable.

The second ad is from Audi, and it's brand new. While it definitely pushes the car's main selling point, let's just say there's a particular lack of taste.

What's worse, that the man tried to kill himself in the first place? Or that he was pissed when he failed? Or, is it that he later tries to off himself with the side window?

For all that is good, sweet and holy in this world, what was Audi thinking? While the ad is certainly intended to be funny, and it is in a very, very dark sense, this demonstrates no selling point.

Oh, so the diesel is so clean that you won't die. Wonderful. I'm very glad that I know that now. So the next time I off myself I should try a gasoline powered version of the A5.

Thank you Audi, I couldn't have deduced that without your help.

Ford's Created Another Monster, Maybe

2009-12-29T20:02:00.008-05:00

Here's a question: Would Swedish meatballs go with General Tso's Chicken?

Why am I asking? Well, it's because Ford is selling Volvo to the Chinese.

In particular, Ford is selling their Swedish boxy sedan division to Geely, one of the larger Chinese car manufacturers.

In a sense, this is a good thing because Ford doesn't have to worry about Volvo's dead weight. In the time Ford owned it, the Swedish car maker never posted a profit. Ford can't keep bleeding money, so getting rid of Volvo is a quick way to stop the flow.

But some people think it's a very shortsighted move.

Ford has sold Geely a carmaker and distribution network that's already set up in major markets across the country. Geely can pair it's cheaper cars with the more expensive Volvos and have the classic combo of basic and luxury cars.

So Ford has, in all likelihood, created a major competitor.

But that's what Ford does. It creates competitors. It's in the company's nature and in the family's DNA.

A hundred years ago, Henry Ford didn't instantly found the company that uses his name. There were three attempts. The first went up in flames faster than an oil rig fire. The second, though, lasted much longer, but without Henry. You see, Henry Ford had the same temper as a drunk, cracked out, grizzly bear. He pissed off his backers, who promptly threw him out of the company.

The backers hired a man named Henry Leland, who restarted car production under the name Cadillac. After a few years Cadillac cemented its reputation as a fine motor car and was bought out by William C. Durant's General Motors Corporation. At that point, GM already owned Buick and Oldsmobile, so by adding Cadillac, Durant created the basis for what became one of the largest companies in the world.

If Henry Ford hadn't pissed off his backers, Cadillac wouldn't exist and General Motors would have been a very different company.

Henry went on to create a third company, under his name, and created the Model T. That's where the Dodge brothers, Horace and John, came into the picture.

They were contracted to build chassis parts for Ford's cars. For a while the relationship was a good one and both parties prospered. But, eventually, Ford either pissed off the Dodge brothers or they got tired of being working for good old Henry.

So the Dodge brothers went out and started their own car company. It was a success, one of the top ten selling car companies in the US. But, after the brothers died in the early 20, Walter P. Chrysler came along and bought the company. This created the core for what we now know as the Chrysler Group.

If Ford hadn't alienated the brothers, Dodge wouldn't exist today.

Then, in the mid '20s, Ford pissed off (see a trend here?) one of his major supervisors, William S. Knudsen. This caused Knudsen to go work for GM, where he was put in charge of the Chevrolet division. At that point, Chevrolet was in a bit of a pickle. Back then it was in a different market position than it is today. Its cars were in the mid-luxury segment, rather like Buick is today. Chevrolets were selling, but not at the level management wanted them to.

So Knudsen took the car downmarket, putting it in direct competition with Ford. He also streamlined production.

Chevrolet sales took off and left Ford in the dust. Over the next 60 years, Chevrolet would stay Number 1 in the American market, with Ford surpassing it only a handful of times.

If Henry Ford hadn't done what he did best, pissing people off, Chevrolet might not exist and GM would be much, much different.

But where would the world be if Henry Ford had mastered his temper? Certainly, other companies would have risen and taken Ford on, but I'm not sure they would have been worthy competitors like GM and Chrysler.

The unending war between the Big Three gave us the Muscle Car War, the cheap V8 engine, acres of chrome and countless pieces of important engineering. It's proof that competition is what powers industry. There is no reason to make your product better unless you're trying to beat the other son of a bitch at his own game.

So let the Chinese cars come. With Ford's track record, it should be one hell of a show.

From the Edges of the Market, a New Car Approaches

2009-12-14T20:39:00.015-05:00

Suzuki is best known for their motorcycles, dirtbikes and ATVs––things that bounce through dirt like a hyperactive rabbit and sound like a pissed off weadeater.

But they also make cars.

Seriously.

But they're the kind of cars that no one notices. They're the kind of cars that sit at the edge of the market waiting for people to notice them. They're not particularly bad cars, but they don't have anything to recommend themselves.

For example, the Suzuki Verona:

It's a badge engineered Daewoo, which should be enough to send this thing to the lowest pits of Car Hell. But, in all seriousness, it's a decent way to get from A to B without any major trouble. It blends into the background like tan vinyl siding blends into a subdivision.

In the end, though, there was no real reason to buy this car unless you absolutely couldn't have a Chevy, Kia, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Volkswagen, Saturn or Dodge.

Like I said, Suzuki is kind of like that kid you always saw in middle school who sat in the back of the classroom with his hand held up for ten minutes and never got called on.

There was only one previous car that Suzuki made that I found even remotely interesting.

It was the Aerio hatchback:

Now I know that this car is, again, nothing special.

But what I really liked about it was the interior.

Actually, the interior is cheap as hell. The only thing I found cool was the thin slice that made up the gauge cluster above the steering wheel. In fact, I still think it's kind of neat.

But, the fact that I found this car remotely interesting proves that children really are entertained by shiny things.

Anyway, things are changing.

The first hint of this was the Suzuki SX4 hatchback that came out in 2006.

It's a nicely rounded, yet crisp car. It's available with AWD for under $20 thousand, and seems to have its own personality. Granted, it's a slightly redesigned Fiat, but it still looks like a nice car.

The interior isn't bad either.

While it's not groundbreaking or class leading (which goes for the whole car as well) it's still a step above what Suzuki offered before. That's what matters.

When a company breaks into a market there's two ways to do this. Either create something that totally dominates the competition, or start slowly and nip at other companies' heels.

The first option often leads to a company going bust because dominating the competition takes shit tons of cash.

Suzuki (who isn't dirt poor, but not bathing with money) has taken the second option, which takes a lot of time and Job like levels of patience. Honda and Toyota are the best examples of this. They wait, plan, build up a brand and then are suddenly at the top of the game, or so it appears.

Suzuki now has the kind of car that they can build their brand around. It's called the Kizashi:

While it sounds like a new sushi dish, or a sneezed Japanese greeting, it's a very nice looking car. It kind of reminds me of the newest Volkswagen Jetta.

But the Kizashi is entirely new and built only by Suzuki. That's the first sign of a serious car builder, no outsourcing of product.

So here is a nice looking sedan that, according to Automobile and Motor Trend, has some form of sporting pretensions. Its suspension was tuned at the Nurburgring in Germany, which is a race track that every gear head in the world has heard of and also a place that the average consumer couldn't care less about.

So it handles itself well enough to put a smile on someone's face. If that someone cares how well their car will carve through a corner.

While it's not in this picture, the Kizashi is available with a six-speed manual gearbox.

Leather is optional, as are all the other potentially useless options like memory seating and parking sensors.

So the Kizashi is shaping up to be a very mainstream, normal and probably vanilla car.

For once, that's not a bad thing. Suzuki needs to prove that it can build good cars that, most importantly, people would want to own. If they can market this car correctly as a viable alternative to the Hondas, Chevys, Kias and so forth, it should be a success.

I don't think that people like driving the same thing as everybody else. If Suzuki can build up its image and recognition with this car, the car world might just get a little bit better.

An Electric Future? Not yet.

2009-11-30T18:32:00.004-05:00

According to the December issue of "Automobile Magazine," the Frankfurt Motor Show, held in Frankfurt, Germany declared that electricity has won the three way battle for the future of the automobile. Hydrogen and hybrids have lost.

I'm not so sure.

Automobile points to the concepts shown at Frankfurt. Most of them were electrics from Audi, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot, Renault and Mitsubishi. Taken together, these companies represent the entire spectrum of cars from compacts to luxury.

Audi, in particular, completely embraced electricity with its e-tron concept.

Its got 308hp coming through the four electric motors that drive each wheel. In theory, it'll do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds.

That's the beauty of the electric motor, it lays down all of it's torque (the spinning force of an engine) instantly. There's no buildup, or revving, like in an internal combustion engine. So power isn't a problem when it comes to electric cars.

No, the greatest hurdle is the charging. That's what will hobble these cars.

Some people think that charging up large amounts of electrical vehicles will overload, and wipe out, the US power grid. Some studies have proven this to be false. But that debate is a moot point. The real problem, the real weak spot, is that the vehicles have to be charged in the first place.

For example, the e-tron. It would take 8 hours to charge it with a 220 volt outlet. With a 440 volt outlet the time gets cut to around 2 1/2 hours. Either way it's all too damn long.

The original purpose of the automobile was to create a form of freedom. Drivers could go anywhere after cranking an engine and hitting the throttle. All a car asks for is maintenance and gasoline.

There's no waiting. No eight hour charges and no plug ins.

That is why the electric car won't be the dominant form of transportation. At least not with the technology we have now. People won't buy a vehicle that requires them to map out their days, commutes and trips around charging times. It's inconvenient.

If the last ten years of technology have taught us anything it's that we won't tolerate anything inconvenient.

Electric cars will be popular in large cities or other places where destinations are fairly close, and charging times aren't as influential. Also, someone will surely create a quick charge system that will significantly lower charging times. However, that will probably reduce the life of the batteries, which are the most expensive parts of an electric car.

That is why hydrogen should get more attention. It's almost a renewable resource and, when used, produces only water. There's no charging. It's like gasoline and involves a filling station, which is much more familiar to consumers.

Hydrogens's critics point out that there is no national distribution system. But they've forgotten something. Gas stations didn't magically appear all over the US when the Ford Model T came out. It took time.

That is why the future of the automobile will be a bastardized one: change takes time. Gasoline, diesel, electric, hybrid and maybe even hydrogen cars will roam our streets all at the same time.

Someone saying that one power source has won is very shortsighted, and foolish.

The Next Mini, Now with 50 Percent Less Practicality

2009-11-27T18:49:00.007-05:00

The degree of practicality is what often defines how cool a car is.

Impractical cars, like a Ferrari, are considered cool because they have ridiculously powerful engines that suck gas down faster than a black hole, stylish bumpers that can't get over a standard speedbump and prices that will buy at least four standard houses.

This inherent lack of usability, and high price, ensures that the most expensive cars will be driven rarely, which means it's an important event when people see one in person. Hence, the car is cool.

A Toyota Camry, on the other hand is very practical. It will seat at least four people, its trunk will carry everything from groceries to mom's potted plants and the price is something people can afford. Thus, it is seen everywhere and doesn't garner the same amount of attention.

So what does this have to do with the next Mini? Well, take a look.

Behold, the Mini Coupe Concept. This is what happens when Germans get creative and start playing with the roofs on hatchbacks.

For comparison to the original model:

All that glass and metal disappeared in the Coupe. It saved somewhere between 175 and 200lbs.

But there's still a trunk. It's not nearly as large as the standard model's hatchback, but at around eight cubic feet it's enough to carry a couple of boxes.

When they trimmed the roof they also threw out the backseats. By getting rid of the rear seats, ones that only children could sit in for a short period of time, Mini has increased the coolness factor of this car.

Now, that is a rather typical thing to say about a car, that it's cool. But when it comes to cars, and most products, image is everything. While Mini is still associated with sporty, fun to drive hatchbacks, it doesn't turn heads and garner a double-take any more.

When they first came out, people took notice of the hatchback because it was a fresh design. Now, they're seen everywhere and the redesign a couple of years ago didn't change enough to keep it fresh. So something new is needed.

By introducing some impracticality, and drastically changing the profile of the car, Mini created something new and interesting. It's something that will turn heads when it starts rolling down the streets, which will revive interest in the brand.

Combine those looks with a very nice interior and you've got a desirable compact car.

By wrapping the well equipped interior with a fresh package, and a decent sized trunk, Mini has found the intersection where useful and impractical meet at what should be a reasonable price.

When this is built, and it's going to reach showrooms eventually, let's hope that BMW doesn't change a thing.

It's a Mini-Vette

2009-11-23T21:24:00.008-05:00

Behold, what you get when you Xerox a Corvette and hit the 70 percent button: the Opel GT (1968-1973).

It's a wee German car from Opel, another company that GM keeps in its wallet like an extra credit card. Thankfully GM decided to keep Opel around instead of axing it in their bankruptcy massacre and sell off.

Anyway, back to the car. It really is like a small Corvette. It's got the classic long hood, short trunk that's long been the definitive look for a sports car.

The headlights don't pop up, they roll over. Inside the car is a lever that the driver has to crank to turn the lights over. It would be pretty annoying, but at least it's simple.

You'd never see anything like that in a modern German car. Instead, they use a voice activated button that pops up under the brake pedal and the driver has to press it three times (with their pinky toe) while reciting the refrain of "Ode to Joy" backwards.

The GT, then, is pretty much the antithesis of the German car industry as we know it today.

For proof, just look at the name: GT. It's not GX45882726il. Just two letters. It's enough.

The car is so basic that it doesn't even have a trunk lid. Seriously.

Luggage, or what little you can fit in it, has to get shoved in behind the seats. Which is fine because, really, how much cargo can you fit in a car this small?

To give you an idea of just how tiny this thing is, I've heard stories of these things driving under semi-truck trailers without any problems. Or decapitations. It's a tiny grand tourer (GT) that two people are meant to use for a short weekend getaway.

That's what's refreshing about the GT, it knows what it is and it doesn't compromise. It doesn't try to offer luxury appointments, which would add weight.

Instead, the designers just used some molded black plastic and extended the doors into the car's roof. It reflects the GT's slightly sporting intentions.

The interior has a single purpose: hold the passengers while the car moves. However, like many other interiors I've featured, it doesn't feel claustrophobic. The windshield and door windows are huge in comparison to the rest of the car. It's airy. (But the bud vase is someone's stupid idea of an add on. No self respecting car in the world should have a bud vase.)

Oh, and the lever that seems to be sticking through the steering wheel? It's the lever that the driver cranks to turn on the headlights.

All the power comes from this small four-cylinder engine.

Under that ribbed, chromed valve cover are either 67 or 75 miniature horsepowers, depending on the size of the engine.

Honestly, it's not a lot. But when the car weighs as much as an empty Rubbermaid container, you don't need a lot of power.

That's what the GT comes down to: doing a lot with a little and doing it as simply as possible. After all, when you're having fun, does it matter how complicated your car is?

I think not.

Mechanic Fail

2009-11-21T20:43:00.002-05:00

The title says it all.

I have learned a very important thing. Between the hours of four and five in the morning, and after staying up for over 20 hours, one does not think properly.

The Die Hard battery is perfectly fine.

In all likelihood, so is the alternator. However, I'm still going to test it just to make sure.

As it turns out, there was just enough acid corrosion between the battery and the end of the battery cable. If I'd been in my right mind that night, I could've just cleaned it off and gone on down the road.

Instead I bought an $89 acid filled brick that I don't need.

There is a lesson here. Check the battery terminals something close to regularly. If there is a large amount of yellow/whitish fluff covering it, it needs to come off.

This is especially important if you have a side post GM style battery like mine. There's only one place for the corrosion to go: between the battery and the bolt.

As I discovered, that kills the connection and the current.

So, there's just one thing left. Anybody need a GM battery?

My Worst Nightmare

2009-11-20T21:08:00.005-05:00

Ordinarily I wouldn't recount my personal adventures with cars because they're fairly boring. Usually it amounts to me dropping a wrench on my foot or something like that.

Last night, though, was a completely different story.

I drove about 300 miles last night and into Friday morning while coming home from college. I made it up I-16, through Atlanta and was only 45 minutes from home.

I was in my trusty 1996 Oldsmobile 88 LS sedan.

This isn't my car. However, this picture is exactly like what I drive.

Mine's been a reliable car and it's been in the family since it was new. It has GM's 3800 series V6, which is regarded as one of the best V6 engines ever made. Mechanically it's like the Pope: infallible.

The transmission is a three-speed with overdrive, which kind of sucks. I can tell that it needs another gear, at least, at high speeds. But, like the engine, the tranny is bulletproof and still manages to return decent fuel economy. On the trip up the Olds got between 30 and 35 mpg.

Anyway, I left Savannah at 10:30 p.m. and stopped at a QuikTrip north of Atlanta at 3 in the morning to top off the tank. Four gallons later, I got back into my car and turned the key.

Nothing happened.

Up to this point, my Olds had been it's usual competent self: a highway cruiser that ate up the miles like a dieter going after German chocolate cake.

But now I'd fallen into the automotive version of Purgatory. I was stuck with a dead car nowhere near home at an hour when nothing was open.

So, I called in backup (my mother) and we spent 10 or 15 minutes trying to jump start the damn battery. Which didn't work. In a last ditch, and panicked, effort I ran over to Wal-Mart (thanking whatever executive thought up the "open 24 hours" idea) and bought a brand new battery for $89.

I returned to the gas station and quickly performed a basic battery transplant, while praying that this would work.

The Olds cranked and roared to life. I felt like God's gift to mechanics.

I sped home and finally got to sleep. I would like to state that I'd been up for 24 hours straight at this point. The sleep was good.

Now I need to figure out why a three-month-old Die Hard Gold car battery dropped dead. I don't know if its the alternator (which powers the car while its running and charges the battery) or if the battery itself is defective.

It could be either one, or a combination of the two. However, we went to Sears, they tested the block box full of acid, and determined it to A-OK.

Which is a bunch of BS.

If one battery doesn't start a car and the other does, the first battery must be defective. So I'm getting the battery, and alternator, tested tomorrow somewhere else.

Results, and pictures, will follow.

After It Hit the Fan

2009-11-17T12:19:00.005-05:00

Every so slowly we're turning a corner. General Motors has announced that it might start paying back the loans it had to take out.

The New York Times has the entire story here. Granted, what they're "paying" back is just part of the loans that they didn't need. But it's a step in the right direction.

It's only now, when things have almost settled down, that we can realize just how much has changed.

Pontiac and Saturn are dead. Saab and Hummer have new owners (Swedish and Chinese, respectively). Jaguar and Land Rover are owned by an Indian company and the Italians are running Chrysler.

The SUV is slowly dying. The crossover vehicle is ascending. Station wagons are starting to come back and small cars, with small engines, are on the rise again.

But while it's all changing, some of the old is still hanging on.

GM just announced a new Cadillac station wagon, the CTS V, and it'll have around 500hp. There are rumors of a new V8 engine and a high powered version of the Camaro.

Ford's rolling out new V8s in size and power that we haven't seen since the early 1970s.

But I think we're seeing the last glorious gasp of power. Emission laws and Corporate Average Fuel Economy will bring it all to an end.

Hell, let's enjoy it while we can. Burn that last piece of rubber in celebration. The Big Three still exist, they're just a lot smaller.

But if we have to sacrifice power and size to keep GM, Ford and Chrysler, then so be it. I don't want to see any more brands die or companies fail.

I don't want to see more people lose their jobs.

There's just one thing that the executives at GM need to understand when they buy their company back. It's what the people at Fiat and Chrysler must remember in the next two years. It's what Ford has already grasped.

To survive, to thrive, they must produce a quality product. That is the one constant.

Need Reliable Excitement? See MR2.

2009-11-15T20:18:00.014-05:00

Behold, the most reliable way to have some mid-engined fun in your life: the Toyota MR2 (1984-2005).

This is the first generation, another '80s child as this particular car is from 1986.

Again, the best way to make something look sporty in the '80s was to make it a wedge. Now, granted, this is definitely not the most extreme wedge known to man. But it is a very compact one.

Doesn't it look good in black?

Interestingly, the "trunk" had two pieces. The part with the spoiler will lift up for access to the mail slot that acts as storage. The part right next to the glass lifts up to reveal the engine.

The little four-cylinder engine is what makes this car so reliable in that typical Toyota way.

Automobile Magazine did an article last year about cheap sports cars. The first generation MR2 was on its list. They described the engine, the thing buried under all those wires and hoses, as "grenade proof."

It's an almost indestructible, and depending on the model it can make 112 or 130hp. That's plenty in a car this small.

But Toyota must have been in the grips of some form of madness when they made a supercharged version in 1988 which boosted power to 145.

Regrettably, this car is an '86, so its owner can't experience the instant acceleration that the supercharge would provide.

But they did opt for the manual transmission.

The MR2 is one of those cars that seems to wrap around you. But it wouldn't feel claustrophobic because the dash is so low and there's so much glass around you.

That dash looks like it was whittled down from a solid piece of plastic and then plopped into this car. I mean that in a good way because this interior comes from a completely different Toyota than what we know today.

Actually, the entire car falls into that category.

This is the only two-door car badged as a Toyota.

It's called the Camry Solara. So it's designed to appeal to people as a very staid, upright sort of coupe. There's nothing exciting about it.

That's the problem with Toyota's car lineup. There's nothing exciting; nothing like the MR2. We know that Toyota is reliable, but that can't be their only selling point anymore because too many companies have caught up with them.

Toyota can build fun and exciting cars, the MR2 is proof of that all by itself. There are even other Toyotas that can inspire lust, and they will appear here in the future.

But those cars are from the past. Toyota needs excitement and personality now.

Small, Stylish and Not Sold Here

2009-11-14T21:35:00.011-05:00

Behold, another nice car that America may never see: the Alfa Romeo Mito (2008-Present).

Built by Alfa Romeo, which is another brand owned by Fiat, the Mito is a compact car that we need here in America.

Essentially, it falls into the "premium compact" segment that is best represented by the BMW Mini. In other words, it's a small car that doesn't feel cheap. They have leather seats, navigation and all the other toys you could want.

The Mini, best described as "cute," is what founded this market segment in America. It proved that we are willing to pay a lot for style in a small car.

The Mito, is in the same vein. But instead of cute it's "sexy."

Well, maybe not completely sexy. There is something slightly off about the front, the placement of the headlights, really. But the Mito has some very nice curves going on.

Let's face it. That's a nice...behind.

The Mini is a smiling box of a car. Every morning it would greet its owner with its happy little face and then politely ask to for said owner to toss it through a corner at moderate speed. Then, when it gets to Target, the Mini will easily hold all the shopping its owner needs.

The Mito, being Italian, begs to get thrown through a corner at high speed. It would greet its owner every morning by, metaphorically, shoving its hand into said owner's pants. Then it will gladly go about daily life.

The Mito's interior has the same basic idea in mind. Real world functionality mixed with Italian style.

Yes, it's black. But it's that kind of black that looks cool and keeps it from looking like a cheap car.

But then again, the Mito isn't cheap.

After the exchange rate (I converted British Pounds into our Dollars) the Mito almost perfectly stacks up against the Mini in terms of price. Both cars fall into the $20 thousand range.

So Alfa needs to bring this car here. It would sell simply because its an attractive, decently priced, competitor to the Mini. The good news is that Alfa became Chrysler's sister in law after that Italian/American shotgun wedding.

There is a market for premium compact cars in America, the Mini's proven that. Hopefully Fiat will realize it when their 500 comes to America. With any luck, the Mito will be on it's heels.

Back From the Past, Into the Future

2009-11-13T18:14:00.012-05:00

Behold, the basis for one of the coolest movie cars ever made: the DeLorean DMC-12 (1981-1982).

Is there any question why they made the Time Machine out of it?

Now, it does look like it came from the early '80s. After all, it's all angles and squares. The only round things are the wheels.

It also has that tacky slot covering on the back.

Almost no car in the world can pull that off, except for a DeLorean. It just fits in with the car's unabashedly '80s character.

The interior does too, even if it does have more plastic than the Rubbermaid factory.

It's gray and very plain, typical of the time. But, really, with the stainless steel body panels do you really need any more flash?

Not really. But it could use a better engine in the back.

Unfortunately, the American version was neutered. The European model made 170hp. But thanks to American emission regulations, we got an engine that put down 130hp.

That's not nearly enough to properly motivate a stainless steel covered car.

So without Back to the Future, the DMC-12 would've been a footnote in history. It would be that silver car, with the weird doors. You know, the one that was kind of neat looking.

Then this happened:
John Z. Delorean, the man who founded the company, wrote a letter to film's director. He thanked them for immortalizing the car. Rightly so.

Now the Delorean is a childhood icon. Now the doors are cool, and the stainless steel is awesome. It feels futuristic, even if it is pushing 30.

What makes it even better is that you can have one new.

Another Delorean Motor Company, this one based in Texas, builds them from parts left over from the original run. The new car starts out at about $57 thousand.

No word on what happens when you hit 88mph.

More Powerful Than an Angry Hampster

2009-11-11T18:37:00.008-05:00

Behold, one of the best ways to drive slowly: the Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel (1975-1984)

This particular one is from 1981, and sticks to the basic idea of putting a box on a box behind another box.

Though boxy, it's not ugly. This Rabbit has a sense that it was designed as a very competent, useful car. There's nothing unnecessary here.

It's a pretty small car, just look at the wheels in relation to the body.

But there's plenty of space.

You could hold a small game of football in back and still have room for the cheerleaders.

So what makes this car so slow?

This:
Buried under all those tubes, and almost completely hidden by the air cleaner, is the diesel engine. Depending on the size, it could make 48, 52 or 68hp.

So it'll do 0-60 in about a week.

But there's an advantage to this little diesel engine: mileage. The universe will probably end before you have to refill the tank.

While you're waiting to make the speed limit you'll at least be sitting in a nice place.

Yes, it is made of plastic, and its tan. But anything else just wouldn't fit this car's character. In a sense, it's an honest car. It knows what it is and it doesn't try to do anything else.

This Rabbit was designed to be cheap, that was its mission. But it was also designed to run forever. Wood fades and peels, while leather cracks. Plastic just keeps going and going.

So will this car. I'm sure that in twenty years, when everyone is driving a clean hybrid or an electric powered egg car, one of these will still be roaming the streets.

I also know that when it pulls away from a stoplight it'll leave a massive cloud of black smoke behind it as it slowly clatters down the street.

In fact, I'd love to be the person driving it.

The Car, She is a Citroen

2009-11-10T12:13:00.010-05:00

Behold, one of the most awesome French cars ever made: the Citroen SM (1970-1975).

Now bask in its magnificence.

Citroen has been around since 1919. Until recently, they were known as a company that defied common sense and made cars that were completely insane.

Or, "quirky."

All the same, the SM is a very good looking car.

It looks like an airplane's fuselage. It's rounded, low to the ground, and suggests speed even when its standing still. The SM is a perfect example of the European grand tourering automobile.

You get in it, and go on a long, comfortable trip. Then you're swathed in style and leather while blasting down the road at over a 100mph.

So what's so crazy about that?

Well, the insanity starts under the hood.

Those green bulbs are part of the suspension system, what keeps the car down on the road and absorbs all the bumps in the pavement. Most companies use shock absorbers (gas filled tubes) to do this.

Citroen used a pressurized liquid. That's what's in those green bulbs.

There were more of those bulbs in back and the entire system worked to keep the car level and at the correct ride height. The system self-adjusted based on how much weight was in the car.

The steering was controlled by the same system and adjusted the amount of effort it took to steer based on speed. It took almost no effort to go through a parking lot, but took more grunt at over sixty.

Just for the record, the hydraulics were all mechanical, no computers involved.

So even though Citroen's crazy engineering is reason enough to own the SM, it's still a gorgeous car. The interior is just as stylish as the exterior.

That gearshift, which is for a manual, is a work of art.

Sitting in this for a thousand miles wouldn't be a problem at all.

However, the leather seats and curved dashboard feel like they should be clouded by cigarette smoke. It would be their natural environment in the '70s.

The idea of having a French styled, hydraulic cushioned, front-wheel drive Grand Tourer is shiver inducing.

Until it breaks down at least. Which it inevitably will because it's a French car.

But such is life.

Just When You Thought They Got It Right

2009-11-09T09:08:00.008-05:00

Of the three American car makers Ford is generally considered to be in the best position product wise. Their CEO, Allan Mullaly (the Man From Boeing), is a pretty smart man.

Thanks to him Ford has expanded its product portfolio, boosted build quality and made their interiors nice places to sit. Bravo.

He's also going to bring some cars over from Europe because Ford realized that such a place exists and that the cars over there are better.

But then they pulled this bone-headed move and said that America isn't going to get the new Ford Ranger:
Quite simply, this is stupid. I thought that Ford learned that the world is a global place, not just America and everywhere else.

So, instead, we're stuck with this for another year:
It's not hideous, it's not offensive, it's not even bad. It simply exists.

It's also older than the universe. The Ranger has looked like this since 1998, and is Ford's version of a New Year's resolution. Every year they promise to redesign it, and every year they just can't be bothered.
Now, granted, they've changed the grill a few times. But that's like growing a mustache and shaving it off. Yes, you look different, but it's not major surgery.

The reason that this truck still exists is because it's the only compact truck on the market, along with the Mazda version. Every other small pickup is in the midsize category.

It might make too much sense, but if you own a market you should exploit it for all its worth. Gas isn't going to go down, and Americans are starting to buy smaller cars. They're going to want smaller trucks.

Perhaps Ford will just make life easier for us all and bring back the Ranchero.
Yeah, and when that happens I'll start a snow shoveling business in Hell.

Look, It's Godzilla

2009-11-07T19:10:00.005-05:00

If there's one thing that almost all car blogs have in common it's pictures of cars found "Down on the Street," as Jalopnik calls it.

There's a difference between seeing pictures of a car and seeing it in real life. In a picture it's just an object, a piece of metal sitting on a platform or driving down a road.

In real life though, you can feel a car's presence. You can see just how it sits on the ground or how tall it is compared to you.

But more than that, you know that it really does exist in the real world.

So behold the Nissan GT-R (2007-Present), aka Godzilla, as found in Savannah, Georgia.

It's Nissan's halo car. A $76 thousand sports car that is, supposedly, faster than some $100 thousand plus Porsches.

It also beat the bullet train across Japan.

It's a car that suggests raw power just by the way it's styled. It looks brutal, almost chiseled from a solid piece of metal.

Under that bulging hood, and behind the snarling grill, is a 480hp.

The Japanese call it Godzilla because it combines a 3.8L twin-turbo V6 and an incredibly well tuned suspension system. It rockets around corners and, in keeping with the nickname, destroys competitors.

At least now I know it really does exist.

My Name Is Ram, and I Have a Bad Commercial

2009-11-05T12:45:00.002-05:00

Chrysler, and its Italian owners, have come up with new idea to save the company: make the Dodge Ram pickup truck its own brand.

So it's not called the "Dodge Ram" anymore, it's just "Ram."

I don't know why they've done this. While the Dodge name is a bit tarnished right now, in terms of public perception, people still think that Dodges are tough, rugged and powerful cars.

So why do they want to take that image away from the Ram? I don't understand. While people will know that Dodge makes this new Ram, it just doesn't sound right.

Whether the name change makes a difference or not remains to be seen. The bigger problem is the new commercial Chrysler and Fiat came up.

Here it is:

First thing first: it's boring. No one is going to sit and watch a minute long slideshow with a man reading a script.

Second, what does this say about Dodge and Chrysler as a larger company? They say they're ready, that they are built to outlast.

But platitudes and empty marketing slogans don't work. Show this new Ram pulling a 747 behind it. Have it crash through a brick wall. Show other pickup trucks cowering in fear of its massive chrome grill.

While I'm not sold on the idea of the Ram being its own brand, I wish Chrysler the best of luck. As I've said, I want them to make it.

But they need better marketing than this to survive. They need to go on the offensive, especially since they don't have many new products in the pipeline.

GM Would Do Better Than This

2009-11-02T22:16:00.009-05:00

Behold, someone's idea of a resurrected Pontiac Trans Am: the Lingerfelter Trans Am Concept (2009).

Now, Pontiac is dead, buried and phased out. But there are enough people, apparently, who lusted for a Pontiac version of the Camaro. So Lingenfelter Performance Engineering, an American tuning house made this:

It's about as subtle as a brick going through your window. That being said, its inspiration wasn't exactly understated either:
Still, it has better proportions than the Lingenfelter car.

The Lingenfelter is too cartoony, almost like a parody of the original. If the headlights were bigger, and not as deeply inset, it'd be a different story.

It also doesn't help they basically dropped a brick of plastic on the front of the Camaro.
The back isn't much better, unfortunately.

The rear is basically a massive, squared off block. You can tell that they just added some plastic to the rear of the Chevrolet Camaro.
While the Camaro isn't exactly rounded either, it doesn't have a vertical rear end and the inset taillights help make it look less blocky.

The "Trans Am's" interior isn't much good either.
I thought we'd left blue vinyl back in the '70s. Even if it is actually leather, which it might be, it doesn't look like it.

The only saving grace to the Lingenfelter is its awesome engine. It's a 455 cid (7.5L) V8 that makes 655hp and 610ft-lbs. of torque. It's the good old days of muscle car power brought into the modern age.

That's a good thing because people won't see the "Trans Am" when it pulls away from a stoplight. Then it will be the best it's ever looked: a white and blue blur.

Bet You Haven't Heard of This

2009-11-01T22:17:00.006-05:00

Behold, quite possibly the best known car of the 1960s: the 1955 Lincoln Futura concept car.

William Schmidt, Lincoln-Mercury's chief designer, supposedly came up with the design when he went scuba diving. He saw a shark cutting through the water and dreamed up a wide car with sharp fins.

Whatever the inspiration was, it worked. It has a very '50s futuristic feeling. Think the Jetsons stamped into angled, sharp metal.

The rear end just looks pissed, especially in color.
It's going to eat anything that comes too close.

The interior is like any other concept car. It looks really cool, yet is incredibly impractical.
The speedometer, odometer and every other possible instrument and idiot light is crammed into the middle of the steering wheel. All the dashboard controls were concealed behind rolling metal covers.

A compass is on the top of the driver's side of the dash and a clock on the passenger's side.

Oddly, this is one of the few driveable concept cars. Everything, even the instruments in the steering wheel, worked.

So how is this the best known car of the '60s? Because the Lincoln Futura became this:

Yes. Lincoln built the original Batmobile. Kind of.

Instead of getting scrapped at the end of the '50s, George Barris bought it. When ABC called and needed a Batmobile in three weeks, Barris decided to modify the Futura.
On closer inspection, it's fairly obvious. Barris just slapped on some extra fiberglass, some props and altered the front end a little.

He didn't even change the interior that much.
Chop off half the steering wheel, change the instrument pod, and there you go.

Its good that the Futura managed to live on even if it had to get customized in order to survive. Most concepts from the '50s got scrapped. Even if it managed to survive that fate, history would've forgotten the Futura.

Instead it got a second life as a child's dream car. After all, who wouldn't want a jet powered two-seater?

Want a Sneak Peek at Chrysler's New Model?

2009-10-30T19:51:00.000-04:00

Behold, the new Chrysler: the Fiat 500 (2007-present).
Fiat is the Italian automaker that owns Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep. The automotive rumor mill thinks that their 500 is going to come to the U.S. as a Chrysler product.

What's they don't know is whether the 500 coming here as a re-badged Chrysler or if Chrysler is just going to sell it in their dealerships.

I'm leaning toward the second option.

Putting a Chrysler badge on this is like putting a Toyota badge on a Mustang. This 500 is a retro design based on the original Fiat 500 built from 1957-1975.

It's an iconic Italian people's car that's like the VW Beetle or the British Mini.

Naturally, the new one is just an update of the old design.
It's a good looking compact car, a rare breed in the United States.

But, if there's one thing the Italians know besides how to make pasta, it's how to style a car. Even the interior is cool.
While it's mostly plastic, it doesn't look cheap, and the red seats are a great touch.

The best 500, though, is the 500 Abarth.
It's the hot version. The base Abarth makes 135hp, which is 35 more than the standard one. It's not quite like putting a bomb in a shoebox, but it's pretty close.

The interior's great too.
A manual gearbox in a small, European, hatchback makes overdrive absolutely necessary.

It's About Damn Time

2009-10-28T18:33:00.005-04:00

When I look at a car company and its products, I look at each product individually, and then judge it on its own merits.

I try to see how it stacks up against the competition and how it fits within a brand.

Which is why I'm so tired of the American media constantly bashing all American cars.

From the way they talk you'd think that GM, Ford, and Chrysler were building fuel sucking, unreliable pieces of junk that can barely crawl off the lot and were designed 70 years ago.

So I'm happy that Consumer Reports, high priest of reliability and self-proclaimed protector of the average buyer, has decreed that Ford is as good as Toyota or Honda.

I've been saying it for the last year and a half, but people didn't seem to believe me.

In fact, their V6 Ford Fusions, Mercury Milans, and Lincoln MKZs beat out the Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords with the same type of engine.

Unfortunately, GM went down in average quality. But their Chevrolet Malibu V6 was rated better than the Accord and Camry. Which is great for them, but they still need to bump up quality across the board.

And Chrysler?

They're almost at the bottom of the list. I'm hoping that they can get their act together quick and turn it around. I'm tired of seeing brands die.

For more in depth reading, Consumer Reports posted part of the article here.

It Floats. Really.

2009-10-26T09:09:00.006-04:00

Behold, a better way to not drown when you drive into a lake: the Ampicar (1961-1968).

Designed by Hans Tripple it was built in Lubeck, Germany and proves that the Germans do have a sense of humor. They don't always have to build electrically complicated sports machines that have more computing power than half of NASA.

Let's face it, this is just cool, especially if you have a passenger who doesn't know it can float. Call it schadenfreude, but listening to someone scream that you're going to drown, and then finding out it floats, is amusing.

You'd just have to keep them from looking at the back.

Yes, those are propellers under the rear bumper. The engine powers them through one of the most complicated transmissions known to man. After the car hit the water, the owner had to pull a lever to send power to the propellers.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't always work. So many owners have a paddle in the back seat.

It's not the most beautiful thing in the world, but its functional.

With a maximum of 75hp, this car/boat wasn't made for anything besides cruising...slowly. But, when you're in the water, you have to steer with the front wheels. So the slow speed is probably a good thing.

But, really, this is what the car was made for:
In some ways it's the ultimate toy. It's not practical, it's not fast, it doesn't corner very well, and it's an old car, making reliability a major question.

Still, who wouldn't pay for the ability to drive a car into an ocean and live to tell the tale?

Enough Cool to Make Your Head Explode

2009-10-24T20:49:00.002-04:00

Behold, one of the best commercials known to man: the 2005 Ford Mustang ad.

Now, at the end, it does utilize the standard and overused imagery of a car driving really fast along a road. But, this is a great example of commercials targeting a specific audience.

This was the year that Ford launched the retro-styled Mustang. They partially aimed it at the Baby Boomers because, well, Baby Boomers have money, and they'll get the reference.

The other target were car nuts. Putting Steve McQueen back in a Mustang probably made gear-heads all over the world blow out the front of their pants.

That being said, the best part of Bullit is the car chase scene. If not for that part, I believe the movie is simply average.

All the same, this is a great ad.

Honda's Rube Goldberg Spot

2009-10-20T12:21:00.003-04:00

Behold, proof that Honda's ad men, or at least the agency they employ, have a sense of originality. It's an ad from 2003, for the Honda Accord station wagon.

Again, it's nice to see a company not going after the "it's the perfect, reliable, economical, stylish, sporty, yet affordable car your family, single individual, or couple needs."

It's a very simple idea that ended up needed over 600 takes to get it to work correctly. In addition, two prototype Accord station wagons were disassembled to make the ad.

I bet that the engineers weren't too thrilled with that idea.

Now, if only Honda would sell this car in the United States. We need more station wagons here.

Does Toyota Have a Sense of Humor?

2009-10-19T14:49:00.002-04:00

Behold, the advertisement that answers that question with a "yes."

Or, at least, "Yes, occasionally."

Most Toyota ads in the US deal with Toyota's reliability, how it's a fuel efficient car, or that it's the best choice for a family.

In other words they're boring as hell. Informational, but they have the same excitement level as listening to your hair grow.

This ad, for their Hilux pickup (Tacoma here in the US), was made for the Australian/New Zealand market. It's from the late '90s or early 2000s.

It's also funny.

There need to be more ads like this one. Not the exact same, or even the same idea. Just something funny that demonstrates the vehicle's points.

If ads can entertain while informing customers about the product, more of a manufacturer's vehicles will drive off the dealer lot and down the road. Proving that overdrive is necessary.

GM's' Xerox Machine

2009-10-17T14:21:00.012-04:00

Behold, an example of badge engineering gone wild: the Chevrolet Trailblazer and it's cousins (2002-2009).

By itself, the Trailblazer was a rather good SUV. It was comfortable enough, could carry a decent amount, and so on. Nothing out of this world, but not terrible.

Really, the most interesting thing about it was that had an optional inline six (I6) engine. Not a lot of truck, or cars, have those these days. Companies prefer the rougher, but more compact V6s.

This is the Chevrolet Trailblazer:
It's recognizable as a Chevrolet. It has the badge and line of chrome splitting the grill.
The back is fairly standard. We have the Chevrolet bow-tie.

Naturally, Chevrolet needed an SUV to compete in the market. It also provided the basis for a number of other models.

Like the five, yes five, vehicles built using the same body.

The GMC Envoy:
I always think of a GMC as a Chevy that costs more and has more leather. I don't see a point in the brand, let alone their vehicles. But they sell, they have a customer base, and so they naturally have a version of the Trailblazer.

The Oldsmobile Bravada:
Oldsmobile's version is slightly iffier. But the Bravada had been around since the early '90s, when it was a cousin of the smaller Blazer. So I'll give that to GM, a SUV between the Chevy and GMC made since. It filled a price point and had features common to both models.

The Buick Rainier:
Well, it came out after Oldsmobile was killed. In fact, they just took the Old's body and put a Buick grill on it. But the Buick was closer to the GMC in pricing, so GM's various divisions were starting to steal sales from each other.

That's not good, and it one of the major dangers with badge engineering.

The Isuzu Ascender:

Isuzu is known as a truck maker. However, they made cars and trucks for non-commercial consumers. But, when the Ascender came out, Isuzu had a grand total of three products to sell. Four, after this SUV.

That's why GM gave them the Ascender, to prop up sales. But, really, if you have the choice between an established brand like Chevrolet and Isuzu (and they're selling the same basic product) which one are you going to buy? There wasn't enough of a difference between the Isuzu and any of the rest to really recommend it.

And the Saab 9-7x:
The most unnecessary of all.

Saab is small Swedish company. They built sporty hatchbacks and compacts that were turbo powered with front wheel drive and had the ignition key between the front seats. Their cars were a stylish, small, and sporty way to slam into a tree and kill yourself.

Like this:
In short, they were very good cars. They had their own distinct, Swedish, personality.

So, why, why did GM give them an SUV?

Because SUVs were selling, and it seemed like a good way to prop up Saab's sales. But it didn't work. It looks like what it is, an attempt to give Saab a new product with the least amount of effort possible.

That's the danger with badge engineering, it can become a quick fix to a larger problem. Executives start thinking that if one thing is a success they can duplicate it in a slightly different form and make more money.

But it doesn't always work if the products don't fit the brand right, like the Buick or the Saab. It becomes a waste of effort and money. An effort that can seriously hurt a brand's reputation.

Overdrive is necessary––to take the Saab 9-7x off a cliff at about 90mph. Once it's done bouncing down to its final resting place, I'll take off in an old Saab 900.

How Many Badges Can I Put on That Body?

2009-10-16T18:41:00.008-04:00

The series of The Despised is getting cut short. It has drifted into another topic, a much more important one: badge engineering.

Badge engineering is when a company takes one particular car, truck, SUV, or minivan body, changes some of the looks, parts, and interior, and markets it as a different brand.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler have done it for around 70 years. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan do it with their luxury brands. Volkswagen does it with a number of their foreign brands, ones we don't have here, like Skoda and SEAT.

Let's start with badge engineering done correctly.

Behold, the Pontiac G8 (2008-2009).

It's true that Pontiac is no longer with us, and this is a great tragedy. In the G8, General Motors finally had a fun Pontiac again, one that offered V6 and V8 engines at a reasonable price. The car was an absolute hoot to drive, and just about every car magazine labeled it as a return of the America muscle car.

It also got decent gas mileage with the smaller engines, to appease the environmentalists. The largest engine, a 6.2L V8, made 415hp and was available with a 6 speed manual. Gas mileage wasn't even a suggestion.

It was a hilarious joke.

So, how's it badge engineering?

It's an Australian car.

A Holden Commodore to be precise.

Let's say it all at once, "Twins..."

All they did was put a Pontiac split grill on the front of it and called it good.

So, why is this a good example of badge engineering? After all, they didn't do that much to it.

Simple, Holden isn't sold in America. The average consumer probably didn't know that the G8 was just a warmed over Australian product.

But, the car looks like a Pontiac, and that's important. If they tried to market the Holden as a Buick, it probably would have flopped. Buick's target customer doesn't generally care for muscular, angled sedans. Pontiac buyers do.

That's the secret with badge engineering. Companies have to find exactly which product will sell for which brand and to which customer. They have to change enough to make it an independent product, but still use the same parts to keep costs down.

It's a high stakes balancing act with a brand's perception (how it's viewed) on the line.

The G8 will live on as a Chevrolet Caprice built only as a cop car. Here it is:
However, GM won't be making one for us civilians.

But that's what police surplus auctions are for. In four, five, or six years from now one of these will be up for auction. Police cars have uprated engines with more power and better suspension.

For every lucky person that can get their hands on one, that makes overdrive necessary.

The Despised: Part Three

2009-10-13T12:32:00.009-04:00

Behold, the third part of the cars that must roast in the fires of mediocrity.

The segment is the minivan.

The subject is the Volkswagen Routan (2008-Present).

Now, the minivan is a dying breed. First, the SUV wounded it and then the sudden appearance of crossovers drove a stake into it's heart.

But, Volkswagen is trying to triple their US sales. So they're attacking every segment of the market. The result?

This:
Now, in terms of minivan style, it's not terrible. It looks like a Volkswagen, it has the massive badge and upturned grill.

Not great. But not a car that makes you scream,"Oh God, kill it now."
Really, it's similar to an SUV in its proportions. The front and back are slightly more squared off.

Volkswagen's designers knew what they were doing, right?

Nope. Volkswagen had very little to do with this. So, the question is, who did?

Well, take a look.
Hmm, different face, same body.

The same is true at the back.
The two have slightly different tailgates, but it's still the same rear.

And the interior?

Here's Volkswagen's
And here's Dodge's.

Yeah, change the vents and the GPS screen and it's the same thing. It's disgusting, revolting, and incredibly lazy.

Volkswagen wants to triple their market share, good for them. It's stupid though, because the US isn't the biggest market for cars anymore, that's China and India. But whatever, let the fine folks at VW do what they want.

However, don't peddle this Dodge in drag.

All Volkswagen did was change the looks a little and fiddle with the suspension to make it "their" model. But that's not much.

The Routan is built on the same assembly line as the Dodge. Side by side they go down the line, getting their parts, and then they get shipped off to compete against each other in the sales room.

It's infuriating. Especially when Volkswagen thought about doing this:

It's their Microbus concept from 2001. They actually planned to build a production model that would look something like this.

But they killed it in 2005. They said it would cost too much. So they called Chrysler and struck a deal.

Now they peddle the Routan, a Chrysler built minivan that doesn't even have the great features of a Chrysler minivan. If you want the fancy flip down table, or the swiveling chairs, of the Chrysler vans, you can't get it with the Volkswagen.

It's like buying a racehorse and then breaking its legs.

So, no, overdrive isn't necessary.

However, an I-beam falling from the sky, crushing the Volkswagen Routan like a tin can? That is necessary.

Edit: For a different, and much more positive view, of the Routan visit A Routan Owner's Blog.

The Despised: Part Two

2009-10-12T20:05:00.009-04:00

Behold, the second part of the exploration of what cars should burn in an Automotive Hades.

Our segment this time? The four-door sedan.

The subject is the Mercedes-Benz CLS (2004-Present).

No, it's not a bad looking car. Not at all. In fact, it's quite nice looking. The slightly awkward headlights are the only thing that keep it from being beautiful.

The back is quite nice as well.
The line running down the side, just over the door handles, really helps emphasize this car's length. It's quite sleek and stylish.

So why does it deserve to burn for over a thousand years? Well, let's look at it from profile.
There are four doors on this car. That, naturally, makes it a four-door sedan. Simple, yes?

No. Mercedes-Benz single-handedly managed to make a new market segment with this car. They call it a four door coupe.

Now, a coupe is a two-door car. If it has four doors, it's a sedan. This is how the world has worked since the automobile was first invented.

Calling this a four-door coupe is like calling a house cat a lion. Yes, the cat may hunt. But it can't run down a zebra.

This car may have a plunging roof-line, but it's not a coupe.

That is why this car must roast, it made a market segment our of thin air. People want different vehicles, that's a fact. That's why the car market has turned into a mishmash of SUVs, CUVs, station wagons, hatchbacks, sedans, coupes, and various styles of trucks.

It's how the free market works. But when a company markets a product as something it's not, it cannot be ignored. Retribution must occur.

So, naturally, others retaliated.

By doing the same thing.

Like Porsche with its Panamera.

And Aston Martin, with its Rapide.

Even Volkswagen got in on the game.
It's called the Passat CC. The "CC" stands for Comfort Coupe

Audi and BMW are supposedly going to come out with one each.

See, it's a virus. Create a ridiculous, pointless market niche and people will just flood into it.

I'm not saying these are bad cars. Actually, all are quite good. However, the segment that they're in, that's ridiculous. When someone creates a niche that's totally unnecessary, it's the sign of a marketing man not trying hard enough.

So, no, overdrive isn't necessary.

However, a large mallet to pound some sense into the marketing men around the world? That is necessary.

The Desiped: Part One

2009-10-12T18:31:00.007-04:00

Behold, a short collection of five vehicles that should be thrown into the deepest level of car hell. All five are from different segments of the market.

The first? The Chrysler TC by Maserati (1989-1991).

In the late '80s the CEO of Chrysler, Lee Iacocca (the man who saved the company the first go round) decided that the Chrysler brand needed a "halo car."

A halo car is a model that will, supposedly, be so incredibly great that its aura of awesomeness will extend down through the model line.

So, Iacocca called up his friend Alejandro de Tomaso (the man who owned Maserati at the time) and asked him if he was busy. Regrettably, de Tomaso said no.

This is what they came up with.
It's a convertible, though this particular picture has it with the detachable hard top on.
Here it is with it off. Now, this has a manual, repeat manual, convertible top. On a cheap little convertible, that makes sense.

This wasn't cheap, it cost $30 thousand. That's like saying, "Yes, I want my 6o grand Mercedes, with GPS. But I don't want power windows or locks."

If the car was sporty, in any possible way, it might make sense.

But it wasn't. This car was front engine, front wheel drive, and based off the K Car platform. If you don't know what a K Car is, take a look at this:

Yes, that just screams "sporty, Italian built, convertible material."

But maybe if the interior was any good it could be justifiable.

Nope. Plastic fake wood veneer and chintzy plastic air vents don't equate luxury.

Aside from the interior, it's not such a bad looking car, but it's just not a good idea. It cheapened the Maserati brand and made Chrysler look like a bunch of overpriced, overreaching idiots.

Chrysler killed it when sales bombed. They wanted to sell between 5 and 10 thousand a year. Over the three years it existed they sold 7 thousand, total.

So, no, overdrive isn't necessary.

However, a large pack of C4 explosive next to the gas tank? That is necessary.

Build It, Ford. Build It Now.

2009-10-12T08:45:00.009-04:00

Behold, Ford's rear-wheel drive concept car from 2007: the Ford Interceptor.

Now, I'll admit, it's not the most beautiful car in the world. Actually, it looks like someone may have dropped the clay model on its nose and they decided that they liked the squashed look.

Even still, this is a design that just works. It's not a rolling piece of sculpture like an old Jag, or even a new, modern, angled design like what Cadillac's doing. It's a new interpretation on the muscle cars of the '60s.

It's power, stamped in metal.
The front end is like a locomotive: blunt, wide, and terrifying to see bearing down on you at around a 100mph. However, if it looks somewhat familiar it's because almost all Ford cars have a very similar grill.

They're just much, much shinier.

The rear end is actually one of the nicest parts of the car.
The rear is just as sawed off as the front. But, it's cleaner. There's just a chrome line running the width of the car, and two large, but simple, taillights.

The interior's simple too. But that doesn't mean it's not a nice place.
It's black leather, with metal trim. Real metal, mind you, not the face plastic junk that used to be in a lot of cars. Granted, if they ever built it (which they should) that would change. But it just looks so nice.

And yes, the headrests are mounted to the roof.

Now, in case you didn't notice it, that is a manual shifter sitting in the console. To go with the Interceptor's 5.0L V8, Ford put in a 6-speed manual transmission. Why?

Because the RWD sport sedan is a very popular market segment. All the German companies, even Porsche now, have sport sedans. The British have them. The Japanese (except Honda) have have them with their luxury marques.

Ford doesn't.

Well, technically, they do. But the Crown Victoria and its multiple offshoots don't count. The chassis that they're built on is 30 years old, and the car hasn't been updated since 1998. It's ancient and valuable only to cabbies.

Ford needs to build this, they need a RWD sedan. This is a viable option, if they could just find the time and money. But mostly the money.
Make a Lincoln version of this and all will be well in the world.

All they have to do is just tweak the design a little, and make it a little prettier, a little curvier, for the average consumer.

But they have to keep the engine. It has 400hp on tap. That definitely makes overdrive necessary.

Style, Courtesy of the British

2009-10-09T23:12:00.005-04:00

Behold, a wonderful example of British engineering: the Bentley R Continental (1952-1955).

It's rolling artwork, an inline-six powered masterpiece. This is when form was greater than function, when "styling" was used instead of "design."

Gaze upon Bentley's work, and rejoice.

The upright, chromed, grill and pontoon fenders running into the doors give this car class. It reeks of money and power.

I'm assuming, of course, that it's a good smell.

The rear is just as stylish.

The tops of the rear fenders, fins if you will, help channel airflow and stabilize the car at high speeds. Since it could go over 100mph, it was necessary.

Those small fins look really good too, don't they? A bit of flair, but with that sense of British restraint.

The interior is just what you'd expect.

Wood and leather, anything else is metal and just a little bit of plastic. Really, not much has changed in the British motor industry. Get into a new Rolls-Royce, or certain Bentleys, and you'll find the same things, just with modern technology.

In fact, a year ago, Bentley came out with a car that carries on in the R Continental's tradition.

The 2008 Bentley Brooklands:
It's gorgeous as well, but in its own, more muscular, way. The curves of the Continental are gone.

But it still combines styling, comfort, and power into one complete package.

Both the R Continental and Brooklands that perfect mix of performance and luxury. It's a mixture that, happily, makes overdrive necessary.

Ever Seen Bland Roll Down the Street?

2009-10-07T15:34:00.007-04:00

Behold, a car that is blandness in physical form: the Daewoo Lanos (1997-2002).

This is, without a doubt, the most boring, hopeless and dreary car sold within the last ten years.

It's a Korean car, which were once known for making vehicles that displayed all the traits, and more, that I just mentioned. However, the newest Hyundais and Kias are getting better. Much better, actually.

This sad car is the definition of nondescript.

Get rid of the grill and it could be anything: a Ford, a Mazda, a Hyundai or a Kia.

People behind the Lanos had to be very, very careful. Prolonged exposure to this would instantly put them to sleep.

Now, surely, the interior would have something interesting, right?

No. Unless you call matte gray plastic fascinating. But, Daewoo knew this, and came up with a brilliant plan to improve the interior.

There. Isn't that just so much better? The fake stitched, faux vinyl, leather just really gives it some class.

All joking aside, economy cars are designed to fit a price. That's the reality.

But is it so difficult to give someone something nice to drive? Is there a reason why consumers can't have an attractive, cheap car? Why can't they have something nice to touch and look at when they're driving?

Companies need to remember that people are paying a lot of money for a new car. When manufacturers come out with something like this it looks like they don't care.

In fact, they likely don't.

But I might be expecting too much from the good people at Daewoo. They just don't have very good taste when it comes to design. I can prove it.

Just look at their logo.

It looks like a jockstrap.

When you see one of these, hit the gas, get away as quickly as you can. Because dullness is infectious.

Save your car, and remember that overdrive is necessary.

Front Wheel Drive Circa 1936

2009-10-05T16:19:00.014-04:00

Behold, proof that front wheel drive wasn't something brought to America by the Japanese and Europeans: the Cord 810.

Yes, it's front wheel drive from 1936. It looks great and, really, is there any question as to why they call it the "coffin nose Cord?"
It has retractable headlights that use a hand crank to open. These headlights let the car keep it's streamlined, smooth shape. So did the lack of running boards.

It's rear end is more streamlined and integrated than most other cars of the time.

But besides being stylish, it could also move like a scalded cat.
What are those wonderful, shiny chrome pipes coming out from under the hood? They're the exhaust from the engine, and prove to everyone on the street that you have the optional supercharger.

Power figures are vague, putting the engine anywhere from 170hp to around 200hp. I'd lean more toward 200, because a sedan like this one was clocked at just over 100mph at the Bonneville Salt Flats in 1937.

For the '30s, that's damn fast.

The interior is also "damn" worthy. In a good way.
It's a turned metal dashboard. At the far right is one of the cranks to operate the hidden headlights. There's another one hidden behind the steering wheel.

Ergonomics hadn't been invented yet. Besides, men were more manly in the '30s. They could easily reach across the car and take the time to crank up their headlights.

Surprisingly, I don't believe many of these ran headlong into trees or streetlights.

Just one more thing.
Right under the louvers that form are the "grill" is a small bump and two flat, but rounded, planes. That is where they put the differential (what splits the turning motion to the two wheels) for the front wheel drive system.

That's one of the reasons why I love old cars. Instead of covering up the mechanical components with crappy plastic engine covers, they integrate it into the design.

Okay, I lied. Just one last thing.

While the sedan is a very, very good looking car. There's an even better version out there.

The 812.

It's black. It's low. It's evil at the core. I hate convertibles and yet I still want to own one of these.

It's an incredibly cool car.

Imagine driving this at night, blasting down a narrow road. Under the squared off hood, the supercharger roars, filling the cabin and drowning out the rush of rubber against asphalt. Wind buffets at the canvas top, making it flap in the wind.

Press down on the gas, and the Cord leaps forward, snarling into the darkness. That's when you up-shift, because overdrive is necessary.

All Aston Martins Are Beautiful, Right?

2009-10-02T19:47:00.002-04:00

Behold, the car that takes that statement and runs it through the shredder, turning it into little squares: the Aston Martin Lagonda (1976-1989).

It was designed by a man who only knew how to use a ruler, a T-square and two different angled drafting triangles. He probably wanted to make the wheels square as well.

It even had two sets of headlights. One pair that brackets the tiny, stunted grill, and another that pops up. Like this:

Scary, isn't it?

But there's more squareness.

The rear end is typically '70s. Slats for taillights and the whole nine yards. Although, it's the tamest part of the car.

Then there was the interior...

More angles, covered in leather and fitted with wood. This was the best picture I could find, but I've seen others. The rest of the inside is the same, more angles, more leather, but with surprisingly comfortable looking seats.

It was the electrics (like many British cars) that let the Lagonda down. The instrument panel was completely digital, the first one in the world, and it failed constantly.

Gauges, the computer, anything really, would stop working at random moments.

The Lagonda is so bizarre, unreliable, and (with the headlights up) ugly, that anyone should rightly hate it. But I don't. Partly because it's an oddball car, but also because of its profile.

It's so rakish, low slung and swept back.

It would slice through the air, rocketed forward by the massive V8 engine under its hood. When swaddled in its soft, yet angular leather, and cruising at over 100 mph, one knows that overdrive is necessary.

A Box, By Studebaker

2009-10-01T19:05:00.000-04:00

Behold, one of the coolest cars in existence: the Studebaker Lark Wagonaire station wagon.

If you've never heard of it, I'm not surprised.

Studebaker was a car manufacturer that went bust in 1966. It was actually the oldest car make at the time, because it originally made the Conestoga wagons that we associate with the Oregon Trail and pioneers.

I'm not calling it the most beautiful thing in the world, but there's something endearing about it's simple lines.

But the best thing is this:

Yes, the back roof slides forward. That, all by itself, makes this car cool.

There was also something else. This station wagon, this little compact (for the 60s), could be ordered with a turbocharged V-8 engine and a four-speed manual.

So a Studebaker, a bit of a dowdy, grandpa-like car, could keep up with the hulking muscle monsters like GTOs, Mustangs and Barracudas.

How awesome is that?

Since the company is no longer with us, this inherent awesomeness didn't translate into sales. In fact, these are the only two decent pictures I could find on the internet.

But the idea didn't die. GMC came out with the Envoy XUV, which had a motorized sliding roof. It lasted from 2003 to 2005.

Perhaps the idea just isn't that practical. People get trucks when they carry something upright.

But think about it. You're driving down the road with your new Frigidaire sticking out of the roof. Wind whistles around its square shape and the turbocharger howls under the hood.

That's when overdrive is necessary.

Old Chevrolet vs New Chevrolet, Who Wins?

2009-09-28T20:29:00.000-04:00

Behold, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's celebration of their fiftieth anniversary.

They decided to demonstrate, visually, just how far car safety has come since 1959.

So, naturally, they smacked a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air sedan into a brand new 2009 Chevrolet Malibu.

That, in my mind, is rather like throwing a typewriter and a computer off a building to see which one will work after the drop.

Neither one of course. And you just destroyed an antique, you twit.

I'll digress so that you can watch the video. In a nice show of symmetry they simulated a 50mph offset head on crash. Only the first few seconds have sound, but it's still strangely satisfying.

Now that you're done with that, I'm assuming you watched it, I'll sum a few things up.

The driver in the silver car almost walked away, only suffering "slight knee injury."

The driver of the brown car "died instantly."

Why? The steering column (what the wheel is attached too) wasn't of the collapsible variety and airbags were about fifteen years or so away. So, when the cars struck, a massive, solid metal, horn button rushed up to the man's head.

That would be like having a steel baseball hitting your head at 50mph.

Of course, the old car fanatics are quite pissed that the IIHS decided to ruin a classic car. I'm a bit miffed myself, if only because my theory of old cars being safer now has a large, Malibu sized, dent in it.

All the same, the IIHS need to test a Lamborghini next. Why? Because it's a very fast car and it might get them away from the mob of gear-heads out for their blood. So for the threatened scientists, overdrive is necessary.

Ethel, You Are Sorely Missed

2009-09-26T17:17:00.000-04:00

Behold, my first car, a 1971 Lincoln Continental Mark III.

Unfortunately, it never ran; because someone in it's life decided to overhaul the electrics in it and did it completely wrong. Since there is probably close to a mile of wiring in it, there was no way for me to easily fix it.

But how I miss this car. We had to sell it when me moved.

Though it's been designed with a ruler, it still has some style. Chrome, but not too much of it. Unfortunately, the headlight covers are missing from mine.

The hump at the rear is a styling cue that goes back to the original Continental. It's meant to suggest a spare rear tire, also called a continental kit.

This is the heart, a 460 cubic inch displacement(or 7.5 liter) V-8 engine.

That engine was rated at 365 horsepower, which I would say is a very conservative number. Why? Because the torque figure is at 500ft-lb. It was common in the sixties and early seventies for companies to intentionally lower their official figures for insurance purposes.

So what happened to her? We sold her to a friend, who was going to take the engine out and put it in a smaller race car. The body was going to get crushed, most likely.

That saddens me, because the body was almost perfect and it had most of the trim.

I want another one of these.

I can see it cruising down the highway, fading red sunlight glinting off the chrome, where overdrive is necessary.

The God of Style Must Punish Thee

2009-09-24T18:23:00.000-04:00

Behold, the 1956 Dodge La Femme. It's a car that was designed to appeal directly to the American woman of the 1950s.

It's also one of the worst, most disgusting, cars that has ever been made.

The '56 Dodge is a good looking car. The La Femme edition is an exercise in bad taste. Just look at the colors. Misty Orchid for the body and Regal Orchid for the trunk, top and fins.

Chrysler products of the Fifties were known for their, relatively, restrained design. Ignore the paint, and you have a handsome hardtop coupe.

Compared to the '57 to '59 models, the rear end is fairly low key.

Yes, the interior is pink. And yes, the dashboard is made of metal. That is the only plus to this nightmare.

The seats. The front seats have two boxes, or buckets if you will, attached to the back of them. They were for the matching raincoat, rain hat and umbrella that came with the car.

There are those out there who like, even love, this car. I am not one of them. I believe that designing a car, or any product, around a stereotype is one of the worst things a company can do.

However, if you're interested, this is the site I found these pictures on. They also have more information on the car: The Dodge La Femme.

This is a car that one must drive quickly, so that one isn't seen in it. As such, overdrive is necessary.

Power, Courtesy of the Germans

2009-09-23T19:55:00.000-04:00

This is a revamp, so lets start out with something completely outrageous to cleanse the palate, shall we?

Behold, the 2010 Brabus E V12. It's a Mercedes-Benz that went to Hell and sold its soul for more power.

The license plate has the name and "One of Ten" underneath. Having this appear in your mirror at speeds of around 230mph would be like watching a wheeled cannonball flying at you.

Even it's rear end looks angry and might eat the poor car behind it.

But, here's what really caught my eye:
It has fender skirts. That is, quite simply, awesome.

However, it's cool factor is negated by two things. One: you can tell that it's carbon fiber. That's unnecessarily showy, it should be glossy black like rest of the car. Black is cool, but large wheel covers of carbon fiber means you're trying too hard.

The second thing? Brabus calls them "Speed Spads." What the hell? It sound like corrective footwear.

Oh, and one last thing. The power I mentioned? The V12 makes 800hp and 1047ft-lb of torque.

That's enough to alter the Earth's rotation.

In other words, overdrive is necessary.