Dave writes:
While I understand that recommended tire pressure is located on the door jamb in a car, what happens when the factory tires are replaced, upgraded, down graded, replaced with used or even recaps where available (are re-treads even available?), different tread and wear and heat ratings?
What I am trying to ask is: are the manufacturer’s recommendations applicable only to the factory tires, or to non- original brand replacements as well?
TTAC commentator Lerxst writes:
I’ve got a 2004 Honda Odyssey with approximately 96k miles on it. It has developed a condition where the steering wheel mounted radio controls do not act as expected (i.e. Volume up changes the track, Volume down makes the volume go up, etc., sometimes). The dealer tells me that it’s not grounded well deep in the steering column, and thanks to the Odyssey Club, I have found the TSB that covers this problem.
The dealer would like about $280 of my hard earned money to go in and fix it. American Honda won’t cover it through goodwill due to the mileage.
Hashim writes,
Dear Sajeev, I have a 2003 Model Honda Civic LX1. It has about 94000 Km (not Miles). I am very disturbed about the continuous chirp chirp sound I hear from my car when I start it. It goes like chrrp chrrp chrrp in continuous motion. Some guy told me to change the belts in my car, all done, even changed the timing belt; still the problem is there. I have no loose or cracked belts. But the problem is still there.
I have noticed that when I gently press my clutch, the sound immediately goes away, when I remove my foot, the chirping sound is back. I don’t like this, is there any easier way to get it fixed? Is the fix worth its price or should I just eat dust and be quiet?
Glenn sent us a link to this list on oddee.com. And the winners are:
10. AMC Gremlin – Wikipedia: “Gremlin is an English folkloric creature, commonly depicted as mischievous and mechanically oriented, with a specific interest in aircraft. Although their origin is found in myths among airmen, claiming that the gremlins were responsible for sabotaging aircraft, John W. Hazen states that ‘some people’ derive the name from the Old English word gremian, ‘to vex’. Since World War II, different fantastical creatures have been referred to as gremlins, bearing varying degrees of resemblance to the originals.” Such as . . . Howie Mandel. The AMC Gremlin wasn’t known as much for mechanical malfunctions as its questionable styling. That said the name didn’t stop 671,475 American and Canadian customers from buying one. Well, I assume it was one.
9. Dodge Swinger – Actually, it was the Dodge Dart Swinger. Which, I suppose, adds to the sexual connotations. But what’s wrong with that? Especially as the Swinger had the stones for the job. “The Swinger 340 was the lowest-priced high-performance Dodge in ’69, and the 340 4-bbl. V8 delivering 275 hp with Rallye Suspension, wide tread tires, and Firm Ride shocks certainly delivered performance bang for the buck,” legacydiecast.com reports. “The heavy-duty Rallye Suspension, Firm Ride shocks, and Red Line wide tread tires completed the package . . . Both the Swinger 340 and GTS proudly wore the distinctive ‘bumblebee stripes’ to claim their places of honor in the Dodge Scat Pack.” While Ella Fitzgerald fans would be happy with that term, I’m so sure how zoologists would take it.
8. Daihatsu Charade – For Americans, the name calls up images of a benefit to help pay for Cher’s cosmetic surgery. For Brits, it’s intellectual foreplay leading to a little late-night country house bed hopping. I take oddee’s point: “It’s not really a car, it’s just pretending!” But by 1977, most Americans were more familiar with the Talking Heads than . . . two words, first word, first two syllables, kill hat, stomp on hat, die hat! It could have been worse. Anyone remember the game Cootie? Kerplunk?
7. Honda Fitta – Yes, it’s true: “fitta” means “cunt” in Swedish and Norwegian. But Honda caught the mistake before launch and dropped the T&A for the U.S. market. Outside the U.S., Honda markets the car as the Jizz. I mean, Jazz. Under which the vocal technique scat falls. Spooky.
6. Opel Ascona – oddee says “ascona” means “female genitalia” in Northern Spain and parts of (I would have thought southern) Portugal. Is that an anatomical term, as opposed to, say, the aforementioned “cunt”? Online dictionaries aren’t much help here—an indication of electronic prurience rather than a gap in the hive’s collective knowledge. Perhaps the Best and Brightest would like to fill it—I mean us in.
5. Chevrolet Nova – Perhaps the most famous poorly named automobiles, meaning “doesn’t go” in Spanish. But oddee repeats a commonly held misconception: Chevy marketed the Nova as such in “Central and South America”. Not true. From ’62 to ’74, the model was called the “Chevy 400” in Agentina. Until it was rechristened the “Malibu.” During its last year of production, it was the “Opus 78.”
4. Buick LaCrosse – Also notorious, this time for meaning “masturbation” in Quebec. Yes, well, it’s a pretty obscure piece of slang. You don’t find tens of thousands of male and female lacrosse (small “c”) players sniggering about whackin’ off, despite the obvious, infantile possibilities presented by a lacrosse stick with an ascona-like shaped net. To my mind, the real problem here is that lacrosse was American Indian’s ritualized warfare (complete with dead players). With the Buick Wildcat confined to the scrapheap of history, and Maximum Bob talking about the brand as a soft-riding Lexus competitor, I’m not seeing the intersect between name and reality.
3. Nissan Moco – oddee tells us that “moco” is Spanish slang for booger (again, the e-dictionaries take a pass). As the Moco was marketed in Japan, it’s no biggie. I am, however, wondering what oddee’s opprobrium means for the lyrics to Lady Marmelade’s Voulez Vous Coucher Avec Moi. “Mocha chocalata ya ya?” Ew.
2. Mitsubishi Pajero – Wikipedia says the model was named after the “Leopardus pajeros, the Pampas Cat which inhabits the Patagonia plateau region in southern Argentina.” Yes, well, it’s the Spanish equivalent of LaCrosse. Again, the car was renamed for Spanish-speaking markets. In fact, “Thanks to their success, the Pajero, Montero and Shogun names were also applied to other, mechanically unrelated models, such as the Pajero Mini kei car, the Pajero Junior and Pajero iO/Pinin mini SUVs, and the Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero/Shogun Sport.”
1. Mazda LaPuta – oddee kind of messes this one up, by capitalizing the “p” (“LaPuta”). In fact, the vehicle was named after the flying island in Gulliver’s Travels, “a kingdom devoted to the arts of music and mathematics but utterly unable to use these for practical ends.” Not an auspicious name for car. And there’s no getting around this one: “puta” means whore in Spanish. Personally, I’m not so sure it’s an inappropriate name for a small Mazda. I called my Mazda GLC the english equivalent many times.
Curbside Classics takes you back to 1971 for a virtual comparison test of six small cars, based (and partly borrowed) from a C/D test.
Few cars are more polarizing than the Pinto (except the Prius, of course). Commonly derided for its exploding gas tank and general crappiness, other folks found (still find) it to be cheap, fairly reliable transportation with a variable fun quotient, depending on its configuration. Sometimes, cars develop their reputations later in life, but the underdeveloped Pinto was pretty much an open book right from the beginning. A children’s book, at that. The Pinto should have been called Foal; it was a baby car. Read More >
TTAC commentator edgett writes:
Since the current pushrod LS-X engines reportedly offers a better power-to-weight ratio than an equivalent Porsche engine, and returns excellent fuel economy, why aren’t other manufacturers emulating the same kinds of evolutionary upgrades which GM applied to their small-block V8?
That’s right, the CEO in charge of Government Motors. (Okay, don’t really ask me why I think I’m qualified; let’s just suspend belief for a few minutes shall we?) So what would I do? First, I’d insist on a new wardrobe for every person at every level. Gone are all the suits for the white-collar workers. Factory workers can’t wear jeans and t-shirts or whatever. Nope, everyone in the company now wears the GM uniform, kind of like the military. The new GM garb consists of coveralls in blue and white with a GM logo on the back, and each worker gets a name tag to pin on the front. Ranks are determined by stripes, bars and stars, just like the Army. As CEO, I get four stars on the shoulder epaulets. And, of course, there’d be a “dress uniform” for outside events.
Crazy? Perhaps. But everyone needs to get on board that the car business is like a war where the fight begins with winning the hearts and minds of fickle customers. It’s not just the folks at Dearborn down the road with whom we do battle, but it’s a worldwide onslaught of talented engineers, designers and workers from other car companies that want to sell their products to my customers. GM needs to defend the little bit of turf it’s got left and conquer new ground, especially with those folks who won’t even consider a GM product at any price.
Next, I’d fire all of the advertising agencies that work on the GMNA business. Frankly, you can’t really blame the agencies for the lousy messages of the past; it’s more the fault of GM’s executives for giving them little to work with to start and corporate blandness requirements second. A bad car still sucks no matter how good the advertising might be.
C’mon, what could anyone really come up with creative to say about the Aveo? And how chicken-shit was it for GM to not allow that hot woman driving the CTS with her fancy high heeled strappy shoes to say the truth that her CTS does turn her on?
So I’d look all around the country for the most creative, daring, and provocative ad agencies—and I’d pick one for each of the four remaining brands. Different car/truck lines need different messages. Of course, this begs the questions of exactly what are the four brands and what do they stand for? So I’m going to define them for everyone once and forever.
Chevrolet: the mass market brand for every man, woman, and teenager in America offering a full line of cars and trucks. Mass market means Walmart, Sears, and Penney’s shoppers.
Buick and GMC: the affordable luxury brand of cars and crossovers. More upscale than Chevrolet with better finishes, upgraded powertrains, and refined NVH characteristics. Think Nordstrom.
Cadillac: let’s get back to its roots and go for the “Standard of the World.” The most technologically advanced, powerful, and stylish vehicles. The brand has to become more of an adjective rather than a noun. Harrod’s in London for example. Everyone comes to see the merchandise, but few can afford to make a habit of shopping there. Yet, everyone buys something.
Third, I wouldn’t hire a single MBA except perhaps in the finance department to deal with Wall Street (’cause we’ll be back there soon enough). But finance will be a dead-end department for advancement to the top since a skilled finance guy can’t sell a car to a Grandma in Peoria if he tried. I want kids from the state schools, particularly engineers and designers. Guys and gals who got their hands dirty tinkering with cars or drawing them in high school.
But the biggest challenge still will be getting skeptical consumers out of their Toyotas and Hondas. There’s only one way—and that’s to put an American face (mine) in front of the public all the time telling them they’ve got to try a GM product.
And most importantly, tell them the truth. Let them hear from the CEO of GM about the particulars of each model in the line up. (OK, I won’t talk about how really awful that tin-can Aveo is, or that the Cobalt is a warmed-over Cavalier. But we’ve got some good stuff too that really does compete with the Japanese, so that’s what I’ll say.)
I’d personally go out and visit all my big suppliers and thank them for standing by GM even though we tried to screw every last nickel out of them in the past. That’s now history. Everyone needs to play nice and profit isn’t a dirty word. But we want their best efforts with higher quality controls than before even if it costs another nickel or two. Sure, they’ve got to be cost-competitive but we’re going to put a premium on quality, on-time delivery, and superior engineering. Just like the Japanese.
Finally, I’d get my dealers behind me. A car company can’t win without its dealers going whole-hog on the brand and the products. I’d put a stop to practices that make no sense, like loading the channel up with cars and then blowing them out at huge discounts. And I’d put more money into the regional dealer ad groups. Let the dealers tell the story to their buyers about the new GM. They’re a creative bunch with money at risk—if they win, we win. It’s just that simple.
So that’s my strategy for GM in the USA. Basic blocking and tackling, no miracles needed. I really want to pay the taxpayers back for the money we got, and I certainly want GM buyers to take pride in their vehicles. It’s time to get in the game of making and selling cars, and it’s a game GM can’t afford to lose.
TTAC Commentator thetopdog writes:
I drive a 2006 Corvette Coupe (45k) with the 6-Speed manual. The past few months I’ve noticed that most of the time I try to make the 1-2 shift at high RPM, I get really terrible grinding coming from the tranny. It only happens at high RPM (5000+) and it doesn’t happen every time, but it happens enough for it to be a concern. If I clutch in, let the revs drop a little, then throw it into 2nd, there’s usually no problem.
I have the CAGS (1-4 skip shift) eliminator installed. I had the dealership replace the clutch packs under warranty. Apparently they screwed up because my entire clutch stopped working, leaving me stranded. After getting it flat-bedded to the dealership, I was told the entire clutch system was contaminated and the seals were destroyed. I’m not entirely sure what they did after, but they fixed it somehow (probably flushed the system and replaced the seals?). I also had a transmission leak (what a quality car, huh?) last fall that was also fixed under (extended) warranty.
One of my jobs was to create marketing programs for Volkswagen that drive their customers to Volkswagen dealers at regular intervals for scheduled service. It was in the late 80s. I presented a daring idea:
“How about we give the customer a free roadside assistance program if they come to the shop once a year?”
“Interesting. Run the numbers, come back and tell us more.” Read More >
I once asked a priest about confession. What was the point? I knew Catholics who’d sin, confess, sin, confess, wash, rinse, repeat. “It’s not a ‘get out of hell free’ card,” he insisted. “Confession means you fully acknowledge your sin, pledge to atone for the harm you’ve caused, promise God that you’ve learned from your mistakes and change your behavior.” Let’s say you do all that and commit the same sin. What good’s an unrealized promise? “None,” he said. “I have refused absolution to repeat sinners because I didn’t believe that they were ready, willing or able to abandon their sins.” And there you have it: New GM’s recipe for disaster. Let us turn to the first sentence of New GM’s first press release.
The new General Motors Company began operations today with a new corporate structure, a stronger balance sheet, and a renewed commitment to make the customer the center of everything the new GM does.
Leaving aside the fact that GM’s opening proclamation makes no mention of its bankruptcy, or what led to its bankruptcy, how can New GM claim it has a new corporate structure? Fritz Henderson was the CEO of Old GM. Fritz Henderson is the CEO of New GM. Mark LaNeve was Old GM’s VP of sales and marketing for North America. Mark LaNeve is New GM’s VP of sales and marketing for North America. Old GM’s ex-Car Czar Bob Lutz has been reinstated as New GM Car Czar. Meet the new boss . . .
Actually, GM is now run by the federal government, under the watchful eye of a twenty-five member, politically-appointed “Presidential Task Force on Automobiles.” As much as Old GM’s management needed a right royal arse kicking—which, as stated above, this isn’t—I still can’t see GM nationalization as something worth celebrating.
Sure, GM’s balance sheet is stronger than it was before the government assumed control. And yes, New GM is “only” carrying $11 billion worth of debt. But any realistic appraisal of its balance sheet must consider cash flow, current assets and future prospects.
New GM’s brands and product plans are in complete disarray. With the exception of its pickup truck, GM’s products are class-trailing. Incentives are high and getting higher (i.e. margins are low and getting lower). GM’s killer apps are, as always, on the horizon.
Meanwhile, when exactly was GM last committed to its customers? Before they allowed [now-bankrupt] Bill Heard Chevrolet to screw every single person that darkened the dealership’s doors because the man moved mountains of metal? Never mind because . . .
“Today marks a new beginning for General Motors, one that will allow every employee, including me, to get back to the business of designing, building and selling great cars and trucks and serving the needs of our customers,” said Fritz Henderson, president and CEO.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I hear Elton John’s “I’m Still standing.” But if New GM’s so new, why are we getting the same old song and dance from its old—I mean, previous and current, CEO?
“One thing we have learned from the last 100 days is that GM can move quickly and decisively,” said Henderson. “Today, we take the intensity, decisiveness and speed of the past several months and transfer it from the triage of the bankruptcy process to the creation and operation of a new General Motors.”
Here we are again: faster, deeper, harder, oh baby! Anyone remember Chrysler’s contention that speed was the primary advantage of private equity ownership? That didn’t turn out so well. Besides, does anyone really believe that a government-owned General Motors (with the aforementioned twenty-five member oversight team) will be faster than Ye Olde GM?
As I’ve said before, GM’s problem is not speed. It’s direction. GM still doesn’t have a coherent plan for their brands or the models within. Or do they?
“Our goal is to build more of the cars, trucks, and crossovers that customers want, and to get them to market faster than ever before.”
More, faster. See how that works? Or, in fact, doesn’t?
“The success of our recent launches and the exciting new vehicles and technologies we have in the pipeline are evidence of our ongoing commitment to excel at everything we do,” said Henderson. “Our goal is to make each and every General Motors car, truck and crossover the best-in-class.”
According to Fritz’s previous pronouncements, GM’s whittling itself down to 39 nameplates. What are the odds that all of them will be best-in-class? But hey, Fritz feels me.
“Beginning next week, we will launch a ‘Tell Fritz’ website where customers, or anyone else, can share ideas, concerns, and suggestions directly with senior management. I will personally review and respond to some of these communications every day.”
Glasnost at GM? Sounds good! But then, confession is good for the soul. As long as it’s genuine . . .
[NB: Fritz is having a webchat on the FastLane at 4pm EST]
General Motors has left bankruptcy behind. The MSM is greeting GM’s graduation with guarded not to say advertiser-sponsored optimism. Meanwhile, the populist backlash has begun. Yesterday, for the first time, I heard a “civilian” refer to GM as “Government Motors.” And then, another. Even if you discount the protest as right wing rhetoric (I was listening to Fox Talk), it’s clear that General Motors is becoming a lightning rod for anti-government sentiment. With tax hikes looming and the federal deficit ballooning, the public is starting to see the “new” General Motors as a symbol of federal impudence, intransigence and impotence. In fact, GM could be President Obama’s Iraq: the Gordian knot that strangles his political fortunes. To fully understand the futility of this financial folly, consider Cadillac.
Cadillac is supposed to be the ne plus ultra of automotive brands: the “standard of the world.” Since its pre-War heyday, Cadillac’s brand management has rivaled Neville Chamberlain’s foreign policy for craven expediency. Cadillac has been a deeply damaged division for decades. In 2007, TTAC’s Paul Niedermeyer charted Cadillac’s decline and fall in gory detail. Since then, the brand’s rep has retreated even further into its last redoubt: the consumer’s imagination.
“We all use the expression ‘the Cadillac of toasters’ or ‘the Cadillac of something else,'” deposed Car and Driver Editor Csaba Csere reassures the Detroit News. “It still means ‘the best of’ to a lot of people.” News flash: my thirty-something appliance guy calls KitchenAid the “Lexus of dishwashers,” without apparent irony. Cadillac’s brand expectations have been unrealized for so long that even the idea of Cadillac as the ultimate object of desire is rapidly disappearing.
This transition reflects reality. At best, Cadillac’s current cars are competitive (CTS, Escalade). At worst, they’re pathetic (STS, DTS, BLS). Somewhere in between, they’re inappropriate (SRX, EXT, forthcoming CTS SportsWagon and Converj plug-in hybrid). None of these Cadillac models are class-leading—never mind world-beating.
Cadillac’s mid-year sales stats tell the tale. At 33,043 units, they’re neck and neck with Acura (32,637), trailing Lexus (44,942) and getting crushed by Mercedes and BMW (65,160 and 75,443 respectively). Meanwhile, Audi’s in hot pursuit (28,347).
Equally disheartening for fans of the Cadillac brand, the automaker’s margins are nowhere near those of its competitors. Cadillac is discounting heavily to move the metal—sending exactly the wrong message about the brand’s inherent “value,” eroding Caddy’s cachet to ever-lower levels. Not to put too fine a point on it, they’re in a death spiral.
There’s only way for Cadillac to recapture faded glory. Cut the crap and build the best. The best no-holds-barred luxury cars. Stylish, no excuses vehicles, meticulously engineered, rock solid. And then they have to create a dealer network that kisses customers’ asses like none before.
Never. Gonna. Happen.
Even if we assume Cadillac’s rebirth could happen—that GM could find the courage to cull Caddy’s cancerous cars and trucks, that it could summon the creative and financial resources needed to be the best of the best—the U.S. government can’t let it happen. It’s the wrong image.
America is not as class-bound as, say, any other country on Earth. But using tax money to cater to high society’s personal transportation needs is about politically palatable as a tax cut for the top two percent of income earners. And that’s before we talk about the product-related demands of the Democratic party’s environmental oath of allegiance. Simply put, you don’t put “the people’s money” into a company that builds leather-lined luxury land yachts sold at ritzy palaces of automotive art.
So why not just let Caddy go? Surrender the top of the market to the Axis of Axles, retreat into the mass and mid-market (with some upscale Chevys badged Buicks) and call it good? Other than the inevitable Cadillac dealer backlash, there’s one main reason the company can’t eliminate Cadillac from their rancid roster: corporate psychology.
Old GM was once the standard of the world: the world’s largest car manufacturer and the planet’s most profitable company. Cadillac represents Old GM’s zenith, its ability to put the world to shame. Like the U.K., GM is not ready to face Empire’s end. Even if Cadillac’s become hopelessly tarnished, even if its crown has been stolen by foreign usurpers, you can’t sell the Crown Jewels! For GM, losing Caddy would be tantamount to admitting defeat.
Sadly, facing reality is the one thing that GM—Old or New—cannot do. All of which means that New GM is not about reinvention. It’s about revisionism. We made a few mistakes, got a bit big for our britches, got battered and bruised by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. But we’re good. And soon we’ll be better, better than we ever were. Cadillac will rise again!
Cadillac’s survival, its planned model expansion and move down market, highlights the fact that GM still suffers from the worst kind of hubris: taxpayer-funded hubris.
Mark writes:
I have a 2003 WRX with 198,000 miles. Only non-standard maintenance repair so far was a new driver side head and valves at 165,000 because a valve was hung and the head was starting to crack. Everything else, including clutch and turbo are original. Unfortunately, now the vehicle is burning 1.5 – 2qt of oil every 1000 miles. There are no leaks. I am tempted to trade it in for the nominal amount (Maybe $1-2k) and take advantage of the current new car incentives. However I hate to buy a new car if I can just feed this paid for WRX oil for another 20-30,000 miles. What do you think. Should I feed the car oil until the engine/turbo explodes or retire it and get another car?
On October 31, 2006, Orange County teen Nikki Catsouras had an argument with her father. When Mr. Catsouras left for work, his daughter “borrowed” his Porsche 911. Approaching a tollbooth, Catsouras rear-ended a Honda at 70 mph. The California Highway Patrol took photographs of the gruesome results, the photos were leaked and went viral. Catsouras sued the police for invasion of privacy. Lost in the shuffle: why was Miss Catsouras–a young, inexperienced driver— legally entitled to drive the Porsche?
The issue is pretty easy to understand: should young, inexperienced motorists be allowed to drive high-powered cars? Australia says no. This despite a 2006 study by the University of Western Australia (funded by red light camera income) that concluded that only three percent of young driver crashes involved vehicles with a high power-to-weight ratio. The state of Victoria, for example, has instituted a power-to-weight related graduated license program for young drivers. Since July 2007, a probationary driver can’t drive a car which has:
As a sign, perhaps, of the laws arbitrary nature, there are exceptions to the rules:
So, how did we get here? Back in the infancy of automobiles the “driving high-powered cars fast” concept was simple—you didn’t. “You” meaning the average driver. Throughout most of the twentieth century, fast cars were a specialty item created by and for professional racers, gentlemen racers, and a small (if geographically diverse) cult of hot rodders. Sure, there were plenty of accidents in low-speed cars, and not much in the way of passive safety, but there was a clear delineation between average schmoes in their “normal” mainstream cars and pistonheads in “high performance exotica.”
Then 1964 happened. Before his love of white lines brought him down, high-flying GM executive John DeLorean decided to plunk a 389 cubic inch motor into a $2751 Pontiac Tempest ($296 option). Suddenly, the pimply-faced nerd pumping gas at the corner Texaco station could own a car with 325 horsepower. The muscle car era was born. Engine power increased, to the point where the Tempest (a.k.a. GTO) offered 360hp @ 5200 rpm, 424 lb·ft of torque @ 3600 rpm and a zero to sixty sprint of just over six seconds. Ford and Chrysler quickly adopted the Tempest template.
The muscle car era peaked in 1968, with the 383 hp (pre-emissions) Plymouth Roadrunner—the limbo bar set at an all time low for affordability. While it’s impossible to break out all the variables which led to a dramatic drop in highway fatalities as the muscle car ended, the association of teens, high-powered cars and death was enshrined in popular culture. Dead Man’s Curve anyone?
Fast forward to 2009. If you think technology has made things better, you may be right. Today’s SRT-8, SS and SHO models have safety built in. They offer better brakes and more predictable handling. But the accessibility is a double-edged sword. That Corvette Z06, for example, offers just enough handling to allow an average driver to drive 120 mph off an exit ramp—but not enough to stop him from trying it at 121.
Motorcyclists are the canary in the power-to-weight safety campaigners’ coal mine. It’s now generally recognized that novice bikers shouldn’t be allowed to sit atop machines that can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in three seconds and top-out at 135 mph even if they can afford the price of admission. The UK has the most extensive motorcycle graduated license program: three stages of empowerment based on the bike’s horsepower and speed potential.
What makes a car any different? When you can buy a 400 horsepower motor the size of a sewing machine and put it in a street Honda Civic it’s time to evaluate the guy behind the wheel. When Ford dealers hand the keys to a 500 hp Mustang to a twenty-something enthusiast with a basic down payment, it’s time to ask if he should have a license proving the basic ability to handle the horses.
This is the Henry Ford ‘average guy’ concept of affordable cars gone rogue. Skip the Darwinian argument. Stop it now because the kid that eats a mailbox on the 150 mph donorcycle that he bought with his paper route money might be the next Nobel-winning nerd. If a mandatory performance-driving course makes a difference for bikes, then this bit of nanny state-ism makes sense.
[For more of Jerry and Jim Sutherland’s work please visit mystarcollectorcar.com]
TTAC commentator Derek writes:
My wife and I purchased a low mileage (50k, now at 70k) 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan two years ago when our fourth came along. We understand that the Siennyssey twins boast better build quality, but we didn’t have to finance the Dodge. Plus, we figured that Dodge had been building the Caravan long enough that they had worked out most of the larger Q/A issues. So far that appears to be true. However, there is one issue we’ve witnessed that I don’t understand. Every now and then (once a month or so) all power will momentarily cut off while the engine is running.
The inmates are running the asylum today while our fearless leader takes the day off to celebrate the BIG FIVE-OH. We all wish Robert a very HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Recent Comments